Wednesday, November 07, 2007
disappointing
The House of Representatives passed a non-inclusive version of ENDA today. This is shameful in itself. There were three amendments that could have been debated today under the rules for debate passed by the Rules Committee on Monday, including the Baldwin amendment to restore gender identity protections. (In general, every bill that is considered by the House in Committee of the Whole has to have special rules approved by the Rules Committee for the bill to be considered by COW)
Congresswoman Baldwin amendment was introduced and was approved by voice vote. Congressman George Miller, who chairs the Labor Committee and controlled the debate for the Democrats, demanded a recorded vote (which would have been awesome to see by name who really supports full equality). At that point, the Chair, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, postponed further proceeding on whether or not to adopt the amendment, as she had done for the previous two amendments. 11 minutes later, the Baldwin amendment was unceremoniously withdrawn. The other two amendments were subsequently approved by recorded vote.
The bill passed the Committee of the Whole House by a vote of 235-184 at 6:35 PM Eastern. What I find perhaps most disappointing is the roll call vote. Congressman Grijalva, who just two weeks ago told me he would vote against the final bill if it did not include gender identity protections, voted with the majority. Congresswoman Giffords did not vote, and I actually prefer that action to the Congressman going back on his word.
In responding to the vast majority of the LGBT community who opposed the non-inclusive bill, Congressman Barney Frank had this to say:
Allow me to respond.
Ahem.
I fully understand "where we are", Congressman. Don't you dare patronize me. A spineless majority unwilling to stand up and do the right thing for a marginalized group instead looks out for the least threatening segment of that marginalized group. If you don't have the votes to go forward with an inclusive bill (I'd like to see your actual whip count, because I don't believe you lacked the votes you needed for a majority), you don't go forward at all. You don't throw the most vulnerable among us under the bus so you can get yours. This is not abandoning any effort. You offer a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other efforts to pursue on the path to full equality for all. Shame on you for oversimplifying and for being so damn selfish that you forget that you never would have received the privilege of running for Congress were it not for the seismic shift in public perception of LGBT Americans that was initiated by transgender individuals at Stonewall. Sylvia Rivera is spinning in her grave tonight. Standing together for our entire community, in solidarity, would have done a lot more in the name of progress than today's shameful vote.
The battle now moves to the Senate, where Ted Kennedy will introduce a version there. It's still not clear whether Senator Kennedy will introduce a similarly milquetoast bill, or one that actually gets the job done by protecting gender variant individuals.
Write to Congressman Frank and tell him he should be ashamed for sacrificing an entire segment of HIS community and for promoting a false dichotomy of progress.
Write to Congressman Grijalva and tell him you're disappointed in his decision to go back on his word to vote against a non-inclusive bill.
Write to Congresswoman Giffords and thank her for not voting for a bad bill.
Write to Senator Kennedy and urge him to introduce a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes protections for gender identity and expression.
Congresswoman Baldwin amendment was introduced and was approved by voice vote. Congressman George Miller, who chairs the Labor Committee and controlled the debate for the Democrats, demanded a recorded vote (which would have been awesome to see by name who really supports full equality). At that point, the Chair, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, postponed further proceeding on whether or not to adopt the amendment, as she had done for the previous two amendments. 11 minutes later, the Baldwin amendment was unceremoniously withdrawn. The other two amendments were subsequently approved by recorded vote.
The bill passed the Committee of the Whole House by a vote of 235-184 at 6:35 PM Eastern. What I find perhaps most disappointing is the roll call vote. Congressman Grijalva, who just two weeks ago told me he would vote against the final bill if it did not include gender identity protections, voted with the majority. Congresswoman Giffords did not vote, and I actually prefer that action to the Congressman going back on his word.
In responding to the vast majority of the LGBT community who opposed the non-inclusive bill, Congressman Barney Frank had this to say:
"When people who are opposed to the basic bill and opposed to the amendment, lament the chance not to vote on an amendment which would undermine the bill, people should understand where we are. I filed the bill that included people who are transgendered. Earlier this year, I was very proud when this House passed a Hate Crimes bill that included transgender... The question we have is this: if we do not have the votes to go forward with as much as we would like to do, do we then abandon any effort, and do we allow those who are opposed to any progress at all in the anti-discrimination fight in this area to use a particular group as a way to prevent progress?"
Allow me to respond.
Ahem.
I fully understand "where we are", Congressman. Don't you dare patronize me. A spineless majority unwilling to stand up and do the right thing for a marginalized group instead looks out for the least threatening segment of that marginalized group. If you don't have the votes to go forward with an inclusive bill (I'd like to see your actual whip count, because I don't believe you lacked the votes you needed for a majority), you don't go forward at all. You don't throw the most vulnerable among us under the bus so you can get yours. This is not abandoning any effort. You offer a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other efforts to pursue on the path to full equality for all. Shame on you for oversimplifying and for being so damn selfish that you forget that you never would have received the privilege of running for Congress were it not for the seismic shift in public perception of LGBT Americans that was initiated by transgender individuals at Stonewall. Sylvia Rivera is spinning in her grave tonight. Standing together for our entire community, in solidarity, would have done a lot more in the name of progress than today's shameful vote.
The battle now moves to the Senate, where Ted Kennedy will introduce a version there. It's still not clear whether Senator Kennedy will introduce a similarly milquetoast bill, or one that actually gets the job done by protecting gender variant individuals.
Write to Congressman Frank and tell him he should be ashamed for sacrificing an entire segment of HIS community and for promoting a false dichotomy of progress.
Write to Congressman Grijalva and tell him you're disappointed in his decision to go back on his word to vote against a non-inclusive bill.
Write to Congresswoman Giffords and thank her for not voting for a bad bill.
Write to Senator Kennedy and urge him to introduce a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes protections for gender identity and expression.
Labels: civil rights, ENDA, House of Representatives, human rights, LGBT, social justice
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
unconscionable
The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote tomorrow on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. While this may sound like great news, there's more to the story.
Earlier this year, HR 2015 was introduced. Also called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, this version of ENDA also included protections based on gender identity and expression. Believing this version would never pass (think of the male bank tellers in dresses and waitresses with beards! the horror! the horror!), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), our longest-serving open 'mo, introduced HR 3685, which is the same bill with the tranny protections stripped.
HR 3685 is a bad bill. We should not compromise on basic human rights. The Human Rights Campaign, which likes to bill itself as the nation's leading LGBT rights organization, just endorsed the tranny-free bill. Shame on them. You should never give them money or time again. You should remove those stupid equal sign decals from your car (they look silly anyway). You should support only the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force from now on, which has taken the correct, principled stand to support only a fully-inclusive ENDA.
Look, we're all in this together and we can never throw any members of our community under the bus so that others in our community can ride that bus. Lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans owe the freedoms we've won over the past 40 years to those transgender freedom fighters who stood up and fought back against injustice when the rest of the community wouldn't. We owe our trans brothers and sisters an inclusive ENDA, and both Arizona and our community will be stronger for it. We must demonstrate to the agents of injustice that we will stand united for freedom for all of us, not just the least threatening.
The incremental approach has not worked in other states like New York, where I lived when they passed their Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in 2001. To the best of my knowledge, they still have not extended the same protections to transgender New Yorkers more than 6 years later.
There's talk that Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI, the House's only out lesbian member and all around-awesome legislator) will propose an amendment that will restore the gender identity protections. Congressman Grijalva has stated he will support the amendment and oppose the final bill if the amendment fails. This is the kind of strong leadership I look for.
And as a side note, both Congressman Grijalva and Congresswoman Giffords were co-sponsors of the original, inclusive ENDA, and neither has signed onto the sham replacement bill being voted on tomorrow. Good on both of them.
Earlier this year, HR 2015 was introduced. Also called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, this version of ENDA also included protections based on gender identity and expression. Believing this version would never pass (think of the male bank tellers in dresses and waitresses with beards! the horror! the horror!), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), our longest-serving open 'mo, introduced HR 3685, which is the same bill with the tranny protections stripped.
HR 3685 is a bad bill. We should not compromise on basic human rights. The Human Rights Campaign, which likes to bill itself as the nation's leading LGBT rights organization, just endorsed the tranny-free bill. Shame on them. You should never give them money or time again. You should remove those stupid equal sign decals from your car (they look silly anyway). You should support only the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force from now on, which has taken the correct, principled stand to support only a fully-inclusive ENDA.
Look, we're all in this together and we can never throw any members of our community under the bus so that others in our community can ride that bus. Lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans owe the freedoms we've won over the past 40 years to those transgender freedom fighters who stood up and fought back against injustice when the rest of the community wouldn't. We owe our trans brothers and sisters an inclusive ENDA, and both Arizona and our community will be stronger for it. We must demonstrate to the agents of injustice that we will stand united for freedom for all of us, not just the least threatening.
The incremental approach has not worked in other states like New York, where I lived when they passed their Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in 2001. To the best of my knowledge, they still have not extended the same protections to transgender New Yorkers more than 6 years later.
There's talk that Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI, the House's only out lesbian member and all around-awesome legislator) will propose an amendment that will restore the gender identity protections. Congressman Grijalva has stated he will support the amendment and oppose the final bill if the amendment fails. This is the kind of strong leadership I look for.
And as a side note, both Congressman Grijalva and Congresswoman Giffords were co-sponsors of the original, inclusive ENDA, and neither has signed onto the sham replacement bill being voted on tomorrow. Good on both of them.
Labels: civil rights, ENDA, House of Representatives, LGBT
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
red herring
I've had this post brewing for some time, but only felt inspired to write it after watching some of the Logo/HRC debate and reading some of the coverage of it.
This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.
And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.
So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.
Poppycock.
How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?
If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?
It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?
If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?
There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.
You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.
The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.
And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.
And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.
Open to grace.
This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.
And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.
So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.
Poppycock.
How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?
If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?
It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?
If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?
There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.
You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.
The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.
And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.
And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.
Open to grace.
Labels: challenge, change, civil rights, equality, fear, history, human rights, LGBT, opening to grace, Pres-08, social justice, yoga
Thursday, August 09, 2007
pres-08: not too proud to admit when i'm wrong
I no longer support Bill Richardson for President.
Despite his lengthy resume and respectable public service, the man is not fit to be President of the United States.
My faith in his candidacy faltered during an early debate, when he cited Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice. Justice White wrote a dissent in Roe v. Wade and was joined by eventual Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
One major faux pas was perhaps excusable, but tonight Bill Richardson swallowed his foot up to the knee when he repeatedly insisted on his belief that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" in the Human Rights Campaign/Logo Democratic debate.
I know it's rather anathema for me to say this on a progressive blog, but domestic issues are far more important to me than ending the Iraq war. Don't misunderstand, the war has been a perilous, unwarranted folly that I believe must be brought to a swift conclusion. It's just not the issue on which I'm going to base my vote.
Healthcare, education, jobs and civil rights are all far more important to me because they impact my everyday life. I don't have friends or family members currently serving, and I don't begrudge one bit those who do and for whom the war is the #1 issue. For them, Bill Richardson might still be a viable candidate based on his UN experience and his promise to end the war the day he is inaugurated.
But for me, if you don't get issues as simple as reproductive justice or full equality, you can never have my full support. Hell, even Giuliani is better on these issues than Richardson (well, OK, not quite).
So I hereby rescind and renounce my previous endorsement of Bill Richardson for President and move myself firmly back into the Undecided column.
John Edwards is saying many of the right things (except for an awkward performance tonight), and I was willing to give Chris Dodd a closer look until he didn't show for tonight's debate.
Rest assured I will update this space with additional thoughts or an endorsement as the process moves forward, especially now that it's looking more likely that the caucuses and primaries could start as early as this December. Yikes!
Despite his lengthy resume and respectable public service, the man is not fit to be President of the United States.
My faith in his candidacy faltered during an early debate, when he cited Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice. Justice White wrote a dissent in Roe v. Wade and was joined by eventual Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
One major faux pas was perhaps excusable, but tonight Bill Richardson swallowed his foot up to the knee when he repeatedly insisted on his belief that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" in the Human Rights Campaign/Logo Democratic debate.
I know it's rather anathema for me to say this on a progressive blog, but domestic issues are far more important to me than ending the Iraq war. Don't misunderstand, the war has been a perilous, unwarranted folly that I believe must be brought to a swift conclusion. It's just not the issue on which I'm going to base my vote.
Healthcare, education, jobs and civil rights are all far more important to me because they impact my everyday life. I don't have friends or family members currently serving, and I don't begrudge one bit those who do and for whom the war is the #1 issue. For them, Bill Richardson might still be a viable candidate based on his UN experience and his promise to end the war the day he is inaugurated.
But for me, if you don't get issues as simple as reproductive justice or full equality, you can never have my full support. Hell, even Giuliani is better on these issues than Richardson (well, OK, not quite).
So I hereby rescind and renounce my previous endorsement of Bill Richardson for President and move myself firmly back into the Undecided column.
John Edwards is saying many of the right things (except for an awkward performance tonight), and I was willing to give Chris Dodd a closer look until he didn't show for tonight's debate.
Rest assured I will update this space with additional thoughts or an endorsement as the process moves forward, especially now that it's looking more likely that the caucuses and primaries could start as early as this December. Yikes!
Labels: Bill Richardson, civil rights, equality, LGBT, Pres-08, Roe, social justice
Friday, July 20, 2007
putting a face and a voice to the discrimination
Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff in the lawsuit in which the US Supreme Court said sex discrimination is A-OK if Goodyear didn't get caught within 3 months of doing it:
Rep. George Miller of California has introduced the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to rectify this silly ruling.
Sen. Ted Kennedy is introducing a companion bill in the Senate.
Finally, People for the American Way has launched a website and a petition drive to help move this process along. Visit the website and sign the petition.
If you haven't already, you may want to read my opinion piece on this issue that was published in the Arizona Daily Star last month.
Rep. George Miller of California has introduced the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to rectify this silly ruling.
Sen. Ted Kennedy is introducing a companion bill in the Senate.
Finally, People for the American Way has launched a website and a petition drive to help move this process along. Visit the website and sign the petition.
If you haven't already, you may want to read my opinion piece on this issue that was published in the Arizona Daily Star last month.
Labels: civil rights, pay equity, SCOTUS, sexism, social justice, women's rights
Monday, June 25, 2007
i'm published
I wrote an opinion piece on pay equity that was published today in the Arizona Daily Star. Go read it.
Labels: civil rights, equality, journalism, minimum wage, social justice, women's rights
Monday, January 15, 2007
doctor king's legacy cuts across issues
From Dr. King's remarks in acceptance of the first annual Margaret Sanger Award in April 1966:
This is a meaningful week for both the Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Rights Movement. Today would have been Dr. King's 78th birthday had his life not been cut short by a sniper's bullet in 1968. A week from today, January 22, marks the 34th anniversary of the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the US Supreme Court.
Social justice movements have a tendency to put the blinders on and only see our own issues or fight for our own causes. We can all learn from Dr. King's legacy of reaching across boundaries to our natural allies.
United, we all win.
In our struggle for equality we were confronted with the reality that many millions of people were essentially ignorant of our conditions or refused to face unpleasant truths. The hard-core bigot was merely one of our adversaries. The millions who were blind to our plight had to be compelled to face the social evil their indifference permitted to flourish.
After centuries of relative silence and enforced acceptance, we adapted a technique of exposing the problem by direct and dramatic methods. We had confidence that when we awakened the nation to the immorality and evil of inequality, there would be an upsurge of conscience followed by remedial action.
We knew that there were solutions and that the majority of the nation were ready for them. Yet we also knew that the existence of solutions would not automatically operate to alter conditions. We had to organize, not only arguments, but people in the millions for action. Finally we had to be prepared to accept all the consequences involved in dramatizing our grievances in the unique style we had devised.
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.
This is a meaningful week for both the Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Rights Movement. Today would have been Dr. King's 78th birthday had his life not been cut short by a sniper's bullet in 1968. A week from today, January 22, marks the 34th anniversary of the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the US Supreme Court.
Social justice movements have a tendency to put the blinders on and only see our own issues or fight for our own causes. We can all learn from Dr. King's legacy of reaching across boundaries to our natural allies.
United, we all win.
Labels: civil rights, movement-building, social justice, women's rights
