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amendment, as she had done for the previous two amendments. 11 minutes later, the Baldwin amendment was unceremoniously withdrawn.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:

"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

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.

Labels: challenge, change, civil rights, equality, fear, history, human rights, LGBT, opening to grace, Pres-08, social justice, yoga

I didn't realize yesterday was blog for choice day, but apparently that's what it was. Who knew? Clearly not me.

Anyway, in addition to my post below, here's a great piece by Matt Stoller at MyDD:

As part of blog for choice day, we're supposed to talk about why we're pro-choice. For me, choice is non-negotiable, and though I don't like some of the single issue groups that work in this issue area, it's a core Democratic and progressive value that we must protect at all costs. The right to an abortion is about the right for women to control their own lives, and I won't accept any arguments that suggest that women shouldn't have the right to make very personal decisions or should have to make them in some sort of legal jeopardy. That's just immoral. I'm all for legislation reducing the number of abortions through legal assistance, economic help, and sex education, though I would point out that these tend to decrease all social ills and so I would support them for other reasons as well. But anything that makes the state sanction abortion as anything but an intensely private choice by women (and men to a lesser extent) in a vulnerable and difficult position in their lives is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I don't think I could have said it better myself.

And just to bring the level of the room down a bit, let me just say that pro-choice men are sexy.

Labels: choice, human rights, reproductive freedom, social justice, women's rights

Today marks the 34th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that affirmed the basic human right of reproductive freedom in the United States. That's 34 years of fewer health consequences, happier families and women having control over their own bodies. Reason indeed for celebration.

Today also marks the sixth anniversary of the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, which bans international reproductive health providers from receiving U.S. dollars if they even so much as think about abortion. How many lives have been lost because of this archaic and draconian Reagan-era rule? Too many to count.

I strongly recommend you read MissLaura's post on DailyKos about today's anniversary. It's long and full of linky goodness.

I'm too young to remember a time pre-Roe, but I know as well as anyone who does remember those times that we're only a slippery slope away from having that most essential of human rights - the right to choose when and how often to procreate - torn from our society.

I should note that neither of Tucson's dailies ran any stories today about the Roe anniversary (or the gag rule anniversary, for that matter). You can write letters to the Star and the Citizen and remind them why the right to reproductive freedom is an essential part of our democracy. Here are some excellent talking points to help you get started.

Labels: choice, human rights, reproductive freedom, Roe, women's rights

From a comment I just posted over on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion:

Currently, people with disabilities are paid using a fuzzy formula that calculates their pay rate based on their functional ability to do the jobs assigned to them. My understanding is the hubbub is mostly centered on people with developmental disabilities who live in institutional settings or group homes and spend their days in sheltered workshops or "dayhab" centers. The items they produce in these settings are sometimes sold as a means to support the organizations providing these jobs for people with developmental disabilities.

The people with developmental disabilities who are the focus of this debate probably have never bought their own loaf of bread. Just the same, they deserve the same rights and basic human dignity as anyone else. The Arc's argument about the minimum wage applying to everyone helping people with developmental disabilities integrate into the larger community is spot-on. This is a group of people who are hidden from the public, often incorrectly assumed to be 'useless', 'unproductive', 'asexual', or worse.

Truth is, given the opportunity, many (if not most) people with developmental disabilities could and would lead very productive, happy and healthy lives. Part of the way to achieve that goal is to allow them access to the same resources as their peers without developmental disabilities.

Frankly, the fact that there's even a debate about this seems silly to me.

I guess you can take the boy out of the 'disability project' but you can't take the 'disability project' out of the boy...

Labels: accessibility, equality, human rights, minimum wage, people with disabilities

Cathi Herrod finally concedes that Prop 107 was defeated by the voters of Arizona. She also says she "would not change a word of the measure" and "no decision has been made whether to try again in two years".

If they try again in two years with identical wording, they'll face an identical demoralizing defeat.

I suspect they'll be playing defense two years hence to some kind of equal rights proposition put forth by the victorious grassroots crews that defeated CAP's hate amendment.

Labels: CAP, human rights, LGBT, Prop 107

I didn't get to attend Creating Change this year (and I'm OK with that). But I do receive the daily updates via e-mail. I'm reproducing the following summary of the closing plenary speech in its entirety. I couldn't agree more with Ms. Ross. All emphases mine:

Creating Change 2006 closed out today with a passionate plenary speech by Loretta Ross, national coordinator and co-founder of SisterSong Reproductive Health Collective, who called on activists to work together to build a human rights movement.

Ross chastised both the right and the left for moving conversations about sex off the radar screen and espoused the need to “talk about the human right to sexual pleasure,” saying, “What does this whole concept of sexual rights mean? I’m not sure we’ve had that conversation yet in this country.” Noting that the first rape crisis center formed in 1972, she said that, in a very short period of time, we’ve changed the whole world: “Now we’ve got to do it again, but bigger.”

Ross expressed concern that we are “indulging in the excesses of identity politics” and engaging in separate and parallel social justice movements.

She said, “When people think many different ideas and move in one direction, that’s a movement. When people think the same idea and move in the same direction, that’s a cult. So we are building a movement or are we building cults?”

Continuing, Ross said, “While we’re fighting each other in our own Oppression Olympics, the neofascists and neoliberals are kicking our asses. They’re killing us. And only a united movement for all of our human rights will save us.”

She said when we fail to embrace a human rights framework, we ultimately cannot succeed.

Ross listed the eight categories of guaranteed human rights and pointed out how political developments such as the war in Iraq and the English-only movement directly violate them, saying that widespread ignorance of our human rights serves only those who already have power over us: “As long as [the government] can treat us as the undeserving people claiming things that aren’t ours, they can defang us our struggle.”

Ross insisted that we share one struggle despite our individual causes and said, “To the extent that you allow other people’s human rights to be violated, yours will be diminished too,” elaborating that we cannot do work against homophobia in a racist way, we cannot do antiracist work in a homophobic way, and so on.

Challenging us to “do what hasn’t been done before,” Ross urged everyone to “create change by building a new movement and calling it the human rights movement of America.”

Labels: Creating Change, human rights, LGBT, movement-building