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as she had done for the previous two amendments. 11 minutes later, the Baldwin amendment was unceremoniously withdrawn.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

Labels: Bill Richardson, civil rights, equality, LGBT, Pres-08, Roe, social justice

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.

Labels: civil rights, pay equity, SCOTUS, sexism, social justice, women's rights

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

Because I know you're all just clamoring to know what's on my mind and leave your own comments...

• Everybody sing along..."When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, 'what should I be? Should I be pretty? Should I be smart? Here's what she said to me...'"


• I may have a slight Target problem, but I can quit any time I want. Really.


• For what it's worth 10 months before a single vote will be cast, I'm supporting black horse candidate and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the Democratic nomination for President. His resume is more comprehensive and impressive than any of the other candidates - former member of Congress, former Secretary of Energy, former UN Ambassador and now Governor of a rapidly growing state in the mountain west. I got behind Howard Dean five years ago because of his experience and record as Governor of Vermont.
  
  Also, the last time a Democratic member of Congress won the Presidency, we were at the start of the Cold War and career options for women were limited to nurse, actress, teacher, model, ballet dancer and airline hostess(see item 1 above). Not a reason to vote for Richardson above the others in itself, but history can be instructive.


• I can definitely feel the difference when I go to yoga class versus when I don't. I went last night and this morning and I feel better than I have most of the rest of the week when I didn't get to go. So who's joining me tomorrow or next week?


• I'm still house hunting, and very little of what's on Craig's List or in the papers meets my needs. Who wants to go riding around town with me hunting For Rent signs?


• V-Day Tucson 2007 is next Friday and Saturday at the Fox Tucson Theatre. Publicity has been less than visible this year, so please consider purchasing tickets (available through the Fox's website or at various retailers around town). It's for a good cause and some really deserving people are being recognized for their work at intermission on the 16th.
  
  Please note, I no longer manage the V-Day Tucson website, so comments about the layout and/or outdated content can be directed to this year's organizer.


• I meant to post before Progressive Lobby Day at the Arizona legislature on Tuesday but didn't get around to it. I have to say I was pretty impressed, having participated in my share of lobby days back in Albany. Giving credit where it's due, AHRF did a hell of a job herding the progressive cats. We were also graced by the presence of a number of legislators from both parties, demonstrating that our common causes may not be as hopeless as we're sometimes led to believe. Thanks to those legislators who broke bread with us, and especially Senator Aboud for introducing our group, which filled the Senate gallery, from the floor.


• Are these not the cutest shoes ever? They're totally mine come next payday.


• My dear sister wins a prize for correctly guessing (or remembering!) who Ilene Graff is, without the assistance of IMDB. I don't know just what that prize is yet, but kudos to you, Deb!


• Speaking of both my musical sibling and fellow IC alums, don't forget to tune into "Grease: You're The One That I Want" tomorrow night (NBC, 7/6c) and vote for Kevin Greene to win the role of Danny in the latest Broadway revival. I'm going to tune in despite the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a guest judge.


• A childhood dream come true.


• Speaking of movies I intend to see when they come out...


• And finally, since I'm on the topic of movies, the SHORTBUS DVD comes out on March 13.

Update, 4:42 PM: I meant to mention this when I wrote the original post, but Leonard Clark, the Iraq War veteran who tried to mount a primary challenge to Jim Pederson for the Senate nomination last year, is working on filing a petition to recall Senator Double-Talk himself. Cliff Schecter's original post mentions that there's no legal mechanism for recalling an elected federal official. Based on a cursory glance at state laws, this does not appear to be true, as Arizona law does apparently provide for the recall of any elected official: see these three statutes (that last one in particular specifies that members of Congress are included among those who may be recalled). If I read the law correctly, Clark would need to get signatures from a number of registered Arizona voters equal to 25% of the number of total votes cast in last year's Senate election for all candidates for the recall to make the ballot at the next statewide consolidated election. The recall would be an almost vertical uphill battle, but it sure could put a dent in the ole Double-Talk Express.

Labels: alumni, AZ Legislature, Bill Richardson, gift giving, Ithaca College, moving, musicals, personal, Pres-08, Progressive Lobby Day, self-care, social justice, Target, V-Day, women's rights, 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

From Dr. King's remarks in acceptance of the first annual Margaret Sanger Award in April 1966:

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