UN: General Assembly to Address Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Statement affirms promise of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
For Immediate Release
(New York, December 11, 2008) - As the world celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UN General Assembly will hear a statement in mid-December endorsed by more than 50 countries across the globe calling for an end to rights abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A coalition of international human rights organizations today urged all the world's nations to support the statement in affirmation of the UDHR's basic promise: that human rights apply to everyone.
Nations on four continents are coordinating the statement, including: Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, France, Gabon, Japan, the Netherlands, and Norway. The reading of the statement will be the first time the General Assembly has formally addressed rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
"In 1948 the world's nations set forth the promise of human rights, but six decades later, the promise is unfulfilled for many," said Linda Baumann of Namibia, a board member of Pan Africa ILGA, a coalition of over 60 African lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups.
"The unprecedented African support for this statement sends a message that abuses against LGBT people are unacceptable anywhere, ever."
The statement is non-binding, and reaffirms existing protections for human rights in international law. It builds on a previous joint statement supported by 54 countries, which Norway delivered at the UN Human Rights Council in 2006.
"Universal means universal, and there are no exceptions," said Boris Dittrich of the Netherlands, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights program. "The UN must speak forcefully against violence and prejudice, because there is no room for half measures where human rights are concerned."
The draft statement condemns violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also condemns killings and executions, torture, arbitrary arrest, and deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights on those grounds.
"Today, dozens of countries still criminalize consensual homosexual conduct, laws that are often relics of colonial rule," said Grace Poore of Malaysia, who works with the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "This statement shows a growing global consensus that such abusive laws have outlived their time."
The statement also builds on a long record of UN action to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In its 1994 decision in Toonen v. Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee - the body that interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), one of the UN's core human rights treaties - held that human rights law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since then, the United Nations' human rights mechanisms have condemned violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including killings, torture, rape, violence, disappearances, and discrimination in many areas of life. UN treaty bodies have called on states to end discrimination in law and policy.
Other international bodies have also opposed violence and discrimination against LGBT people, including the Council of Europe and the European Union. In 2008, all 34 member countries of the Organization of American States unanimously approved a declaration affirming that human rights protections extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
"Latin American governments are helping lead the way as champions of equality and supporters of this statement," said Gloria Careaga Perez of Mexico, co-secretary general of ILGA. "Today a global movement supports the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and those voices will not be denied."
So far, 55 countries have signed onto the General Assembly statement, including: Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chile, Ecuador, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. All 27 member states of the European Union are also signatories.
"It is a great achievement that this initiative has made it to the level of the General Assembly," said Louis-Georges Tin of France, president of the International Committee for IDAHO (International Day against Homophobia), a network of activists and groups campaigning for decriminalization of homosexual conduct. "It shows our common struggles are successful and should be reinforced."
"This statement has found support from states and civil society in every region of the world," said Kim Vance of Canada, co-director of ARC International. "In December a simple message will rise from the General Assembly: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is truly universal."
The coalition of international human rights organizations that issued this statement include: Amnesty International; ARC International; Center for Women's Global Leadership; COC Netherlands; Global Rights; Human Rights Watch; IDAHO Committee; International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC); International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association (ILGA); and Public Services International.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES...
Obama to delay 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
Advisers see consensus building before lifting ban on gays
Rowan Scarborough (Contact)Friday, November 21, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
"I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.
Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held "informal discussions" with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.
Lawrence Korb, an analyst at the Center for American Progress and an adviser to the Obama campaign, said the new administration should set up a Pentagon committee to make recommendations to Congress on a host of manpower issues, including the gay ban.
"If it's part of a larger package, it has a better chance of getting passed," he said.
The Obama transition team did not reply to a request for comment.
The incoming administration is well aware of how President Clinton botched the same issue 15 years ago. Shortly after taking office in 1993, the president ordered the Pentagon to rescind the regulation that excluded gays.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans, and some leading Democrats, including then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn of Georgia, objected. Retired military officers and a number of pro-military conservative activist groups joined the fight.
Obama to delay 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
Advisers see consensus building before lifting ban on gays
Rowan Scarborough (Contact)Friday, November 21, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
"I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.
Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held "informal discussions" with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.
Lawrence Korb, an analyst at the Center for American Progress and an adviser to the Obama campaign, said the new administration should set up a Pentagon committee to make recommendations to Congress on a host of manpower issues, including the gay ban.
"If it's part of a larger package, it has a better chance of getting passed," he said.
The Obama transition team did not reply to a request for comment.
The incoming administration is well aware of how President Clinton botched the same issue 15 years ago. Shortly after taking office in 1993, the president ordered the Pentagon to rescind the regulation that excluded gays.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans, and some leading Democrats, including then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn of Georgia, objected. Retired military officers and a number of pro-military conservative activist groups joined the fight.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Williams Institute: New Study: Employment Discrimination
Williams Institute: New Study: Rate of Anti-Gay Employment Discrimination Similar to Race and Gender Rates
UCLA’s WILLIAMS INSTITUTE RELEASES NEW STUDY FINDING RATES OF SEXUALORIENTATION EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SIMILAR TO RACE AND GENDERDISCRIMINATION
For Immediate Release
November 18, 2008
Media Contacts: M.V. Lee Badgett 310-904-9761 badgett@law.ucla.eduBrad Sears 310-794-5279 sears@law.ucla.eduChristopher Ramos 310-206-0883 ramos@law.ucla.edu
LOS ANGELES – Today the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Lawreported that laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in theworkplace are used as frequently by LGBT workers as laws prohibiting sex andrace discrimination are used by women and people of color. Currently,twenty states and the District of Columbia prohibit employmentdiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; thirteen of those statesalso prohibit gender identity discrimination.Analyzing employment discrimination complaints filed with state agencies instates prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, the study finds 5 outof 10,000 LGBT people in the workforce file sexual orientation employmentdiscrimination complaints each year, compared to sex discriminationcomplaints filed by 5 out of 10,000 women in the workforce and racediscrimination complaints filed by 7 out of 10,000 people of color in theworkforce. “Our analysis directly questions the popular argument that sexualorientation anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary” noted study co-authorM.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute, “they areneeded and utilized by the LGBT workforce.”The report also addresses any worry that expanding employment discriminationto LGBT people would overwhelm state and federal agencies. Given the size ofthe LGB population and the filing rates of LGB people, any increase incomplaint intake would be negligible.Christopher Ramos, a researcher who also worked on the study, pointed outthat in eight states sexual orientation claims surpass sex claims; the sameis true for three states when compared to race claims. “Clearly, LGBTemployees are not only facing a certain level of discrimination, but also,taking advantage of protective state policies.”In 2007, a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act made a historicpassage through the U.S. House of Representatives, which would haveestablished sexual orientation as a federally protected class.Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute, noted that over3.1 million LGBT adults live in states that do not provide this protectionfrom discrimination in the workplace. “As the debate surrounding thenecessity of LGBT workplace protections begins again in Congress we mustkeep in mind the fragile economic position of these LGBT employees and theirfamilies.”
The full report is available athttp://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/pdf/PACR.pdf.
UCLA’s WILLIAMS INSTITUTE RELEASES NEW STUDY FINDING RATES OF SEXUALORIENTATION EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SIMILAR TO RACE AND GENDERDISCRIMINATION
For Immediate Release
November 18, 2008
Media Contacts: M.V. Lee Badgett 310-904-9761 badgett@law.ucla.eduBrad Sears 310-794-5279 sears@law.ucla.eduChristopher Ramos 310-206-0883 ramos@law.ucla.edu
LOS ANGELES – Today the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Lawreported that laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in theworkplace are used as frequently by LGBT workers as laws prohibiting sex andrace discrimination are used by women and people of color. Currently,twenty states and the District of Columbia prohibit employmentdiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; thirteen of those statesalso prohibit gender identity discrimination.Analyzing employment discrimination complaints filed with state agencies instates prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, the study finds 5 outof 10,000 LGBT people in the workforce file sexual orientation employmentdiscrimination complaints each year, compared to sex discriminationcomplaints filed by 5 out of 10,000 women in the workforce and racediscrimination complaints filed by 7 out of 10,000 people of color in theworkforce. “Our analysis directly questions the popular argument that sexualorientation anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary” noted study co-authorM.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute, “they areneeded and utilized by the LGBT workforce.”The report also addresses any worry that expanding employment discriminationto LGBT people would overwhelm state and federal agencies. Given the size ofthe LGB population and the filing rates of LGB people, any increase incomplaint intake would be negligible.Christopher Ramos, a researcher who also worked on the study, pointed outthat in eight states sexual orientation claims surpass sex claims; the sameis true for three states when compared to race claims. “Clearly, LGBTemployees are not only facing a certain level of discrimination, but also,taking advantage of protective state policies.”In 2007, a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act made a historicpassage through the U.S. House of Representatives, which would haveestablished sexual orientation as a federally protected class.Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute, noted that over3.1 million LGBT adults live in states that do not provide this protectionfrom discrimination in the workplace. “As the debate surrounding thenecessity of LGBT workplace protections begins again in Congress we mustkeep in mind the fragile economic position of these LGBT employees and theirfamilies.”
The full report is available athttp://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/pdf/PACR.pdf.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Crash Course: Estate Planning II
We learned last week why estate planning for the GLBT community is so important, and we learned about some things we need to have a solid plan. This week, we’ll discuss some other estate planning topics to think about.
A Living Trust allows you and your partner to pre-arrange your giving and avoid some probate inconveniences. Here’s how it works:
You and your partner put all assets into the trust and become both the trustees and primary beneficiaries of the trust.
At the death of the first partner, all property belongs to the surviving partner automatically.
At the death of the surviving partner, all property in the trust passes as designated in the trust, eliminating the need for probate.
Living Trusts are private; probate records are public.
Living Trusts can be less expensive because they avoid the costs of probate court.
Property in a Living Trust is accessible right away; most assets are not distributed in a probate action for six months.
Living Trusts avoid Kentucky Inheritance Tax assessed on non-relatives (including partners who have no legally-recognized relationship.
Best of all, nothing changes in the day-to-day living; you (and your partner) still manage the assets.
Other Issues for GLBT partners to consider:
Real Estate – You must state that there is a survivorship interest or there is none (without it each person owns ½ of the real estate).
Personal Property – Titled property and financial accounts should be in joint names.
“Beneficiary” accounts (life insurance, pensions, etc.) – These do not pass through the probate court unless the beneficiary is your estate – make sure your beneficiary designation is current.
That’s it for this week. We’ll see you next week when we discuss adoption and parenting.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
A Living Trust allows you and your partner to pre-arrange your giving and avoid some probate inconveniences. Here’s how it works:
You and your partner put all assets into the trust and become both the trustees and primary beneficiaries of the trust.
At the death of the first partner, all property belongs to the surviving partner automatically.
At the death of the surviving partner, all property in the trust passes as designated in the trust, eliminating the need for probate.
Living Trusts are private; probate records are public.
Living Trusts can be less expensive because they avoid the costs of probate court.
Property in a Living Trust is accessible right away; most assets are not distributed in a probate action for six months.
Living Trusts avoid Kentucky Inheritance Tax assessed on non-relatives (including partners who have no legally-recognized relationship.
Best of all, nothing changes in the day-to-day living; you (and your partner) still manage the assets.
Other Issues for GLBT partners to consider:
Real Estate – You must state that there is a survivorship interest or there is none (without it each person owns ½ of the real estate).
Personal Property – Titled property and financial accounts should be in joint names.
“Beneficiary” accounts (life insurance, pensions, etc.) – These do not pass through the probate court unless the beneficiary is your estate – make sure your beneficiary designation is current.
That’s it for this week. We’ll see you next week when we discuss adoption and parenting.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Crash Course: Estate Planning for the LGBT Community
This week’s Crash Course lesson is on estate planning - something that most people think about, but are somestimes slow to take care of doing. Why worry with estate planning at all?
· Under current law in Kentucky, you and your partner have no legally-recognized relationship.
· You have no legal right to information should your partner become hurt or disabled.
· You have no legal right to make medical decisions should your partner become unable to do so.
· You have no legal right to inherit from your partner at his/her death.
· If you do not make certain decisions, a court will appoint someone to make decisions on your behalf. That person may not know or follow your decisions.
Now that you know why it’s so important to the GLBT community, what estate planning do you need to do?
· Power of Attorney - allows someone to make non-medical decisions and/or handle your affairs should you become disabled.
· Authorization to obtain medical information - allows someone to obtain medical information about you at any time because Federal law prohibits medical providers from releasing medical information without your written consent.
· Living Will/Health Care Surrogate - allows someone to make medical decisions should you become unable to do so. You get to decide what “end-of-life” decisions you want. You get to decide how those decisions are followed.
· Last Will & Testament - declares how you want your property to be distributed at your death. You can make it known if you want to be cremated. You can provide for someone to care for your minor or disabled children (assuming another natural or adoptive parent doesn’t already have that right.)
HOMEWORK: More and more of us in the LGBT community are taking estate planning seriously and proactively making future plans rather than just thinking about them. Do you have a story to tell about this or would like to recommend a LGBT friendly attorney? Please, feel free to share.
That’s it for this week. We’ll see you next week when we discuss adoption and parenting.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
· Under current law in Kentucky, you and your partner have no legally-recognized relationship.
· You have no legal right to information should your partner become hurt or disabled.
· You have no legal right to make medical decisions should your partner become unable to do so.
· You have no legal right to inherit from your partner at his/her death.
· If you do not make certain decisions, a court will appoint someone to make decisions on your behalf. That person may not know or follow your decisions.
Now that you know why it’s so important to the GLBT community, what estate planning do you need to do?
· Power of Attorney - allows someone to make non-medical decisions and/or handle your affairs should you become disabled.
· Authorization to obtain medical information - allows someone to obtain medical information about you at any time because Federal law prohibits medical providers from releasing medical information without your written consent.
· Living Will/Health Care Surrogate - allows someone to make medical decisions should you become unable to do so. You get to decide what “end-of-life” decisions you want. You get to decide how those decisions are followed.
· Last Will & Testament - declares how you want your property to be distributed at your death. You can make it known if you want to be cremated. You can provide for someone to care for your minor or disabled children (assuming another natural or adoptive parent doesn’t already have that right.)
HOMEWORK: More and more of us in the LGBT community are taking estate planning seriously and proactively making future plans rather than just thinking about them. Do you have a story to tell about this or would like to recommend a LGBT friendly attorney? Please, feel free to share.
That’s it for this week. We’ll see you next week when we discuss adoption and parenting.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Crash Course: Inclusive Hate Crimes Laws
This week’s lesson is on inclusive hate crimes laws. Merriam-Webster defines hate crimes as those “motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group.”
HATE CRIMES ARE MEANT TO CAUSE FEAR AND INTIMIDATION TOWARD A GROUP.
The facts...
*Kentucky hate crimes laws include sexual orientation, but not gender identity.
*Federally, hate crimes laws do not include sexual orientation or gender identity. However, nearly 70% of Americans according to a 2007 Gallup poll support expanding current laws.
*The National Sheriffs’ Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors all support expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
*According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), anti-gay hate crimes are the 3rd most frequent kind of hate crimes in America only following race and religion.
Hate crimes laws do not affect religious freedoms. For example, current proposed federal legislation to expand protections refers to physically violent acts and intentions to hurt or intimidate certain groups of people, not to speech or non-violent expression.
Hate crimes can be horribly brutal. In 2002, Gwen Araujo, a 17-year old transgender student, was brutally murdered by four men who beat her with a shovel, a frying pan, and a barbell; partially strangled her; and buried her alive in the desert-just because she was transgender. There are far too many examples of these brutal crimes, among them the murders of Matthew Shepard and PFC Barry Winchell.
Expanding federal hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity will ensure gay and transgender citizens the protections afforded us all on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity and national origin.
HOMEWORK: Retelling the stories of hate crimes can be extremely painful. We’re not going to ask anyone to do that. However, we’ll toss this week’s lesson up on the blog site as normal and open it up for comments if you have them.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
Sources: www.merriam-webster.com, www.partnersagainsthate.org, www.sfgate.com, and www.lgbtmap.org.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Crash Course: Employment Protections
Outside Covington, Lexington, and Louisville, Kentuckians can be fired for their “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” with no legal recourse. You might hear from those who don’t support fairness that passing a Statewide Fairness Law is a new concept and not in keeping with Kentucky’s values. They’re wrong. Expanding Kentucky’s civil rights code to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” is simply an expansion of existing laws that protect people from being fired for reasons other than job performance. And, fairness really is a Kentucky value!
In 1999, Kentucky Fairness Alliance (KFA) hired Decision Research to poll Kentuckians on their feelings about protections in the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. 74% OF KENTUCKIANS RESPONDING SAID NO TO DISCRIMINATION AND YES TO PROTECTIONS!
In 2007, Gallup found that the number of AMERICANS SUPPORTING FAIRNESS IN THE WORKPLACE HAS CLIMBED TO AN ALL TIME HIGH OF 89%. 98% of the Fortune 1000 companies prohibit employment discrimination against gay employees; 58% include transgender employees.
Support for employment protections is clear! Unfortunately, sexual orientation and gender identity are not included in existing federal non-discrimination laws. Twenty states have expanded their non-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation; thirteen of those states include gender identity.
In 2008, Kentucky State Senators Harper-Angel, Neal, Scorsone, and Shaughnessy filed legislation with State Representatives Burch, Marzian, Meeks, Palumbo, Stein, and Westrom to expand employment protections in Kentucky to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That leaves us at least 60 legislators short of the majority we need to pass a law. We need your help!
HOMEWORK: Do you have a personal story of discrimination in the workplace? Share it with us by posting a response here. Personal stories are the best way we can share the importance of employment protections with our elected officials.
That’s all for now. We’ll see you next week when we discuss inclusive hate crime laws.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
Sources: http://www.lgbtmap.org/, http://www.gallup.com/, http://www.thetaskforce.org/ and http://www.hrc.org/.
In 1999, Kentucky Fairness Alliance (KFA) hired Decision Research to poll Kentuckians on their feelings about protections in the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. 74% OF KENTUCKIANS RESPONDING SAID NO TO DISCRIMINATION AND YES TO PROTECTIONS!
In 2007, Gallup found that the number of AMERICANS SUPPORTING FAIRNESS IN THE WORKPLACE HAS CLIMBED TO AN ALL TIME HIGH OF 89%. 98% of the Fortune 1000 companies prohibit employment discrimination against gay employees; 58% include transgender employees.
Support for employment protections is clear! Unfortunately, sexual orientation and gender identity are not included in existing federal non-discrimination laws. Twenty states have expanded their non-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation; thirteen of those states include gender identity.
In 2008, Kentucky State Senators Harper-Angel, Neal, Scorsone, and Shaughnessy filed legislation with State Representatives Burch, Marzian, Meeks, Palumbo, Stein, and Westrom to expand employment protections in Kentucky to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That leaves us at least 60 legislators short of the majority we need to pass a law. We need your help!
HOMEWORK: Do you have a personal story of discrimination in the workplace? Share it with us by posting a response here. Personal stories are the best way we can share the importance of employment protections with our elected officials.
That’s all for now. We’ll see you next week when we discuss inclusive hate crime laws.
In fairness,
Your KFA Team.
Sources: http://www.lgbtmap.org/, http://www.gallup.com/, http://www.thetaskforce.org/ and http://www.hrc.org/.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Crash Course: Don't ask, don't tell
As promised, it’s Wednesday and time for our first class! This week we’re covering “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Kentucky Fairness Alliance supports the work of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and their top reasons for lifting the ban on gay service members.
~End discrimination (No other law mandates firing someone because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual.);
~Strengthen Military Readiness;
~Save Tax Payer Money (“Don’t ask, don’t tell” cost more than $360 million in taxpayer funds between 1994 and 2003.);
~Honor Our Troops; and
~Stop the Double-Standard.
79% of Americans are in support of lifting the ban on openly gay service members! 62% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats are in support of lifting the ban.
High-ranking military officials are also speaking! General John Shalikashvili, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, “I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the U.S. military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces.”
The Military Readiness Act (HR1246) was introduced in the U.S. House in 2006 by Rep. Meehan (D-MA). This piece of legislation would establish a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for the members of the armed services.
Both major presumptive presidential nominees have taken positions on “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) supports lifting the ban, while Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) does not.
In 2008, Rep. Davis (D-California) held the first congressional hearing on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” since its inception 15 years ago. Check out Rep. Davis’ opening remarks on YouTube.
HOMEWORK: Do you know someone that has been dismissed from the military because of being who they are? Do you think DADT will be repealed during the next presidency? Post your response on here.
That’s it for this week. Next week, we’ll be discussing employment discrimination. See you then.
~End discrimination (No other law mandates firing someone because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual.);
~Strengthen Military Readiness;
~Save Tax Payer Money (“Don’t ask, don’t tell” cost more than $360 million in taxpayer funds between 1994 and 2003.);
~Honor Our Troops; and
~Stop the Double-Standard.
79% of Americans are in support of lifting the ban on openly gay service members! 62% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats are in support of lifting the ban.
High-ranking military officials are also speaking! General John Shalikashvili, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, “I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the U.S. military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces.”
The Military Readiness Act (HR1246) was introduced in the U.S. House in 2006 by Rep. Meehan (D-MA). This piece of legislation would establish a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for the members of the armed services.
Both major presumptive presidential nominees have taken positions on “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) supports lifting the ban, while Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) does not.
In 2008, Rep. Davis (D-California) held the first congressional hearing on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” since its inception 15 years ago. Check out Rep. Davis’ opening remarks on YouTube.
HOMEWORK: Do you know someone that has been dismissed from the military because of being who they are? Do you think DADT will be repealed during the next presidency? Post your response on here.
That’s it for this week. Next week, we’ll be discussing employment discrimination. See you then.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Crash Course That's Not A Drag: Intro
It’s that time again when tens of thousands across the commonwealth head back to school. So, we thought we would share a refresher course on issues of importance to fair-minded Kentuckians. We’ll have class the middle of each week for the next several weeks on a variety of topics to include: adoption and parenting, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” employment protections, inclusive hate crime laws, estate planning, and religion. It wouldn’t be school without homework, so don’t think you’re getting out of it. Your assignment each week will be to ponder the information presented and post personal stories or comments on our Leading Light blog, engaging each other on the topics.
Recently, a phrase was coined by the Movement Advancement Project that we’re really digging at Kentucky Fairness Alliance. For everyone worried that this crash course is going to be a drag listen up: “This is about everyday Americans who want the same chance as everyone else to earn a living, be safe in their communities, serve their country, and take care of the ones they love.”
We’re going to give you the facts just like you’re sitting through an old-school lecture, but your personal stories are what will make this class shine. Sharing your stories through the homework assignments will get you an “A.”
So, we've told you that class doesn’t start until next week, but we’re giving you homework today. The assignment is to ponder the following terms and share through a personal story how they fit into your everyday life as an LGBT or fair-minded Kentuckian: 1) hard working, 2) security, 3) responsibility, and 4) caring. Turn in your assignment by posting here (and, yes, we’ll even let you turn it in anonymously).
That’s it. See you next Wednesday when we talk about “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Class dismissed!
Recently, a phrase was coined by the Movement Advancement Project that we’re really digging at Kentucky Fairness Alliance. For everyone worried that this crash course is going to be a drag listen up: “This is about everyday Americans who want the same chance as everyone else to earn a living, be safe in their communities, serve their country, and take care of the ones they love.”
We’re going to give you the facts just like you’re sitting through an old-school lecture, but your personal stories are what will make this class shine. Sharing your stories through the homework assignments will get you an “A.”
So, we've told you that class doesn’t start until next week, but we’re giving you homework today. The assignment is to ponder the following terms and share through a personal story how they fit into your everyday life as an LGBT or fair-minded Kentuckian: 1) hard working, 2) security, 3) responsibility, and 4) caring. Turn in your assignment by posting here (and, yes, we’ll even let you turn it in anonymously).
That’s it. See you next Wednesday when we talk about “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Class dismissed!
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Summer Meeting of LGBT Statewide Leaders
Hey, folks:
Howdy from Columbus! It has been a great past few days. The summer meeting of statewide lgbt leaders from across the country organized by the national Equality Federation has been great, again! I received loads of great information and I'm pretty sure Travis, KFA Vice-Chair, did as well. I think I can speak for both in saying the sessions at this year's meeting were really helpful.
I'm excited to get back and share the information I've gathered at the meeting with fellow fairness leaders in Kentucky.
~Jody
TRESSA FEHER, DIRECTOR OF THE LEADERSHIP NETWORK AT THE GAY & LESBIAN VICTORY FUND IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WITH KFA BOARD VICE-CHAIR TRAVIS MYLES.
RUTH HACKFORD-PEER (I love you too, Ruthie, hehe), MANAGER OF PUBLIC POLICY AT EQUALITY UTAH AND ME
Howdy from Columbus! It has been a great past few days. The summer meeting of statewide lgbt leaders from across the country organized by the national Equality Federation has been great, again! I received loads of great information and I'm pretty sure Travis, KFA Vice-Chair, did as well. I think I can speak for both in saying the sessions at this year's meeting were really helpful.
I'm excited to get back and share the information I've gathered at the meeting with fellow fairness leaders in Kentucky.
~Jody
TRESSA FEHER, DIRECTOR OF THE LEADERSHIP NETWORK AT THE GAY & LESBIAN VICTORY FUND IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WITH KFA BOARD VICE-CHAIR TRAVIS MYLES.
RUTH HACKFORD-PEER (I love you too, Ruthie, hehe), MANAGER OF PUBLIC POLICY AT EQUALITY UTAH AND ME
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Fancy Farm, a mtg, and here we come Columbus
Hey, folks:
It’s a busy week, but I want to update all the fairness folks out there. KFA’s leadership gathered this past weekend in western Kentucky for the 128th annual Fancy Farm Picnic. I’ll leave the commentary on the political speeches to all the other bloggers out there. Maybe you should checkout Mark Hebert on his WHAS political blog – it’s a pretty good recap: http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2008/08/fancy-farm-first-impressions-b.html. I totally agree that Gov. Beshear won the prize for the day. In slang terms, he went old school. I totally loved it. Sens. McConnell and Bunning read to the crowd; they didn’t stump. I don’t enjoy sitting in 95 degree weather and being read to – I can do that at the house.
The meeting was really good. We’ve got a really good group of Board members. We took care of the regular housekeeping business and spend some time discussing things such as the statewide fairness summit being planned, programming over the next couple months including the shared booth at the KY State Fair with Louisville’s Fairness Campaign, and the Out & About gala on Nov. 7. As for O&A, anyone that is interested in serving as a Star Partner (formerly known as table captains) send me or one of the KFA leaders a shout out. Individuals that are commit to partner in that capacity agree to sell 8 tickets by Oct. 22. In other business at the meeting, we brought on two new Board members. They are Mike Handley of Louisville and Chad Hundley of Lexington.
The 4th quarter Board meeting was scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 8 in Louisville at the law office of Board Vice-Chairperson Travis Myles.
This week started busy and will remain that way through Sunday night. Christina, Travis, and I all head up to Columbus, OH on Thursday for the national Equality Federation Summer Meeting. That is the annual meeting organized by and for statewide lgbt leaders across the country. I serve on the planning committee for that so especially excited. Some of the sessions I’m particularly pumped about are “Connecting the Dots in the Mindset of the Religious Moveable Middle,” “Using Your Data: Mapping and Tracking Tools to Maximize Effectiveness in Strategic Planning, Fundraising, Lobbying, and Organizing,” and “Talking to the Moveable Middle About LGBT Issues.” It wouldn’t be the annual meeting of the Fedheads if we didn’t have a little fun… on Friday evening Equality Ohio is hosting a reception for attendees and we have the opportunity to catch a Clippers game or go to the Ohio State Fair. Hmmm… I may encourage hitting the reception and then going out to eat and skip the heat! hehe. I hear we’ve got to go to Union Station for dinner. On Saturday evening, the National Center for Transgender Equality is hosting a reception for attendees and then we’re meeting up with a former KFA Board member and friend for dinner.
Alright. I’m done writing for now. I’ll probably write more from Columbus.
~Jody
It’s a busy week, but I want to update all the fairness folks out there. KFA’s leadership gathered this past weekend in western Kentucky for the 128th annual Fancy Farm Picnic. I’ll leave the commentary on the political speeches to all the other bloggers out there. Maybe you should checkout Mark Hebert on his WHAS political blog – it’s a pretty good recap: http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2008/08/fancy-farm-first-impressions-b.html. I totally agree that Gov. Beshear won the prize for the day. In slang terms, he went old school. I totally loved it. Sens. McConnell and Bunning read to the crowd; they didn’t stump. I don’t enjoy sitting in 95 degree weather and being read to – I can do that at the house.
The meeting was really good. We’ve got a really good group of Board members. We took care of the regular housekeeping business and spend some time discussing things such as the statewide fairness summit being planned, programming over the next couple months including the shared booth at the KY State Fair with Louisville’s Fairness Campaign, and the Out & About gala on Nov. 7. As for O&A, anyone that is interested in serving as a Star Partner (formerly known as table captains) send me or one of the KFA leaders a shout out. Individuals that are commit to partner in that capacity agree to sell 8 tickets by Oct. 22. In other business at the meeting, we brought on two new Board members. They are Mike Handley of Louisville and Chad Hundley of Lexington.
The 4th quarter Board meeting was scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 8 in Louisville at the law office of Board Vice-Chairperson Travis Myles.
This week started busy and will remain that way through Sunday night. Christina, Travis, and I all head up to Columbus, OH on Thursday for the national Equality Federation Summer Meeting. That is the annual meeting organized by and for statewide lgbt leaders across the country. I serve on the planning committee for that so especially excited. Some of the sessions I’m particularly pumped about are “Connecting the Dots in the Mindset of the Religious Moveable Middle,” “Using Your Data: Mapping and Tracking Tools to Maximize Effectiveness in Strategic Planning, Fundraising, Lobbying, and Organizing,” and “Talking to the Moveable Middle About LGBT Issues.” It wouldn’t be the annual meeting of the Fedheads if we didn’t have a little fun… on Friday evening Equality Ohio is hosting a reception for attendees and we have the opportunity to catch a Clippers game or go to the Ohio State Fair. Hmmm… I may encourage hitting the reception and then going out to eat and skip the heat! hehe. I hear we’ve got to go to Union Station for dinner. On Saturday evening, the National Center for Transgender Equality is hosting a reception for attendees and then we’re meeting up with a former KFA Board member and friend for dinner.
Alright. I’m done writing for now. I’ll probably write more from Columbus.
~Jody
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Will Arizona Be Abandoned?
Below is a piece written by Barbara McCullough-Jones in Arizona. I met Barbara last year while attending the national Equality Federation's annual summer meeting for statewide lgbt leaders. She is a great leader in the lgbt community and I'm looking forward to seeing her next week at this year's annual meeting. ~Jody
Will Arizona Be Abandoned?
By: Barbara McCullough-Jones
July 29th, 2008
This is a question I am asked nearly everyday from folks in Arizona and from folks around the country. They ask questions like how much support came from outside Arizona in 2006? Will anyone outside of Arizona give money this time to defeat Prop 102? Will anyone inside Arizona give money? How do you feel about so much money going to California? What about Florida? Can Arizona win this one too? Do you feel abandoned by those supporting California especially but also Florida since Arizona is the only state in the nation to defeat an anti-marriage amendment?
There is no easy answer to any of those questions. Frankly, I’m not sure there is value in even trying to come up with an answer. I do believe however, the real value lies in the fact that we are even having this discussion. Internal and external to Arizona.
In an odd way it shows people care. They care enough about Arizona’s contribution to the movement to worry whether we might be slighted financially in this campaign season. They care enough about our statewide LGBT infrastructure to be concerned we are not damaged in the process – at least hopeful that we might escape long term or irreparable damage.
Instead of answering those questions with only the “what’s in front of us” view, I prefer to answer from a 30,000 foot perspective. That means we have to look at our work as a marathon and not a sprint. It means we cannot be angry or feel slighted by donors who, from their own perspective, believe their need and desire to participate in the movement, to make a difference, is best served by giving to a campaign that in their opinion would provide the greatest impact to achieving equality – to meeting their personal political goals. Because we all come from different backgrounds, different economies, different cultural experiences, no one has any right to pass judgment on another for the decisions we make in political giving. Sometimes those decisions are very personal, sometimes they are just hard core strategic moves and sometimes they are the simplicity of altruism.
The higher ground at 30,000 feet allows us to let wash beneath our feet the hardness created by politics – in a way it is cleansing. Don’t think for a minute though that coming down from the high ground to do the work is easy. But we have to have a place to land. Something you can touch, hear and believe in. For me that place is community – it is the work. It is the very place where we interact with one another on a very human and hopefully humanitarian level. It is that place that sometimes stinks, sometimes is so loud with opposing voices you can’t hear yourself think and on occasion calls into question our belief in that very humanity we seek to be a part of.
Over the past several weeks in particular we have been fighting a battle that stems from the worst display of disintegration of democracy I have ever witnessed. We are fighting with every tool at our disposal to call out those who would seek to limit the fullness of our lives in order to advance their own.
Amidst our ongoing Senate debacle we have organized and are executing our 2008 elections strategy; we have organized a Statewide Coordinated Campaign to defeat Prop 102; and we continue to build the capacity of Equality Arizona – design and deliver programs that change hearts and minds while also managing a hard-hitting public affairs agenda to change public policy.
We need a win in California. We need a win in Florida. We need a win in Arizona. That very trifecta has the potential to change the face of American politics. Just for clarification, “trifecta” as a slang term is used to describe any successful or favorable phenomenon or characteristic that comes in threes (according to Wikipedia). That’s what our national agenda should be about.
There is often much angst about coastal states dictating what happens to the rest of the country but today, we need to support our coasts! And yes, tucked into the Southwest - in a place in mid-August where you’re sure you’re already doing time in purgatory - we WILL continue to do our part to advance equality - to contribute to the greater good of our great state and our nation.
Do we want and need your contributions? Yes! Not at the exclusion of California or Florida but in addition too. Just do it. Don’t hesitate, don’t even blink. Just write the checks…address one to California, one to Florida and one to Arizona and sign them simply…from one who cares.
Barbara McCullough-Jones is the Executive Director of Equality Arizona. You can support Arizona’s efforts at the Vote No On Prop 102 website.
Will Arizona Be Abandoned?
By: Barbara McCullough-Jones
July 29th, 2008
This is a question I am asked nearly everyday from folks in Arizona and from folks around the country. They ask questions like how much support came from outside Arizona in 2006? Will anyone outside of Arizona give money this time to defeat Prop 102? Will anyone inside Arizona give money? How do you feel about so much money going to California? What about Florida? Can Arizona win this one too? Do you feel abandoned by those supporting California especially but also Florida since Arizona is the only state in the nation to defeat an anti-marriage amendment?
There is no easy answer to any of those questions. Frankly, I’m not sure there is value in even trying to come up with an answer. I do believe however, the real value lies in the fact that we are even having this discussion. Internal and external to Arizona.
In an odd way it shows people care. They care enough about Arizona’s contribution to the movement to worry whether we might be slighted financially in this campaign season. They care enough about our statewide LGBT infrastructure to be concerned we are not damaged in the process – at least hopeful that we might escape long term or irreparable damage.
Instead of answering those questions with only the “what’s in front of us” view, I prefer to answer from a 30,000 foot perspective. That means we have to look at our work as a marathon and not a sprint. It means we cannot be angry or feel slighted by donors who, from their own perspective, believe their need and desire to participate in the movement, to make a difference, is best served by giving to a campaign that in their opinion would provide the greatest impact to achieving equality – to meeting their personal political goals. Because we all come from different backgrounds, different economies, different cultural experiences, no one has any right to pass judgment on another for the decisions we make in political giving. Sometimes those decisions are very personal, sometimes they are just hard core strategic moves and sometimes they are the simplicity of altruism.
The higher ground at 30,000 feet allows us to let wash beneath our feet the hardness created by politics – in a way it is cleansing. Don’t think for a minute though that coming down from the high ground to do the work is easy. But we have to have a place to land. Something you can touch, hear and believe in. For me that place is community – it is the work. It is the very place where we interact with one another on a very human and hopefully humanitarian level. It is that place that sometimes stinks, sometimes is so loud with opposing voices you can’t hear yourself think and on occasion calls into question our belief in that very humanity we seek to be a part of.
Over the past several weeks in particular we have been fighting a battle that stems from the worst display of disintegration of democracy I have ever witnessed. We are fighting with every tool at our disposal to call out those who would seek to limit the fullness of our lives in order to advance their own.
Amidst our ongoing Senate debacle we have organized and are executing our 2008 elections strategy; we have organized a Statewide Coordinated Campaign to defeat Prop 102; and we continue to build the capacity of Equality Arizona – design and deliver programs that change hearts and minds while also managing a hard-hitting public affairs agenda to change public policy.
We need a win in California. We need a win in Florida. We need a win in Arizona. That very trifecta has the potential to change the face of American politics. Just for clarification, “trifecta” as a slang term is used to describe any successful or favorable phenomenon or characteristic that comes in threes (according to Wikipedia). That’s what our national agenda should be about.
There is often much angst about coastal states dictating what happens to the rest of the country but today, we need to support our coasts! And yes, tucked into the Southwest - in a place in mid-August where you’re sure you’re already doing time in purgatory - we WILL continue to do our part to advance equality - to contribute to the greater good of our great state and our nation.
Do we want and need your contributions? Yes! Not at the exclusion of California or Florida but in addition too. Just do it. Don’t hesitate, don’t even blink. Just write the checks…address one to California, one to Florida and one to Arizona and sign them simply…from one who cares.
Barbara McCullough-Jones is the Executive Director of Equality Arizona. You can support Arizona’s efforts at the Vote No On Prop 102 website.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Language of God
Hi, folks: I just finished reading The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins is a world known physician, geneticist, and former head of the Human Genome Project. The book outlines Dr. Collins’ journey to understand how faith and science can both be supported and maybe even “right”. There are parts where his lingo does get a little science heavy, but it’s got some good points on both fronts. I suggest it for anyone that wants to say that science doesn’t have to be threatened by belief in God and vice versa. ~Jody
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Foundation using religion to divide
Hi, all: Below is a piece that Rev. Dr. Pennybacker, who chairs KFA's Religious Advisory Committee, placed in the Herald-Leader earlier this week. Enjoy ~Jody
Foundation using religion to divide, not to embrace
By Albert M. Pennybacker
At issue: June 30 Herald-Leader article, ”Group Targets 6 on UK Faculty,“
The attack dogs are still at work among us, this time under the banner of The Family Foundation.
Many splendid comments, such as the statement by UK President Lee T. Todd Jr., have been made. But progressive religious voices have not been clearly heard, though it is a religious view that fuels this action.
I am appalled that the foundation has attacked respected professors at the very best of our Kentucky universities and sought to manipulate state funding against them.
And this action, note, is taken on the basis of the foundation's ideological agenda. Has The Family Foundation been appointed guardian of what is intellectually appropriate and morally acceptable?
Second, the foundation is an integral part of a larger network of exclusivist religion -- ”my way or the highway“ -- which is always suspect.
Why else would legitimate areas of study be attacked as offensive or inappropriate? Good religion affirms an open mind, advocates honest inquiry and applauds sound intellectual contributions to understanding the complexities in the life we share. These foster our living better together.
Third, have you noticed how preoccupied with managing our sexual identity and behavior these fundamentalist religious themes often are?
Resilient religion has always believed that human sexuality is a good and generous gift, for our joy and for our sharing in God's creation. Pinch-nosed piety has always missed the point. Most of us are very tired of having this sort of accusatory and religiously narrow voice inflicted on us.
Enough! It needs to be thoroughly repudiated. I applaud these six professors for seeking to enlarge human understanding. Many religious people concur.
Foundation using religion to divide, not to embrace
By Albert M. Pennybacker
At issue: June 30 Herald-Leader article, ”Group Targets 6 on UK Faculty,“
The attack dogs are still at work among us, this time under the banner of The Family Foundation.
Many splendid comments, such as the statement by UK President Lee T. Todd Jr., have been made. But progressive religious voices have not been clearly heard, though it is a religious view that fuels this action.
I am appalled that the foundation has attacked respected professors at the very best of our Kentucky universities and sought to manipulate state funding against them.
And this action, note, is taken on the basis of the foundation's ideological agenda. Has The Family Foundation been appointed guardian of what is intellectually appropriate and morally acceptable?
Second, the foundation is an integral part of a larger network of exclusivist religion -- ”my way or the highway“ -- which is always suspect.
Why else would legitimate areas of study be attacked as offensive or inappropriate? Good religion affirms an open mind, advocates honest inquiry and applauds sound intellectual contributions to understanding the complexities in the life we share. These foster our living better together.
Third, have you noticed how preoccupied with managing our sexual identity and behavior these fundamentalist religious themes often are?
Resilient religion has always believed that human sexuality is a good and generous gift, for our joy and for our sharing in God's creation. Pinch-nosed piety has always missed the point. Most of us are very tired of having this sort of accusatory and religiously narrow voice inflicted on us.
Enough! It needs to be thoroughly repudiated. I applaud these six professors for seeking to enlarge human understanding. Many religious people concur.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Poor Form Politics in Arizona
If you want to see poor form politics in action, check out the happenings in Arizona. I have said many times my hat is off to EQ. Arizona; they are a first class operation and I'm glad it is their team organizing to defeat this.
A MESSAGE FROM EQUALITY ARIZONA:
We just got back from the state Capitol, where the Senate voted to force another constitutional amendment to define marriage on the ballot. What happened tonight was disgraceful, but that doesn't change the fact that we will be facing another anti-LGBT amendment this November. It's true. The Arizona Legislature caved to the coercion of a little-known group, the Center for Arizona Policy, led by an extremist fundamentalist -- Cathi Herrod. The Legislature ignored the people of Arizona, who already voted down a similar amendment. The Senate approved Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1042 tonight, and they broke the rules, along with the sanctity of the Senate, to do so.
How Your Senator Voted
SCR 1042 was brought to the floor of the Senate for reconsideration tonight. It passed with the 16 votes it needed. Below is the list of how your Senator voted.
Find out who your Senator is by clicking here.
Yes
Sylvia Allen (R-5)Robert Blendu (R-12)Robert "Bob" Burns (R-9)Pamela Gorman (R-6)Ron Gould (R-3)Chuck Gray (R-19)Linda Gray (R-10)Jack W. Harper (R-4)John Huppenthal (R-20)Karen Johnson (R-18)Barbara Leff (R-11)Tom O'Halleran (R-1)Jay Tibshraeny (R-21)Thayer Verschoor (R-22)Jim Waring (R-7)Timothy S. Bee (R-30)
No
Paula Aboud (D-28)Meg Burton Cahill (D-17)Ken Cheuvront (D-15)Jorge Luis Garcia (D-27)
Not Voting (Absent)
Amanda Aguirre (D-24)Carolyn S. Allen (R-8)Marsha Arzberger (D-25)Albert Hale (D-2)Leah Landrum Taylor (D-16)Debbie McCune Davis (D-14)Richard Miranda (D-16)Charlene Pesquiera (D-26)Rebecca Rios (D-23)Victor Soltero (D-29)
To see how your Senator voted on this bill originally on Wednesday, click here.
Integrity Lost
Tonight's debate was intense for everyone on the Senate floor and those of us watching in the gallery. But what happened to our openly-gay Senators by their colleagues was absolutely disgusting. Senate extremists strategically broke the rules of the Senate, which govern the processes for discussion and voting on bills. During a filibuster-like discussion on another bill during Committee of the Whole, Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor (R-22) and Majority Whip John Huppenthal (R-20), among others, devised a scheme with committee chairman Jack Harper (R-4) to outright violate the rules of the Senate and the rights of Senators Aboud and Cheuvront.
In the middle of their discussion, Senator Harper turned off the microphones of Senators Paula Aboud (D-28) and Ken Cheuvront (D-15) and called on the Majority Leader to make a motion. Then, when Senators Aboud and Cheuvront loudly called for a Point of Order several times, even walking to the front desk where Senator Harper sat, he deliberately ignored their calls. To add insult to injury, these people attempted to justify their actions, even after the Senate President and other Senators admonished them for deliberately breaking the rules. Tonight's actions of these and other Senators have forever tainted that body, and it's important that we all let the people of Arizona know how these individuals acted so unethically.
Heroes Emerge
In the end, it was Senators Aboud and Cheuvront who gave the most impassioned remarks ever heard on the floor of the Arizona Senate.
Senator Aboud spoke eloquently about the irrational fear Senators were expressing by their yes vote, asking, "Do I scare you?" She talked about family values that matter, like love, caring for elder parents and hospital visitation rights, and reminded her colleagues that these are all rights currently denied to people who cannot marry.
After listening to Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-5) describe what she considered her moral superiority to protect families citing civilization from the 18th century and how same-sex marriage will signal the end of civilization as we know if today, Sen. Cheuvront hit the majority hard when he defined the many ways in which the integrity of the Senate was lost today.
Accurately listing the many ways in which the legislative process was prostituted for political gain, Sen. Cheuvront admonished fellow Republican Senators by exposing the tactics of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). This sentiment was echoed by Senate President Bee, who pointed out the extreme measures that CAP used to secure votes, while he was explaining his vote on the bill.
Today's Senate session was the culmination of not just a battle over a bill introduced at the beginning of the session in January but in fact was the end result of CAP's tantrum over the defeat of Prop 107 in 2006. Having lost this session on several other bills, including abstinence-only, abortion, school vouchers and a number of other issues, CAP needed this win to fill their coffers.
No one can deny this bill was nothing more than a referendum on the LGBT community – a political fundraiser to fuel the anti-gay industry in Arizona.
Both Sen. Cheuvront and Representative Steve Gallardo sent messages to those in both chambers, stating those who would vote for this divisive measure may not be very secure in their positions after this session and once voters realize how abusive and out of touch they really are.
Preparing for Tomorrow
No doubt we will see a mix of emotions from anger to sadness, and the worst part is the backlash of violence that often accompanies these actions. As a community we must unite like never before. Our resolve must be unwavering to change the faces of those who cast votes that affect so many lives.
We at Equality Arizona are incredibly proud of those who stood with us throughout this session. Our allies in the Legislature who provided leadership, encouragement and strategic advice were invaluable. We owe a debt of gratitude to Reps. Kyrsten Sinema, Linda Lopez, Robert Meza, Steve Gallardo and others. In the other chamber our heroes are Sens. Paula Aboud, Ken Cheuvront, Debbie McCune-Davis, Jorge Luis Garcia and Meg Burton-Cahill.
In addition to elected officials many individuals and organizations stood by us throughout this process. As Sen. Cheuvront said in his remarks, this kind of experience divides friends and foes very quickly. We are truly humbled at the number of allies from around the state and every walk of life that emerged to assist with strategy. A heartfelt thank you goes to the many supporters that helped build messaging and programs that allowed us to do this work.
We will regain our footing, strengthen our resolve and decide collectively – as a statewide movement for equality - the ways in which we will turn this experience into one which empowers Arizona voters to create a fair and just society.
Despite an amazing process, coercion and corruption won out today in Arizona's Legislature.
But tomorrow is a new day.
Yours in equality,
Barbara McCullough-Jones
Executive Director
and
Sam Holdren
Public Affairs Director
A MESSAGE FROM EQUALITY ARIZONA:
We just got back from the state Capitol, where the Senate voted to force another constitutional amendment to define marriage on the ballot. What happened tonight was disgraceful, but that doesn't change the fact that we will be facing another anti-LGBT amendment this November. It's true. The Arizona Legislature caved to the coercion of a little-known group, the Center for Arizona Policy, led by an extremist fundamentalist -- Cathi Herrod. The Legislature ignored the people of Arizona, who already voted down a similar amendment. The Senate approved Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1042 tonight, and they broke the rules, along with the sanctity of the Senate, to do so.
How Your Senator Voted
SCR 1042 was brought to the floor of the Senate for reconsideration tonight. It passed with the 16 votes it needed. Below is the list of how your Senator voted.
Find out who your Senator is by clicking here.
Yes
Sylvia Allen (R-5)Robert Blendu (R-12)Robert "Bob" Burns (R-9)Pamela Gorman (R-6)Ron Gould (R-3)Chuck Gray (R-19)Linda Gray (R-10)Jack W. Harper (R-4)John Huppenthal (R-20)Karen Johnson (R-18)Barbara Leff (R-11)Tom O'Halleran (R-1)Jay Tibshraeny (R-21)Thayer Verschoor (R-22)Jim Waring (R-7)Timothy S. Bee (R-30)
No
Paula Aboud (D-28)Meg Burton Cahill (D-17)Ken Cheuvront (D-15)Jorge Luis Garcia (D-27)
Not Voting (Absent)
Amanda Aguirre (D-24)Carolyn S. Allen (R-8)Marsha Arzberger (D-25)Albert Hale (D-2)Leah Landrum Taylor (D-16)Debbie McCune Davis (D-14)Richard Miranda (D-16)Charlene Pesquiera (D-26)Rebecca Rios (D-23)Victor Soltero (D-29)
To see how your Senator voted on this bill originally on Wednesday, click here.
Integrity Lost
Tonight's debate was intense for everyone on the Senate floor and those of us watching in the gallery. But what happened to our openly-gay Senators by their colleagues was absolutely disgusting. Senate extremists strategically broke the rules of the Senate, which govern the processes for discussion and voting on bills. During a filibuster-like discussion on another bill during Committee of the Whole, Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor (R-22) and Majority Whip John Huppenthal (R-20), among others, devised a scheme with committee chairman Jack Harper (R-4) to outright violate the rules of the Senate and the rights of Senators Aboud and Cheuvront.
In the middle of their discussion, Senator Harper turned off the microphones of Senators Paula Aboud (D-28) and Ken Cheuvront (D-15) and called on the Majority Leader to make a motion. Then, when Senators Aboud and Cheuvront loudly called for a Point of Order several times, even walking to the front desk where Senator Harper sat, he deliberately ignored their calls. To add insult to injury, these people attempted to justify their actions, even after the Senate President and other Senators admonished them for deliberately breaking the rules. Tonight's actions of these and other Senators have forever tainted that body, and it's important that we all let the people of Arizona know how these individuals acted so unethically.
Heroes Emerge
In the end, it was Senators Aboud and Cheuvront who gave the most impassioned remarks ever heard on the floor of the Arizona Senate.
Senator Aboud spoke eloquently about the irrational fear Senators were expressing by their yes vote, asking, "Do I scare you?" She talked about family values that matter, like love, caring for elder parents and hospital visitation rights, and reminded her colleagues that these are all rights currently denied to people who cannot marry.
After listening to Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-5) describe what she considered her moral superiority to protect families citing civilization from the 18th century and how same-sex marriage will signal the end of civilization as we know if today, Sen. Cheuvront hit the majority hard when he defined the many ways in which the integrity of the Senate was lost today.
Accurately listing the many ways in which the legislative process was prostituted for political gain, Sen. Cheuvront admonished fellow Republican Senators by exposing the tactics of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). This sentiment was echoed by Senate President Bee, who pointed out the extreme measures that CAP used to secure votes, while he was explaining his vote on the bill.
Today's Senate session was the culmination of not just a battle over a bill introduced at the beginning of the session in January but in fact was the end result of CAP's tantrum over the defeat of Prop 107 in 2006. Having lost this session on several other bills, including abstinence-only, abortion, school vouchers and a number of other issues, CAP needed this win to fill their coffers.
No one can deny this bill was nothing more than a referendum on the LGBT community – a political fundraiser to fuel the anti-gay industry in Arizona.
Both Sen. Cheuvront and Representative Steve Gallardo sent messages to those in both chambers, stating those who would vote for this divisive measure may not be very secure in their positions after this session and once voters realize how abusive and out of touch they really are.
Preparing for Tomorrow
No doubt we will see a mix of emotions from anger to sadness, and the worst part is the backlash of violence that often accompanies these actions. As a community we must unite like never before. Our resolve must be unwavering to change the faces of those who cast votes that affect so many lives.
We at Equality Arizona are incredibly proud of those who stood with us throughout this session. Our allies in the Legislature who provided leadership, encouragement and strategic advice were invaluable. We owe a debt of gratitude to Reps. Kyrsten Sinema, Linda Lopez, Robert Meza, Steve Gallardo and others. In the other chamber our heroes are Sens. Paula Aboud, Ken Cheuvront, Debbie McCune-Davis, Jorge Luis Garcia and Meg Burton-Cahill.
In addition to elected officials many individuals and organizations stood by us throughout this process. As Sen. Cheuvront said in his remarks, this kind of experience divides friends and foes very quickly. We are truly humbled at the number of allies from around the state and every walk of life that emerged to assist with strategy. A heartfelt thank you goes to the many supporters that helped build messaging and programs that allowed us to do this work.
We will regain our footing, strengthen our resolve and decide collectively – as a statewide movement for equality - the ways in which we will turn this experience into one which empowers Arizona voters to create a fair and just society.
Despite an amazing process, coercion and corruption won out today in Arizona's Legislature.
But tomorrow is a new day.
Yours in equality,
Barbara McCullough-Jones
Executive Director
and
Sam Holdren
Public Affairs Director
Friday, June 20, 2008
Jason Johnson Scholarship
This year the KFA Foundation will award $1,500 to an outstanding undergraduate or graduate student. Download the application for more information! Applications are due by Aug. 15.
Those interested in learning more about the scholarship or making a tax-deductible donation in support of it can do so by contacting me directly at jodycofer@bellsouth.net.
~Jody
Those interested in learning more about the scholarship or making a tax-deductible donation in support of it can do so by contacting me directly at jodycofer@bellsouth.net.
~Jody
Thursday, June 5, 2008
HRC's Camp Equality in Cincy
KFA has become a partner in HRC’s Camp Equality taking place in Cincinati on July 12 and 13. HRC’s Camp Equality is a program touring the country in strategic areas (Phoenix, Houston, Cincy, Columbus, etc.). It is an interactive training program that combines lectures, discussions, and real-life simulations with a goal to increase the community’s ability to play in the 2008 elections. HRC will be doing some blast e-mails shortly regarding the Cincy camp. KFA will also be releasing an e-mail or two on the matter.
Additional information about Camp Equality as well as registration information can be found online at www.hrc.org/campequality. While the programming is covered by HRC, they require a registration fee of $35 for materials and food.
Are you interested in attending? Watch for an e-mail about this from KFA in the near future.
~Jody
Additional information about Camp Equality as well as registration information can be found online at www.hrc.org/campequality. While the programming is covered by HRC, they require a registration fee of $35 for materials and food.
Are you interested in attending? Watch for an e-mail about this from KFA in the near future.
~Jody
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Big Easy: Bad Decision?
I read just now that there is a little bit of debate beginning among the American Political Science Association, one if not "the" professional organization for political sciences folks, over the choice for their 2012 national convention. New Orleans is where it is scheduled to be held. Apparently, the problem is regarding that state’s “defense of marriage” amendment that was adopted in 2004, the same year as Kentucky’s. Some members of the association reportedly are saying that attending could put them and their partners at certain risks such as if an attendee has a health problem and has to go to the hospital while there, his or her partner’s power to make decisions could be denied.
Proponents of the association convening in New Orleans argue that the city needs support as it continues to rebound from Hurricane Katrina. Also, some argue that New Orleans has historically been very tolerant towards the lgbt community; I’d agree, I’ve never heard someone among the lgbt community discuss a bad time in the big easy, but the above mentioned risks made me pause. Christopher Fettweis, faculty member at Tulane University, says he supports gay rights, but given New Orleans historical tolerance feels that this is “A bizarre place to choose to make a stand on the issue”.
There are already talks of boycotting, such as being done by the political-science department at Chapman University.
The association’s governing council will meet in June to discuss this matter. The contract for the conference was negociated in 2003, but did leave a loophole to withdraw if the City of New Orleans "enacts or enforces" laws that violate civil rights, including on the basis of sexual orientation (according to the Chronicle of Higher Education). The association is seeking input from its members on this matter. If you have feelings on this, you should contact a political-science faculty member at one of your nearest University. They (the member) can comment online at www.apsanet.org. If you don’t know anyone in a position like that, post feedback on here and I’ll share with someone I know.
So, what do you think? Good reason to take a stand? Could this hit Kentucky one day? Could some national association wish to gather in the Bluegrass State and it fall apart because of our “Anti-Marriage Amendment”?
~Jody
Proponents of the association convening in New Orleans argue that the city needs support as it continues to rebound from Hurricane Katrina. Also, some argue that New Orleans has historically been very tolerant towards the lgbt community; I’d agree, I’ve never heard someone among the lgbt community discuss a bad time in the big easy, but the above mentioned risks made me pause. Christopher Fettweis, faculty member at Tulane University, says he supports gay rights, but given New Orleans historical tolerance feels that this is “A bizarre place to choose to make a stand on the issue”.
There are already talks of boycotting, such as being done by the political-science department at Chapman University.
The association’s governing council will meet in June to discuss this matter. The contract for the conference was negociated in 2003, but did leave a loophole to withdraw if the City of New Orleans "enacts or enforces" laws that violate civil rights, including on the basis of sexual orientation (according to the Chronicle of Higher Education). The association is seeking input from its members on this matter. If you have feelings on this, you should contact a political-science faculty member at one of your nearest University. They (the member) can comment online at www.apsanet.org. If you don’t know anyone in a position like that, post feedback on here and I’ll share with someone I know.
So, what do you think? Good reason to take a stand? Could this hit Kentucky one day? Could some national association wish to gather in the Bluegrass State and it fall apart because of our “Anti-Marriage Amendment”?
~Jody
Thursday, May 22, 2008
"Get Busy. Get Equal."
Get Busy. Get Equal. That is what I’m reading and hearing from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Last week, they launched their new program entitled “Get Busy. Get Equal.” as part of their LGBT Project. It’s an “online toolkit” for the activist community that doesn’t have much experience in organizing. Its creation spun out of an incident in Arkansas where a couple locals decided that their town needed a domestic partner registry. As they state in their release about the program’s launch, “people who stood up to the New York City police at Stonewall to the students at BOYD COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL IN EASTERN KENTUCKY who persisted until they were allowed to form a Gay-Straight Alliance in their school” are what local organizing is all about. Checkout this new online toolkit.
~Jody
~Jody
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Blog from The Bilerico Project by Toni Broaddus
Victory in California
Filed by: Guest Blogger
May 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Editors' Note: Guest blogger Toni Broaddus is the Executive Director of theEquality Federation. The Federation is the national alliance of state-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations.
Just over an hour ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of equality and justice by extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. The Court overturned Proposition 22 - a statute enacted by the voters in 2000 - along with other legal provisions that would prevent loving and committed couples from getting marriage licenses. I haven't managed to read the entire 172-page document yet, but I know the only important thing that matters right now: WE WON.
Like everyone else at the Equality Federation offices here in San Francisco - and in workplaces across the country, I am overwhelmed by emotion. I cannot stop laughing and crying at the same time.
This may be a historical decision but it is extremely personal as well. For me, the political and personal are so intertwined on this issue that I can no longer separate them. I have been happily partnered for fifteen years, and Janice and I have registered as domestic partners in multiple cities and before notaries to satisfy employer requirements and of course in the state of California, where we live. In 2004, we were married at City Hall in San Francisco - and six months later, we were "divorced" by the court when our marriage was deemed invalid. Last September, my daughter married her girlfriend in Massachusetts.
TODAY'S HISTORIC DECISION
I worked on the campaign to defeat Proposition 22 in 2000 - and I can tell you that those of us who poured our hearts into that campaign are feeling especially vindicated today by the Court's clear repudiation of that ill-conceived law. After the campaign, I started a marriage organization in California that later merged into Equality California, where I was part of the team that passed the landmark comprehensive domestic partnership law in the state - laying the groundwork for marriage equality. Now I lead Equality Federation - the national alliance of state-based lgbt equality groups - where we work to build strong organizations in the states that can lead our movement to victories like the one we have in California today.
I am overjoyed today. But I am also nervous. Anti-gay forces have submitted the signatures for a ballot measure in November that would take away the right to marriage by amending the California constitution to deny so many of us Californians our equality.
We must not lose in California in November. Just as we did in Massachusetts, we must protect our equality. And it will take our entire movement - not just Californians - to ensure that we keep the right to marry in the second state to extend that right. This is absolutely critical, not only for Californians, but for every other state across this country where we continue to work for victories like the one in my state today.
NATIONAL STAGE
We now have two states with constitutional guarantees of marriage equality. But we still have 26 state constitutional amendments and 38 state statutes expressly prohibiting marriage equality. Thanks in part to the momentum that today's California decision will create, we have very real opportunities to expand the number of marriage equality states in the next two years.
Currently, our best chances for new marriage victories are in New Jersey and New York. Despite bitter losses in the courts there, both New Jersey's Garden State Equality and New York's Empire State Pride Agenda are aggressively pursuing marriage equality in their legislatures and victory is within our reach. We also have marriage litigation pending in Iowa and Connecticut. In both those states, equality groups (One Iowa and Love Makes a Family, respectively) are also working to build legislative support for marriage equality.
All across America, state equality groups are pursuing the passage of relationship recognition laws even when their constitutions and state laws prevent them from pursuing full equality. Our progress is steady, even if it feels slow. But in less than a decade, state legislatures have approved comprehensive civil unions or domestic partnership laws in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, California and Oregon. Maine and Washington have joined early achievers Hawai'i and DC to pass domestic partnership laws and incremental expansion of those laws is planned.
What we have learned from our successes and our setbacks in the states is that we must fight this battle on multiple fronts. Even in Massachusetts, we could not rest on the ruling of the court. We also had to win in the legislature, and we had to win the hearts and minds of the people. This is the challenge we face in every single state.
WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN: THE CALIFORNIA STORY
In California, the strategy to win marriage equality has been thoughtful, complex, and engaged in every available forum. We took great leaps forward and suffered serious disappointments along the way, but we have been intentionally building momentum for nearly a decade.
The strategy and the story are similar in every state. Our state equality organizations are introducing legislation, electing supportive legislators, conducting ongoing public education campaigns, fighting ballot measures, and working with our legal organizations to increase the likelihood of our success in the courts. In California, all of these tactics have been in play simultaneously.
California's first domestic partnership law passed in 1999, but in 2000 the voters approved one of the first statewide ballot measures banning marriage equality. Perhaps not as bold as they later became, anti-gay activists in California did not propose a constitutional amendment - something they have managed to pass in 26 states since then. Instead, California got a statute stating that "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in California." That was a critical mistake on the part of our opponents, as it left us with both hope and strategies tied to the California Constitution.
Over the next few years, the domestic partnership law was amended several times, most significantly in 2003. By 2006 the law was essentially the equivalent of what other states call civil unions - nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of marriage by another name. Just as in every other state (even Massachusetts), California domestic partners remain unrecognized by federal law and most other state laws.
In early 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom made headlines around the world when he announced that The City would issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. It was a magical moment that did not stop for weeks, as thousands of couples flocked to City Hall to make their commitments legal. This victory was short-lived, however. The California Supreme Court declared the marriages invalid. But they invited us to file suit to overturn the law that they had decided the Mayor must obey.
The City of San Francisco accepted the invitation, as did numerous couples and Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU. Three years ago, the California marriage cases began winding their way through the halls of justice.
In the meantime, Equality California and our elected champions worked ceaselessly to garner support for a marriage equality bill. In 2005, California's state legislature became the first in the nation to pass such a bill. It was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Undaunted - and after all supporters of the bill were re-elected - the legislature passed marriage equality a second time in 2007. Schwarzenegger again vetoed the bill.
Now we face a painful ballot measure in November. But unlike the ballot measures fights in other states - we will have married couples whose dignity and rights would be stripped away by this constitutional amendment. We will have story after story of the joy and dignity people have experienced by marrying. We can win and must win this fight - if we do not, it will set us back in states across the country where we continue our steady progress toward equality.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
We are not done. This is a joyous day and we should celebrate. But tomorrow, we must double and triple our efforts in California and New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and Iowa to seize this momentum, protect equality where we have it, and win marriage equality where we are already poised to do so.
Everyone knows that, someday, we must and we will achieve recognition of our marriages from the federal government. But that day will come only after we have achieved true marriage equality in a critical mass of states. We have to do this one state at a time.
How do we do it?
We have to be incredibly focused on the work that happens every day in our states. We have to learn to speak with unity even when we disagree. We have to elect good legislators to our state house and we have to hold them accountable. We have to attend lobby days, send emails, volunteer, pick up the phone. We have to support our state advocacy organizations so that we can act as a community to sponsor legislation, support candidates, and join our voices together to demand the birthright of every American: equality and justice for all.
We have to give money. Repeat: we have to give money. Our community lags behind every other minority community in its percentage of charitable giving. Many of you do give, and you give generously. But many of you do not, and we need your help. And many of you give to national organizations - but you overlook the state organizations in your own backyards. This battle is in the states - please, get involved with your state equality group. You, too, can make history. In fact, together we will change the world.
For more information on the California campaign to protect marriage equality in November, visit Equality for All.
To get connected to the work in your state, visit http://www.equalityfederation.org/.
Filed by: Guest Blogger
May 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Editors' Note: Guest blogger Toni Broaddus is the Executive Director of theEquality Federation. The Federation is the national alliance of state-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations.
Just over an hour ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of equality and justice by extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. The Court overturned Proposition 22 - a statute enacted by the voters in 2000 - along with other legal provisions that would prevent loving and committed couples from getting marriage licenses. I haven't managed to read the entire 172-page document yet, but I know the only important thing that matters right now: WE WON.
Like everyone else at the Equality Federation offices here in San Francisco - and in workplaces across the country, I am overwhelmed by emotion. I cannot stop laughing and crying at the same time.
This may be a historical decision but it is extremely personal as well. For me, the political and personal are so intertwined on this issue that I can no longer separate them. I have been happily partnered for fifteen years, and Janice and I have registered as domestic partners in multiple cities and before notaries to satisfy employer requirements and of course in the state of California, where we live. In 2004, we were married at City Hall in San Francisco - and six months later, we were "divorced" by the court when our marriage was deemed invalid. Last September, my daughter married her girlfriend in Massachusetts.
TODAY'S HISTORIC DECISION
I worked on the campaign to defeat Proposition 22 in 2000 - and I can tell you that those of us who poured our hearts into that campaign are feeling especially vindicated today by the Court's clear repudiation of that ill-conceived law. After the campaign, I started a marriage organization in California that later merged into Equality California, where I was part of the team that passed the landmark comprehensive domestic partnership law in the state - laying the groundwork for marriage equality. Now I lead Equality Federation - the national alliance of state-based lgbt equality groups - where we work to build strong organizations in the states that can lead our movement to victories like the one we have in California today.
I am overjoyed today. But I am also nervous. Anti-gay forces have submitted the signatures for a ballot measure in November that would take away the right to marriage by amending the California constitution to deny so many of us Californians our equality.
We must not lose in California in November. Just as we did in Massachusetts, we must protect our equality. And it will take our entire movement - not just Californians - to ensure that we keep the right to marry in the second state to extend that right. This is absolutely critical, not only for Californians, but for every other state across this country where we continue to work for victories like the one in my state today.
NATIONAL STAGE
We now have two states with constitutional guarantees of marriage equality. But we still have 26 state constitutional amendments and 38 state statutes expressly prohibiting marriage equality. Thanks in part to the momentum that today's California decision will create, we have very real opportunities to expand the number of marriage equality states in the next two years.
Currently, our best chances for new marriage victories are in New Jersey and New York. Despite bitter losses in the courts there, both New Jersey's Garden State Equality and New York's Empire State Pride Agenda are aggressively pursuing marriage equality in their legislatures and victory is within our reach. We also have marriage litigation pending in Iowa and Connecticut. In both those states, equality groups (One Iowa and Love Makes a Family, respectively) are also working to build legislative support for marriage equality.
All across America, state equality groups are pursuing the passage of relationship recognition laws even when their constitutions and state laws prevent them from pursuing full equality. Our progress is steady, even if it feels slow. But in less than a decade, state legislatures have approved comprehensive civil unions or domestic partnership laws in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, California and Oregon. Maine and Washington have joined early achievers Hawai'i and DC to pass domestic partnership laws and incremental expansion of those laws is planned.
What we have learned from our successes and our setbacks in the states is that we must fight this battle on multiple fronts. Even in Massachusetts, we could not rest on the ruling of the court. We also had to win in the legislature, and we had to win the hearts and minds of the people. This is the challenge we face in every single state.
WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN: THE CALIFORNIA STORY
In California, the strategy to win marriage equality has been thoughtful, complex, and engaged in every available forum. We took great leaps forward and suffered serious disappointments along the way, but we have been intentionally building momentum for nearly a decade.
The strategy and the story are similar in every state. Our state equality organizations are introducing legislation, electing supportive legislators, conducting ongoing public education campaigns, fighting ballot measures, and working with our legal organizations to increase the likelihood of our success in the courts. In California, all of these tactics have been in play simultaneously.
California's first domestic partnership law passed in 1999, but in 2000 the voters approved one of the first statewide ballot measures banning marriage equality. Perhaps not as bold as they later became, anti-gay activists in California did not propose a constitutional amendment - something they have managed to pass in 26 states since then. Instead, California got a statute stating that "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in California." That was a critical mistake on the part of our opponents, as it left us with both hope and strategies tied to the California Constitution.
Over the next few years, the domestic partnership law was amended several times, most significantly in 2003. By 2006 the law was essentially the equivalent of what other states call civil unions - nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of marriage by another name. Just as in every other state (even Massachusetts), California domestic partners remain unrecognized by federal law and most other state laws.
In early 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom made headlines around the world when he announced that The City would issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. It was a magical moment that did not stop for weeks, as thousands of couples flocked to City Hall to make their commitments legal. This victory was short-lived, however. The California Supreme Court declared the marriages invalid. But they invited us to file suit to overturn the law that they had decided the Mayor must obey.
The City of San Francisco accepted the invitation, as did numerous couples and Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU. Three years ago, the California marriage cases began winding their way through the halls of justice.
In the meantime, Equality California and our elected champions worked ceaselessly to garner support for a marriage equality bill. In 2005, California's state legislature became the first in the nation to pass such a bill. It was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Undaunted - and after all supporters of the bill were re-elected - the legislature passed marriage equality a second time in 2007. Schwarzenegger again vetoed the bill.
Now we face a painful ballot measure in November. But unlike the ballot measures fights in other states - we will have married couples whose dignity and rights would be stripped away by this constitutional amendment. We will have story after story of the joy and dignity people have experienced by marrying. We can win and must win this fight - if we do not, it will set us back in states across the country where we continue our steady progress toward equality.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
We are not done. This is a joyous day and we should celebrate. But tomorrow, we must double and triple our efforts in California and New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and Iowa to seize this momentum, protect equality where we have it, and win marriage equality where we are already poised to do so.
Everyone knows that, someday, we must and we will achieve recognition of our marriages from the federal government. But that day will come only after we have achieved true marriage equality in a critical mass of states. We have to do this one state at a time.
How do we do it?
We have to be incredibly focused on the work that happens every day in our states. We have to learn to speak with unity even when we disagree. We have to elect good legislators to our state house and we have to hold them accountable. We have to attend lobby days, send emails, volunteer, pick up the phone. We have to support our state advocacy organizations so that we can act as a community to sponsor legislation, support candidates, and join our voices together to demand the birthright of every American: equality and justice for all.
We have to give money. Repeat: we have to give money. Our community lags behind every other minority community in its percentage of charitable giving. Many of you do give, and you give generously. But many of you do not, and we need your help. And many of you give to national organizations - but you overlook the state organizations in your own backyards. This battle is in the states - please, get involved with your state equality group. You, too, can make history. In fact, together we will change the world.
For more information on the California campaign to protect marriage equality in November, visit Equality for All.
To get connected to the work in your state, visit http://www.equalityfederation.org/.
CA Celebrates Marriage Equality
Release from the national Equality Federation for which KFA is a member.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008
CONTACT:
Toni Broaddus, 415-252-0510
EQUALITY FEDERATION CELEBRATES MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA
Equality California Key to Success of Multi-Year Marriage Effort
Today, California becomes the second state to guarantee marriage equality for all of its citizens. This historic decision by the California Supreme Court is a victory for fairness and opportunity for hundreds of thousands of loving, committed couples and their families in California.
“The decision is historic but the joy is very personal for families all across California, knowing that we are finally able to have the basic protections and opportunities that come with marriage,” said Toni Broaddus, Equality Federation executive director. “Across America, millions more continue to work and hope for a day like this one in their own state.”
Equality Federation member group Equality California (EQCA) was one of the plaintiffs in the case and was instrumental in passing marriage equality legislation twice in the state legislature..
“This is a profound and wonderful moment in the history of the marriage movement,” said Geoff Kors, EQCA executive director. “The California Supreme Court has done its job to ensure that all citizens of this state are treated equally under the law. Every loving and committed couple deserves the dignity and support that comes with marriage.”
Across the country, state equality groups are working to ensure that families of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have the same rights and responsibilities as all other families. Currently, marriage litigation is pending in Iowa and Connecticut, where Federation member groups One Iowa and Love Makes a Family, respectively, are leading efforts to educate the public about the need for basic fairness for all families. In New Jersey, Garden State Equality is aggressively pursuing marriage equality through the legislature, as is New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda in theirs. In states with marriage bans, state equality groups continue to explore other options for providing basic protections for LGBT families.
“Most Americans believe that marriage equality will be a reality in their lifetimes,” noted Broaddus. “Equality Federation member organizations in every corner of this country are working hard to achieve the American dream of equality and justice for all. We are all inspired by the California marriage decision and look forward to the day when every American in every state and territory will have the opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams by marrying the person they love.”
###
Equality Federation is a national alliance of statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy organizations working to achieve equality in every state and territory by building a state-based movement. For more information, visit our website at www.equalityfederation.org.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008
CONTACT:
Toni Broaddus, 415-252-0510
EQUALITY FEDERATION CELEBRATES MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA
Equality California Key to Success of Multi-Year Marriage Effort
Today, California becomes the second state to guarantee marriage equality for all of its citizens. This historic decision by the California Supreme Court is a victory for fairness and opportunity for hundreds of thousands of loving, committed couples and their families in California.
“The decision is historic but the joy is very personal for families all across California, knowing that we are finally able to have the basic protections and opportunities that come with marriage,” said Toni Broaddus, Equality Federation executive director. “Across America, millions more continue to work and hope for a day like this one in their own state.”
Equality Federation member group Equality California (EQCA) was one of the plaintiffs in the case and was instrumental in passing marriage equality legislation twice in the state legislature..
“This is a profound and wonderful moment in the history of the marriage movement,” said Geoff Kors, EQCA executive director. “The California Supreme Court has done its job to ensure that all citizens of this state are treated equally under the law. Every loving and committed couple deserves the dignity and support that comes with marriage.”
Across the country, state equality groups are working to ensure that families of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have the same rights and responsibilities as all other families. Currently, marriage litigation is pending in Iowa and Connecticut, where Federation member groups One Iowa and Love Makes a Family, respectively, are leading efforts to educate the public about the need for basic fairness for all families. In New Jersey, Garden State Equality is aggressively pursuing marriage equality through the legislature, as is New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda in theirs. In states with marriage bans, state equality groups continue to explore other options for providing basic protections for LGBT families.
“Most Americans believe that marriage equality will be a reality in their lifetimes,” noted Broaddus. “Equality Federation member organizations in every corner of this country are working hard to achieve the American dream of equality and justice for all. We are all inspired by the California marriage decision and look forward to the day when every American in every state and territory will have the opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams by marrying the person they love.”
###
Equality Federation is a national alliance of statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy organizations working to achieve equality in every state and territory by building a state-based movement. For more information, visit our website at www.equalityfederation.org.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Fairness in Florida
CONGRATS for Fairness in Florida!
Federal Judge Rules That Students Can’t Be Barred From Expressing Support for Gay PeoplePrincipal Said Rainbows Are “Sexually Suggestive”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 13, 2008
CONTACT: Chris Hampton, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, (212)549-2673 Alexandra Bassil, ACLU of Florida, (786) 363-2700 Paul Cates, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, (212) 549-2568
PANAMA CITY, FL – After a two-day trial in which a Florida high schoolprincipal testified that he believed clothing or stickers featuringrainbows would make students automatically picture gay people having sex,a federal judge today ruled that the school violated students’ FirstAmendment rights of students. The case was brought by the American CivilLiberties Union on behalf of a junior at the school who had beenforbidden by her principal to wear any sort of clothing, stickers,buttons, or symbols to show her support of equal rights for gay people. “Standing up to my school was really hard to do, but I’m so happy that Idid because the First Amendment is a big deal to everyone,” said HeatherGillman, a junior at Ponce de Leon High School and the plaintiff in thecase. Judge Richard Smoak of the United States District Court, NorthernDistrict of Florida, Panama City Division, issued an order that forcesthe school to stop its unconstitutional censorship of students who wantto express their support for the fair and equal treatment of gay people. The judge also warned the district not to retaliate against students overthe lawsuit. “Freedom of speech for every person and every idea is one of the bedrockprinciples on which America was founded,” said Christine Sun, a staffattorney with the ACLU national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project.“Censorship reflects a deep lack of faith in the American system, and itteaches students exactly the wrong lesson on what America is about. Weare thrilled that the court in this case made the importance of students’First Amendment rights so completely clear.” The case came about after Heather Gillman and other students approachedthe ACLU about an atmosphere in which students say they were routinelyintimidated by school officials for things like writing “gay pride” ontheir arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing. Accordingto students, problems began in September of 2007 when a lesbian studenttried to report to school officials that she was being harassed by otherstudents because she is a lesbian. Instead of addressing the harassment,students say the school responded with intimidation, censorship, andsuspensions. That student testified on Monday, breaking down on thestand as she described the school’s indifference to the harassment sheexperienced. During the trial, which was held in Panama City yesterday and today,Ponce de Leon High School’s principal David Davis admitted under oaththat he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbolssupporting equal rights for gay people. Davis also testified that hebelieved rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make studentsunable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind. The principal went on to admit that while censoring rainbows and gaypride messages he allowed students to wear other symbols many findcontroversial, such as the Confederate flag. “I am very pleased with the judge’s ruling to uphold the students’ rightto express their views on issues that are important to them,” saidBenjamin James Stevenson, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. “This whole experience has been important civics lesson about exercisingour Bill of Rights.” Ponce de Leon High School is located halfway between Pensacola andTallahassee, in Florida’s panhandle. According to the school’s website,about 400 students are enrolled there. Heather Gillman is represented byStevenson and Robert Rosenwald of the ACLU of Florida, Sun of the ACLULesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, and Garrard Beeney, MauraMiller, Meg Holzer, Megan Bradley, Tom Laughlin, and Vincent Liu ofSullivan & Cromwell, LLC. Gillman v. Holmes County School District, case no. 5:08-cv-34, was heardin the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida. A copyof the ACLU’s complaint as well as the earlier letter and the school’sresponse can be downloaded athttp://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/33859res20080131.html<http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/33859res20080131.html> . For more information on the ACLU’s LGBT advocacy work, visitwww.aclufl.org or www.aclu.org/lgbt.
Federal Judge Rules That Students Can’t Be Barred From Expressing Support for Gay PeoplePrincipal Said Rainbows Are “Sexually Suggestive”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 13, 2008
CONTACT: Chris Hampton, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, (212)549-2673 Alexandra Bassil, ACLU of Florida, (786) 363-2700 Paul Cates, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, (212) 549-2568
PANAMA CITY, FL – After a two-day trial in which a Florida high schoolprincipal testified that he believed clothing or stickers featuringrainbows would make students automatically picture gay people having sex,a federal judge today ruled that the school violated students’ FirstAmendment rights of students. The case was brought by the American CivilLiberties Union on behalf of a junior at the school who had beenforbidden by her principal to wear any sort of clothing, stickers,buttons, or symbols to show her support of equal rights for gay people. “Standing up to my school was really hard to do, but I’m so happy that Idid because the First Amendment is a big deal to everyone,” said HeatherGillman, a junior at Ponce de Leon High School and the plaintiff in thecase. Judge Richard Smoak of the United States District Court, NorthernDistrict of Florida, Panama City Division, issued an order that forcesthe school to stop its unconstitutional censorship of students who wantto express their support for the fair and equal treatment of gay people. The judge also warned the district not to retaliate against students overthe lawsuit. “Freedom of speech for every person and every idea is one of the bedrockprinciples on which America was founded,” said Christine Sun, a staffattorney with the ACLU national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project.“Censorship reflects a deep lack of faith in the American system, and itteaches students exactly the wrong lesson on what America is about. Weare thrilled that the court in this case made the importance of students’First Amendment rights so completely clear.” The case came about after Heather Gillman and other students approachedthe ACLU about an atmosphere in which students say they were routinelyintimidated by school officials for things like writing “gay pride” ontheir arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing. Accordingto students, problems began in September of 2007 when a lesbian studenttried to report to school officials that she was being harassed by otherstudents because she is a lesbian. Instead of addressing the harassment,students say the school responded with intimidation, censorship, andsuspensions. That student testified on Monday, breaking down on thestand as she described the school’s indifference to the harassment sheexperienced. During the trial, which was held in Panama City yesterday and today,Ponce de Leon High School’s principal David Davis admitted under oaththat he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbolssupporting equal rights for gay people. Davis also testified that hebelieved rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make studentsunable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind. The principal went on to admit that while censoring rainbows and gaypride messages he allowed students to wear other symbols many findcontroversial, such as the Confederate flag. “I am very pleased with the judge’s ruling to uphold the students’ rightto express their views on issues that are important to them,” saidBenjamin James Stevenson, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. “This whole experience has been important civics lesson about exercisingour Bill of Rights.” Ponce de Leon High School is located halfway between Pensacola andTallahassee, in Florida’s panhandle. According to the school’s website,about 400 students are enrolled there. Heather Gillman is represented byStevenson and Robert Rosenwald of the ACLU of Florida, Sun of the ACLULesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, and Garrard Beeney, MauraMiller, Meg Holzer, Megan Bradley, Tom Laughlin, and Vincent Liu ofSullivan & Cromwell, LLC. Gillman v. Holmes County School District, case no. 5:08-cv-34, was heardin the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida. A copyof the ACLU’s complaint as well as the earlier letter and the school’sresponse can be downloaded athttp://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/33859res20080131.html<http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/33859res20080131.html> . For more information on the ACLU’s LGBT advocacy work, visitwww.aclufl.org or www.aclu.org/lgbt.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Gay & Lesbian Films THIS JUNE!
Hey, folks: When you thought that your June was filled to the max, guess what we’re doing? KFA has partnered with Apex Village 8 Theatres in Louisville to host the first annual Gay & Lesbian Film Series. Films will be shown each week and a tentative line-up with information about the films coming so far are listed below. Information will be coming out soon on the Kick-Off Gala! Visit http://www.apextheatres.com/glfs/glfs_index.htm, as well as KFA’s website at www.kentuckyfairness.org, for updates on the films being shown and logistics. This is an exciting partnership and going to be really good for the lgbt community across Kentucky.
Shelter (June 6-12): http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/movies/28shel.html?ref=movies
The Witnesses (June 13-19): http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/386349/The-Witnesses/overview
Kiss The Bride (June 13-19): http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/400831/Kiss-the-Bride/overview
Holding Trevor (June 20-26): http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18260
Apex Village 8 Theatres are located at 4014 Dutchmans Lane, Louisville, KY.
Shelter (June 6-12): http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/movies/28shel.html?ref=movies
The Witnesses (June 13-19): http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/386349/The-Witnesses/overview
Kiss The Bride (June 13-19): http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/400831/Kiss-the-Bride/overview
Holding Trevor (June 20-26): http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18260
Apex Village 8 Theatres are located at 4014 Dutchmans Lane, Louisville, KY.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
NKU
We've all had a chance to see the good news from NKU by now and below is a nice editorial from The Enquirer. I've seen at least one e-mail from a fairness supporter that questioned the goodness associated with NKU's actions. No, NKU's plan does not use any state appropriated funds, but rather it simply makes an opportunity available for individuals to take out such plans on their own dime. The individual pointed out that a quick check of Humana's site shows that someone can "sign up for insurance for a comparable amount without going through their NKU partner." So, the individual asked what benefit is this recent action? I tend to disagree and see it in a way similar to this editorial below. What do you think? Is making the option available through one's employer not the smart and progress way to go even if it is at the employee's expense?
~Jody
NKU offering the right benefits option
Editorial - The Enquirer
We applaud the decision of the Northern Kentucky University regents to offer health-care benefits to domestic partners as a practical, humane and economically viable approach to the reality of employment relations.
The proposal, approved Monday, will allow employees to add family members or others to their health plan even when a spouse is not covered. Those covered would have to live in the employee's household for at least a year and be "financially interdependent" with the employee. The cost of the extra covered person would be paid by the employee, not the university.
This plan takes into account non-traditional family groups that are common in today's society. The plan could cover a sibling or an adult child. Obviously, family groups also include same-sex couples, which prompt negative reactions in some quarters, including from some members of the state legislature. State Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, supported an unsuccessful bill this year that would have banned state universities from offering benefits to same-sex partners.
But the regents are not supporting any particular lifestyle with this action. They simply recognize such benefit packages as a necessary in the competitive environment for top-notch faculty. The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville already offer such plans. The University of Cincinnati adopted a similar plan last year.
Enabling employees to provide for the health coverage of all members of their "family" group is a humane approach to benefits coverage. Why should an employee not be allowed to provide coverage for a financial dependent, especially when the cost of the extended coverage is being paid by the employee, not the taxpayers? Worrying about how a family is constituted should not be the concern of the university or the state.
~Jody
NKU offering the right benefits option
Editorial - The Enquirer
We applaud the decision of the Northern Kentucky University regents to offer health-care benefits to domestic partners as a practical, humane and economically viable approach to the reality of employment relations.
The proposal, approved Monday, will allow employees to add family members or others to their health plan even when a spouse is not covered. Those covered would have to live in the employee's household for at least a year and be "financially interdependent" with the employee. The cost of the extra covered person would be paid by the employee, not the university.
This plan takes into account non-traditional family groups that are common in today's society. The plan could cover a sibling or an adult child. Obviously, family groups also include same-sex couples, which prompt negative reactions in some quarters, including from some members of the state legislature. State Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, supported an unsuccessful bill this year that would have banned state universities from offering benefits to same-sex partners.
But the regents are not supporting any particular lifestyle with this action. They simply recognize such benefit packages as a necessary in the competitive environment for top-notch faculty. The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville already offer such plans. The University of Cincinnati adopted a similar plan last year.
Enabling employees to provide for the health coverage of all members of their "family" group is a humane approach to benefits coverage. Why should an employee not be allowed to provide coverage for a financial dependent, especially when the cost of the extended coverage is being paid by the employee, not the taxpayers? Worrying about how a family is constituted should not be the concern of the university or the state.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Presbyterians review case on gay marriage
Have you been following the happenings with the Presbyterian minister? I've heard from both a Presby minister in rural western Kentucky today and a Disciples of Christ minister from central Kentucky... both say this case is huge. What are your thoughts on it? What ramifications will it have for the larger community? ~Jody
Presbyterians review case on gay marriage
By Jim Niemi
JNIEMI@HERALD-LEADER.COM
LOUISVILLE --A Presbyterian minister sat Friday to be judged by the denomination's highest court, which will decide whether she violated church law by performing marriages for same-sex couples.
The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, retired after 30 years in the ministry, was charged in California two years ago with officiating at the weddings of two lesbian couples in 2004 and 2005. Routinely, disciplinary cases in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are heard by a Presbytery, a larger body to which the church belongs.
In 2006, the Redwoods Presbytery court affirmed her ministry and ruled that same-sex marriages are not "outside of, or contrary to, the essentials of the Reformed faith as understood by the Presbytery of the Redwoods."
But that ruling was challenged by those who prosecuted Spahr, and was appealed to the next-highest church court, the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission. The synod court overturned the presbytery decision and ordered Redwoods Presbytery to censure Spahr, but recommended the minimum penalty, a rebuke.
Spahr then appealed to the denomination's highest court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, which heard the case Friday at the Presbyterian Church USA Center in Louisville.
Spahr, 65, believes the Presbyterian faith should be inclusive, that all humans are acceptable to God. But she contends the church has refused to recognize all its members on an equal footing.
"In this church, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people are marginalized, they cannot fully participate," said Sara M. Taylor, an attorney representing Spahr.
"We, as LGBT people, are equal in the eyes of God," Taylor said. "She (Spahr) acted pastorally in the eyes of Jesus Christ."
Taylor contended that the synod overstepped its authority because the authority to discipline lies with the presbytery. "We believe the presbytery has the right to make the decision," she said.
But Stephen L. Taber, attorney for the synod, made the case that the Book of Order, a manual of policies that govern Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), specifies that marriage is reserved as a covenant between a man and a woman.
The church "does not permit disobedience to standards set by the Book of Order. A person can protest ... but cannot disobey," Taber said.
In reaching a decision, which is expected next week, the top court will have to sort through some thorny issues:
• California, where Spahr performed some of the marriages, does not recognize same-gender ceremonies. Is it possible for a couple to be married ecclesiastically but not legally?
• The Presbyterian Church USA recognizes two sacraments: baptism and communion, which LGBT people are allowed to receive. Is it rational to allow people to receive the sacraments in the church but to deny the right to marry in the church?
• While the church does not recognize same-sex marriages, it does allow ministers to bless same-sex unions. Is it proper for a minister to bless a same-sex union that might be interpreted by others as a marriage?
Throughout Friday's hearing, Spahr was characterized as a person of deep faith and an abiding love for all people. "We are not prosecuting a malefactor," Taber said.
In an interview after yesterday's hearing, Spahr said she had performed "hundreds" of marriages but did not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex ceremonies.
"I'm just hoping that this is about real people's love for one another," she said.
Spahr is worried that continued marginalization of segments of society undermines the quality of life for all people.
"We're not second-class citizens. Second-class status perpetuates violence," she said. "We're here to stop the violence.
"How can we have healthy relationships in a fractured culture?"
Presbyterians review case on gay marriage
By Jim Niemi
JNIEMI@HERALD-LEADER.COM
LOUISVILLE --A Presbyterian minister sat Friday to be judged by the denomination's highest court, which will decide whether she violated church law by performing marriages for same-sex couples.
The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, retired after 30 years in the ministry, was charged in California two years ago with officiating at the weddings of two lesbian couples in 2004 and 2005. Routinely, disciplinary cases in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are heard by a Presbytery, a larger body to which the church belongs.
In 2006, the Redwoods Presbytery court affirmed her ministry and ruled that same-sex marriages are not "outside of, or contrary to, the essentials of the Reformed faith as understood by the Presbytery of the Redwoods."
But that ruling was challenged by those who prosecuted Spahr, and was appealed to the next-highest church court, the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission. The synod court overturned the presbytery decision and ordered Redwoods Presbytery to censure Spahr, but recommended the minimum penalty, a rebuke.
Spahr then appealed to the denomination's highest court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, which heard the case Friday at the Presbyterian Church USA Center in Louisville.
Spahr, 65, believes the Presbyterian faith should be inclusive, that all humans are acceptable to God. But she contends the church has refused to recognize all its members on an equal footing.
"In this church, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people are marginalized, they cannot fully participate," said Sara M. Taylor, an attorney representing Spahr.
"We, as LGBT people, are equal in the eyes of God," Taylor said. "She (Spahr) acted pastorally in the eyes of Jesus Christ."
Taylor contended that the synod overstepped its authority because the authority to discipline lies with the presbytery. "We believe the presbytery has the right to make the decision," she said.
But Stephen L. Taber, attorney for the synod, made the case that the Book of Order, a manual of policies that govern Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), specifies that marriage is reserved as a covenant between a man and a woman.
The church "does not permit disobedience to standards set by the Book of Order. A person can protest ... but cannot disobey," Taber said.
In reaching a decision, which is expected next week, the top court will have to sort through some thorny issues:
• California, where Spahr performed some of the marriages, does not recognize same-gender ceremonies. Is it possible for a couple to be married ecclesiastically but not legally?
• The Presbyterian Church USA recognizes two sacraments: baptism and communion, which LGBT people are allowed to receive. Is it rational to allow people to receive the sacraments in the church but to deny the right to marry in the church?
• While the church does not recognize same-sex marriages, it does allow ministers to bless same-sex unions. Is it proper for a minister to bless a same-sex union that might be interpreted by others as a marriage?
Throughout Friday's hearing, Spahr was characterized as a person of deep faith and an abiding love for all people. "We are not prosecuting a malefactor," Taber said.
In an interview after yesterday's hearing, Spahr said she had performed "hundreds" of marriages but did not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex ceremonies.
"I'm just hoping that this is about real people's love for one another," she said.
Spahr is worried that continued marginalization of segments of society undermines the quality of life for all people.
"We're not second-class citizens. Second-class status perpetuates violence," she said. "We're here to stop the violence.
"How can we have healthy relationships in a fractured culture?"
Monday, April 21, 2008
E-news Coming
Hey, folks:
I apologize for not writing the past two weeks. I've had a lot on my mind. Look out for an e-news pretty quickly... as I understand it one will be coming out shortly.
~Jody
I apologize for not writing the past two weeks. I've had a lot on my mind. Look out for an e-news pretty quickly... as I understand it one will be coming out shortly.
~Jody
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
WKMS Interview Today
Hey, folks:
I was on the npr station, WKMS, here in western Kentucky today. I talked about the event I'm co-hosting on April 12th in support of fairness. We also chatted about some other stuff. Give it a listen... http://www.wkms.org/programming/news31.cfm
~Jody
I was on the npr station, WKMS, here in western Kentucky today. I talked about the event I'm co-hosting on April 12th in support of fairness. We also chatted about some other stuff. Give it a listen... http://www.wkms.org/programming/news31.cfm
~Jody
Thursday, March 20, 2008
House Committee Stands Strong Again
Go, Rep. Watkins for saying enough is enough. Did anyone else find it interesting that the Family Foundation representative sat at the testimony table with Sen. McGaha? Didn't Chairman Burch say that only he (McGaha) was going to speak to the bill before action? Oh well, yet again - the Family Foundation isn't truly looking out for everyone's family - I know they aren't mine.
~Jody
Ban on insurance for domestic partners rejected
By Deborah Yetter • dyetter@courier-journal.com • March 20, 2008
FRANKFORT, Ky. — A House committee today killed a Senate bill that would bar state universities and other public agencies from providing health insurance for domestic partners of employees.The 9-6 vote rejecting Senate Bill 112 appears to kill the controversial measure for the current legislative session. And it prompted Rep. David Watkins, D-Henderson, to deliver a tongue-lashing to the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, before he voted against it.Watkins, a family physician, called the measure divisive and said the Senate is ignoring the state’s biggest health problems, including smoking, obesity and a lack of adequate mental health services.“I am tired of the same petty issues coming before us when we’ve got major issues to address,’’ he said.The bill would ban public agencies from providing health coverage for unmarried couples — gay or straight. McGaha afterward said his concern is the “sanctity of marriage” and that he was offended by Watkins’ comments.“Dr. Watkins is totally off-base,” McGaha said. “He is a disgrace to the process we have here.”McGaha said if the measure is dead this year, he will bring it back next year.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
~Jody
Ban on insurance for domestic partners rejected
By Deborah Yetter • dyetter@courier-journal.com • March 20, 2008
FRANKFORT, Ky. — A House committee today killed a Senate bill that would bar state universities and other public agencies from providing health insurance for domestic partners of employees.The 9-6 vote rejecting Senate Bill 112 appears to kill the controversial measure for the current legislative session. And it prompted Rep. David Watkins, D-Henderson, to deliver a tongue-lashing to the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, before he voted against it.Watkins, a family physician, called the measure divisive and said the Senate is ignoring the state’s biggest health problems, including smoking, obesity and a lack of adequate mental health services.“I am tired of the same petty issues coming before us when we’ve got major issues to address,’’ he said.The bill would ban public agencies from providing health coverage for unmarried couples — gay or straight. McGaha afterward said his concern is the “sanctity of marriage” and that he was offended by Watkins’ comments.“Dr. Watkins is totally off-base,” McGaha said. “He is a disgrace to the process we have here.”McGaha said if the measure is dead this year, he will bring it back next year.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
"Minorities in Politics" - 3/26/08
Hi, folks: The political science honor society has organized a forum entitled "Minorities in Politics" for Wednesday, March 26th. The forum will be in the Curris Center theater beginning at 3:00 p.m. and is open to everyone.
There will be four speakers. I have been asked to speak on the LGBT community's participation/role in politics. The other speakers include Eleanor Jordan, Executive Director of the Kentucky Commission on Women and former state representative, Danny Hudsbeth, Murray City Councilman, and a judge that I do not know the name of. It is my understanding that each speaker will focus on different things, such as the role of women and African-Americans.
Mark your calendars to support the good folks over in the political science honor society for organizing this forum and plan to attend if possible.
~Jody
There will be four speakers. I have been asked to speak on the LGBT community's participation/role in politics. The other speakers include Eleanor Jordan, Executive Director of the Kentucky Commission on Women and former state representative, Danny Hudsbeth, Murray City Councilman, and a judge that I do not know the name of. It is my understanding that each speaker will focus on different things, such as the role of women and African-Americans.
Mark your calendars to support the good folks over in the political science honor society for organizing this forum and plan to attend if possible.
~Jody
Thursday, March 6, 2008
How's that for a week's work?
So, in less than one week Kentucky has seen two victories on the fairness front. The final piece in Kentucky's public university puzzle adopted a fair workplace policy by inserting sexual orientation into their non-discrimination policy and a judge ruled against state dollars going to a private, religion-based institution. How's that for a week's work?
Judge: Money For Anti-Gay Baptist School Wrong
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: March 6, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET
(Frankfort, Kentucky) A judge ruled Thursday that Kentucky GOP lawmakers and former Gov. Ernie Fletcher violated the state constitution by appropriating $11 million in state funding to a Baptist university.
The state had argued that the money, to be used to create a pharmacy school at the University of the Cumberlands, was for the betterment of the state's health and welfare and therefore constitutional.
The LGBT rights group Kentucky Fairness Alliance filed a lawsuit along with advocates for the separation of church and state and the Jefferson County Teachers Association.
Named as defendants were the university, Fletcher and a dozen Republican lawmakers.
Kentucky Fairness Alliance executive director Christina Gilgor called the ruling a victory against state-subsidized discrimination.
The $11 million grant was approved by the GOP controlled legislature and despite pressure to veto the measure Fletcher signed the appropriation but said the funds would be held until after the legal question was resolved.
The legality of the grant grew out of a 2006 incident in which the university expelled a student it found out is gay.
Jason Johnson, 20, was expelled after posting his sexual orientation on a Web site.
The dean's list student received all Fs on his transcript when he was expelled. (story)
Following public outrage the university agreed to allow Johnson to send in work to finish his courses and receive final grades but he was barred from the campus.'
Although the suit was filed by the Kentucky Fairness Alliance there was scant mention of the Johnson situation in legal arguments.
Attorney David Tachau instead argued that the grant did not fall under the heading of "health and welfare" and was instead in support of education at a private, sectarian institution. That, said Tachau, makes it unconstitutional.
In his argument he cited a 1983 ruling that said public money could not be used to buy textbooks for private schools.
The university, represented by Timothy J. Tracey, of the Virginia-based Center for Law & Religious Freedom, argued that the legislature acted responsibly and legally by seeking to address the state's shortage of pharmacists.
Judge: Money For Anti-Gay Baptist School Wrong
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: March 6, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET
(Frankfort, Kentucky) A judge ruled Thursday that Kentucky GOP lawmakers and former Gov. Ernie Fletcher violated the state constitution by appropriating $11 million in state funding to a Baptist university.
The state had argued that the money, to be used to create a pharmacy school at the University of the Cumberlands, was for the betterment of the state's health and welfare and therefore constitutional.
The LGBT rights group Kentucky Fairness Alliance filed a lawsuit along with advocates for the separation of church and state and the Jefferson County Teachers Association.
Named as defendants were the university, Fletcher and a dozen Republican lawmakers.
Kentucky Fairness Alliance executive director Christina Gilgor called the ruling a victory against state-subsidized discrimination.
The $11 million grant was approved by the GOP controlled legislature and despite pressure to veto the measure Fletcher signed the appropriation but said the funds would be held until after the legal question was resolved.
The legality of the grant grew out of a 2006 incident in which the university expelled a student it found out is gay.
Jason Johnson, 20, was expelled after posting his sexual orientation on a Web site.
The dean's list student received all Fs on his transcript when he was expelled. (story)
Following public outrage the university agreed to allow Johnson to send in work to finish his courses and receive final grades but he was barred from the campus.'
Although the suit was filed by the Kentucky Fairness Alliance there was scant mention of the Johnson situation in legal arguments.
Attorney David Tachau instead argued that the grant did not fall under the heading of "health and welfare" and was instead in support of education at a private, sectarian institution. That, said Tachau, makes it unconstitutional.
In his argument he cited a 1983 ruling that said public money could not be used to buy textbooks for private schools.
The university, represented by Timothy J. Tracey, of the Virginia-based Center for Law & Religious Freedom, argued that the legislature acted responsibly and legally by seeking to address the state's shortage of pharmacists.
Friday, February 29, 2008
MSU Fair Workplace Policy
MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS APPROVE FAIR WORKPLACE POLICY
Murray --- The Murray State University Board of Regents voted 7-4 today to officially include gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty and staff in the university's non-discrimination policy.
"Today's action by the Board of Regents brings Murray State in line with all the other public institutions of higher education across the Commonwealth," said Jody Cofer, Murray State employee and chair of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance Board of Directors. "What has been the practice of most members of the university community is now official policy. Fairness for all university workers benefits the entire community, but most importantly it sends a signal that Murray State truly is an equal educational and employment opportunity institution for all members of society."
####
With over 10,000 members, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance seeks to advance equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people through leadership development, public education and by encouraging participation in the democratic process.
Murray --- The Murray State University Board of Regents voted 7-4 today to officially include gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty and staff in the university's non-discrimination policy.
"Today's action by the Board of Regents brings Murray State in line with all the other public institutions of higher education across the Commonwealth," said Jody Cofer, Murray State employee and chair of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance Board of Directors. "What has been the practice of most members of the university community is now official policy. Fairness for all university workers benefits the entire community, but most importantly it sends a signal that Murray State truly is an equal educational and employment opportunity institution for all members of society."
####
With over 10,000 members, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance seeks to advance equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people through leadership development, public education and by encouraging participation in the democratic process.
Friday, February 15, 2008
New leader on board...
Hey, folks: I want to share good news to fairness supporters. Recently, long-time fairness supporter and activist super-star Ms. Jessica Loving of Louisville has joined the Board of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance. She has a long resume of accomplishments and her expertise will continue to benefit the lgbt community as she takes on this new leadership role.
Ms. Loving is a former member of the national Board of Directors for the American Civil Liberties Union and at one point worked as executive director of their KY division. She has served as deputy commissioner of tourism for the state and is responsible for the state's former marketing slogan "Oh! Kentucky".
Ms. Loving is a trustee and former chairperson at the University of Louisville. She live in Louisville with her husband, attorney Sheryl Snyder.
WELCOME, JESSICA! The fairness community benefits from your work.
~Jody
Ms. Loving is a former member of the national Board of Directors for the American Civil Liberties Union and at one point worked as executive director of their KY division. She has served as deputy commissioner of tourism for the state and is responsible for the state's former marketing slogan "Oh! Kentucky".
Ms. Loving is a trustee and former chairperson at the University of Louisville. She live in Louisville with her husband, attorney Sheryl Snyder.
WELCOME, JESSICA! The fairness community benefits from your work.
~Jody
Friday, February 8, 2008
KY's Senate Passes Hateful Legislation
Kentucky Senate passes bill disallowing health care benefits for domestic partners
By: Murray State University’s The News, Robin Phelps
Kentucky's Senate passed a bill last week that will prevent universities and institutions from allowing domestic partner healthcare benefits.The vote passed in the Senate 30-5, according to the Kentucky Kernel. A majority voted that employee benefits should only be available for university employees' spouses and family members.Jody Cofer, program specialist for undergraduate research, said the 2004 marriage amendment should not determine whether domestic partners receive healthcare benefits."Granting benefits is not the same as granting legal status," Cofer said.While Cofer said domestic partner benefits would not constitute a legal marriage, Sen. Ken Winters , R-Murray, said the Senate's Saturday decision was a constitutional choice."Domestic partner benefits is a significant deviation from the Constitution," Winters said. Matthew Middlebrooks, junior from Humbolt, Tenn., said he agrees with the Senate's decision."I support the Senate's decision because otherwise you would have to start giving people's boyfriends and girlfriends benefits," Middlebrooks said. "How can (domestic partners) have the right to be on each other's health insurance when an unmarried straight couple don't have the right to each other's benefits? The Senate says you have to be married, so why make an exception for only homosexuals? You have to do what's fair, that's what it boils down to."For the past two years, Cofer said the Kentucky Fairness Alliance has worked to achieve healthcare benefits for domestic partners within Kentucky's public agencies. By the admittance of domestic partner benefits, Cofer said Murray State would gain a competitive edge.According to the University of Louisville's Web site regarding domestic partner benefits, the university's addition of the policy will encourage the school's diversity; Cofer said he agrees."(This) move means that U. of L. can compete more effectively with the nation's top colleges to recruit outstanding faculty," Cofer said via email."This matters to the competitiveness of our higher education institutions and why, more frankly, a more diverse society is better for all of us." Cofer said he expected the outcome from the Senate last week, but he hopes the bill, once in the hands of Kentucky House's Health and Wealth committee, will grant the authority to universities to make the decision regarding domestic partner benefits. "I'd like to see that esteemed body put a halt to this hateful legislation," Cofer said.While the marriage amendment stands in the way of progress for Kentucky Fairness Alliance members , Cofer continues to stress the issue's importance."It does not directly affect Murray State at this point in the game, but it will at some point in the future," he said. "Where does one draw the line?"
By: Murray State University’s The News, Robin Phelps
Kentucky's Senate passed a bill last week that will prevent universities and institutions from allowing domestic partner healthcare benefits.The vote passed in the Senate 30-5, according to the Kentucky Kernel. A majority voted that employee benefits should only be available for university employees' spouses and family members.Jody Cofer, program specialist for undergraduate research, said the 2004 marriage amendment should not determine whether domestic partners receive healthcare benefits."Granting benefits is not the same as granting legal status," Cofer said.While Cofer said domestic partner benefits would not constitute a legal marriage, Sen. Ken Winters , R-Murray, said the Senate's Saturday decision was a constitutional choice."Domestic partner benefits is a significant deviation from the Constitution," Winters said. Matthew Middlebrooks, junior from Humbolt, Tenn., said he agrees with the Senate's decision."I support the Senate's decision because otherwise you would have to start giving people's boyfriends and girlfriends benefits," Middlebrooks said. "How can (domestic partners) have the right to be on each other's health insurance when an unmarried straight couple don't have the right to each other's benefits? The Senate says you have to be married, so why make an exception for only homosexuals? You have to do what's fair, that's what it boils down to."For the past two years, Cofer said the Kentucky Fairness Alliance has worked to achieve healthcare benefits for domestic partners within Kentucky's public agencies. By the admittance of domestic partner benefits, Cofer said Murray State would gain a competitive edge.According to the University of Louisville's Web site regarding domestic partner benefits, the university's addition of the policy will encourage the school's diversity; Cofer said he agrees."(This) move means that U. of L. can compete more effectively with the nation's top colleges to recruit outstanding faculty," Cofer said via email."This matters to the competitiveness of our higher education institutions and why, more frankly, a more diverse society is better for all of us." Cofer said he expected the outcome from the Senate last week, but he hopes the bill, once in the hands of Kentucky House's Health and Wealth committee, will grant the authority to universities to make the decision regarding domestic partner benefits. "I'd like to see that esteemed body put a halt to this hateful legislation," Cofer said.While the marriage amendment stands in the way of progress for Kentucky Fairness Alliance members , Cofer continues to stress the issue's importance."It does not directly affect Murray State at this point in the game, but it will at some point in the future," he said. "Where does one draw the line?"
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Congrats, Mr. Vice-Chairman!
Congrats, Mr. Vice-Chairman. I'm pleased to tell all of you fairness supporters out there that recently, the KFA Board of Directors elected Travis Myles of Louisville as Vice-Chair. Travis has been a long-time supporter of fairness both locally and beyond. He served as co-chair of the organizing committee with the Beaux Arts Ball in 2005 and 2006. He has served on the KFA Board over the past year. He is a graduate of the University of Louisville's law school and currently practices in Louisville.
Congrats, Travis!
~Jody
Congrats, Travis!
~Jody
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Valentine's Dance for the WKY LGBT Community
On Saturday, Feb. 16, the Metropolitan Community Church of Paducah is hosting a Valentine's Dance for the LGBT community and other fair-minded folks. It begins at 6:30 p.m. on the 16th at 728 Tennessee Street in Paducah. If your interested, check it out. They are accepting $5 donations to benefit their ministry. http://www.mccpaducah.org/index_files/Page412.htm
~Jody
~Jody
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thank You, Western Kentucky
Hello, Fair-minded Friends:
I write to say thank you to everyone that partnered with the Kentucky Fairness Alliance (KFA) and the Murray State University (MSU) Alliance student organization to show Dan Karslake's "For the Bible Tells Me So" in Western Kentucky. And for every one of you that attended, I hope that you left the theater feeling good about the information the film presented and more confident in yourself to discuss the cross-section between religion and sexuality.
I must say that as plans were coming together, I was a bit unsure what the turnout would be. I was pleasantly surprised to see over 125 of you in the audience and overwhelmed by the diversity among the communities present.
Each time I checked my e-mail on Wednesday (actually beginning late Tuesday night), I began receiving very kind and inspiring thank you messages.
I received one from a colleague that said the following after childcare plans fell through, "I'm thankful that my babysitter didn't show up, because it gave my son and me the chance to have a good long conversation -- and for me to instill in him that his sexual orientation is his to discover."
"I was delighted with how well the movie presented so many aspects," came from one of Murray's own religious leaders.
Less than an hour later, a public relations student wrote saying, "Hopefully, it has helped many people to come to terms with who they are and helped them to realize that they deserve to be loved regardless."
I've pondered the messages throughout the day, along with my own feelings from last night's post-film discussion, and must say that "For the Bible Tells Me So" was probably one of the best public education events organized for the fair-minded community in Western Kentucky in several years.
As I said in the media advisory two weeks ago, the film raised serious questions about the compatibility of prejudice with loving your neighbor, and attendees Tuesday echoed that thought.
I, personally, recommend seeing it if you have not. To help those in the Murray State community and to show our appreciation, KFA will purchase a copy of this award-winning documentary and donate it to the MSU Library to be entered into their circulation for future use by students, faculty, and staff.
Again, thank you to everyone that supported the showing and those that attended! It was great to see you at the movies!
PS -- A special thanks to Rev. Ferguson of Metropolitan Community Church of Paducah for moderating the post-film discussion.
I write to say thank you to everyone that partnered with the Kentucky Fairness Alliance (KFA) and the Murray State University (MSU) Alliance student organization to show Dan Karslake's "For the Bible Tells Me So" in Western Kentucky. And for every one of you that attended, I hope that you left the theater feeling good about the information the film presented and more confident in yourself to discuss the cross-section between religion and sexuality.
I must say that as plans were coming together, I was a bit unsure what the turnout would be. I was pleasantly surprised to see over 125 of you in the audience and overwhelmed by the diversity among the communities present.
Each time I checked my e-mail on Wednesday (actually beginning late Tuesday night), I began receiving very kind and inspiring thank you messages.
I received one from a colleague that said the following after childcare plans fell through, "I'm thankful that my babysitter didn't show up, because it gave my son and me the chance to have a good long conversation -- and for me to instill in him that his sexual orientation is his to discover."
"I was delighted with how well the movie presented so many aspects," came from one of Murray's own religious leaders.
Less than an hour later, a public relations student wrote saying, "Hopefully, it has helped many people to come to terms with who they are and helped them to realize that they deserve to be loved regardless."
I've pondered the messages throughout the day, along with my own feelings from last night's post-film discussion, and must say that "For the Bible Tells Me So" was probably one of the best public education events organized for the fair-minded community in Western Kentucky in several years.
As I said in the media advisory two weeks ago, the film raised serious questions about the compatibility of prejudice with loving your neighbor, and attendees Tuesday echoed that thought.
I, personally, recommend seeing it if you have not. To help those in the Murray State community and to show our appreciation, KFA will purchase a copy of this award-winning documentary and donate it to the MSU Library to be entered into their circulation for future use by students, faculty, and staff.
Again, thank you to everyone that supported the showing and those that attended! It was great to see you at the movies!
PS -- A special thanks to Rev. Ferguson of Metropolitan Community Church of Paducah for moderating the post-film discussion.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Great Need of the Hour
This not any type of endorsement, but rather food for thought. This speech by Senator Obama is very good and I'm told it was well delivered. What are your thoughts on his remarks? ~Jody
January 21, 2008
The Great Need of the Hour
Barack Obama
(Note: Senator Obama delivered the following remarks yesterday, January 20, at the Ebenezer Church in Atlanta.)
The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.
But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram's horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.
There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.
Because before Memphis and the mountaintop; before the bridge in Selma and the march on Washington; before Birmingham and the beatings; the fire hoses and the loss of those four little girls; before there was King the icon and his magnificent dream, there was King the young preacher and a people who found themselves suffering under the yoke of oppression.
And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:
"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.
What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame - schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.
We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.
So we have a deficit to close. We have walls - barriers to justice and equality - that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We've come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily - that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.
All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price.
But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won. It starts with a change in attitudes - a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts.
It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart - that puts up walls between us.
We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.
For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others - all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face - war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.
Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.
But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.
The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.
And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.
That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words - words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.
He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort. Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.
That is the unity - the hard-earned unity - that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope - the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.
The stories that give me such hope don't happen in the spotlight. They don't happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She's been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.
And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta.
And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia.
And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope - but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.
Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone.
In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone.
In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone
In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone.
So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America
January 21, 2008
The Great Need of the Hour
Barack Obama
(Note: Senator Obama delivered the following remarks yesterday, January 20, at the Ebenezer Church in Atlanta.)
The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.
But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram's horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.
There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.
Because before Memphis and the mountaintop; before the bridge in Selma and the march on Washington; before Birmingham and the beatings; the fire hoses and the loss of those four little girls; before there was King the icon and his magnificent dream, there was King the young preacher and a people who found themselves suffering under the yoke of oppression.
And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:
"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.
What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame - schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.
We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.
So we have a deficit to close. We have walls - barriers to justice and equality - that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We've come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily - that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.
All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price.
But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won. It starts with a change in attitudes - a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts.
It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart - that puts up walls between us.
We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.
For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others - all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face - war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.
Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.
But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.
The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.
And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.
That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words - words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.
He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort. Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.
That is the unity - the hard-earned unity - that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope - the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.
The stories that give me such hope don't happen in the spotlight. They don't happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She's been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.
And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta.
And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia.
And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope - but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.
Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone.
In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone.
In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone
In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone.
So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
