Focus On The Rainbow

From the Providence Equality Action Committee :

All of New England’s top antigay, antifamily activist organizations are convening Saturday, Feb. 27, in Smithfield, a suburb of Providence, R.I.

Their summit agenda: Undermine the families and eliminate the rights and religious freedom of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual New Englanders.

Rhode Islanders who support full constitutional equality, led by the Providence Equality Action Committee, will make their voices heard outside the event from noon to 1:30 p.m.

Antigay sponsors of the summit include the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island, a Christian Rightist legal attack squad, called the Alliance Defense Fund antigay “family policy” councils from every state in New England, and an antigay Connecticut youth-harassment league.

In recent weeks, FRC and NOM officials have gone on record favoring criminalization and imprisonment of LGBT Americans and the abduction of a Virginia child from her lesbian custodial parent by an antigay non-custodial parent.

Josh Kilby of the Providence Equality Action Committee said, “Antigay activists are using Rhode Island as a beachhead to sanctify their bigotry, and undermine liberty and true family values, all across New England. Rhode Islanders must put their foot down and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ to the Christian Right’s war against our communities.”

Mike Airhart of Truth Wins Out said, “These groups claim to support the family — but not before they fire gay workers, drive gay spouses to lie to their heterosexual partner, jail gay couples for private intimacy, deny sex education to teen-agers who then become pregnant, injure people through discredited ‘ex-gay’ therapy, and discriminate against gay-tolerant religious traditions. In the end, they leave thousands of ruined marriages, separated gay couples, disrupted churches, and un-adopted children in their wake.”

PEAC invites New England organizations that support and defend equality to join us in Smithfield on Feb. 27.

Location: Outside Ocean State Baptist Church, 600 Douglas Pike, Smithfield

For more information, please contact Providence Equality Action Committee at info@peac.us.com or (401) 418-1659.

Special thanks to Michael Airhart for sending this information to Focus On The Rainbow.

Wednesday, in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the city of Cleveland in a lawsuit brought by an antigay group attempting to strip away the newly enacted domestic partnership registry for same-sex couples and their families.

“To suggest to same-sex couples and their families that a domestic partnership registry somehow resembles marriage is preposterous. The domestic partnership law in Cleveland and the state constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marriage are not in conflict with each other,” said Christopher Clark, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office based in Chicago. “We hope this court will rule as other courts across the country have ruled and dismiss this mean-spirited attack on same-sex couples and their families.”

 The state passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 that prohibits marriage for same-sex couples in Ohio and bars recognition of any legal status that approximates marriage.  Last year, the Cleveland City Council voted to create a registry for same-sex couples. It is believed that many employers use this registry as a basis for determining eligibility for health insurance and other company benefits provided to domestic partners.

Alliance Defense Fund, an antigay legal group, filed a lawsuit against the city arguing that the domestic partnership registry is a violation of the constitutional amendment barring marriage equality. The suit was filed on August 12 on behalf of the antigay group Cleveland Taxpayers for the Ohio Constitution.

Lambda Legal argues in the amicus brief that the Ohio constitution does not prevent the city of Cleveland from having a domestic partnership registry. Although domestic partnership registries are created by cities and other governmental entities to show their commitment to equality for same-sex couples and their families, the registries are by no means a substitute for marriage.

Christopher Clark, Senior Staff Attorney, is handling the case for Lambda Legal. He is joined by Timothy Carraher, Affiliated Attorney.  

The case is City of Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland Taxpayers for the Ohio Constitution, et al. v. City of Cleveland .

 

Republican House and Senate leaders met with the Special Affairs Committee of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a Tuesday luncheon.

Democratic leaders from both legislative bodies met with the same committee a week ago. Both meetings are traditional get-togethers to keep open political channels as a general legislative session approaches.

House Speaker Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, said there was no “formal” discussion on the gay rights issue.

Some lawmakers want the 2010 Legislature, which convenes next Monday, to adopt a statewide anti-discrimination law modeled after a Salt Lake City ordinance passed late last year. That ordinance, endorsed by the LDS Church, outlines anti-discrimination rules for gays and lesbians in housing and employment.

Clark said as of now there is no decision by GOP leaders on whether to back a similar law in the Legislature.

Rep. Chris Johnson, D-Salt Lake, says she will introduce such a bill soon, and hopes, after the support found in Salt Lake City from LDS leaders, her law may pass.

Source – Deseret News

The city of Bozeman is moving forward with plans to protect homosexual and transgendered city employees from discrimination and provide same-sex partners with the same benefits as opposite-sex couples.

The Bozeman City Commission voted 3-0 on Monday night in favor of adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the categories of employees protected under the city’s anti-discrimination policy. Commissioners Sean Becker and Eric Bryson were absent.

Commissioners also supported spelling out same-sex partners’ equal right to health-care insurance and other benefits in the city’s employee handbook.

“It’s what the city does now,” Mayor Jeff Krauss said Tuesday. “It’s just putting it in writing.”

Gay employees’ partners are now technically eligible to receive city health-care benefits because the city’s policy is broadly worded. But nobody has requested it.

“They haven’t had anyone apply,” Commissioner Chris Mehl said. “There’s not even word of mouth that they could do that.

“At some point, somebody is going to ask and we want to reflect what the Supreme Court ruled six years ago,” Mehl said. “In a sense, we’re catching up.”

Source – Bozeman Daily Chronicle

See a special timeline feature on being gay in the workplace at NPR

When an openly gay woman won the mayor’s race here in Houston this month, it was the latest in a string of victories by gay candidates across the country, a trend that seems to contradict the bans on same-sex marriage that have been passed in most states in recent years.

Take Texas, by many measures one of the most conservative states in the nation. In 2005, it enacted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; the voters passed the referendum by a ratio of three to one.

Yet in the last decade, an openly gay woman has twice won election as the sheriff in Dallas County, and another openly gay woman was elected district attorney in Travis County, which includes the city of Austin. Gay candidates have also won city council seats in Austin, Fort Worth and Houston.

Then, this month, Annise Parker, the city controller who is a lesbian, swept to a solid victory in the mayoral race in Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city.

There are currently at least 445 openly gay and lesbian people holding elected office in the United States, up from 257 eight years ago, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political group that supports gay candidates.

Read the full article from the New York Times written by James C. McKinley Jr. here.

As the decade draws to a close, a new report shows the past 10 years have been a period of dramatic gains in equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in America. Two-thirds of the 36 statistical indicators compiled in A Decade of Progress on LGBT Rights showed significant advances, including sharp increases in the number of LGBT Americans protected by nondiscrimination and family recognition legislation at the state level. Just over a quarter of the indicators were negative, and two showed mixed results. The report is a joint project of the LGBT Movement Advancement Project and the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr., Fund. The report is available at MAP.

“The remarkable achievements toward LGBT equality tend to be obscured by day-to-day struggles, and overall progress often goes unnoticed nationally,” said Linda Bush, Executive Director of the LGBT Movement Advancement Project (MAP). “By looking broadly at the last decade, this report gives a much fuller perspective on where we are today — and how far we’ve come in just ten years.”

“From over 50 years of supporting causes that help advance equality, we understand that making meaningful change requires time. But these facts make it clear that equal rights for gay people are advancing at an exceptional rate,” said Ira Hirschfield, President of the Haas, Jr. Fund. “Gay people and their families deserve equal rights and an equal opportunity to participate in their communities and the institutions that bring Americans together. We are committed to supporting work that brings our country closer to that goal.”

Matt Foreman, a longtime advocate for LGBT equality who now directs the Haas Jr. Fund’s gay and immigrant rights programs, said the Fund is excited by the accelerated rate of change. “While enormous and heart-wrenching inequities remain, progress over the last ten years has been extraordinary.”

To read the full report visit the above link or the press release which highlights portions of the report here.

Source – PR Newswire/ LGBT Movement Advancement Project

Donal Og Cusack who is a hurler and plays for the Cork All Stars has won the prestigious Williamhill.com Irish Sports Book of the Year Award.

Cusack along with journalist Tom Humphries, wrote the book ”Come What May” in which Cusack outed himself as a bi-sexual and then “coming to terms” with being a gay man, said he has been overwhelmed with the support he has received from his teammates, family and friends since making the decision to publicly come out.

More at Focus On The Rainbow – Sports

Irish Lawmakers Open Debate On Gay Rights Bill – CBS News

Irish Judges Say Gay Sperm Donor Should See Son – CBS News

By guest writer, Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Activist

Way back in 1983, when I stood as the Labour candidate in the Bermondsey by-election, I proposed the idea of a single, comprehensive anti-discrimination law, to guarantee equal treatment and protection for everyone. At the time, this proposal was dismissed as “ultra Left,” as too radical and daring. Three decades later, however, it is close to reality.

The Equality Bill is continuing its passage this week through parliament and, baring sabotage in the House of Lords, will become law in 2010. One of its key aims is to remedy the uneven, variable patchwork of equality legislation. The separate laws on gender, race, disabilty, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion or belief, will be replaced by an all-inclusive legal framework. This will harmonise and standardise equality law, so that everyone has the same rights and protection.

Sadly, the legislation does not quite live up to this laudable aim. Despite its name, the Equality Bill is less than equal. While guaranteeing full and direct protection against harassment to other vulnerable social groups, it denies this protection to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. This is not an omission or oversight. We are explicitly excluded from the anti-harassment clauses of the bill.

Also exempted is harassment on the grounds of religion or belief, in an apparent bid to appease religious bodies who want the freedom to victimise people of rival faiths or no faith. But that’s another story.

The Equality Bill denies LGBT people protection in cases of homophobic harassment by school authorities, by the owners and managers of properties and by the providers of services. Similar harassment is specifically outlawed on the grounds of age, disability, race and sex. This omission gives a green light to homophobes. Under this section of law, they won’t face sanctions for anti-gay victimisation.

LGBT organisations like School’s Out are campaigning against homophobic and transphobic bullying and harassment in schools, some of which is perpetrated or tolerated by school staff, according to a Stonewall survey of LGBT pupils, The School Report (2007).

By excluding protection against harassment in schools on the grounds of gender reassignment and sexual orientation, this legislation is sending a signal to schools that the harassment of LGBT pupils need not be taken seriously.

Since the Equality Bill was intended to ensure comprehensive legal equality, all forms of harassment should be covered by its clauses. There should be no exemptions.

In its defence, the government claims that it consulted widely and that no one offered any evidence that harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation was a serious problem that needed to be included in the bill. This is not true. The government initially consulted only the gay lobby group Stonewall. This is one LGBT group among many and it does not deal with individuals suffering homophobic harassment. Until recently, government ministers failed to consult the two LGBT organisations that assist most victims of harassment: the homophobic hate crime group, GALOP, and OutRage! We have plenty of casework evidence to show that anti-gay harassment is a significant problem and that it should be specifically outlawed by the Equality Bill.

The Deputy Minister for Women and Equalities, Maria Eagle MP, has also justified the exclusion of LGBT people from the anti-harassment clauses with the argument that we are protected under the Equality Bill’s “discrimination provisions.” She wrote to me: “If a teacher ignores the bullying of a LGBT child despite tackling other bullying, this would be unlawful discrimination.” In fact, this is only indirect protection against homophobic harassment. Moreover, it is dependent on the LGBT child not only being able to prove that he or she was bullied and that no action was taken, but also that others were bullied for other reasons and that remedial action was pursued by the school authorities. In other words, under the Equality Bill, LGBT victims of homophobic harassment are to required to prove two things to get justice. In contrast, victims of racial or gender harassment have to prove only that the harassment took place. They get direct protection.

The government also claims that we are making a fuss over nothing because LGBT people are already protected under general anti-harassment legislation. We don’t need additional protection in the Equality Bill, according to ministers. However, women, black, elderly and disabled people are also protected under general anti-harassment laws, yet they are included in the bill, while LGBTs are not.

Why the double standards? What happened to the level playing field and equal treatment that was promised when this bill was first tabled?

The government seems to be saying that a gay person who is homophobically harassed can secure protection under general anti-harassment law, but if an ethnic minority person is racially harassed they should be protected under both the general laws against harassment and, in addition, under the Equality Bill.

To put it bluntly: Labour is creating a two tier legal system and denying equal protection to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Members of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, such as Evan Harris MP, have similar criticisms. They support extending the anti-harassment protection of the Equality Bill to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

Unfortunately, the government has thwarted attempts to amend the legislation by allowing very little parliamentary time for debate; thereby ensuring that the concerns of the LGBT community are not remedied.

Other legitimate concerns have also been given short-shrift. These include doubts expressed by the British Humanist Association and the Accord Coalition about the wisdom and morality of, in certain circumstances, exempting religious bodies from the requirement to not discriminate. There should have been parliamentary time made available to discuss all these issues.

The way the government has handled the Equality Bill is typical of its frequent arrogance and high-handedness. A commendable piece of legislation has been besmirched by the failure to fully protect against homophobic harassment. Moreover, the truncation of parliamentary scrutiny and debate has not only been bad for the LGBT community; it is bad for democracy itself.

Peter’s article first appeared December 2 at the GuardianUK and is reprinted here with permission.

 You can visit his website here.