REPORT: Racial Disparities Exist In HIV Criminalization

This will not be a surprise to anyone who has been following the story of HIV criminalization in the United States over the last few years. The Black AIDS Institute has issued a report on a new academic finding that exposes the racial disparities that exist in HIV criminalization.

Two studies—one commissioned by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law that conducts independent research on sexual-orientation and gender-identity law and public policy, and the other presented at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, in July 2016—link the criminalization of HIV to higher rates of incarceration for PLWHA of color, and community activists confirm it.

[...]

Researchers found that while White men made up 40 percent of the people diagnosed with HIV in California, only 16 percent of them had had contact with the criminal-justice system related to their HIV status. Black men made up 16 percent of PLWHA but 19 percent of those who had contact with the criminal-justice system. They were also more likely than White men to come into contact with the system repeatedly based on their HIV status: 25 percent vs. 10 percent. Overall, White men were more likely to be released and not charged. Black women made up only 4 percent of the population of PLWHA, yet an astounding 21 percent of them had come into contact with the criminal-justice system. Researchers say that more work needs to be done to identify what is driving the racial and gender disparities. 

In July, Trevor Hoppe, Ph.D., assistant professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Albany, presented his paper "HIV: Does Race Impact Sentencing Under Criminal HIV Exposure and Disclosure Laws in the United States?" at AIDS 2016. Hoppe looked at five states—Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and Tennessee—and found that Black men were given an average sentence of 110 months after being convicted on an HIV-specific criminal law, while White men averaged 74 months for violating the same statute. He found the greatest racial disparity in Arkansas, where Black men's sentences were double those of white men—279 vs. 140 months. "In Arkansas, Black men were sentenced to a dozen more years," says Hoppe.

There are too many examples of public policy not keeping up with the advancement of scientific knowledge about HIV transmission and, unsurprisingly, it is people of color who appear to be disproportionately impacted by this. Just ask Michael Johnson!

IN and AR Guvs Sign "Fixes" To "Religious Freedoms" Bills To Allay Discrimination Concerns

In Indiana and Arkansas Republican Governors signed bills into law today which are intended to end a burgeoning controversy over whether their legislature's passage of religious freedom legislation also allowed discrimination against LGBT people. Both Governor Mike Pence and Governor Asa Hutchison are both well-known as hostile to the civil rights of LGBT people, with both politicians expressing opposition to the rights of same-sex couples to be married so it is with some degree of schadenfreude that LGBT equality activists like myself have watched the increasingly loud furor engulf both politicians, snuffing out the presidential ambitions of one (Pence) and badly damaging the reputation of the other (Hutchison).

Texas Legislators Introduce Bill To Void Local LGBT Rights Ordinances

Here we go! Just as I predicted when I blogged about the Arkansas and West Virginia bills that are the new face of anti-LGBT animus in state legislatures, I said that many other red states would soon follow their homophobic lead. Today comes word that the biggest red state of them all, Texas, is planning on joining the rush to deny equal rights to LGBT citizens:

A Fort Bend County Republican has introduced a bill that would bar cities from adopting or enforcing non-discrimination ordinances that include protected classes not contained in state law. Texas law doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. 

As a result, state Rep. Rick Miller’s House Bill 1556 would undo LGBT protections passed by numerous cities, including Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston and Plano. Altogether more than 7.5 million Texas are covered by such ordinances.

Will state legislators really override the local anti-discrimination ordinances that protect 7.5 million residents? We shall see....

Arkansas Enacts Bill Voiding and Prohibiting Local Civil Rights Ordinances

The Arkansas legislature (with strong Republican majorities)  has passed, and the Governor has allowed to become law without his signature, SB 202 "the Intrastate 30 Commerce Improvement Act," which basically freezes the number of categories that can appear in any non-discrimination statute in the state to the categories that appear in the state code. Surprise, surprise "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" do not appear in the state code and thus can not be categories of anti-discrimination anywhere in Arkansas. If a local jurisdiction did have such a statute, SB 202 voids it and prevents any local ordinances with new categories in the future.

Of course, the heterosexual supremacists are targeting LGBT activists, as part of the backlash for the successful fight for marriage equality. You can bet your bottom dollar they will not be stopping at Arkansas; there are TWENTY NINE states which do not have state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is what four national LGBT civil rights organizations said about SB 202:

Recalling Colorado’s fatally flawed Amendment 2, which years ago explicitly targeted lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (and not heterosexuals), many are asking whether SB 202 is a similarly unconstitutional denial of equal protection. When the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, it underscored that the case record revealed anti-gay “animus” propelling the popular vote and no legitimate government reasons for precluding local nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, and for no one else. 

The sponsors of SB 202 have used sweeping language that raises many legal questions but the bill amounts to a transparent attempt to hide from the courts the blatantly discriminatory reason why it was adopted. This law and other unacceptable ones like it intentionally harm LGBT people and other minority group members. When it can be shown that a law has been passed to facilitate discrimination, that showing creates a presumption that the law is unconstitutional. There is nothing but discriminatory intent here. And no valid public interest can possibly be served by allowing private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics that might be covered by local ordinances. 

One of the legally and pragmatically wrong-headed things about this bill, which business and community leaders have been stressing to Governor Hutchinson, is that local governments are supposed to be independent “laboratories of experimentation.” Local control allows policies to be tested, with the good ones proving their worth and the bad ones failing. In many states where state-level nondiscrimination laws now protect LGBT people, those laws passed following local equal opportunity ordinances. People in those communities saw for themselves that those local ordinances created no problems for businesses, but instead had positive impacts — expressing a welcoming, safe and responsible environment for everyone. SB 202 seeks to kill that time-tested process, aiming to make it that much harder to ensure fair treatment for LGBT people throughout the state.

This could be the beginning of a very nasty set of stealth anti-LGBT pieces of legislation that will sweep through states that have Republican (anti-LGBT) legislative majorities and Republican governors, which after the 2014 election is a generational high.

Local LGBT Ordinance Repealed By Fayetteville, AR Voters

Hmmm, now that the fight over marriage appears to be coming to a close there is increased focus on other aspects of the gay rights agenda that most people thought had been settled a long time ago: should LGBT people have equal access to public goods and services, housing, employment, credit, et cetera? Simply said, are gay rights civil rights? (And by "gay" here I mean "LGBT.")

In many states there are no state laws against discriminating against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no federal law banning discrimination in these areas either, so many activists have started enacting local ordinances (like the one enacted in Houston earlier this year) to protect LGBT individuals from rank discrimination based on characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to do a job, rent an apartment or access services from local businesses or governments.

However, there are many people who not only feel that their religious beliefs about LGBT people should be informative (if not determinative) of public policy in this area but also that the Government is abridging their religious beliefs by enforcing equal treatment under the law based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. These people are the same people who thought that it was a brilliant idea to put the marriage rights of their fellow citizens up for a vote and now want to do the same thing with basic civil rights as well.

Anyway, this week there was another skirmish in the upcoming kulturkampf on this issue when a local ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas was repealed just months after it was enacted, thanks primarily to political activity by conservative and religious leaders.

The vote was surprisingly close (less than 500 votes out of 14,000 cast) but the bad guys won. Keep Fayetteville Fair responded:

Fayetteville voters decided to repeal a city wide anti-discrimination ordinance in a special election Tuesday night. Keep Fayetteville Fair and its supporters have campaigned the past several months, encouraging a vote against the repeal of the ordinance. 

More than 7,000 people voted against the repeal and stood behind the idea that employees should be judged on their merits nothing more, nothing less. The ordinance would have protected Fayetteville residents from being fired from their job, denied housing, or kicked out of a restaurant simply because of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. 

“We have a very strong local volunteer and support team who worked hard to try to keep this ordinance in place,” Anne-Garland Berry, campaign manager said. “Fayetteville is a city filled with inclusive, accepting citizens. Unfortunately, the repeal of this ordinance tells our visitors that we do not treat everyone with respect and only allocate freedoms to certain groups of people.” 

The campaign would like to thank all its supporters and volunteers who put in countless hours to keep our city fair. Including others who stood up for fairness, Rep. Greg Leding, Alderman Matthew Petty and Mayor Lioneld Jordan.

Hat/tip to Max Brantley

Federal Judges Strike Down Marriage Equality Bans In MISSISSIPPI & ARKANSAS!

After two rulings in federal court, the nationwide map for marriage equality now looks like the figure above. In Mississippi and Arkansas federal judges ruled that state bans on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples are unconstitutional, for different reasons.

Both rulings were put on hold pending appeal. In Mississippi case, the state defendants, Republican Governor Phil Bryant and Republican Attorney General Jim Hood have already filed a notice of appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is already considering appeals bans on marriage equality from Texas and Louisiana. Presumably Arkansas will appeal to the 8th Circuit. All the red states which have legally enforceable bans on marriage equality to date are in either the 5th, 6th or 8th Circuits.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

Arkansas Supreme Court Issues Stay Halting Marriage Equality

Bad news out of Arkansas today. The Arkansas State Supreme Court issued a stay which suspends a lower court order that had invalidated all legal prohibitions on same-sex marriage in the state. The stay will last through the consideration of the appeal of the lower court ruling and could take up to a year.

At 4:30 p.m. today, with many of the justices at an out-of-state conference, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Chris Piazza's ruling last Friday that Arkansas law and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution. It was a one-sentence order without any elaboration. Piazza's decision will now go through the appeal process. A record of the lower court case must be prepared. A briefing schedule must be set and probably oral arguments. The court takes a two-month recess each summer. Even with an expedited schedule, it's uncertain if the case can be decided this calendar year, when two of the current justices — Cliff Hoofman and Donald Corbin — will be replaced by Rhonda Wood and the winner of a race between Judge Robin Wynne and Tim Cullen.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Marriage Equality Back On In Arkansas, Off (For Now) In Idaho

Although judges have struck down the laws banning marriage equality in Idaho and Arkansas in the last week, the status of marriage equality in each jurisdiction is in different states of flux in these two states.

The 9th U.S. Circuit has issued a stay in the case of Latta v. Otter which will prevent the judge's order from going into effect on Friday until the 9th Circuit formally considers the request for a more permanent stay tha would last the duration of the period it takes to decide the appeal from the state of the ruling allowing marriage equality to go into effect in Idaho.

In Arkansas, same-sex couples have been able to get married since last Saturday but after the Arkansas State Supreme Court refused to issue a stay to stop those marriages but noted that the original order did not invalidate the state law which prohibited clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples marriages had stopped in the state. The judge responded by issuing a new order today making it clear that any prohibition on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is null and void, resulting in Arkansas's largest county (Pulaski) to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Exciting times in deed!

Arkansas Becomes First Southern State With Marriage Equality!

Well, well, well! The first Southern state in which same-sex couples are issued marriage licenses has become Arkansas! With a state judge  striking down statutory bans on Friday, today same-sex coupes are being issued marriage licenses in Eureka Springs, AK.

The AP reports:

Gay marriage arrived in the Bible Belt on Saturday, beginning with two women who had traveled overnight to ensure they'd be first in line. 

"Thank God," Jennifer Rambo said after Carroll County Deputy Clerk Jane Osborn issued a marriage license to her and Kristin Seaton, a former volleyball player at the University of Arkansas. The Fort Smith couple wed moments later on a sidewalk near the courthouse; the officiant wore a rainbow-colored dress. 

In total, 15 licenses were issued for same-sex couples in northwest Arkansas' Carroll County, Osborn said. 

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza paved the way Friday with a ruling that removed a 10-year-old barrier, saying a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2004 banning gay marriage was "an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality." Piazza's ruling also overturned a 1997 state law banning gay marriage. 

But because Piazza didn't issue a stay, Arkansas' 75 county clerks were left to decide for themselves whether to grant marriage licenses. 

Rambo, 26, and Seaton, 27, were the first gay couple to be legally married. 

Fascinating to see how things are developing. It was only a question of when, not if, marriage equality would actually come to  the South but I had though it would be a purple state like Virginia or Florida, not a deep-red state like Arkansas. Does anyone doubt now that marriage equality will be a reality in all 50 states sooner rather than later?

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Bans On Marriage Equality

A local judge in Arkansas has struck down both a 1997 prohibition of same-sex marriage and a voter-approved 2004 constitutional amendment doing the same thing. This is just another domino in the string of judicial decisions recognizing that there is no rational basis for denying the fundamental right to marry to persons in same-sex relationships.

In his brief, 13-page ruling, Judge Chris Piazza said:

The Arkansas Supreme Court applied a heightened scrutiny and struck down as unconstitutional an initiated act that prohibited unmarried opposite-sex and same-sex couples from adopting children. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage for no rational basis violates the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection as described in Jegley and Cole, supra. The difference between opposite-sex and same-sex families is within the privacy of their homes. 

THEREFORE, THIS COURT HEREBY FINDS the Arkansas constitutional and legislative ban on same-sex marriage through Act 144 of 1997 and Amendment 83 is unconstitutional. 

It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. 

It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.

Piazza also refused to place a stay on the effect of his ruling, which means that couples could be issued marriage licenses as soon as tomorrow morning when some County Clerk offices are open on Saturdays.

The Attorney General of Arkansas (A Democrat who last week announced he personally support marriage equality but will continue to defend the ban on same-sex marriage in court) has announced that he will request that the judge issue a stay while the matter is on appeal before the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Hat/tip to Washington Blade

HRC Launches $8.5M Campaign To Advance LGBT Equality In Deep South

The largest LGBT political advocacy organization in the United States has announced the launch of Project One America, an $8.5 million, 3-year project to advance LGBT equality in the Deep South states of Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas.

There are nine specific goals of Project One America:

1. Empower LGBT people (and straight allies) to come out.
2. Raise the visibility of LGBT people and issues with the general public.
3. Create safer environments for LGBT young people.
4. Build partnerships with faith communities, communities of color, business communities, and conservatives.
5. Create a more inclusive workplace for LGBT people
6. Build support for enduring legal protections that ensure LGBT equality.
7. Expand participation in HRC’s Municipal Equality Index in these three states.
8. Create a more inclusive healthcare environment for LGBT people
9. Equip LGBT people and non-traditional allies as spokespeople

ABC News reports:

The aim is to first change hearts and minds so that people hiding their sexual orientation will be more comfortable about coming out publicly. As that occurs, organizers believe, communities and states will be more likely to adopt laws to prevent discrimination. 

"You overcome all of the objections by having conversations and getting to know your neighbors," Chad Griffin, an Arkansas native and president of Human Rights Campaign, said in an interview with The Associated Press. 

With a checkered history in race relations, Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi resisted civil and voting rights for blacks in the 1960s. And unlike other Southern states, the three still haven't enacted legal safeguards to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation in areas like housing and employment. 

Yet surveys have shown the states have roughly the same percentage of gay residents as other states, Griffin said, and Human Rights Campaign has a total of 57,000 members and supporters in the states, which have a total population of 10.7 million people. 

Organizers hope to accelerate change that already has included four Mississippi towns passing non-binding resolutions against LGBT discrimination. In Alabama, a civil rights museum is currently showing a photo exhibit of LGBT youth aimed at promoting acceptance. 

"The pace of progress really has been fast, but you can't leave anyone behind," said Griffin.

As Vice President Biden would say, this is a BFD. I am curious as to what the local LGBT groups in those states feel about HRC coming in and essentially becoming the statewide LGBT group in each of these states. On one hand, they will build capacity for LGBT equality in the targeted states, but I
find it hard to believe that there was no organizing going on in those states (Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi) before this.

This is a risky but encouraging move for HRC. The South is also the region with the largest African-American fraction of the population and HRC is not known as the most racially diverse or
progressive of organizations so there are bound to be some complications and fractures along race and class lines while the work advances.

But I give them much props for trying, and putting their money where their mouth is.

Top 10 Billionaires in the United States

The list of the 400 richest people in the United States was released by Forbes magazine recently. The top 10 have a number of familiar names, led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates at #1 and Nebraska-based investor Warren Buffet at #2. At #3 was Larry Ellison who made waves with the news that he was buying the Hawaiian island of Lanai in its entirety. The infamous Koch brothers, who are attempting to buy their preferred election result thanks to loopholes in campaign finance laws are tied for 4th, followed by 4 members of the Walton family (whose patriarch founded the Walmart company) and at #10 is the 3-term mayor of
New York City, Mike Bloomberg.

Forbes magazine notes that things are going very well for most of the super-ricj=h, with their wealth increasing at an astonishing rate:

Gates alone was worth $7 billion more than he was last year. Berkshire Hathaway head and renown investor Warren Buffett again ranked No. 2 on the list, with his net worth climbing by the same amount to $46 billion. 

Larry Ellison, head of software maker Oracle, remained in the No. 3 spot, but posted the biggest gain in wealth on the list, with his net worth rising by $8 billion to $41 billion. 

Two-thirds of the list’s members saw their wealth grow over the past year to an average $4.2 billion, Forbes said.

It's too bad that we have a communist president or else these revered job creators would not be suffering so much! (Yes, this is sarcasm!)

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

DADT Fails First Cloture Vote Test 56-43

Courtesy of Trevor Thomas, Communications Director of SLDN, here is the 56-43 roll-call vote on the motion to end debate on S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011.

It shuodl be noted that Majority Leader Harry Reid voted no as  aprocedural motion so he would be in the minority to bring up the measure again in the future. 

The same can not be said of the two Senators from Arkansas both "Democrats in name Only" who both voted against moving forward with debating the NDAA with the DADT repeal measure intact. David Pryor and Blanche Lincoln both voted no, even though nearly 80 percent of Americans in recent polls support DADT repeal (I wonder if there any recent Arkansas polls on this issue?)

It is very likely the bill will come up again AFTER the mid-term elections but before the end of the year. 

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---56
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)	Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Goodwin (D-WV) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)	Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---43
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brown (R-MA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Murkowski (R-AK)