QUEER QUOTE: Justice Department Now Agrees 1964 Civil Rights Act Protects Transgender People

There has been an interesting (and important) development late in the year in LGBT equality! The question of whether discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is covered under prohibitions against "sex discrimination" has been hotly debated for years. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a ruling in Macy v. Holder in 2012 which said that they believe that discrimination against transgender individuals is illegal sex discrimination under federal law. The U.S. Department of Labor used that ruling to issue an announcement in 2014 that the agency also believes employment discrimination against transgender individuals is illegal under federal law.

Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed reports that on December 15, 2014 the Attorney General of the United States sent out a memorandum basically agreeing with the EEOC and Labor Department's interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right Act that prohibition of sex discrimination in employment includes transgender employees.

This is a huge deal because there is no federal law enacted by Congress prohibiting discrimination against LGBT employees and only a dozen states have enacted state laws protecting civil rights based on gender identity or gender expression (in contrast to over 20 states that have law protecting civil rights based on sexual orientation). Thus the Justice Department reversing its previously held position and now endorsing the concept that "sex" includes "gender identity or expression" is very significant.

Here's a key excerpt from the Attorney General's memorandum (Treatment ofTransgender Employment Discrimination Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ) which is today's Queer Quote:

After considering the text of Title VII, the relevant Supreme Court case law interpreting the statute, and the developing jurisprudence in this area, I have determined that the best reading of Title VII' s prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status. The most straightforward reading of Title VII is that discrimination "because of ... sex" includes discrimination because an employee's genderidentification is as a member of a particular sex, or because the employee is transitioning, or has transitioned, to another sex. As the Court explained in Price Waterhouse, by using "the simple words 'because of,' ... Congress meant to obligate" a Title VII plaintiff to prove only "that the employer relied upon sex-based considerations in coming to its decision." 490 U.S. at 241-242.It follows that, as a matter of plain meaning, Title VII' s prohibition against discrimination "because of ... sex" encompasses discrimination founded on sex-based considerations, including discrimination based on an employee's transitioning to, or identifying as, a different sex altogether. Although Congress may not have had such claims in mind when it enacted Title VII, the Supreme Court has made clear that Title VII must be interpreted according to its plain text, noting that "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonablycomparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998). 

It basically says what I said, but in a lot more words, and using Supreme Court precedent. This is a very important result and it will be interesting to see if this signals the next evolution of civil rights jurisprudence which is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. against LGB people) is also sex discrimination. I have believed that it is, and the best explanation for why this is I have ever read is in Andrew Koppelman's  now seminal 1994 law review article "Why Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination."

The interesting situation now is that currently the T in LGBT have federal employment protections while the LGB do not, while the LGB have many more states where they are protected under state law and the T are not. Surely this untenable status quo can not be maintained for long.

 Hat/tip to Chris Geidner

SATURDAY POLITICS: Kamala Harris Doesn't Want To Be Holder's Replacement

California Attorney General Kamala Harris promptly took herself out of the running to be President Obama's next Attorney General this week after Eric Holder announced his resignation. Harris, 49, is running for re-election and is widely seen as a front runner for either Governor of California in 2018 when the seat will be open or she would also be competitive for either United States Senate seat.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Harris' demurrals:

Even before the White House officially announced Holder’s resignation Thursday,Harris, who is running for re-election as California’s attorney general, released a statement saying thanks, but no thanks.
“I am honored to even be mentioned, but intend to continue my work for the people of California as attorney general,” said the former San Francisco district attorney. “I am focused on key public safety issues including transnational gangs, truancy and recidivism.”
Harris, a longtime friend and early political backer of President Obama, has long been on the media’s short list of people the president would look at to become the country’s top prosecutor.

Obama made headlines last year when he referred to Harris as "by far the best-looking attorney general in the country."

Personally I think Harris would make a great Attorney General of the United States but an even better Governor. That's gonna be one tough (and crowded) Democratic primary in June 2018!

QUEER QUOTE: Attorney General Holder Declares DOJ Will Affirm Marriage Bans Are Unlawful

Attorney General Eric Holder has made news saying that if (really, at this point, the question is when, not if) the United States Supreme Court hears a case questioning whether a state ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution, the Department of Justice will weigh in on  the side of marriage equality. This is important (and encouraging) news because the U.S. Supreme Court often wants to know what the position of the federal government is on questions of the U.S. constitution, even if a state law is under consideration.

This is what Holder said on a Sunday Talk show last week which is today's Queer Quote:

"When you have differentiations on the basis of sexual orientation they should be heightened scrutiny. That being the case, I think that a lot of these measures that will ultimately come before the Court will not survive a heightened scrutiny examination."

Holder also answered "Yes" when asked whether he thought it was unconstitutional to discriminate against same-sex couples in marriage.

I think there's really no doubt about whether marriage bans survive heightened scrutiny and there's less doubt that sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny. Several judges have ruled that marriage bans do not even survive rational basis review. If the Supreme Court (and the Department of Justice) took that position, that would basically end the marriage equality question once and for all.

Attorney General Holder Announces U.S. Will Recognize Michigan Same-Sex Marriages

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER 

ON FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES IN MICHIGAN

WASHINGTON—Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement today on the status of same-sex marriages performed in the state of Michigan:

“I have determined that the same-sex marriages performed last Saturday in Michigan will be recognized by the federal government.  These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. The Governor of Michigan has made clear that the marriages that took place on Saturday were lawful and valid when entered into, although Michigan will not extend state rights and benefits tied to these marriages pending further legal proceedings.  For purposes of federal law, as I announced in January with respect to similarly situated same-sex couples in Utah, these Michigan couples will not be asked to wait for further resolution in the courts before they may seek federal benefits to which they are entitled.  

“Last June’s decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor was a victory for equal protection under the law and a historic step toward equality for all American families.  The Department of Justice continues to work with its federal partners to implement this decision across the government.  And we will remain steadfast in our commitment to realizing our country’s founding ideals of equality, opportunity, and justice for all.”

###

QUEER QUOTE: US AG Holder Tells State AGs They Don't Have To Defend Anti-Gay Law

United States Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to the National Association of Attorneys General which included the following remarks that make it clear that Holder believes that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (which includes all state-based bans on marriage equality) must be treated with heightened scrutiny (which so far only the 2nd Circuit in Windsor  and 9th Circuit in GlaxoSmithKline have accepted as reasonable jurisprudence).

This excerpt from his prepared remarks is today's Queer Quote:

The essential duty to which all of us – as attorneys general – have been sworn: not just to win cases, but to see that justice is done. This is the cause that brings us together in Washington this week – working to confront the threats and seize the opportunities before us. And this is the extraordinary task with which the American people have entrusted the leaders in this room – and the challenge that all justice professionals are called to address: not merely to use our legal system to settle disputes and punish those who have done wrong, but to answer the kinds of fundamental questions – about fairness and equality – that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be, both as a nation and as a people. 

These are the questions that drove President Obama and me to decide, in early 2011, that Justice Department attorneys would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. As I’ve said before, this decision was not taken lightly. Our actions were motivated by the strong belief that all measures that distinguish among people based on their sexual orientation must be subjected to a heightened standard of scrutiny – and, therefore, that this measure was unconstitutional discrimination. Last summer, the Supreme Court issued a historic decision – United States v. Windsor – striking down the federal government’s ban on recognizing gay and lesbian couples who are legally married. This marked a critical step forward, and a resounding victory for equal treatment and equal protection under the law. 

More recently – and partly in response to the Windsor decision – a number of state attorneys general, including those in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Virginia – and, just last week, Oregon – have reached similar determinations after applying heightened scrutiny to laws in their states concerning same-sex marriage. Any decisions – at any level – not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. They must be reserved only for exceptional circumstances. And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements – hinging instead on firm constitutional grounds. But in general, I believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation. And we must endeavor – in all of our efforts – to uphold and advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.

Great news! Maybe this will convince even more attorneys general to stop defending discriminatory marriage statutes!

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis 

AG Holder Reaffirms Married Same-Sex Couples Eligible For ALL Federal Benefits

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

United States Attorney General Eric Holder told an audience at a gala dinner of the nation's largest LGBT advocacy organization that the Justice Department is fully implementing the landmark Supreme Court decision United States v. Windsor that invalidated the defense of marriage act, resulting in more tangible federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples throughout the country.

A summary of the policy changes is:

Each of the changes is related to the way the Justice Department handles recognition of married same-sex couples. They range from rights in civil and criminal cases, rights as inmates and access to benefits programs:
• The Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases have the same legal rights as straight married couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate a spouse.
This new rule applies in non-marriage equality states. The government won't object to couples in same-sex marriages invoking this right if they marry in another state, but their current jurisdiction doesn't recognize their union.
• In bankruptcy cases, the U.S. Trustee Program will take the position that same-sex married couples should be treated in the same manner as opposite-sex married couples. Consequently, same-sex married couples will be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly; certain debts to same-sex spouses or former spouses will be excepted from discharge; and domestic support obligations should include debts, including alimony, owed to a former same-sex spouse.
• Federal inmates in same-sex marriages will be entitled to the same rights and privileges as inmates in opposite-sex marriages. These rights include spousal visitation; inmate furloughs to be present during a crisis involving a spouse; escorted trips to attend a spouse’s funeral; correspondence with a spouse; and compassionate release or reduction in sentence if an inmate’s spouse is incapacitated.
• The Justice Department will recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of a number of benefits programs it administers, such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
Also among these programs is the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program, which provides death benefits to surviving spouses of public safety officers, such as law enforcement officers and firefighters, who suffer catastrophic or fatal injuries while on duty.

This is not surprising since the Social Security Administration and the Defense Department have already announced that they are fully implementing the Windsor decision as well. However, this is good news that the nation's "top cop" is strongly supportive of eliminating discrimination against legally married same-sex couples by the federal government.

AG Holder Announces U.S. Will Recognize Utah Same-Sex Marriages

Good news! Despite Utah taking the position that they are prohibited from recognizing the same-sex marriages that occurred while the state's Amendment 3 was suspended as a result of a federal judge's ruling in Kitchen v Herbert on December 20, the U.S. Department of Justice has determined that the Obama administration will recognize the estimated 1,300 marriages that occurred for purposes of federal law.

Attorney General Eric Holder said:

Last June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision – in United States v. Windsor – holding that Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law. This ruling marked a historic step toward equality for all American families. And since the day it was handed down, the Department of Justice has been working tirelessly to implement it in both letter and spirit – moving to extend — federal benefits to married same-sex couples as swiftly and smoothly as possible.

Recently, an administrative step by the Court has cast doubt on same-sex marriages that have been performed in the state of Utah. And the governor has announced that the state will not recognize these marriages pending additional Court action.

In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages. And we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available.

This is excellent news and may indicate that the United States may take a position in favor of recognition of these same-sex marriages before the Supreme Court when the lawsuit reaches that stage.

Practically, it means that same-sex couples married in Utah will not receive any state recognition but will receive federal recognition of their marriages. Arguably, the federal benefits and responsibilities are more significant than those provided by the state.

FBI Announces Involvement In McMillian Case

The latest news in the murder of Marco McMillian is that the Federal Bureau of Investigation  has announced that it is going to conduct an investigation of the horrifying death of the Black, gay man whose body was found beaten and burned last week. A suspect, Lawrence Reed, has been named in the case.

The action by the FBI is in response to a letter from the National Black Justice Coalition calling for such an investigation, since Mississippi does not have a hate crime law which includes sexual orientation.

NBJC Executive Director Sharon Lettman-Hicks issued a statement:

After speaking extensively with the family, community and anti-violence coalition members like the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), NBJC feels the perpetuation and validation of the “gay panic” defense is irresponsible. The conflicting reports as well as the current racial and anti-LGBT climate in Mississippi is justification enough for a federal investigation. 

NBJC is standing firmly with Marco McMillian’s family so that their concerns do not fall on deaf ears. The details of this case just aren’t adding up. Whether on the basis of race or sexual orientation, hate is hate. If there is the possibility that McMillian was murdered because of who he is, that warrants the Department of Justice’s involvement.

There are conflicting reports about the relationship between the suspect and the victim and concerns have been raised that a "gay panic" defense may be used by the defendant.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

United States Files Brief Against Proposition 8

As Joe Biden would say, this is a "BFD."

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S FILING INHOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement today on the U.S. government’s filing inHollingsworth v. Perry:

“In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law.  Throughout history, we have seen the unjust consequences of decisions and policies rooted in discrimination. The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole.”  

# # #  

The United States government has taken a position that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and is urging the judicial branch to strike it down.

You can read the full brief here.

NYT Urges U.S. Intervention In Prop 8 Case

The New York Times published an editorial on Sunday titled "Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall" which strongly urges the Obama administration to intervene in the Proposition 8 case Hollingsworth v. Perry:

The outcome of the Proposition 8 case is likely to affect the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans for years to come, even if the final disposition is not sweeping enough to wipe out all state laws currently banning same-sex marriage. A strong filing by the Justice Department, forthrightly declaring that denying the freedom to marry violates the Constitution, would put the full weight of the federal government on the side of justice and could influence the shape of the ruling.

For the administration to be missing in action in this showdown risks conveying a message to the justices that it lacks confidence in the constitutional claims for ending gay people’s exclusion from marriage or that it believes Americans are not ready for a high court ruling making marriage equality the law of the land — impressions strikingly contradicted by legal precedent, the lessons of history and by the president’s own very powerful words.

Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address appeared to reflect a deepened understanding that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right “under the law.” He needs to make sure his solicitor general conveys that sound legal view loud and clear in the Proposition 8 case.

The question of whether the federal government (as represented by the Department of Justice headed by Attorney-General Eric Holder) should take a position in the Perry case even though it is only about a particular state's marriage laws has been a slow boiling controversy in LGBT legal circles.

However, now it is clear that the heterosexual supremacist forces represented by Charles Cooper are explicitly hoping that the Obama administration does not intervene in the case while the pro-marriage equality forces represented by Ted Olson and David Boies are explicitly asking for the support of the Department of Justice on behalf of the appellee-defendants:

Olson and Boies, former opponents from the landmark Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush, urged the government to enter the case and assert that gay and lesbian couples have the same right to marry as a man and a woman. According to lawyers in the room, Olson stressed that the administration's voice should be heard at this historic moment. Olson, who as solicitor general under Bush from 2001-04 once ran such meetings, was especially fervent. He compared the contention that states need more time to resolve the gay-marriage dilemma to arguments half a century ago that states needed more time before blacks and whites could share the same public accommodations such as drinking fountains. 

A former Reagan administration lawyer, Cooper argued in his session that marriage is the business of the states, so no federal constitutional interest can be asserted. Cooper referred to Obama's own comments suggesting that states should decide the matter and echoed much of what he had written in his recently submitted brief to the Supreme Court. In that, Cooper included Obama's remarks from a May 2012 interview with ABC News referring to the "healthy process and ... healthy debate" occurring in the states.

The text is referring to arguments made by the pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT sides to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (who actually represents the interests of the United States before the United States Supreme Court) at meetings that occurred on January 18th. The Obama administration and other parties considered "friends of the court" have until close of business on Tuesday to file their amicus curiae briefs.

133 House Members Sign Brief Challenging DOMA

133 Democratc congressmembers signed their names to a brief filed before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Gill v Office of Personnel Management in which the central question is whether the  so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The case was brought (and won) by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders before U.S. District Court judge Joseph Tauro in July 2009. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, but then in February 2011 the United States changed sides in the case after the President determined that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional and laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.

DOMA is being defended in federal court by superlawyer Paul Clement for BLAG, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, on behalf of the U.S. House Republican majority.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

7 Questions For House Republicans About DOMA Defense

The Human Rights Campaign has released 7 questions they would like House Republican leaders to answer in advance of a decision by Speaker John Boehner to intervene in the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) now that President Obama and the U.S. Department of Justice has decided the 1996 federal law is unconstitutional.:

1.         There are as many as nine lawsuits in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA.  Will House Republicans intervene in all of these lawsuits?

2.         Who will represent House Republicans in court? Will the House hire outside private counsel to defend the cases? If pro-bono legal counsel will be asked to represent the House, who will that be? Will a conflict and ethics check be conducted? Will the BLAG be consulted on strategic decisions related to the litigation?

3.         How much taxpayer money will this all cost?

4.         What will the House argue in defending DOMA?  Will they go back to Congress’s 1996 arguments for passing the law – that it is necessary because marriage equality is “a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment” and contrary to the “moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality”?

5.         The Justice Department stopped defending DOMA because they concluded that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation should receive a higher level of scrutiny by courts.  Will the House Republican leaders disagree?  If so, will they argue that gays and lesbians have not suffered a long history of discrimination?  That sexual orientation is somehow relevant to an individual’s ability to contribute to society, when they have four openly-gay colleagues?  That gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation, a position at odds with every major psychological organization?  That gays and lesbians are politically powerful, ironically in defending a law passed by Congress specifically to disadvantage them?

6.         Do they think they’ll win, especially given that in two DOMA-related cases in Massachusetts, a federal judge appointed by President Nixon has already found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional even under the lowest level of scrutiny that gives great deference to the legislature?

7.         Apart from these cases, will Republican House leadership do anything to address the inequalities that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face?

It would be very interesting to see a response to almost any of these questions.

How Much Does Obama Hate You? The Gays Count The Ways...

John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay over at AmericaBlog are launching a boycott of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America and the Obama re-election campaign until "the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed."

The boycott has been endorsed by such progressive luminaries as Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, among others.

Here is a list of their "beefs" with the Democrats in general and President Obama in particular:

Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?

1. Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
2. Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
3. Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
4. Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
5. Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
6. Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
7. Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
8. Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
9. Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
10. Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.
11. Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.
12. Changing his commitment to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to “changing DADT it in a sensible manner.”
13. Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn’t have to.
14. Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.
15. Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.
16. Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.
17. Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.
18. Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.
19. Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie.
20. Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.
21. Suggesting he won’t get to DADT, DOMA or ENDA until his second term, if ever.
22. Refusing to suspend implementation of anti-gay laws, like DADT and DOMA, while suspending laws that hurt others.
23. White House staffers worked against amendment proposed by Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell investigations
24. Saying won’t repeal DADT until wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finished.
25. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to beg President Obama to help on DADT repeal.
26. A White House official referring to gay civil rights advocates, marching on Washington, as part of “the Internet left fringe” whose opinions don’t matter.
27. Saying he won’t touch DOMA in his first term.
28. Refusing to release list of gay attendees at hate crimes reception.
29. Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
30. Saying gays are “naïve” for wanting the president to keep his promise.
31. Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.
32. Attorney General Eric Holders flubs question on Maine, twice -- once while in Maine.
33. DNC/OFA emailed supporters in Maine and Washington state, but didn't ask them to vote against anti-gay ballot measures, then lied about it.
34. Senator Durbin (D-IL), a very close ally of Obama, says Senate probably won’t repeal DADT in 2010, as promised.
35. Senior DNC official accuses gays and lesbians of “helping Republicans” by simply asking Democrats to keep their gay civil rights promise.
36. Refusing to publicly endorse marriage equality for gays.
37. Continuing to dawdle over DADT.
38. Refusing to this day to interview with the gay press.
39. Refusing to apologize for any of these slights.

I think most of the above list is petty and trivial. However, while I don't disagree with the motive behind launching the boycott (and I may even endorse it if someone asks me nicely!), I do think the point to emphasize here are the legislative results we seek: ENDA, DADT and DOMA.

I don't give a rat's *ss about Donnie McLurkin (Point #1) or who attended the LGBT Hate Crimes reception at the White House (Point #28). I do think that there should be an official Liaison to the LGBT Community for the White House (Point #8) and Democratic National Committee (Point #7).

As a practical matter, if the Administration does not take action on ENDA, DADT and DOMA before the 2012 election, they will not be getting donations from the LGBT community. I definitely won't be donating to Obama's re-election if ENDA is not law and bills to repeal DADT and DOMA have not made significant legislative traction before the next election.

However, this does not mean that I endorse or want to encourage privileged LGBT activists screaming hysterically at the White House over every perceived or imagined slight. LGBT rights are NOT the most important thing on the agenda right now. Health care reform is. That being said, I do think that the President can do more than one thing at a time and I do think some of the most egregious slights have been happening in the Department of Justice. Jus' sayin'.

Obama DOJ Supports Cocaine Sentencing Reform

Elections have (good) consequences! The Washington Post is reporting that the Department of Justice has decided to (finally) support legislation to reform the drastic inequities in sentencing for possession and trafficking of different forms of cocaine.

"Now is the time for us to reexamine federal cocaine sentencing policy, from the perspective of both fundamental fairness and safety," Breuer told the subcommittee on crime and drugs. He said the issues would be among those considered by a Justice Department panel that within six months is to develop recommendations on an array of topics related to charging, sentencing and prisoner treatment.

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced measures to equalize sentences, but the proposals have stalled in the past.

The sentencing inequality has come to be known as the "100 to 1" ratio, in which possession of five grams of crack, the weight of two small sugar cubes, triggers a mandatory five-year prison term, while a person carrying 500 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same sentence.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee, noted that more than half of federal inmates are locked up for drug-related crimes, including high ratios of African American offenders. In 2007, Durbin said, 82 percent of people convicted on crack possession charges were black, and 9 percent were white. (emphasis added)

This is another good sign that the "War on Drugs" is losing saliency as a political football. In New York, the Rockefeller drug laws have recently been repealed under Governor David Paterson.

Eric Holder Becomes First African American U.S. Attorney General

Eric Holder was confirmed as the first African American Attorney General of the United States on Monday after a vote of 75-21 in the United States Senate.

The Human Rights Campaign sent out an announcement about the landmark event:

Eric Holder has long been a voice for fairness and equality for all Americans, including LGBT citizens. The Department of Justice will now be led by an Attorney General dedicated to civil rights, protecting communities from hate violence and the fair and equal application of our laws. We were proud to join our allies in the civil rights community to support his confirmation

As did the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People:

“Our nation, and especially our racial and ethnic minority citizens, are clearly facing a crisis in confidence that the U.S. Department of Justice has become dysfunctional and is not a true defender of our rights,” said NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Eric Holder is the right person at this time to rebuild not only the department, but also our country’s reputation as a defender of the rights of all Americans. He is the best qualified candidate to help the U.S. Department of Justice reinvigorate itself and regain its rightful place as our country’s enforcer of our civil rights, voting rights, employment rights and housing rights laws. There is no doubt in my mind that he will lead the U.S. Department of Justice, and the United States, with an integrity and strength that is sorely needed at this time.”

The NAACP is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. The picture at the top of this post was taken by my friend Jasper Hendricks from the National Black Justice Coalition who attended a meeting with the new Attorney General on his very first day in office.