Federal LGBT Civil Rights Bill #EqualityAct Introduced In U.S. House

There are 28 states where it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community today. Most American believe that LGBT citizens should have (and already have) equal civil rights in the United States.

On March 13, the Equality Act, a comprehensive federal LGBT civil rights bill was introduced into the Congress with one House almost certain to pass it due to the fact Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives.

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School did an analysis of the state of cvil rights for LGBT Americans and published a report summarizing its findings. Key among these, are:

• An estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers age 16 and older live in the United States. About half of these workers—4.1 million people—live in states without statutory protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment.
• There are over 3.5 million LGBT students age 15 and older in the U.S. About 2.1 million live in states without statutory protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in education.
• There are an estimated 13 million LGBT people age 13 and older in the U.S. Approximately 6.9 million live in states that do not statutorily prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in public accommodations. 
• There are an estimated 11 million LGBT adults in the U.S. Over 5.6 million live in states without statutory protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in housing and 8 million lack such protections in credit.

Hat/tip to Williams Institute

QUEER QUOTE: California Enacts Law To Provide Nonbinary Gender Option In Official Documents

Wow! The state of California completed its 2017 legislative session recently and there are some fascinating new laws on the books thanks to Democratic supermajorities in both Houses and a Democratic governor in Jerry Brown.

One of the important bills Governor Brown signed into law was SB179, the Gender Recognition Act, which provides the option of "nonbinary" on official identity documents issued by the state of California which ask about the gender or sex of an individual.

USA Today reports:

The state of California will now legally recognize non-binary as a third gender on official state identification documents.  

Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB179 on Sunday night. The bill, dubbed the Gender Recognition Act, will allow a third gender choice on driver's licenses, state identification cards, and make it easier for people to change their gender and name on state identification papers.  

Non-binary, is a catch-all term for people who do not identify as exclusively male or female, and has been slowly acknowledged by some states as a gender option. 

In June, the District of Columbia followed Oregon's lead and began offering the gender-neutral choice of "X" on driver licenses and identification cards, and similar legislation is currently pending in New York.

The bill was authored by Senators Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego),  who are two of the many openly LGBT members of the Legislature. Equality California (an organization MadProfessah used to be a Board Member of) issued a statement on the occasion of the enactment of the bill into law.

Today's Queer Quote is an excerpt from this press release:

SB 179 makes it easier for transgender, intersex and non-binary people to get official identification documents that accurately reflect their gender identity. In addition to recognizing a nonbinary gender, this bill streamlines the process to change the gender marker or name on state-issued identification documents. Previously, individuals faced difficult and burdensome obstacles to change their identification documents, such as requirements that a person obtain a physician’s verification or that they appear in court, which ultimately made the process intimidating and added expenses that an individual might not have. 

“Gov. Brown’s signature today has put California at the forefront of ensuring the dignity and safety of its transgender, non-binary and gender-non-conforming residents,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “When your ID doesn’t match your gender identity or expression, it can expose you to potentially dangerous situations. SB 179 eliminates unnecessary obstacles from the process of getting state-issued identification documents for thousands of Californians.” 

“With this simple change, California has made daily life infinitely safer and easier for many gender nonbinary and transgender people,” said Kris Hayashi, executive director of Transgender Law Center. “We’re asked for identification everywhere from banks to bars to airports, and it can be devastating and even dangerous for nonbinary and transgender people to navigate life with an I.D. that doesn’t reflect who they truly are.” 

According to a 2015 national survey of 25,000 transgender people, only 11 percent reported that all their identification documents had their name and gender that is consistent with their gender identity, and one-third of respondents who showed an ID with a gender marker that did not match their appearance reported being verbally harassed, denied services or assaulted.

 Congratulations to California!

Hate Don't P(l)ay: North Carolina Loses 2017 NBA All-Star Game Over Anti-LGBT #HB2 Law

Well, well! The backlash over North Carolina's discriminatory HB2 continues to build, as today the National Basketball Association announcing a decision to move the 2017 All-Star Game out of Charlotte, North Carolina because that hateful law is still in effect in the Tarheel State.

The NBA released a statement:

"The NBA has decided to relocate the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte with the hope of rescheduling for 2019.
"Since March, when North Carolina enacted HB2 and the issue of legal protections for the LGBT community in Charlotte became prominent, the NBA and the Charlotte Hornets have been working diligently to foster constructive dialogue and try to effect positive change. We have been guided in these discussions by the long-standing core values of our league. These include not only diversity, inclusion, fairness and respect for others but also the willingness to listen and consider opposing points of view.
"Our week-long schedule of All-Star events and activities is intended to be a global celebration of basketball, our league, and the values for which we stand, and to bring together all members of the NBA community -- current and former players, league and team officials, business partners, and fans. While we recognize that the NBA cannot choose the law in every city, state, and country in which we do business, we do not believe we can successfully host our All-Star festivities in Charlotte in the climate created by HB2.
"We are particularly mindful of the impact of this decision on our fans in North Carolina, who are among the most passionate in our league. It is also important to stress that the City of Charlotte and the Hornets organization have sought to provide an inclusive environment and that the Hornets will continue to ensure that all patrons -- including members of the LGBT community -- feel welcome while attending games and events in their arena.
"We look forward to re-starting plans for our All-Star festivities in Charlotte for 2019 provided there is an appropriate resolution to this matter.
"The NBA will make an announcement on the new location of the 2017 NBA All-Star Game in the coming weeks."

Let's hear it for the good guys!

Hopefully the NBA moves the game (and its estimated $100 million in economic impact!) to a city and state with LGBT protection.s New Orleans, which appears to be the top contender, is in Louisiana which has no statewide ordinance banning LGBT discrimination.

Meanwhile North Carolina has two years to get its %*%#@ together and Repeal HB2!

QUEER QUOTE: SD Gov Vetoes Anti-Trans Students Bill

Wow! This is a big surprise. The Republican Governor of South Dakota has vetoed a bill that explicitly targeted the transgender community for discrimination. House bill 1008 would have stated that students in South Dakota must use bathrooms and changing facilities that correspond to their "biological gender" and not their gender identity.

Governor Dennis Daugaard's veto message is today's queer quote:

March 1, 2016

The Honorable Dean Wink

Speaker of the House of Representatives

500 East Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,

I respectfully return to you House Bill 1008, with my VETO.

House Bill 1008 does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota.  As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people.  Local school districts can, and have, made necessary restroom and locker room accommodations that serve the best interests of all students, regardless of biological sex or gender identity. 

This bill seeks to impose statewide standards on “every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school.”  It removes the ability of local school districts to determine the most appropriate accommodations for their individual students and replaces that flexibility with a state mandate.

If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them.  Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.

Preserving local control is particularly important because this bill would place every school district in the difficult position of following state law while knowing it openly invites federal litigation.  Although there have been promises by an outside entity to provide legal defense to a school district, this provision is not memorialized in the bill.  Nor would such defense eliminate the need for school or state legal counsel, nor avoid expenses relating to expert witnesses, depositions and travel, or other defense costs.  Nor does the commitment extend to coverage over settlement or damage expenses.  This law will create a certain liability for school districts and the state in an area where no such liability exists today.

For these reasons, I oppose this bill and ask that you sustain my veto.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Daugaard

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

QUEER QUOTE: IBM Send Gov. Jindal Letter Opposing Louisiana Proposed RFRA Law

IBM has long been one of the LGBT-friendliest companies to work for, and they are putting their money where their mouth is by sending a letter to Governor Bobby Jindal and the top officials in the legislature opposing Louisiana's plan to enact an even more discriminatory RFRA then the anti-LGBT legislation Indiana and Arkansas had attempted to enact earlier this year.

Louisiana's bill is called the "Marriage and Conscience Act" and what IBM has to say about it is today's Queer Quote:

April 15, 2015 
The Honorable Bobby Jindal Governor, State of Louisiana PO Box 94004 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9004  

Dear Governor Jindal, 
I am writing to express IBM's strong opposition to H.B. 707, the Marriage and Conscience Act.  We are deeply concerned by reports that you intend to support this legislation.  

IBM has made significant investments in Louisiana including most recently a technology services delivery center in Baton Rouge, creating new jobs for Louisiana workers.  We located the center in Baton Rouge because we believe Louisiana has great talent and would continue to be a rich source of such talent.  However a bill that legally protects discrimination based on same-sex marriage status will create a hostile environment for our current and prospective employees, and is antithetical to our company’s values.  IBM will find it much harder to attract talent to Louisiana if this bill is passed and enacted into law.  

Our perspective is grounded in IBM's 104-year history and our deep legacy of diversity and inclusion - a legacy to which we remain strongly committed today.  IBM is opposed to discrimination against anyone on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected categories.    

We urge you to work with the Legislature to ensure this legislation is not discriminatory. 

Thank you for considering our views.  

Sincerely,  

James M. Driesse Senior State Executive  

CC: The Hon. John A. Alario, Jr President, Louisiana State Senate State Capitol Building PO Box 94183 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 
The Hon. Charles E. Checkley Speaker, Louisiana House of Representatives State Capitol Building PO Box 94062 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

Legislators Who Voted To Kill North Dakota LGBT Equality Bill Shamed

The same week that Indiana and Arkansas enacted new "religious freedom" bills with explicit provisions that they could not be used as defenses or sources of discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity, despite the fact that neither state has statewide civil rights laws that include LGBT citizens, the North Dakota State Senate overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have done just that.

What happened next was great. The largest newspaper in the largest city in the state printed the pictures of every single person who had voted to deny civil rights protections to LGBT people in the state, which lead the Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple to say:

"I’m concerned that we have missed an opportunity to affirm what North Dakotans already believe, which is that discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation is not acceptable.”

Gee, ya think?

Lambda Legal's Jenny Pizer Explains Why Indiana's New "Religious Freedom" Law Is So Wrong

This week Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) signed into law a "license to discriminate" bill (SB 101) that proponents claimed was just aimed at clarifying protections for religious freedoms in Indiana but which LGBT activists and others had warned could open up all sorts of disfavored minorities to discrimination under the guise of protecting religion. Of course, we at MadProfessah.com have been following the recent proliferation of deceptively anti-LGBT legislation in multiple states such as Texas, Arkansas and West Virginia.

Lambda Legal's Jenny Pizer explains why Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)" is so dangerous to the civil rights of LGBT people and others:

The truth is, Indiana’s RFRA is designed to allow and in some respects, invites people to disregard laws that should apply to everyone conducting a business — laws to prevent people from harming each other in the name of religion.At Lambda Legal, our top concern is religiously motivated discrimination against people already vulnerable to exclusion and mistreatment, especially the LGBT community. 

Gov. Pence, in his signing statement, said, "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved." 

He’s wrong, or disingenuous, on both points. If this new law does not seek to facilitate discrimination, why did legislators pressing for its passage say it’s “needed” to allow businesses to turn away same-sex couples? And why did a majority of Indiana legislators then reject amendments offered to specify that these enhanced religious rights cannot be used to excuse discrimination?  

Further, about disputes between private parties, the law says explicitly, “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” This language was included to allow private parties to object to following a law that otherwise would apply to them, and to assert these expanded religious rights in a dispute with another private party. 

A stark problem for LGBT Hoosiers is that unlike in other states, Indiana law does not include sexual orientation and gender identity within the state’s nondiscrimination framework. 

When antigay lawmakers say laws like this are “needed,” and they point to cases from other states where we successfully resisted use of religion to defend discrimination, they don’t acknowledge that a statewide nondiscrimination law was on the books in those places. Currently, less than half the states have such laws.

When asked about these points on national television, Gov. Pence (who previously had been mentioned as another potential Republican candidate for President in 2016) did not acquit himself well. He said that he wanted to work with the Indiana legislature to clarify that SB 101 does not include a license to discriminate but that he did not intend to include sexual orientation or gender identity in statewide nondiscrimination legislation.

Indiana's largest LGBT group, Freedom Indiana immediately took the Governor to task on the lack of a real commitment to protect LGBT people from discrimination in Indiana:

Governor Pence didn't listen last week when he signed this discriminatory law into effect, and he's still not listening to the growing chorus of criticism locally and nationally. While we appreciate his recognition that he's placed our state in peril, he's obviously trying to have it both ways. You can't 'clarify' discrimination. Indiana now has billions of dollars and thousands of jobs on the line, all because the Governor wouldn't stop this dangerous bill. He has a second chance to save our reputation for Hoosier hospitality, but he has to stand up and protect LGBT Hoosiers. Discrimination is not a core Hoosier value, and we can't afford to let our state continue to suffer. 

Thousands of people attended a march protesting SB 101 in Indianapolis yesterday and major corporations are announcing that they are scuttling plans to expand or do more business in Indiana as a result of the controversy.

Already the reaction in Indiana seems to be dissuading other red states like Montana and Georgia from moving so quickly to appear to trample the civil rights of American citizens in the quest to reify religious beliefs.

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....

QUEER QUOTE: The Text Of What Anti-Gay Legislation Looks Like In A Post-Marriage Equality Era

Realizing that they have essentially completely lost the fight over marriage equality, heterosexual supremacists and homophobes and people who do not believe that LGBT people should enjoy the same civil rights as other targeted minorities have found a new way to enshrine discrimination against LGBT people in state law.

Here is the text of the West Virginia's copy-cat bill of the Arkansas law that was enacted earlier this week which prohibits and invalidates any ordinance in the state that protects LGBT people from discrimination.

It's called the West Virginia Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act (HB 2881) and is today's Queer Quote:

(a) No county, municipality or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce a local law, ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.
(b) Any local law, ordinance, resolution, rule or policy adopted before the operative date of this act that violates subsection (a) of this section shall be null and void.

Notice how similar this text is to Arkansas' Senate Bill 202:

14-1-403. Prohibited conduct.
(a) A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.
(b) This section does not apply to a rule or policy that pertains only to the employees of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision.

I have no doubt that this will be a popular idea among Republicans in many other state legislatures. It will be interesting to see how LGBT advocacy organization react. What's amazing to me is that the sponsors of these legislation are still using the language of "no special rights" that first became popular over 25 years ago and was thought to have ben neutralized by the Supreme Court decision Romer v Evans striking down a Colorado ballot measure that explicitly prevented the enactment of ordinances that protected LGBT people. The difference now is that the "no special rights" crowd are no masking their anti-gay bigotry in the notion of "uniformity." In other words if a state does not have state protections for LGBT individuals then that condition should be uniform, and local municipalities and cities should not be allowed to have local ordinances doing so. Because otherwise LGBT people would have the "special right" of being able to sue someone if they were prohibited access to public transportation, denied service in restaurants and private businesses or fired from a job or denied housing because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Do you really think in 2015 a majority of Americans believe the right to not face discrimination because of an identity characteristic is a "special right"? Good luck with that.

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.

Equality California's 2014 List Of LGBT-Supportive Legislation

Equality California has a list of legislation that it has been able to get passed by the California Legislature in 2014.

Modernize birth certificates: AB 1951, authored by Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez, modernizes California birth certificates by allowing parents to choose to self-designate as “father,” “mother” or “parent,” eliminating inaccurate designations and confusion for same-sex parents.
Provide LGBT cultural competency for health care providers: AB 496, authored by Assemblymember Rich Gordon, clarifies that existing cultural competency training for health care providers should include discussion of LGBT issues.
End the “panic” defense: AB 2501, Assemblymember Susan Bonilla, eliminates the so-called “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses, outrageous tactics used by defendants who claim their violent acts were triggered by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Encourage Respect After Death: AB 1577, the Respect After Death Act, authored by Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins and cosponsored by the Transgender Law Center, would make sure death certificates for transgender Californians accurately reflect their authentic, lived identity.
End discrimination in blood donor procedures: AJR 50, authored by Assemblymember Richard Bloom, urges the President to be an agent of change so that FDA blood donation eligibility policies will be based on modern scientific research and findings rather than archaic assumptions and fears.

This is a pretty good list!

SATURDAY POLITICS: California Legislature Passes Plastic Bag Ban

Well, well, well! The California legislature has wrapped up its action for the 2014 year, sending numerous bills to the governor for his signature. One of the most closely watched bills was SB270, which would impose a statewide ban on the use of plastic bags.

Senators who had previously opposed the bill, including incoming Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, this time supported the measure after protections were added for plastic bag manufacturers. 

The bill by Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles would prohibit single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and large pharmacies in 2015 and at convenience stores in 2016. 

It includes $2 million in loans to help manufacturers shift to producing reusable bags and lets grocers charge 10 cents each for paper and reusable bags.
The bill had sparked one of the most contentious debates in the last weeks of the legislative session, with aggressive lobbying by environmentalists and bag manufacturers.

Glad to see my state senator Kevin de Leon finally changed his position and supported this important legislation! I hope Governor Brown signs it into law soon.

Major LGBT Groups Withdraw Support For ENDA in Wake of Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Decision

Ruh-Oh! Things have started to come off the rails for the current version of the "federal LGBT rights bill," also known as ENDA or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The problems is that the current version of the bill (which passed the United States Senate last year) includes an "overly generous" religious exemption that would allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in certain settings where the equivalent discrimination on the basis of race or sex.

In light of the recent 50th anniversary of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision focusing more attention on religious exemptions and how they apply to federal statutes, a number of mainstream LGBT organizations have taken the unusual step of coming out to oppose legislation that they have previously supported, legislation which would expand prohibitions on discrimination for millions of workers in the United States, but would also codify a religious exemption to discriminate against LGBT people.

Joint Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ENDA and Call for Equal Workplace Protections for LGBT People

The following national LGBT legal organizations have signed onto the below statement: American Civil Liberties Union; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders; Lambda Legal; National Center for Lesbian Rights; and Transgender Law Center. 

The provision in the current version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that allows religious organizations to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity has long been a source of significant concern to us. Given the types of workplace discrimination we see increasingly against LGBT people, together with the calls for greater permission to discriminate on religious grounds that followed immediately upon the Supreme Court's decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has become clear that the inclusion of this provision is no longer tenable. It would prevent ENDA from providing protections that LGBT people desperately need and would make very bad law with potential further negative effects. Therefore, we are announcing our withdrawal of support for the current version of ENDA. 

For decades, our organizations have challenged anti-LGBT workplace discrimination in the courts and worked for the passage of inclusive non-discrimination laws at the local, state, and federal level. We do this work because of the devastating toll workplace discrimination has had, and continues to have, on the lives of LGBT people. It is unacceptable that in the year 2014, men and women are forced to hide who they are or whom they love when they go to work. 

The current patchwork of legal protections at the state and local level has left LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For this reason, we have supported federal legislation to explicitly protect LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace, and have urged President Obama to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. 

ENDA's discriminatory provision, unprecedented in federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, could provide religiously affiliated organizations - including hospitals, nursing homes and universities - a blank check to engage in workplace discrimination against LGBT people. The provision essentially says that anti-LGBT discrimination is different - more acceptable and legitimate - than discrimination against individuals based on their race or sex. If ENDA were to pass and be signed into law with this provision, the most important federal law for the LGBT community in American history would leave too many jobs, and too many LGBT workers, without protection. Moreover, it actually might lessen non-discrimination protections now provided for LGBT people by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and very likely would generate confusion rather than clarity in federal law. Finally, such a discrimination provision in federal law likely would invite states and municipalities to follow the unequal federal lead. All of this is unacceptable. 

The Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby has made it all the more important that we not accept this inappropriate provision. Because opponents of LGBT equality are already misreading that decision as having broadly endorsed rights to discriminate against others, we cannot accept a bill that sanctions discrimination and declares that discrimination against LGBT people is more acceptable than other kinds of discrimination. 

Our ask is a simple one: Do not give religiously affiliated employers a license to discriminate against LGBT people when they have no such right to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Religiously affiliated organizations are allowed to make hiring decisions based on their religion, but nothing in federal law authorizes discrimination by those organizations based on any other protected characteristic, and the rule should be the same for sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Religious organizations are free to choose their ministers or faith leaders, and adding protections for sexual orientation and gender identity or expression will not change that. 

These concerns are not hypothetical. Increasingly, this is what employment discrimination against LGBT people looks like. Take the example of Matthew Barrett. In July 2013, Matthew was offered a job as food services director at Fontbonne Academy, a college prep high school in Milton, Massachusetts that is affiliated with the Roman Catholic Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston. Fontbonne Academy has employees and admits students of various faiths. Yet, two days after Matthew listed his husband as his emergency contact on the standard employment paperwork, and despite twenty years of work in the food services industry, his job offer was rescinded. Although nothing about the food services job involved religious rituals or teaching, Matthew was told by an administrator that the school was unable to hire him because "the Catholic religion doesn't recognize same-sex marriage." The current version of ENDA would authorize this sexual orientation discrimination. 

As the national outcry against SB 1062 in Arizona (and similar proposals in numerous other states) demonstrates, the American people oppose efforts to misuse religious liberty as an excuse to discriminate against LGBT people. It is time for ENDA (and the LGBT non-discrimination executive order for federal contractors) to reflect this reality. Until the discriminatory exemption is removed so that anti-LGBT discrimination is treated the same as race, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information under federal workplace laws, we think ENDA should not move forward in Congress. In addition, we will oppose any similar provisions at the state and local level. We are hopeful that the many members of Congress who support this historic, critically important legislation will agree that singling out LGBT people for an unequal and unfair exemption from basic workplace protection falls unacceptably short of the civil rights standards that have served our nation well against other types of discrimination for fifty years. We stand ready and eager to work with them to achieve the long-sought goal of explicit, effective federal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people.

That's pretty deep!

QUEER QUOTE: NGLTF Acknowledges 50th Anniversary Of 1964 Cvil Rights Act

Last Wednesday, July 2 2014, was the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one of the key moments in the fight for equality in this country. Re Carey, the executive director of the National gay and Lesbian Task Force 9more commonly known as The Task Force) acknowledged the historical significance of the moment by sending out a press statement which is today's Queer Quote:

"Fifty years ago, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. It was the culmination of historic actions such as the March on Washington that we commemorated last summer. The landmark act was more than a legal remedy to the most appalling discrimination and inequality, it represented the hopes and dreams of millions of people who simply wanted to fulfill the promise of America. Today, we can celebrate significant progress, including important advances in recent days such as President Obama's upcoming executive orders to protect LGBTQ employees. But we still live in a world where racism permeates every aspect of our society; where a trans person of color can be turned away from the polling station because of their race and gender identity, where a Latino man can be profiled, stopped and frisked because of his race and presumed sexual orientation, and where millions of women — regardless of race — get paid less than their male counterparts. So, as we celebrate today, let¹s fight even harder for a tomorrow where everyone experiences true freedom and justice."

Good job, NGLTF!

Illinois Officially Becomes 19th Marriage Equality State

Since Pennsylvania's discriminatory marriage law was struck down by a federal judge last month we have been saying that there are 19 states with marriage equality, but that number was computed because we have been counting Illinois, even though it's law enacting marriage equality wouldn't go into effect until almost 8 months after it passed the state legislature last November. The fight for marriage equality in Illinois was long and hard, so that a homegrown politician like President Obama celebrated when it was achieved.

That day has finally occurred, as Illinois' marriage law went into effect today:

On Nov. 20, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn made Illinois the 16th state in the union to allow same-sex marriage when he signed SB10, the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act, during a ceremony at at the UIC Forum in Chicago. 

When Illinois' marriage equality law was passed, lawmakers set June 1, 2014 as the date it would take effect. On Feb 21, Judge Sharon Coleman ruled the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Illinois LGBT couples would not have to wait until June to marry. 

Cook County Clerk David Orr immediately began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 15 of Illinois' other 101 counties followed suit. Last week, Orr announced his office has issued nearly 1,600 marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the last three months. 

Now, starting June 1, 2014, all Illinois counties must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

QUEER QUOTE: Matt Foreman Opposes Federal LGBT Legislation, Says #ENDAisNOTEqual

Well, well, well! Expressing publicly thoughts which many LGBT activists (like myself) have had privately for years, Matt Foreman, former head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and eminence rose of the LGBT movement has said that the current "federal gay rights bill," commonly known as ENDA (which passed the United States Senate for the first time in its 40-year history last year) is a waste of time.

To be precise he said this:

"It's pathetic that four decades have gone by without Congress extending basic civil rights protections to LGBT Americans. It's even more pathetic that what's left of Bella Abzug's comprehensive legislation is ENDA - a small-bore bill that is now riddled with giveaways to anti-gay forces, including a religious exemption big enough for an 18-wheeler to cruise through. It's time to pull the plug on this essentially lifeless corpse and demand full equality under the federal civil rights statutes."

ENDA is (and has been for at least a decade) the #1 priority of HRC, the nations largest LGBT political advocacy organization. But with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, no pro-LGBT legislation will be enacted in the near-future, since only a handful of House Republicans (well, 7) are publicly supportive of the measure. The hardest thing about banning anti-gay discrimination in federal law is that most Americans already think it is illegal (and think that it should be), which paradoxically reduces momentum for enacting such a policy into law.

I agree with Matt that ENDA should be replaced by a comprehensive civil rights bill that calls for an end to discrimination in public accommodations, employment, education and housing, basically amend the 1964 civil rights act and add "sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression" to the words where "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" appear in the text.

However, it does seem like pushing for a more comprehensive measure will make enacting basic projections in the 23 states where you can currently be fired for being LGB even less likely to happen in the near term.

So, I disagree that ENDA should be withdrawn, I think it should be supported, IN ADDITION to a comprehensive bill.

What do you think?

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mississippi Adds "In God We Trust" To State Seal

The Mississippi state legislature passed a measure late Tuesday that proponents refer to as a "religious freedom restoration act" but that among other things, would add the words "In God We Trust" to the State Seal and clarify that "sincerely held religious belief " can trump non-discrimination laws, the same kind of law that Governor Jan Brewer vetoed earlier this year.

The ACLU still opposes the legislation:

“Even though the Mississippi legislature removed some of the egregious language from Arizona’s infamous SB 1062, we are disappointed that it passed this unnecessary law and ignored the national, public outcry against laws of this nature,” said Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel with the ACLU.

Why is it that people who are religious believe they need to have "special rights" that people who do not believe in God do not have?

Virginia Legislature Unanimously Repeals State's Sodomy Ban

 The Virginia legislature is very closely divided along partisan lines in a purple state that appears to be trending blue but which has been controlled by conservatives (both Republican and Democrat) for  along time. So, it was pretty surprising that legislators in both houses have been able to pass a measure (any measure) unanimously. What was the topic that garnered such unanimity? Repealing the state's archaic Crime Against Nature law which purported to criminalize oral and anal sex among consenting adults (even married ones!) despite the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated all such laws across the nation.

Repeal of the statute was necessary because the 4th U.S. Circuit explicitly rejected former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's bizarre notion that the sodomy ban was still able to used to criminalize oral or anal sex between consenting adults.

The Washington Blade reports:

Garrett and others pushing the bill said it was needed because a ruling last year by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond declaring the sodomy statute unconstitutional and unenforceable made it unclear whether prostitution involving oral or anal sex could be prosecuted. 

Others, including former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, argued that the appeals court ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would prevent the prosecution of adults seeking to have consensual oral sex with minors between the age of 15 and 18. 

Virginia’s existing criminal code addressing prostitution and non-forcible sex was linked to the sodomy statute, which for years defined sodomy as a criminal felony regardless of whether the sex was between consenting adults in private.

It should be noted that there are several states that still have sodomy laws on the books, more than 11 years after Lawrence struck them all down as unconstitutional: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

Hat/tip to Think Progress.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Also Supports Veto Of AZ Anti-Gay Law

Following the position of his junior colleague, 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/02/breaking-gop-sen-john-mccain-calls-for.html, legislation which claims to expand religious liberty to the point where a"sincerely held religious belief" can be used as a valid defense in court for violations of state public accommodations law. The immediate impact would be to empower anti-LGBT bigots with the ability to deny services they offer to the general public to LGBT people.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

READ IT AND WEEP: The Text Of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Law

Well, he went and did it! The President of Uganda signed into law the infamous "Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014." It is the most misguided and virulently homophobic piece of legislation enacted anywhere in the world in recent memory.

Here is the text of the relevant section on homosexuality, but you should read the full text of the law which also punishes people for advocating on behalf of LGBT people as well.

PART II—HOMOSEXUALITY AND RELATED PRACTICES.

2. The offence of homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if—

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be

liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.

3. Aggravated homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality where the—

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of eighteen years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender; or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower him or her so as to enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex.

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

4. Attempt to commit homosexuality.

(1) A person who attempts to commit the offence of homosexuality commits a felony and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for seven years.

(2) A person who attempts to commit the offence of aggravated homosexuality commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.

Who says truth can't be stranger than fiction? If one saw a movie or read a book with legislation like this one would think it was too far-fetched to be real. This is a very sad day for people who believe in the principles of human rights around the world.

Hat/tip to Box Turtle Bulletin