Now This is Better Leadership

I consider leadership to be an act of courage, stepping out for what you know is right, even when it's not always popular. On the Fourth of July, when we are celebrating our nation's freedom, I want to salute these US Senators who have done that with this video, increasing the pool of people under whom freedom and justice -- and the pursuit of happiness -- should apply. I'm so pleased that the "It Gets Better" video project -- an act of courage in and of itself -- gave them the platform and idea to get this done and give U.S. kids struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity a message of hope.

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/06/29/6974424-senators-tell-gay-kids-it-gets-better

If you want to bring the reality of LGBT teen suicide closer to heart, I recommend the movie "Prayers for Bobby." It's a story of a family which struggles with the Bible and homophobia in trying to understand their gay family member. It's very moving and highlights the continued need for the "It Gets Better" video project.

The South Africa Paradox: Full Marriage Equality but Social Inequality

South Africa may have marriage equality under the law for LGBT people, as noted in Wikipedia, but many LGBT people still remain horrifying targets of violence.

Some lesbians have been murdered and have become the victims of "corrective rape" where patriarchal men who find themselves threatened and "not good enough" seek to punish the women that they sorely misunderstand.

Unfortunately, the police ridicule the women and few cases have resulted in convictions, as reported in this BBC article.

After a petition of 170K people all over the world calling for an end to "corrective rape" following Noxolo Nkosana's murder in April 2011, the S. African justice department is beginning to deal with these hate crimes and considering harsher sentences for crimes in which the victim's sexual orientation is a factor.

Unfortunately, S. Africa courts got way ahead of the people's understanding and acceptance of differences in sexual orientation. At least in the U.S. we are building a slower but potentially more lasting, steady consensus that at least LGBT people are worthy of respect and dignity before most of our courts move forward with full relationship recognition in the form of marriage.

Obama Gets Stronger on Marriage Equality

I wanted this stance in 2008 with California's Prop 8, but I will take it now with Minnesota. Obama says he is against Minnesota's proposed gay marriage ban. Their House and Senate just voted to have MN voters decide if marriage is only between one man and one woman on the November 2012 ballot box -- a constitutional amendment that may also be on the table in North Carolina (the NC General Assembly has not yet voted on that).

Obama is now clearly moving toward favoring marriage equality, when he says his views are "constantly evolving" and that, as Pink News reports, “What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.”

I like that he's saying his views are evolving, as that signals to people that they should also evolve their views and expect that he may someday boldly declare full support for marriage equality. I look forward to that day! That would be the kind of change I can believe in, at long last.

Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage: Tipping Point Reached?

Wow, look at this chart. Gallup shows more Americans now support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, by a margin of 53% in support and 45% opposed -- nearly the reverse the case as in 2010. Could Obama's leadership (expressed late last year in his It Gets Better video and his unwillingness to defend DOMA), and the Congressional overturning of DADT have something to do with this, in addition to the clear trend over time? Regardless, this is progress! Exciting news!

Source: Gallup

Minnesota to Vote on Prejudice

Voters in Minnesota will decide next year whether to place a constitutional ban on the ability of gay couples to marry. Minnesota already restricts marriage to opposite sex couples but opponents argue that a constitutional amendment is needed to strengthen the ban and ward off challenges from gay rights campaigners. Really?

The Minnesota House voted 70-62 to put the referendum before voters in November 2012, just like efforts under way in North Carolina. Four Republicans voted against it, including John Kriesel, who lost both legs while serving in Iraq and who told lawmakers: “This amendment doesn’t represent what I went to fight for.” Well said, John. Like most of us who do any fighting at all, we'd like to think we were fighting for actual freedom, not for restrictions in freedom under the guise of "religious freedom."

John also had the courage to say this in reference to a photo he showed of Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt, a gay soldier from Minnesota who was killed in Afghanistan in February. “I cannot look at this family and look at this picture and say, ‘You know what, corporal? You were good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you were not good enough to marry the person you love,’” he said.

Last week, a Star Tribune Minnesota poll suggested that just over half of Minnesota voters (55%) do not want a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, compared to 39% who said they did. The results were a “sharp reversal” of poll results from seven years ago. Could Minnesota be the one state that votes on and does not pass an anti-gay amendment?

Tell Business Leaders in North Carolina to Speak Out Against Anti-Gay Bigotry

Support the Unitarian Universalist Association's "Standing on the Side of Love" campaign and Equality NC in their quest to prevent discrimination from becoming part of the North Carolina Constitution by signing the petition at http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-business-leaders-in-north-carolina-to-speak-out-against-anti-gay-bigotry

This proposed amendment goes much further than enshrining bigotry into the state Constitution. It would prevent employers from continuing to offer health benefits to same sex partners. It says marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in NC. Who knows what other domestic arrangements from employers or cities could be taken away.

Governor Perdue, we need to hear your voice... This is a waste of money, and it is discriminatory toward a group of taxpaying citizens who currently pay for others to have rights they lack. We need strong leaders in the government and business to expose this amendment for what it is .... not good for NC in any way. This proposed amendment will NOT encourage companies to locate & bring jobs to North Carolina. It will make our state look backwards-facing at a time when several states have taken bold and progressive steps forward. In short, it will cost many North Carolinians and will give no real benefits to any of us. That, my friends, is a losing proposition.

Engendering Confusion: On Taxes and Texas

It's a confusing world some people engender when they hyperfocus on gender as the primary criterion for legal marital rights. When genders change or are unclear (e.g., intersex people or those in transition) or jurisdictions differ in their recognition, the solution is simple: just recognize people for the gender they feel they are and the partner they choose to marry.

Consider this issue: Once a transgender person gets sexual reassignment surgery to complete their transition to their identified gender, they are recognized as being that new gender under current Texas law (like most states) including in areas like their driving record and marriage licenses.
Since only a man and woman can marry in Texas, then, a person born as a male who becomes a woman is then able to marry a man. However, Republican Senator Tommy Williams is allegedly concerned about the confusion he thinks county and district clerks have in following the court orders. And even worse, as one article states, apparently Governor Perry never intended for transgendered people to marry! Not allowing them to marry at all would certain strip away their recognition as human beings -- as even gay people can marry someone of the opposite gender if they choose. Williams' intent is apparently not to prohibit any transgender marriages but to "clean up" a 2009 law in which sex change operations are recognized to revert to a 1999 state appeals court decision that said that in cases of marriage, gender is assigned at birth and sticks with a person throughout their life even if they have a sex change.


What Tommy and his cohorts may not realize is that their proposed "clean up" and reversal has the potential to cause even more confusion. If a person born as a male who then becomes a woman is only recognized as a male for marriage purposes, then that visibly female person can only legally marry a woman. So now you essentially have what appears to be a "same-gender" marriage, which seems to violate Texas' strict prohibition on same-gender marriages. While this may allow marriage in some cases, this law would undermine what I know is even more important to transgender people - being recognized by their gender identity. In short, this change does not serve to clear anything up - it only hurts another misunderstood minority group while benefitting no one.

And now consider this box-checking dilemma: A lesbian couple which includes NCLR's Kate Kendall gets legally married in California in the small window of time in 2008 in which it is legal. States typically decide who is and is not married, not the Federal government. They then go to file their Federal tax return and need to check the box "married" or "single." What should they do? They are, in fact, married. However, the Federal government, through the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), does not recognize their legal marriage. Nevertheless, the couple feels compelled to tell the truth -- and, get this -- pay MORE taxes to the Federal government than they would as "single." What should the IRS do - audit them for breaking DOMA and insist on giving them back all the extra money they paid, or keep the extra money and applaud their honesty and integrity?

The verdict? People are much larger than the little boxes (and rules) society creates for genders and marital status. And in trying to force-fit people into little boxes and rules rather than simply accommodating who they are and how they want to be recognized, people engender much more confusion.