Monthly Archives: April 2009

N.C. congresswoman infuriates gay rights supporters by calling Shepard hate crime a ‘hoax’

WASHINGTON — Gay victims of violence would gain new federal protections under a revived and expanded hate crimes bill passed by the House on Wednesday, April 29 over conservatives’ objections.

Hate crimes — as defined by the bill — are those motivated by prejudice and based on someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

The bill, which passed 249-175, could provide a financial bonanza to state and local authorities, with grants for investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. The federal government could step in and prosecute if states requested it or declined to exercise their authority.

A weaker bill died two years ago in the face of a veto threat from President George W. Bush.

President Barack Obama, in contrast, urged support, saying it would "enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association."

Obama called for passage in the Senate, where Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is the chief sponsor.

The House bill added protections based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability. It is called the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill in memory of the young gay man murdered in an anti-gay hate crime in Laramie, Wyo., in 1998.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a supporter of the bill, contended it was the protection for gays provision that drove the opposition.

"I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle would be singing the same offensive tune if we were talking about hate crimes based on race or religion," she said, referring to Republican opponents. "It seems to me it is the category of individuals that they are offended by, rather than the fact that we have hate crimes laws at all."

She then recounted cases where gay people were victims of violence.

The issue was personal for openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who said the bill would protect "people like me." He said he wasn’t asking for approval from people with whom he didn’t want to associate.

Answering those who said the protections were not needed, Frank quoted comedian Chico Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Current law only permits federal prosecutions against crimes based on race, religion, color or national origin — and only when the victims are engaged in federally protected activity such as voting.

The bill aroused the ire of conservative religious groups and pastors. Several Republicans argued those leaders could face criminal charges for speaking out against homosexuality or would be reluctant to state their views.

Supporters pointed to a section of the bill that protects any activities protected by the Constitution, and countered nothing would prevent speaking out.

The opponents and supporters argued strenuously over whether the bill would divide or unite Americans.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said the bill "divides America" by singling out special groups for protection.

"We should focus on the opposite, uniting America," he said. "The bill is probably unconstitutional and will be struck down" by the courts.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., countered, "We in America have said we believe all people ought to be treated equally. If America stands for anything, it stands for equality under the law."

But perhaps the opponent that made the biggest splash was Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., who drew fast and furious remonstrations for her remarks during the debate.

"I also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay," Foxx said. “The bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."

Shepard’s mother, Judy Shepard, was sitting in the gallery watching the debate when Foxx made her remarks. Judy Shepard, since her son’s death, has been a highly visible activist in the effort to pass a federal hate crimes bill protecting LGBT people.

—  admin

Bill now moves to House for consideration

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Senate gave two nods of approval to a bill to legalize gay marriage after extended and emotional debate Thursday, April 30.

The measure now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration next week, and then back to the Senate for a third, and perhaps final, vote.

In initial voting, the Senate voted 20-15 to give its preliminary approval. Next, an amendment to require a statewide referendum on the matter was rejected, 22-13. Then the Senate registered its support for the original measure again, this time by 21-14.

Gay marriage supporters were elated. But one organizer, Maggie Ricker of Chelsea, echoed a number of lawmakers in saying she expects opponents of same-sex marriage to use a petition drive to force a people’s veto referendum even if the bill wins enactment in the Legislature.

"We’ve been planning for it already," Ricker said. "And it’s their right."

Before voting began Thursday, senators for and against the measure rose to lay out their positions in unusually personal terms.

Many described family and marital histories, as well as religious leanings.

Casting herself as "a 68-year-old grandmother" who grew up in the segregated South with "a very strict Southern Baptist upbringing," Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell said she favored passage and that the issue of gay marriage is about "transforming how we view other people."

Mitchell, a Democrat from Vassalboro who previously served as speaker of the Maine House, said both sides needed to respect differing opinions and asserted that "this is not a political issue."

Nonetheless, the voting in the Senate closely followed party lines, with just one Republican voting in the majority and one Democrat in the minority on the first tally and just two Republicans in the majority on the last vote of the day.

Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, the Senate chairman of the Judiciary Committee that had given the measure a strong endorsement, recounted marrying his longtime partner in California last year while on a visit with their children and the subsequent impact of California’s withdrawal of legalized marriage for gays.

"My partner and I are once again just partners," Bliss said, declaring that government and society should act to bolster all families.

Republican Senate minority leader Kevin Raye of Perry placed himself in the ranks of gay rights supporters but said that on the issue of gay marriage there were alternatives, such as domestic partnership and civil union laws, that could provide sought-after support and protections.

"Perhaps no other issue … engenders and evokes such passions," Raye said, adding "it saddens me to see the polarization."

Pastor Bob Emrich, a traditional marriage proponent who directs the Maine Jeremiah Project, denounced the tone of much of the Senate debate as disrespectful to churches and the faithful.

"It’s an attack on religion," he said.

But assistant Republican floor leader Jonathan Courtney of Sanford, who voted against the stand-alone bill but in favor of the referendum amendment, disagreed.

"I didn’t hear that the way he did," said Courtney, who told his colleagues he hoped the tone of a referendum campaign debate would match the civility displayed in the Senate.

Offering the prayer at the opening of Thursday’s Senate session was Democratic Sen. Dennis Damon of Trenton, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill.

Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, is undecided.

—  admin

Similar version has already passed House, which will now consider Senate bill

CONCORD, N.H. — The state Senate voted Wednesday, March 29 to move New Hampshire a step closer to becoming the fifth state to allow gay marriage, but made a distinction between religious and civil ceremonies, bringing back an idea the House rejected in March.

The bill, which passed the Senate 13-11, goes to the House, which can agree with the Senate, kill the bill or ask to negotiate something different.

Gov. John Lynch would only see a bill if both chambers agree. Lynch has said marriage is a word that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman, but he has not specifically said he would veto a gay marriage bill.

"I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples," Lynch said in a statement Wednesday. "This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions."

In its debate on the bill last month, the House had rejected a measure that would have established civil and religious marriage licenses, though it didn’t define the difference.

The Senate version goes into much greater detail about the distinction between the two types of marriages.

"This bill recognizes the sanctity of religious marriage and the diversity of religious beliefs about marriage while still providing equal access to civil marriage to all New Hampshire citizens," said Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from Exeter.

The bill allows churches to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Also in contrast to the House’s version, the Senate’s would allow each party to the marriage to be identified as bride, groom or spouse. Same-sex couples united by civil unions in the past year would automatically be assumed to have a "civil marriage" under the bill.

"This is a compromise that is respectful to both sides of this debate and meets our shared goal of equality under state law," said. Sen. Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat from Plymouth.

Opponents argued that marriage is a sacred religious institution that would be cheapened by allowing gays to marry. They said gay marriages threaten the foundation of human civilization.

"The marriage of a man and a woman is not based on prejudice but on the fact of human nature," Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau of Derry said. "Only a man and a woman can bear children. … Only through the union of a man and a woman life can begin and a child can have a father and a mother."

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa allow gay marriage. California briefly allowed it last year, but a voter initiative in November repealed it.

In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine has said he will sign a gay marriage bill if state lawmakers pass one that’s been introduced there. In New York, Gov. David Paterson is making another push to legalize gay marriage.

Maine legislators also are considering allowing gay marriage.

Two years ago, New Hampshire lawmakers passed, and the governor signed, a bill allowing civil unions. More than 600 New Hampshire couples have entered into civil unions since the law took effect last year.

Federal law does not recognize civil unions or same-sex marriages. Voters in 29 states have approved state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.

—  admin

ACLU urges Obama administration to stand by commitment to end gender identity discrimination by not appealing

A federal judge has ruled that transgender veteran Diane Schroer is entitled to the maximum compensation for the discrimination after she was refused a job with the Library of Congress.

The ACLU brought a sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Schroer, a Special Forces veteran who retired after 25 years of service, when she was denied a job after announcing her intention to transition from male to female.

"I served our country because I believed in an America that is committed to ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to have a meaningful life. That belief was shaken when I was told I wasn’t worthy to do what I trained my entire life to do because I happen to be transgender," said Schroer.

"[This] decision restores my faith in our democracy. The court understood the senseless harm that is caused by discrimination, and that gives me hope that others will also," she said.

The court awarded Schroer a total of $491,190, including $183,653 for back pay and benefits, $300,000 for emotional pain and suffering, and $7,537.80 for other out-of-pocket expenses that were incurred as a result of the library’s discriminatory conduct.

It is now up to the government to decide whether or not to appeal the decision, and the ACLU has called on President Obama to honor his pledge to end discrimination based on gender identity in federal employment.

"His administration can prove that it is really committed to ending transgender discrimination by choosing not to seek an appeal in this case, and by making clear to all government agencies that this discrimination will not be tolerated," said Sharon McGowan, an attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, which has represented Schroer since the case began four years ago.

McGowan also said the decision is "especially gratifying because it puts all employers on notice that transgender discrimination, in addition to being wrong, can be very expensive."

In an earlier decision in this case, the court ruled that discriminating against someone who transitions from living as one gender to another is discrimination under federal law. The court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, "Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute."

The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.

—  admin

Supports say bill not likely to pass, but hope court case ends ban

MIAMI — When Martin Gill met two young brothers named John and James, whom he later adopted, they had ringworm and no smiles. Four years later, at ages 4 and 8, their smiles come easily.

When Dennis Baxley met an 8-month-old baby named Jeff, whom he too adopted, the boy had been shaken to the point of brain damage and blindness. Baxley said they had an "instant bond."

For all three children, adoption meant rescue from abuse or neglect.

But Baxley is among several Christian leaders who doesn’t think Gill should have been allowed to adopt.

Gill is gay.

Now the state Legislature is faced with a bill aimed at overturning the state’s 1977 ban on gay adoption, and Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals must resolve a lawsuit over the issue stemming from Gill’s case. The case is likely to move on to the Florida Supreme Court.

The court case will likely resolve questions posed by gay rights advocates before the bill does.

The legislation is expected to die without coming to a vote before the Legislature adjourns next week.

"This year the bill is not going to be going anywhere to be honest with you," said the sponsor, Sen. Nan Rich, D-Sunrise. "The best chance to get a change in this state … will be with Gill."

The high court will hold preliminary hearings soon on Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman’s ruling that allowed Gill to adopt the boys in November. Her ruling said the ban violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents.

"I may not be the world’s greatest parent," Gill said. "But for those two kids I’m the best parent."

Former state legislator Baxley and other conservatives want the state to maintain its gay adoption ban and support the Department of Children and Families’ decision to fight Lederman’s ruling and the Legislature’s decision for a seventh straight year to maintain the law.

They say it’s better for the children to remain in foster care and keep their chance to be adopted by a heterosexual person or couple than to be adopted by a gay person or couple. More than 3,000 children in Florida’s foster care system await adoption, most of them having suffered abuse or neglect.

"Lederman’s decision is wrong," said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council. "She asked, ‘Is there any harm done by being in a gay family?’ Well, that’s not that the standard. The standard is what’s best for kids."

He said the bill is "dead" because it’s bad policy.

Florida allows gays to foster, but not adopt. Michigan, Mississippi and Utah disallow unmarried couples to jointly adopt, which rules out gay couples.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association both support allowing gays to adopt, saying there is no evidence that being raised by a gay person is harmful. Stemberger says such groups are biased.

"I don’t trust those organizations because they’re not doing consensus reports," Stemberger said. "Most of those organizations have very politicized committees that are making those decisions."

Stemberger referred to studies from some sociology professors and the Center for Law and Social Policy. A director from the organization said children live better with their married, biological parents, but the group does not take a position on gay marriages or gay parents.

A psychologist testifying for the state in the Gill case said gay parents provide unfavorable homes because they are less stable and more prone to depression, substance abuse and disorders.

But that was a minority opinion in Lederman’s courtroom. Numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban.

Even DCF attorney Neil Skene acknowledged Gill "is a wonderful foster parent."

Lederman wrote in her ruling the brothers are Gill’s "now and forever." It will probably be several months before the higher court rules in the case. Gill refuses to think he might lose.

"I kind of refuse to believe that that can happen," Gill said, lowering his voice. "That may not be the best legal statement, but I can’t go there."

—  admin

Chair of conservative group applauds GOP county chair’s decision while state party officials scramble to find another venue for Hunstman

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Republicans scrambled to find other events for Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to attend after a western Michigan GOP group withdrew its invitation.

Huntsman had been scheduled to speak to Kent County Republicans at the invitation of GOP county chairwoman Joanne Vorhees. But Vorhees changed her mind, apparently over Huntsman’s support for civil unions for gay couples.

Campaign for Michigan Families Chairman Gary Glenn said in statement that "Kent County’s principled stand sends a strong message nationwide that grass-roots conservatives will not embrace liberals who want to abandon the GOP platform’s commitment to traditional family values."

He urged Republicans in other counties to also cancel their events. But Huntsman apparently is welcome in other locations around Michigan, including heavily populated Oakland County northwest of Detroit.

Michigan Republican Party spokeswoman Jennifer Hoff confirmed Huntsman would be attending an Oakland County event, which Huntsman’s schedule lists as the Oakland County Lincoln Day dinner in Troy.

Hoff declined to comment on Vorhees’ action, saying only in a statement that "Michigan Republicans are excited to host Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. … and listen to his ideas on education reform."

Huntsman’s spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley, said the governor’s office received notice Saturday, April 25 that the Kent County invitation was being withdrawn. She said she’d have to double-check on the reason.

"We’ve already filled in the time he has available," she told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "He has about four or five events while he’s in Michigan. He’s had a lot of requests to speak at a lot of different organizations."

Huntsman has been mentioned as a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis in Salt Lake City, Utah, contributed to this report.

—  admin

Civil union supporters petition Hawaiian Senate

HONOLULU — Supporters of same-sex civil unions are still pushing for a vote on the issue with a petition signed by more than 7,300 people.

Gay rights advocates delivered the petition Wednesday, April 29, to the office of Sen. Brian Taniguchi, head of the legislative committee that held up the measure.

The petition asks Taniguchi to waive the bill’s referral from his Senate Judiciary Committee so that it could get a full vote from the entire Senate.

The petitioners also are trying to exercise a rarely used rule that allows petitions to be read before the full 25-member Senate.

Civil unions legislation passed the state House earlier this year but failed to advance out of the Senate Judiciary Committee following a 3-3 vote. An effort to recall the bill to the full Senate fell short.

Partners of NM state retirees get health benefits

SANTA FE, N.M. — The state of New Mexico has agreed to offer health care coverage to domestic partners of retired government and educational workers.

The change in policy announced Tuesday, April 28 will settle an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit.

Peter Simonson, executive director of ACLU-New Mexico, says the old policy wasn’t fair to lesbian and gay employees.

He says the settlement covers same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners of retirees who qualify for coverage through the Retiree Health Care Authority.

Gov. Bill Richardson signed an executive order in 2003 extending health care benefits to same- and opposite-sex domestic partners of workers. But the authority, a separate agency, handles government and school retirees’ benefits.

On the Net: ACLU: www.aclu.org/
Retiree Health Care Authority: www.nmrhca.state.nm.us/

Methodist top court affirms ban on clergy presiding at gay marriage, union ceremonies

DENVER — United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex marriages or gay civil unions, even if their regional church district supports the idea, the denomination’s high court ruled.

The Judicial Council said that a church district, or annual conference, cannot "negate, ignore or violate" churchwide discipline, even if they disagree with the policy.

Last year, the top church legislative body, or General Conference, voted to retain its ban on same-sex marriages and bar clergy from performing the ceremonies or consecrating same-gender unions in the church. Pastors who violate the discipline risk losing their clergy credentials.

The council decision, released Monday, April 27, after a court meeting in Denver, came in the case of two regional Methodist groups that had issued resolutions supporting clergy who perform same-gender marriages.

The California-Nevada Annual Conference had backed retired pastors who perform the ceremonies. The California-Pacific Conference had recognized "the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples."

The state Supreme Court in California had approved gay marriage last year, but voters reinstated a ban on same-gender marriage last November through the Proposition 8 ballot measure.

Man pleads guilty in gay immigration fraud

SEATTLE — A man accused of advising straight immigrants to claim homosexuality — and potential persecution in their home countries — when they applied for asylum has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit immigration fraud.

Steven Mahoney entered his plea Tuesday, April 28 in federal court in Seattle.

The U.S. attorney’s office says the 41-year-old Mahoney ran Mahoney and Associates in Kent, and held himself out as an expert in immigration affairs. They say he made money by advising immigrants on how to stay in the U.S. Between late 1998 and mid 2007, Mahoney admits he filed as many as 99 false immigration documents and was paid between $1,000 and $4,000 for each.

Mahoney faces a maximum five years in prison when he is sentenced Aug. 21.

Mahoney’s ex-wife Helen Mahoney, also charged with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, faces a plea hearing later this week.

Colorado DP bill headed to governor

DENVER — A bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian state workers to get health insurance coverage is headed to the governor.

The bill got final approval Tuesday, April 28 in the House. Same-sex partners who’ve been in a committed relationship with a state employee for at least a year would qualify for coverage.

The sponsor, Democratic Rep. Mark Ferrandino of Denver, says gay couples don’t have the option of marrying and it’s only fair to provide an alternative.

Republican Rep. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs says it will be costly and is unfair to heterosexual couples who are committed but not married.

Opponents also say the measure violates the will of the voters, who passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage and rejected domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

—  admin