Senate vote on DADT repeal just hours away

The Senate is scheduled to vote on the standalone bill to repeal “don’t ask don’t tell” sometime after 10:30 a.m. Eastern time, or 9:30 a.m. Dallas time, on Saturday. With at least four Republicans on board, supporters say they have the 60 votes needed to advance the bill to a final vote, which could come as early as late afternoon. From the Associated Press:

The Senate was headed toward a landmark vote Saturday on legislation that would let gays serve openly in the military, testing waning opposition among Republicans and putting Democrats within striking distance of overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Passage would be a historic victory for President Barack Obama, who made repeal of the 17-year-old law a campaign promise in 2008. It also would be a political win for congressional Democrats who have struggled repeatedly in the final hours of the lame-duck session to overcome Republican objections. …

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in U.S. history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers — the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — are required to certify to Congress that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ ability to fight. After that, 60 days must pass before any changes go into effect.

You can watch the historic proceedings live on the CSPAN website. Stay tuned to Instant Tea for updates.

—  John Wright

Is DISD refusing to protect gay kids from bullying?

We’ve been told repeatedly in recent weeks that DISD’s board of trustees planned to put off a vote on a new bullying policy until officials could further discuss whether it should enumerate specific categories of students who would be protected, including those who are targeted based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

So it comes as quite a surprise that this Thursday’s board agenda includes an item calling for approval, on second reading, of the same non-inclusive bullying policy that was initially proposed by the DISD administration. If you’ll recall, the non-inclusive policy prompted objections from LGBT groups, and at least two DISD trustees responded by saying they’d propose a substitute that enumerates specific protections.

We’ve got calls in to district spokesman Jon Dahlander, as well as trustees Bernadette Nutall and Lew Blackburn, to find out what’s going on. But for the record, Rafael McDonnell at Resource Center Dallas is concerned:

“We’re disappointed,” he said. “Based on the conversations with several board members, this proposed policy doesn’t reflect the information we gave them and how they responded to us.”

McDonnell notes that the only apparent change in the proposed policy since it was first introduced is the addition of the following paragraph at the very top:

—  John Wright

DOJ responds to DADT ruling; Gibbs says filing doesn’t diminish Obama’s commitment to repeal

Lawyers with the Justice Department on Thursday night, Sept. 23,  asked U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips not to grant an immediate injunction ordering that the military stop enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law/policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The filing came 14 days after Judge Phillips ruled that DADT is unconstitutional and should be immediately ended. ( You can read ABC News’ report here.)

The filing Thursday by DOJ lawyers asked for a “reasonable” amount of time to consider an injunction.

The fact that the government continues to defend the policy, despite President Barack Obama’s clearly and repeatedly stated opposition to DADT and his pledge to end it left Log Cabin Republicans, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit in question, more than a little angry.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans

LCR Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper issued this statement Friday morning, Sept. 24: “We are deeply disappointed with the administration’s decision. Yet again, the Obama administration has failed to live up to its campaign promise to repeal this unconstitutional law for the servicemembers of this country.”

In the same press release that included Cooper’s statement, Dan Woods, the attorney with White and Case who is representing Log Cabin in the trial, had this to say: “The Justice Department’s objections fail to recognize the implications of the government’s defeat at trial. It is as if the South announced that it won the Civil War. The objections also fail to mention that the court has previously denied the government’s requests for a stay on three prior occasions and nothing has changed to suggest that a stay is now appropriate; if anything, the Senate vote this week shows that the court was correct in denying the prior requests for a stay. But what is most troubling is that the government’s request for a stay ignores the harm that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ causes to current and potential members of our Armed Forces. That is the saddest, most disappointing and, in light of the president’s position, most hypocritical part of the objections.”

The Senate vote to which Woods referred was the one on Tuesday, Sept. 21, in which every Senate Republican and three Senate Democrats voted against the motion for cloture, which would have ended a Republican filibuster and forced a final vote on the Department of Defense funding bill that included an amendment repealing DADT. That bill had already passed the House. One of the Democrats who voted against the motion was Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had made the motion. He voted against it in a procedural maneuver so that he would be able to bring it up again later.

Moderate Republicans in the Senate who might otherwise have voted with the Democrats on that motion voted against it because Reid had also included an amendment dealing with immigration — the Dream Act — and had refused to allow Republicans to offer any amendments to the DOD spending measure.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday defended the DOJ’s filing, saying that it was the department’s job to defend “acts of Congress” when they are challenged. But Gates insisted the filing “in no way diminished the president’s commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT — indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy.”

Gates added: “The president was disappointed this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with the National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold. The president spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both testified in support of repeal. And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal. This president, along with his administration, will continue to work will continue to work with the Senate leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.”

UPDATE: Also Friday, a group of 69 progressive members of the House sent a letter to Obama asking that him not to appeal Phillips’ decision. Thursday’s filing was not technically an appeal, but experts say it was a strong indication that the DOJ does plan to appeal. For more on the letter, go here.

—  admin

Video: Paper, personal objections, and fear = non-binding anti-equality

It turns out that we shouldn’t marry, fellow gays. Ya know, because one Judge Executive in Whitley County, KY, has “moral objections” that he wishes to codify into law, starting with a completely time-wasting, wholly non-binding resolution:



Whitley County Fiscal Court passes resolution aimed at banning same-sex marriage [WYMT]

Okay, kids, we have a project for you:

STEP1: Get a piece of paper. It can be a sticky note. Or a scrap piece. Or a gum wrapper. Anything, really.

STEP2: Write a personal whim on said paper. One than bans some group from doing something. It can be faith-based, like if you have some dietary commandment you follow. Or it can be about whatever you personally dislike. For me, it’s ketchup. For you, who knows?

STEP3: Smugly look at what you wrote. Even pat yourself on the back, if you feel so inclined. Go ahead. Superiority = America.

STEP4: Call local TV crews. Talk about how you’d like to take your ideas national. Bonus points if you can find some sort of public opinion polling that helps make your whim sound like a majority consensus, independent from constitutionality.

STEP5: Congratulate yourself once more. For you have just created a personally-motivated document and news story with as much legal power as the Whitley Court, KY, Fiscal Court.

STEP6: Count up the minutes that you could have instead been dedicating to actual problems. Continue to ignore them in favor of baseless discrimination.

Repeat whenever some other group you don’t support gets “radical” and/or “uppity” enough to seek basic peace and fairness.

***

*SEE ALSO: Meet the panel who gave unanimous approval to this resolution: Elected officials [Whitley County]




Good As You

—  John Wright

Dallas ASOs win fight to keep client info off Web

DSHS wanted patient notes added to secure online server to help in audits; agencies say risk to confidentiality was too great

DAVID TAFFET  |  Staff Writer taffet@dallasvoice.com

Raeline Nobles
LEADING THE FIGHT | Raeline Nobles, executive director of AIDS Arms Inc., took the lead in negotiating with DSHS to keep AIDS service organizations from being forced to put confidential client information on an online server.

Local AIDS agencies have prevailed over a Department of State Health Services mandate to post all confidential client notes on an Internet database.

The agencies began battling the mandate after state officials claimed that ARIES, the new database, would be secure but could not provide a list of who would have access to the system to the agencies.

“That hit me like a brick,” said Don Maison, executive director of AIDS Services Dallas.

He said immigration status, incidents of domestic violence and other personal information would all become public. He sent his staff for training on the system but instructed agency employees not to enter any information.

Bret Camp, associate executive director of health and medical services at Nelson Tebedo Clinic, said, “We have information available for review. We will not be entering information in ARIES.”

Dallas County sided with local AIDS service providers. After almost a year of negotiations, the state compromised and will allow agencies to provide the data needed by the state without posting confidential notes on line.

The only objections to using the system came from Dallas.

Raeline Nobles, executive director of AIDS Arms, said all agencies funded by Ryan White Part B money in Texas would be affected.

Houston doesn’t receive this type of funding. Agencies in other parts of the state told Nobles they were too small to fight the new mandate.

That left Dallas organizations to lead the fight to protect personal information from being compromised on line.

“We were successful,” said Nobles, who led the opposition and negotiated with the state on behalf of the county and Dallas AIDS service providers.

“DSHS has come back and decided to negotiate a fair and equitable deal,” she said. “Austin has done the right thing on behalf of clients and agencies.”

The state agency told both Nobles and Maison that it needed all of the client notes to audit the agencies. They said allowing state officials to examine the agencies without traveling to the various locations across the state would save money. The state, however, pays the county to review agency records.

Greg Beets, DSHS public information coordinator for HIV/STD programs, said that the reason behind ARIES is to codify and evaluate HIV services across the state. He said confidentiality was the state’s biggest concern as well.

“The data helps provide a snapshot of what services are being provided and identify unmet service needs,” Beets said.

Beets said that the system met standards developed at a national level and a series of measures would ensure security. Those measures included limited access to the information on a need-to-know basis, security at the building in which the computer was housed and encrypted information.

Those assurances did not satisfy Dallas AIDS agencies. Nobles pointed out that from time to time information is compromised from financial institutions that spent quite a bit of money on their technology.

“If information ever got out to the public, we’d be liable,” Nobles said.

Several years ago, the state required AIDS organizations to invest millions in new computer record keeping systems. She said all of the information is currently kept on a secure computer database within the agency. That computer system is not Internet-based.

Nobles’ agency raised several hundred thousand dollars to satisfy the unfunded mandate to build their database, and, she said, Parkland spent more than $1 million on their system.

To move the information to the new state computer system would be a complete waste of that money the state required her to raise from local donors, Nobles said.

She explained she feared moving the information off the database to a state system would compromise her credibility with her agency’s donors.

“But privacy is the number one issue,” Nobles said. “We can’t build a reliable relationship with clients if they don’t believe it’s confidential.”

Maison was even more adamant.

“This agency would be in court,” Maison said. “It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see what this policy does to make people run from care.”

Maison said people with HIV who use public services give up quite a bit of their privacy, “But to invite the government into your daily life is not acceptable.”

Nobles said she was never arguing about the state’s right to see AIDS Arms’ records. “Any time a government public health funder needs to audit, they can do so,” she said. She said that the information the state needs is statistical information.

But, Nobles added, she couldn’t imagine what use the client notes would have been.

The state will maintain the ARIES system. Nobles said smaller agencies, especially in rural areas that could not afford their own database, might want to use it.

Maison was happy with the outcome.

“I don’t recall being on the same side as the county before,” said Maison, who has headed ASD for more than 20 years.

Camp was also pleased with the outcome. “I’m very pleased Dallas County understood the importance of client confidentiality and backed the service providers,” he said.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition August 13, 2010.

—  Kevin Thomas

DART accused of transphobia

Judge reversed order after transit agency fought longtime employee’s gender-marker change last year

John Wright | News Editor
wright@dallasvoice.com

TRANS FRIENDLY? | Judge Lynn Cherry, right, is shown alongside drag performer Chanel during Stonewall Democrats’ 2008 holiday party at the Round-Up Saloon. A few months later, Cherry ruled against a transgender DART employee and overturned a gender-marker change. (John Wright/Dallas Voice)

DART stands accused of bigotry and transphobia after attorneys for the local transit agency intervened in family court last year to challenge a gender-marker change granted to an employee.

According to court records, a transgender DART employee obtained a court order in February 2009 directing all state agencies to correct their records by changing her gender-marker from male to female, including on her birth certificate.

As Dallas Voice reported last week, many Dallas County judges have been routinely granting gender-marker changes to transgender people who meet set criteria — including documentation from licensed medical personnel — since the Democratic sweep of 2006.

The DART employee, who’s name is being withheld to protect her anonymity, later presented the court order to the transit agency’s human resources department and requested that her personnel records be changed to reflect her new gender.

But DART’s attorneys objected to the gender-marker change and responded by filing a motion seeking a rehearing in court. DART’s objections prompted 301st Family District Court Judge Lynn Cherry to reverse her order granting the gender-marker change.

“Where does this stop when an employer can start interfering with your personal life and family law decisions?” said longtime local transgender activist Pamela Curry, a friend of the DART employee who brought the case to the attention of Dallas Voice. “She was devastated. This should be a serious concern to a lot of people — everybody — and I just think this story needs to be told.”

Judge Cherry, who received Stonewall Democrats of Dallas’ Pink Pump Award for her support of the group last year, didn’t respond to messages seeking comment this week.

Morgan Lyons, a spokesman for DART, noted that Cherry reversed her order before the agency actually filed its motion for a rehearing. However, Curry alleges that DART’s attorneys met with Cherry privately and pressured her into reversing the order.

As is common with gender-marker changes, the case file has been sealed, but Dallas Voice obtained copies of some of the court documents from Curry.

In their motion for a rehearing, DART attorneys Harold R. McKeever and Hyattye Simmons argued that Texas law grants registrars, not judges, the authority to amend birth certificates. They also argued that birth certificates could be amended only if they were inaccurate at the time of birth.

“It’s not a DART issue, it’s a point of law,” Lyons told Dallas Voice this week, in response to the allegations of bigotry. “The lawyers concluded that the birth certificate could not be altered by law, unless there was a mistake made when the birth certificate was completed, and again, the judge changed the order before we even wound up going into court with it.”

Asked about DART’s LGBT-related employment policies, Lyons said the agency’s nondiscrimination policy includes sexual orientation but not gender identity/expression. The agency, which is governed by representatives from Dallas and numerous suburbs, also doesn’t offer benefits to the domestic partners of employees.

Lyons didn’t respond to other allegations made by Curry, including that the agency has fought the employee’s transition from male to female at every step of the way.

Curry, who helped the employee file her pro se petition for a gender-marker change, said the employee has worked for DART for more than 20 years and has an outstanding performance record.

The employee began to come out as transgender in 2003 and had gender reassignment surgery more than three years ago, Curry said. Curry said DART supervisors have at various times told the employee that she couldn’t have long hair, couldn’t wear skirts to work and couldn’t use women’s restrooms at work.

The employee has responded by showing up at work in her uniform so she doesn’t have to change and using public restrooms on her bus route, Curry said.

Supervisors have also told the employee she can’t talk to the media and can’t join political groups, such as Stonewall Democrats, Curry said.

“She’s intimidated and she’s scared,” Curry said. “One supervisor even suggested to her that if she doesn’t lay off it, they will mess up her retirement.”

Elaine Mosher, a Dallas attorney who’s familiar with the case, also questioned why DART intervened. Mosher didn’t represent the employee in the case but has handled gender-marker changes for other clients.

Mosher said the employee’s gender doesn’t have any bearing on her ability to do her job at DART.

“My argument in any gender marker matter is, the birth certificate was wrong, that’s why they had to go through the transition surgery, in essence to put them in the correct gender,” Mosher said. “All I can tell you is that it seems strange to me that DART would care one way or another what the gender marker of anybody that works for them is.”

Moster added that she believes someone at DART may have been “freaked out” by the employee’s transition from male to female and developed a “vendetta” against her.

“I wish I had a good explanation for why [DART got involved] other than the fact that I know there are people out there who are utterly blind and prejudiced for no other reason than they are,” Mosher said. “I compare it to some of the nonsense African-Americans had to live through in the ’60s.”

Mosher also said she’s “very surprised” that Cherry reversed the order granting the gender marker change.

Erin Moore, president of Stonewall Democrats, said she’s heard “bits and pieces” of the story but isn’t sure of all the facts.

Moore said in response to her questions about the case, Cherry told her she couldn’t talk about it because it’s still within the timeframe for a possible appeal.

“Lynn is a longtime supporter of Stonewall and I would think she would be fair in the case,” Moore said. “I’m confident she’s an ally to this community.”

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition February 19, 2010.

—  admin