Black Man Perceived To Be Gay Barred From Donating Blood

Aaron Pace, a self-described effeminate straight man, was prevented from
donating blood due to his perceived sexual orientation

I have previously blogged abuut the ban on gay people from donating blood in the United States and have expressed my opinion that the ban should be lifted. The alleged rationale by the Food and Drug Administration is that a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1979 has blood which is riskier than other people's despite the fact all blood that is donated is tested by the American Red Cross for the presence of HIV antibodies and other STDs.

Now a heterosexual man named Aaron Pace, who happens to be Black and describes himself as "effeminate," has been prevented from donating blood in Gary, Indiana.

The story was first published in the Chicago Sun-Times:

“I was humiliated and embarrassed,” said Pace, 22. of Gary. “It’s not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.”

Pace visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for blood and plasma donations, up to $40 a visit. But during the interview screening process, Pace said he was told he could not be a blood donor there because he “appears to be a homosexual.”

No one at Bio-Blood returned calls seeking comment, but donation centers like it, and even the American Red Cross, are still citing a nearly 30-year-old federal policy to turn away gay men from donating.

The Food and Drug Administration policy, implemented in 1983, states that men who have had sex — even once — with another man (since 1977) are not allowed to donate blood.

The policy was sparked by concerns that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was tainting the blood supply. And, back then, screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not yet been developed.

Today, all donated blood is tested for HIV, as well as for hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases, before it can be released to hospitals. This is why gay activists, blood centers including the American Red Cross, and even some lawmakers now claim the lifetime ban is “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

I should repeat what the Los Angeles Times said last year in an editorial that "there were 4 known cases of HIV transmission out of 122 million units of blood donated between 1999 and 2007." Is that infinitesimal risk worth the discrimination against all gay men in the light of a nationwide blood shortage?

I wonder if Marcus Bachmann would be allowed to give blood at Bio-Blood?

MAP: Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination in U.S.

This map is what the state of play in sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment looks like in the various states as of March 2011. There are 29 states that have no protections for LGBT people in employment in any way (so your boss can say, "I'm firing you because you're a fag!") and you have no recourse what so ever.

As of July 6th, there are now 15 states which ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and there are 21 which ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (all the states which ban gender identity discrimination also ban sexual orientation discrimination). The six states which do not overlap are: New York, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland and Delaware. (One should note that 3 of these 6 states have already enacted marriage equality!) Wisconsin is  ahead scratcher because they passed sexual orientation non-discrimination way back in 1982, the first state in the country to do so. There was gender identity nondiscrimination legislation pending  in New York and Maryland which died when those legislative sessions ended this Spring.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit employment discrimination nationwide on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Significantly, A version of ENDA (without gender identity protection, thus some people called it "SplENDA") passed the U.S. House under Democratic control in 2007 but failed to be brought up for a vote in the 2009-2001 111th Congress. With Republicans in majority control of the U.S. House it is very doubtful that ENDA will pass that body in the 2011-2013 112th Congress.

CA Legislature Passes LGBT Education Bill

Equality California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 5, 2011

CONTACT: Jorge Amaro, Equality California
PHONE: 562-964-3591 EMAIL: jorge@eqca.org

CONTACT: Jill Marcellus, Gay-Straight Alliance Network
PHONE 516-313-9659 EMAIL: jill@gsanetwork.org
 
State Assembly Passes Landmark LGBT Education Bill

Legislation sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network aims to end LGBT history exclusion in education and to promote school safety

Sacramento -- Today, the California State Assembly in a 49-25 vote passed a bill that would require schools to fairly and accurately portray the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement and the historic contributions of the diverse LGBT community in social science instruction. The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act (SB 48), authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would also add sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's existing anti-discrimination protections that prohibit bias in school activities, instruction and instructional materials.

Studies have shown that inclusion of LGBT people in instructional materials is linked to greater student safety and lower rates of bullying. The bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network. 

"The struggle of the multicultural and multiethnic LGBT community in California is one of the greatest stories yet to be told," said Equality California Executive Director Roland Palencia. "The FAIR Education Act will ensure that public schools acknowledge the heroism of individuals and communities who in spite of countless barriers continuously overcome adversity."

Palencia added, "For decades, LGBT leaders have worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all Californians. LGBT leaders were heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the farm workers' movement, the women's movement, and have built health and human services institutions that now serve millions of Californians. It is time for history to accurately depict our community's contributions."

The FAIR Education Act would bring classroom instruction into alignment with existing non-discrimination laws in California and would add the LGBT community to the existing list of underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools. By including fair and accurate information about the rich and diverse history of LGBT people in instructional materials, SB 48 will enrich the learning experiences of all students and promote an atmosphere of safety and respect in California schools.

"This is a victory not only for the LGBT youth in California who have been fighting to be heard in Sacramento and represented in their history classes, but also for all California youth who deserve to learn a fair and accurate account of California and US history," said Carolyn Laub, Executive Director of Gay-Straight Alliance Network. "By passing the FAIR Education Act, the Assembly has taken an unprecedented step to reduce bullying, increase safety for all students, and teach students to respect each other's differences."

"We are selectively censoring history when we exclude LGBT Americans, or any other group of people, from our textbooks and instructional materials," said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). "We can't tell our youth that it's OK to be yourself and expect them to treat their peers with dignity and respect when we deliberately deny them accurate information about the historical contributions of Americans who happened to be LGBT."

The bill now heads to the Governor's desk.

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment.www.eqca.org

Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSA Network) is a national youth leadership organization that empowers youth activists to fight homophobia and transphobia in schools by training student leaders and supporting student-led Gay-Straight Alliance clubs throughout the country. In California alone, GSA Network has brought GSA clubs to 56% of public high schools, impacting more than 1.1 million students at 850 schools. GSA Network's youth advocates have played a key role in changing laws and policies that impact youth at the local and state level. GSA Network operates the National Association of GSA Networks, which unites more than 30 statewide networks of GSA clubs throughout the country. GSA Network is also the founder of the Make It Better Project, which aims to stop bullying and prevent suicide. www.gsanetwork.org   

The Double Closet: Homosexuality and Immigration Status

Jose Antonio Vargas is an openly gay, award-winning journalist who
 came out as an undocumented immigrant in the New York Times today

An absolutely stunning admission, made by Jose Antonio Vargas in a beautifully written op-ed editorial published today in The New York Times: he is an undocumented immigrant.

Here's an excerpt:

I decided then that I could never give anyone reason to doubt I was an American. I convinced myself that if I worked enough, if I achieved enough, I would be rewarded with citizenship. I felt I could earn it.

I’ve tried. Over the past 14 years, I’ve graduated from high school and college and built a career as a journalist, interviewing some of the most famous people in the country. On the surface, I’ve created a good life. I’ve lived the American dream.

But I am still an undocumented immigrant. And that means living a different kind of reality. It means going about my day in fear of being found out. It means rarely trusting people, even those closest to me, with who I really am. It means keeping my family photos in a shoebox rather than displaying them on shelves in my home, so friends don’t ask about them. It means reluctantly, even painfully, doing things I know are wrong and unlawful. And it has meant relying on a sort of 21st-century underground railroad of supporters, people who took an interest in my future and took risks for me.

Last year I read about four students who walked from Miami to Washington to lobby for the Dream Act, a nearly decade-old immigration bill that would provide a path to legal permanent residency for young people who have been educated in this country. At the risk of deportation — the Obama administration has deported almost 800,000 people in the last two years — they are speaking out. Their courage has inspired me.

There are believed to be 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. We’re not always who you think we are. Some pick your strawberries or care for your children. Some are in high school or college. And some, it turns out, write news articles you might read. I grew up here. This is my home. Yet even though I think of myself as an American and consider America my country, my country doesn’t think of me as one of its own.

It really is a must-read about what I call "the double closet," the experience of gay immigrants. Go read it now!

UN Passes Historic Resolution On LGBT Rights

The United Nations has passed a landmark resolution acknowledging that LGBT rights are human rights. The  United Nations Human Rights Council has formally adopted the resolution I blogged about earlier by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 opposed and 3 abstentions (very close!).

The list of which countries voted which way is provied by TransGriot:

The UN resolution passed with 23 countries voting in favor, 19 countries against and 3 countries abstaining

The nations voting YES were: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Thailand, UK, USA, Uruguay.

The nations voting NO were:  Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda.

Abstentions: Burkina Faso, China, Zambia

Absent: Kyrgyzstan, Libya (suspended)

The resolution text includes (pdf):

Expressing grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity

1.  Requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011, to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity;

2.  Decides to cenvene a panel discussion during the 19th session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and lractices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity;

3.  Decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner;

4.  Decides to remain seized of this priority issue.

Note that the United States voted in favor of the resolution, which was sponsored by Brazil and South Africa. Recall that, the next time some idiot tells you it doesn't matter if Obama or a Republican is President.

Heterosexual Supremacists File Motion Over Prop 8 Judge's Sexuality

Charles Cooper, lead counsel for "Protect Marriage" (sic)
 in the Propositiopn 8 federal lawsuit 

Charles Cooper, the virulent heterosexual supremacist who has been arguing against marriage equality for nearly two decade, filed a motion late on Monday with the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's historic decision striking down Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds because Walker revealed recently that he has been in a same-sex relationship with a man for 10 years.

Of course, this is a ridiculously bigoted motion. The implication is that an open;y gay judge can not fairly judge a case involving gay rights, a Black or Latino jurist could not judge a civil rights case fairly and female judges could not make decisions about abortion rights!

Lambda Legal  released a press release in response:

"Proponents of Proposition 8 certainly are getting desperate."

(San Francisco, April 25, 2011) — In reaction to today's filing of a motion
to vacate last year's historic decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn
Walker declaring California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Jon Davidson,
Legal Director for Lambda Legal, issued the following statement.

"Proponents of Proposition 8 certainly are getting desperate.  This reeks
of a hail-Mary attempt to assail Judge Walker's character because they are
unable to rebut the extremely well-reasoned ruling he issued last year.
It's becoming a sadly typical move of the right:  don't like the ruling;
attack the referee."

To say that Judge Walker's should have disclosed his ten-year relationship
with another man or that it made him unfit to rule on Proposition 8 is like
saying that a married heterosexual judge deciding an issue in a divorce
proceeding has to disclose if he or she is having marital problems and
might someday be affected by legal rulings in the case.  Or that any judge
who professes any religious faith is unable to rule on any question of
religious liberty or, at a minimum, must disclose what his faith teaches.
Much like a suggestion that a female judge could not preside over a case
involving sexual harassment or an African American judge could not preside
over a case involving race discrimination, Proposition 8's supporters
improperly are suggesting that a judge will rule in favor of any litigant
with whom he shares a personal characteristic.

Judges hold a special and respected place in our society. Every day, they
are called upon to administer justice – in routine contract or traffic
court disputes, gut-wrenching child custody decisions, complex criminal
proceedings, and, as in this case, disputes about the basic human rights
that our Constitution is designed to protect. There may be judges who
betray their responsibilities and act with bias, but such a grave
accusation must be supported by evidence. Simply disagreeing with a
decision is not evidence that it was the result of bias. And assuming that
being in a same-sex relationship renders some judges unable to interpret
the law and do the job they have sworn to do insults both judges and
America's system of justice."

American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization promoting the lawsuit, also has a response to Cooper's ridiculous motion:

“This motion is yet another in a string of desperate and absurd motions by Prop 8 Proponents who refuse to accept the fact that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right.  They’re attempting to keep secret the video of the public trial and they’re attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision.  Clearly, the Proponents are grasping at straws because they have no legal case.”

National Center for Lesbian Rights attorney Shannon Minter also responded:

"This is a desperate and ill-advised move that underscores their inability to defend Prop 8 on the merits. This is not likely to win them any points with the courts, who understandably do not appreciate having the integrity of judges called into question based on such outrageous grounds. This is part and parcel of the underhanded way the Prop 8 campaign itself was run-based on lies, insinuations, and unsupported innuendo."

The 9th Circuit announced there will be hearing in San Francisco on July 11 in San Francisco before District Court judge James Ware.

UPDATE 04/27/2011: The hearing on Cooper's motion has been expedited to June 13.

Hat./tip to LGBTPOV

WATCH: South Carolina Gay Bashing Caught On Video

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

ENDA Introduced in US Senate

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was introduced in the 112th Congress today with lead co-sponsors Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL).

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent out a press release praising the action:

Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"An overwhelming majority of Americans know it is wrong to deprive their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends, family and neighbors of the ability to earn a livelihood and provide for their families simply because of who they are. They know our entire country benefits when all people are allowed to contribute their talents and skills free from discrimination. ENDA will simply help ensure everyone is allowed to participate on a level playing field in the workplace, a core value of this nation. Let's get ENDA passed. Our community has provided statistics and shared personal stories; we've seen LGBT workers lose their foothold in a struggling economy, not because of downsizing or poor performance, but solely because of prejudice. Our country can and must do better. We thank Senators Merkley, Kirk, Harkin and Collins for reintroducing this critical legislation, and urge Congress and the administration to work toward its passage."

Hawaii Legislature Passes Transgender Civil Rights Bill

Good news from Hawaii! The legislature has put finishing touches on passing HB 546, a bill to prohibit discrimination in employment based on gender identity or expression, with a vote of 22-2 in the State Senate, following an earlier vote of  42-4 in the State House. Hawaii law already banned discrimination in public accommodations and housing on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Governor Neil Abercrombie earlier this year signed a civil unions bill into law, and has said he will sign this measue into law, as well, making Hawaii the 13th state to ban employment discrimination based on gender identity, some 20 years after the state banned employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Response to Jerome Robinson's Letter to the LA TIMES

In the Los Angeles Times a few days ago I came across this letter to the editor which was published:

Lessons on gays' contributions 

Re "A fight over gays in textbooks," April 2 

I am a black male Democrat. I believe homosexuals are born as such because of factors beyond their control. So I don't view homosexuals as wrongdoers who chose to be different. 

That said, I disagree with gay rights activists supporting legislation to require teaching on the contributions of homosexuals in our society, extending recognition to gays that has been historically given to racial minorities. The experiences of homosexuals simply aren't extensions of those of racial minorities. There's no comparison between race and sexuality. 

I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda. It's insulting to me, and I suspect the vast majority of racial minorities feel the same.
Jerome RobinsonLos Angeles

Where to begin with a response? First, I, too am a "black male Democrat." So the first point to note is that clearly all Black male Democrats do not share the same views. Just as the views expressed in the published letter merely reflect one Black male Democrat, so do my published views here.

I'm glad that Mr. Robinson doesn't "view homosexuals as wrongdoers who chose to be different" so at least we know he's not  some ignorant, raving homophobe. That said, he clearly is lacking in information when he says that requiring teaching the contributions of homosexuals to society is "extending recognition to gays that has been historically given to racial minorities." The presumption here is that requiring teaching of certain groups has been restricted to racial minorities, which is clearly false. The contributions of women and other previously neglected groups has been a basic tenet of curricular reform for decades. Including LGBT people is just the next step.

But it is these next two sentences that set my hair on fire: "There's no comparison between race and sexuality." and "I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda."

There's no comparison between race and "sexuality"? (I presume he means sexual orientation.) What about the fact that until 1967 there were laws on the books preventing people from marrying because of the race of the participants? And there are currently laws on the books preventing people from marrying because of the SEX and SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the participants.

Race is a theoretical aspect of identity which has been reified by society, i.e. it is a social construction. Is there any doubt that sexual orientation is also a social construct? What does it even MEAN to be gay? One could define it using sexual attraction, sexual activity, self-identification. But the difficulty in defining either race or sexual orientation does not make their impact on the actual lives of individuals any less real. It is absolute nonsense to say "there's no comparison between race and sexuality."

"I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda." This is such an old canard I don't know where to begin. My usual response is to quote Dan Savage and say that all LGBT activists acknowledge The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s to end racial segregation, but that the movement for full LGBT equality is also a civil rights movement. See the difference? My friend Craig Konnoth, has written an award-winning article entitled "Created in its image: the race analogy, gay identity, and gay litigation in the 1950s-1970s" which eloquently and brilliantly illuminates how much all other civil rights movements (for women's rights, gay rights, etc) that were contemporaneous with the Black Civil Rights Movement were influenced and impacted by the historical precedents set by racial minorities. This should not be a surprise! This is not about hijacking another groups struggles in order to advance another agenda, and by choosing an oppositional frame between racial minorities and other groups one assumes that there is no overlap, which is FALSE.

I'm still trying to decide whether I should formally write a response to Mr. Robinson's letter to the editor and send it to the Times. What do you think, dear readers?

Delaware Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill!

Delaware took a big step today in favor of LGBT equality when the State Senate approved SB 30, a bill which would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions which have all the right, responsibilities and rewards that the state can provide to married couples.

According to the Washington Blade, the bill passed by a vote of 13-6

The approval came after the Senate defeated two hostile amendments, including one that would have forced a state referendum on the issue. The second amendment called for expanding the measure to include opposite-sex couples. It was defeated 12-2. 

The bill now goes to the state House where a vote is expected on Wednesday, April 13. Supporters are optimistic because the House is thought to be more supportive of the bill than the Senate.

This is surprising progress in Delaware, since it was a mere two years ago that Delaware passed an LGB rights bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, education and public accommodations. Delaware still does not have a bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

White House Issues Statement on U.N. LGBT Actions

FACT SHEET

Joint Statement on the Rights of LGBT Persons at the Human Rights Council 

At the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva 85 countries joined a Joint Statement entitled “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based On Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”  This follows previous statements on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons issued at the United Nations, including a 2006 statement by 54 countries at the Human Rights Council, and a 2008 statement that has garnered 67 countries’ support at the General Assembly.  The United States is amongst the signatory states to both previous efforts.  The United States co-chaired the core group of countries that have worked to submit this statement, along with Colombia and Slovenia.

Key facts about the new statement:

·         A core group of over 30 countries engaged in discussions and sought signatures from other UN member states for the statement.  In many places, United States diplomats joined diplomats from other states for these conversations.

·         This statement adds new references not seen in previous LGBT statements at the UN, including:  welcoming attention to LGBT issues as a part of the Universal Periodic Review process, noting the increased attention to LGBT issues in regional human rights fora, encouraging the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue addressing LGBT issues, and calls for states to end criminal sanctions based on LGBT status.

·         20 countries joined this statement that were neither signatory to the 2006 or 2008 statements.

·         The statement garnered support from every region of the world, including 21 signatories from the Western Hemisphere, 43 from Europe, 5 from Africa, and 16 from the Asia/Pacific region.

The full list of signatories and text of the statement follows:

Joint statement on ending acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation & gender identity

Delivered by Colombia on behalf of: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala,  Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former-Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, and Venezuela

1.      We recall the previous joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, presented at the Human Rights Council in 2006;

2.      We express concern at continued evidence in every region of acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity brought to the Council’s attention by Special Procedures since that time, including killings, rape, torture and criminal sanctions;

3.      We recall the joint statement in the General Assembly on December 18, 2008 on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, supported by States from all five regional groups, and encourage States to consider joining the statement;

4.      We commend the attention paid to these issues by international human rights mechanisms including relevant Special Procedures and treaty bodies and welcome continued attention to human rights issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity within the context of the Universal Periodic Review. As the United Nations Secretary General reminded us in his address to this Council at its Special Sitting of 25 January 2011, the Universal Declaration guarantees all human beings their basic rights without exception, and when individuals are attacked, abused or imprisoned because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the international community has an obligation to respond;

5.      We welcome the positive developments on these issues in every region in recent years, such as the resolutions on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity adopted by consensus in each of the past three years by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, the initiative of the Asia-Pacific Forum on National Human Rights Institutions to integrate these issues within the work of national human rights institutions in the region, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the increasing attention being paid to these issues by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, and the many positive legislative and policy initiatives adopted by States at the national level in diverse regions;

6.      We note that the Human Rights Council must also play its part in accordance with its mandate to “promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without discrimination of any kind, and in a fair and equal manner” (GA 60/251, OP 2);

7.      We acknowledge that these are sensitive issues for many, including in our own societies. We affirm the importance of respectful dialogue, and trust that there is common ground in our shared recognition that no-one should face stigmatisation, violence or abuse on any ground.  In dealing with sensitive issues, the Council must be guided by the principles of universality and non-discrimination;

8.      We encourage the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to address human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to explore opportunities for outreach and constructive dialogue to enhance understanding and awareness of these issues within a human rights framework;

9.      We recognise our broader responsibility to end human rights violations against all those who are marginalised and take this opportunity to renew our commitment to addressing discrimination in all its forms;

10.  We call on States to take steps to end acts of violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, encourage Special Procedures, treaty bodies and other stakeholders to continue to integrate these issues within their relevant mandates, and urge the Council to address these important human rights issues. 

# # #

LGBT Rights Debated at United Nations

The following joint statement has been circulated about the debate at the United Nations today about the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the broader international human rights framework.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, 16th Session
22 March, 2010

NGO JOINT STATEMENT ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
GENDER IDENTITY & HUMAN RIGHTS

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; International Service for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, COC Netherlands, International Commission of Jurists, Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany LSVD, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights – RFSL, Solidaritas Perempuan (Women's Solidarity for Human Right),  Human Rights First, ILGA-Europe (European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), Shirkat Gah- Women's Resource Centre, Center for Women's Global Leadership, Human Rights Council of Australia, Corporacion Humanas, LBL Denmark, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID), International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, OMCT.

Madame Vice-President, I am pleased to speak to issues of sexual orientation, gender identity and human rights, on behalf of 119 NGOs (21 ECOSOC-accredited) from over 60 countries (see attached list), and more than 300+ participants from 23 countries who endorsed the Joint Statement during the Asia Pacific Outgames Conference last week.

We welcome the statement on violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, delivered by Colombia on behalf of a broad grouping of 83 States from all UN regions. We also welcome the comments from the delegate from Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group that “laws that criminalize sexual orientation should be expunged.”
 
We commend the large core group of states advancing this initiative and we are particularly encouraged by the measurable increase in cross-regional support for these issues in recent years. It is hard to imagine that any State committed to human rights could disagree with the principle that States have a collective responsibility to end human rights violations against all those who are marginalized.

Numerous Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies have documented or commented on violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including use of the death penalty, killings, torture, criminal sanctions, police harassment, rape, beatings, and disappearances.[1]  We urge all Special Procedures, treaty bodies and other stakeholders to continue to integrate these important issues across all of their mandates.

As UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon stated in this room in January of this year:[2]

“I understand that sexual orientation and gender identity raise sensitive cultural issues. But cultural practice can not justify any violation of human rights...(W)hen our fellow humans are persecuted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, we must speak out…(H)uman rights are human rights everywhere, for everyone.”

And as High Commissioner stated to the Council during this session:[3]

“We are not trying to create new or special rights. We are simply trying to address the challenges that prevent millions of people from enjoying the same human rights as their fellow human beings just because they happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”

In closing, Madame Vice-President, we would like to reiterate that the Council cannot simply refuse to address or discuss human rights violations against any individuals, without violating its own mandate, as provided in GA resolution 60/251. We look forward to future dialogue within this Council, with the support of those States which did not yet feel able to join the statement, but which share the concern of the international community at these systemic human rights abuses.

[1] International Commission of Jurists: http://www.icj.org/IMG/UN_references_on_SOGI.pdf.
[2] Remarks by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on 25th January 2011, during a special sitting of the UN Human Rights Council:
http://www.arc-international.net/global-advocacy/generalassembly/un-sg-statement-to-hrc-on-sogi-issues-.htm
[3] Interactive Dialogue with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, Item 3, 16th session of the HRC.

The Obama Administration strongly supported the statement and inclusion of LGBT rights into the United Nations' purview.

GSS Shows Support Exceeds Opposition To Marriage Equality

University of Illinois Sociologist Darren Sherkat has crunched the numbers of the 2010 General Social Survey to reveal that for the first time, more Americans support marriage equality than oppose the idea.

Sherkat says on his blog:

For the first time, a legitimate scientific survey is showing very clearly that the proportion of Americans who agree or strongly agree that same sex marriage should be legal exceeds the proportion who either oppose or strongly oppose marital rights.  46% of Americans favor civil rights, while 40% oppose civil rights, and the remainder just can’t seem to decide. Of course, this is an incredible shift from the first time the question was asked in 1988–when 73% of Americans opposed marital rights, but it is also a seismic change from 2004, when only 30% of Americans supported marriage rights for same sex couples, and 56% opposed civil rights.

Sherkat has analyzed the differences in support of and opposition to marriage equality by a number of different identifying characteristics such as race, religion, political affiliation.

For example, Sherkat has written a paper debunking the "zombie meme" that Black people were responsible for Proposition 8's passage (and the subsequent implication that African-Americans are more homophobic than white people). He demonstrates he racial gap in opposition to marriage equality in the following graph:

The reason for the racial gap in opposition to marriage equality, Sherkat explains in "Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage," is primarily explained in the different rates of religiosity among Black Americans and white Americans. Even so, in the last 6 years since same-sex marriage has been a reality in Massachusetts and beyond, opposition in the Black community has fallen faster (17 percentage points) than opposition in the White community (15.4 percentage points).

Sherkat's most interesting result is in his analysis of how religious beliefs and partisan affiliation impact opposition to marriage equality .

As Sherkat (somewhat irreverently) explains:

Notice that among fundies, who believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, support is very low even if you are a strong Democrat–but it’s twice as high as it is among Republican fundies. Among moderates and seculars, the effect of political party is quite dramatic—67% of strong Democrats who think the Bible  was inspired by god support same sex marriage, while among Republicans with the same beliefs support is 18%. Among people who think the bible is bunk, 82% of strong democrats support same sex marriage, while only a third of republican non-believers support civil rights. Party matters.

I wonder what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about these results?

Montana House Passes Anti-LGBT Civil Rights Bill 60-39

Wow. What will the impact of of the 2010 election of hundreds of Republican state legislators on the rights of LGBT people be around the country? Probably a detrimental one.

The State House of Montana just passed the most anti-gay bill in the nation by a vote of 60-39 which would prevent any local entity from enacting local civil rights ordinances which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (Note, this is a more extreme anti-LGBT public policy position than the state of Utah and the Mormon Church.) There was only one such ordinance in the state, in the college town of Missoula, Montana. And it was only enacted last year!

From The Missoulian ("Bill to nullify Missoula's equality ordinance receives backing in House"):

Missoula's Democratic legislators were infuriated by the passage of House Bill 516, by Rep. Kristin Hansen, R-Havre. Her bill passed 60-39 and faces a final House vote before heading to the Senate.


Sixty Republicans voted for it. All 32 Democrats voted opposed it, joined by seven Republicans. One Republican was absent.


[...]


As sponsor, Hansen said HB516 would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances or policies that seek to protect residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender as Missoula did through an ordinance and Bozeman through a policy.
She said the Missoula City Council adopted the ordinance and provided an enforcement mechanism that fell outside of that in the Montana Human Rights Act.


"It would apply retroactively to the city of Missoula's ordinance in order to keep all businesses and all entities on a level playing field," Hansen said. "All discrimination claims will have to go through the human rights procedures as designated by the Montana Human Rights (Commission)."


[...]


"Our community is filled with possibly the biggest gay and lesbian population in the state," said Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula. "We are a community with the University of Montana. We have a lot of young people. We passed this ordinance because we wanted to protect our own citizens, our own people. You don't have to agree with it." 

Sands said she is proud to be part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and told the House: "There are thousands of ‘us' living in Montana. We are your neighbors, your work colleagues, we are part of your families, we sit in the pew next to you at church, and we serve in elective offices with you." 

Along with other LGBT Montanans and their families, Sands said she was claiming her constitutional right to equality and justice under Montana's constitutional provision that says: "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws." 

"It doesn't say, except for gay people," she said.

The bill  is reminiscent of Colorado's Amendment 2 which was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans by a 6-3 vote in 1996. However, that was an anti-gay voter initiative (which overturned local gay rights ordinances in Boulder, Aspen and Denver) while this is a legislatively enacted measure which still needs to go through the upper body and be signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.  The notion that the state is trying to enact a uniform enforcement procedure for discrimination is a transparent fiction. Obviously, the Montana Human Rights Act does NOT include sexual orientation and gender identity and the same Republicans voted to kill a measure which would have added those characteristics. Presumably, Schweitzer will veto the measure if it reaches his desk but has not made a public statement on the measure so far.

Immigration Equality Releases LGBT Asylum Stats

Immigration Equality, the national LGBT immigration advocacy organization (on whose board MadProfessah sits) announced today that they had won over 101 asylum cases in 2010:

Immigration Equality, a national organization that helps obtain asylum for individuals persecuted in their home country based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV-status, announced today that its legal and pro bono teams won a record 101 cases in 2010.  An overwhelming number of those wins – 38 - were for clients from the Caribbean, with 28 of those for individuals from Jamaica.  Other cases included 24 asylum seekers from Central and South America; 16 from Eastern Europe (including seven Russian clients); nine from the African continent and five from the Middle East. 

Immigration Equality maintains the largest pro bono network of attorneys – in addition to its in-house legal staff – dedicated solely to securing asylum for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender asylum seekers.  Firms providing pro bono representation for Immigration Equality clients include Dewey & LeBoeuf; Jones Day; Kirkland and Ellis; Latham Watkins; Ropes and Gray; Skadden; Weill  Gotshal; and White & Case. In addition to the 2010 wins announced today, the organization has 97 additional cases, filed in 2010, which are awaiting a ruling, as well as several cases filed prior to 2010. 

“For too many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the world remains a dangerous place,” said Rachel B. Tiven, the group’s executive director.  “In many cases, the clients who turn to Immigration Equality for help are literally running for their lives.  They have been mistreated and beaten by authorities in their home country, disowned by their families and ostracized by society.  By offering them safe haven, the United States is not only saving their lives, but benefitting from the talent, skills and service these asylees bring to our country.  We are proud, and honored, to help them begin life anew here in their adopted homeland.”

[...]

Immigration Equality 2010 Asylum Wins by Country *

Jamaica                        28
Russia                          7
Grenada                       4
Peru                             4
Uzbekistan                  4
Venezuela                    3
Mexico                         3
Ghana                          3
El Salvador                  3        

* Countries from which Immigration Equality had 2 or fewer wins are not listed.
Total 2010 wins include six individuals who won withholding of removal or secured relief under the Convention Against Torture Treaty (CAT).

Notice that 2 of the top 3 countries are in the West Indies. In fact, Grenada is the country where I was born.