What is it?

    Andrew Sullivan knows >>>

<<< Only 83% of Virginia county identify as heterosexual | Home | Comics used against another anti-gay politician >>>

Comics used against another anti-gay politician

Although Oklahoma county commissioner Brent Rinehart's bizarre anti-gay comic blew up in his face last night, a properly done comic has created viral interest in one legislative campaign in Kansas and is bringing in massive contributions. Democrat Sean Tevis (right), running for Kansas's 15th legislative district House seat against an entrenched incumbent Republican, has raised $96,512.76 in less than two weeks -- $95,312.76 of it online -- using a clever online cartoon. His comic is based on xkcd, a stick figure strip that is popular with programmers and other geeks and wonks. Tevis is a programmer and former journalist.

In contrast, Tevis' opponent, Republican incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, has raised only $5,492.00 since 01 Jan 2008, bringing his cash available this period to $16,910.27. Much of it is from PACs, corporations, and other special interests. Siegfreid caused a bit of a fuss last year when Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius signed an executive order protecting state employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The numbers behind Tevis' success are staggering. According to his 28 Jul 2008 campaign finance report, $69,391.93 of his contributions were of $50 or less, and there were 5,449 of those. Almost all of his itemized contributions were received in a single three-day period. A blurb about his web site was posted on geek favorite BoingBoing and another on Daily Kos on 16 Jul, and the contributions started pouring in.

The comic strip itself is quirky and amusing, with a stick-figure Tevis listening to a crackpot politician rail against gay marriage and other right-wing shibboleths. Tevis' masterstroke, though, was to embed a special message in the strip's source code asking any geeks who bothered studying the code (there are people who do that for fun *ahem*) to send in an amount ending in 88¢ to tag themselves as fellow geeks. According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly 20% of his 5,698 online donors have done that.

The entire strip is here. And he's married.

<<< What is it? | Home | Rinehart loses big in Oklahoma >>>

Rinehart loses big in Oklahoma

Indicted Oklahoma county commissioner Brent Rinehart, who made national news for sending out a crazy anti-gay comic book as a campaign mailer, came in third out of three candidates for the Republican nomination in yesterday's primary. He received 21% versus 47% and 32% for the other two candidates, who must go into a runoff next month to determine the Republican nominee.

The bad news is that in this heavily Republican district, Rinehart is likely to be replaced by a smoother, less stupid bigot who is thus more durable.

Rinehart must face trial in September on several felony charges relating to the financing of his last campaign four years ago. And he must face the IRS as well for alleged tax improprieties as well.

The sixteen-page comic book can still be seen here. Especially check out the beefy guys in togas on pages 5 and 8.

<<< How to use campaign comics effectively | Home | Still Black film clip >>>

Still Black film clip (01:15)

Kylar Broadus, Esq., chair of the National Black Justice Coalition, makes us think and laugh at the same time. The NBJC is a civil rights organization dedicated to empowering black same-gender-loving, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

<<< Still Black film clip | Home | GOP Rep. John Kline questions need for transgender protections >>>

GOP Rep. John Kline questions need for transgender protections

Rep. John Kline (R-MN-02), the ranking minority member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, had a chance to address the issue of legislating transgender employment protections during the 26 Jun 2008 hearing. His head didn't spin 360°, he didn't projectile vomit pea soup, and he didn't sound like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Preparedness when she made herself sound like a loon tesifying on Don't Ask Don't Tell last week.

Kline is more incisive and surgical than that, crisply calling into question whether there is any evidence that anti-transgender discrimination even exists and whether proposals to pass an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act constitute legislating for its own sake. In doing so, he has set up the Republican rationale for voting against any version of ENDA at all, let alone one that encompasses gender identity.

Committee Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2008
CONTACT: Alexa Marrero
(202) 225-4527

Kline Statement: Subcommittee Hearing on "An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace"

Good morning. I'd like to begin by thanking the witnesses for taking time out of their schedules to be here. I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Andrews for his flexibility in scheduling this hearing.

The issue we are here to examine – gender identity and workplace discrimination – follows on the Majority's efforts last fall to include protections for transgender individuals in the employment non-discrimination legislation. The purpose of this general hearing is to allow for thorough and thoughtful consideration of this issue, and any future proposals that might affect the American people.

That said, I am somewhat puzzled as to why the Committee did not hold this hearing last year, before the Majority rushed to consider legislation on this issue.

Last September, this Subcommittee held the only hearing on this topic. It was a hearing on a prior bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which broadly aimed to prohibit organizations from discriminating in their employment practices against individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. During that hearing, we heard testimony from experts who cautioned that some of the provisions in that bill could be confusing, difficult to comply with, and potentially fraught with litigation. Complex questions were raised about how that bill would impact employers; whether it would preserve religious freedom and encroach on employee privacy; and how it would comply with existing anti-discrimination statutes.

The bill's sponsors scrambled to address these questions and concerns. Ultimately, they decided to split the original ENDA bill, separating the protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity and attempting to address some of the technical concerns. But only the new bill involving sexual orientation discrimination was rushed to the House Floor for a vote. The flawed bill still raised many of the same serious concerns that were previously identified. After the bill passed the House in November 2007, it stalled in the Senate, where it still awaits action.

I can only speculate as to why no legislative action was taken on the other bill that sought protections based on gender identity. Despite the good intentions of those who supported these proposals, there still appeared to be too much uncertainty and too many unanswered questions. This explains why we are here today, examining an issue that perhaps should have been reviewed in greater detail before rushing to legislate.

We are all committed to the principle that no employee should be subject to discrimination. Before we consider and enact any new federal mandates, however, we must first determine whether a new law is necessary. Is there evidence that this type of discrimination is occurring? Are current laws and employer policies unable to protect employees? We have numerous federal and state laws and employer policies already on the books that help prevent discriminatory practices. Do we need yet another federal law? It is my view that the role of this Committee, and Congress, is to build upon this framework only when needed, and to avoid legislating for its own sake.

I look forward to hearing the testimony to be offered by our witnesses about the practical impact, benefits, and problems associated with this issue. I'm pleased that we will hear multiple perspectives on this topic, and hope this testimony will help ensure that any future well-intentioned efforts do not result in harmful, unintended consequences.

I yield back the balance of my time.

<<< Still Black film clip | Home | Text of Shannon Minter's testimony at transgender protections hearing >>>

Text of Shannon Minter's testimony at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Shannon Minter, Esq., legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is below. A PDF of his testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

Written Statement of Shannon Price Minter, Esq.
Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
To the
Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee on Education and Labor
United States House of Representatives
Room 2175
Rayburn House Office Building
An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace
June 26, 2008

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

This is truly a historic day, and one that is deeply meaningful not just to transgender people, but to all of our family members and loved ones as well. This is the first time that most transgender people have had the reality of our lives addressed by Congress. I am grateful to have this chance to speak to you today both as an attorney who specializes in transgender legal issues and as a transgender man.

I was born female and transitioned from female to male at the age of thirty-five, about twelve years ago. Growing up as a transgender young person in rural East Texas, I never would have dreamed of having this opportunity to address our nation’s legislators. I am keenly aware, as I am sure my fellow witnesses are as well, that we speak to you on behalf of your transgender constituents across the country, whether it be others living in rural Texas, suburban New Jersey, or metropolitan Minneapolis.

I am going to touch on three issues: who transgender people are; the pervasiveness of workplace discrimination against transgender people; and the inadequacy of current federal law to address that discrimination.

Transgender people are individuals whose internal identification as male or female does not match their assigned sex at birth, including many who undertake the medical process of changing their physical gender. Transgender people have existed throughout history and have been part of almost every culture and community. In the United States, transgender people come from every racial and ethnic group and live in every part of our country. Transgender people also work in virtually every occupation.(1)

Like other Americans, transgender people fervently wish to be able support ourselves and our families and to have the dignity of being treated as equal members of society. As employees, we want to be judged based on our skills and our qualifications—on what we have to offer, not on whether we happen to be transgender.

Many transgender people are fortunate to have support in their workplace and are able
to continue working in their chosen careers both during and after their transition from one gender to another; unfortunately, however, many others face some of the most blatant and severe workplace discrimination imaginable, to a degree that is often truly shocking. All too often, the mere disclosure that a person is transgender and intends to undergo, or has undergone, sex-reassignment results immediately in severe harassment or job loss. That is true even for highly skilled employees who may have served in their position for years.

For example, in a case that attracted national attention last year, Steve Stanton had served as the City Manager of Largo, Florida for 14 years, longer than any other City Manager in Largo’s history. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Stanton always received excellent job evaluations and was widely respected as one of the most effective city managers in the country. During his last evaluation, in September, 2006, he was given a large raise in recognition of his long tenure and accomplishments. But just seven months later, the Largo City Commission abruptly fired Mr. Stanton after a local news article disclosed that he was transgender and intended to transition from a man to a woman. The Commission refused to reconsider its decision. As a result, the City of Largo lost a valuable employee, and Stanton, who has subsequently changed her first name to Susan and is now living as a woman, has been unable to find another job.(2)

Unfortunately, there are many similar stories, most of which receive little or no public attention. One such story concerns Kathleen Culhane, a veteran who also served in the Iowa National Guard. Prior to her transition from male to female, Ms. Culhane had worked for several years as a research assistant at a state university in Iowa. She informed her supervisor that she was transgender and would be transitioning from male to female. Within weeks of that disclosure, Ms. Culhane was told she would be fired. She applied for positions in other departments, but no one was willing to hire a transgender person. Ms. Culhane lost her job and was forced to move to another state to find work, leaving behind her home of sixteen years.(3)

In another case, Anthony Barreto-Neto, an experienced and skilled police officer, was hired by a local police department in Hardwick, Vermont. Shortly thereafter, town officials found a website that described Mr. Barreto-Neto as "transsexual" and disclosed the fact that he had been born female and had undergone sex-reassignment several years earlier. The town officials communicated that information to senior police department personnel, who then subjected Mr. Barreto-Neto to severe harassment and dangerous workplace conditions, including issuing him faulty security equipment. In a subsequent investigation by the Vermont Attorney General, a former police chief testified that he was directed to make Mr. Barreto-Neto so uncomfortable that he would leave the force. Mr. Barreto-Neto was able to settle his case; however, the police department took the position that discrimination against a transgender person was not prohibited by law.(4) A few years later, the Vermont Legislature enacted a statewide law specifically prohibiting such discrimination.

As lawyers who specialize in this area are well aware, such stories of discrimination are painfully common. Employees who disclose their transgender status or who attempt to transition on the job risk being summarily dismissed, regardless of their qualifications or prior history.

State and local lawmakers throughout the country increasingly are addressing this type of discrimination. Currently 12 states and the District of Columbia have laws that specifically ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity: California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.(5) The first such statewide law was passed by Minnesota in 1993; however, most have been enacted in the past three to five years. Several other states are considering similar laws, and earlier this month, on June 3, 2008, the New York State Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act by a vote of 108 to 34.(6) More than 100 cities and counties have enacted local non-discrimination laws protecting transgender workers.(7) And many of the country’s employers, both large and small, have adopted non-discrimination policies that prohibit gender identity discrimination.(8)

Despite these advances, the current patchwork of local and state laws is inadequate to remedy the pervasive gender identity discrimination taking place across the country. Most transgender employees do not live in a jurisdiction that provides them with legal protection. In most states, a transgender worker who is fired or harassed for being transgender has no legal recourse.

Existing federal law, including Title VII, does not adequately protect transgender employees. As a logical matter, discrimination against a person for changing his or her sex should be recognized as discrimination based on sex, just as discrimination against a person for changing his or her religion or nationality is recognized as discrimination based on religion or nationality. Many legal scholars, as well as women’s rights and civil rights advocates, strongly support the view that the prohibition of sex discrimination in Title VII logically, and as a matter of principle, should prohibit transgender discrimination. In practice, however, most courts have rejected that view, creating a significant loophole in sex discrimination law. For decades, starting in the 1970s, courts summarily held that Title VII does not protect transgender people from discrimination.(9) Too often, those decisions not only denied protection, but spoke about transgender people in disparaging and demeaning terms. In recent years, some federal courts have begun to hold that, at least under some circumstances, Title VII may protect transgender
people who are discriminated against because they do not conform to gender sereotypes.(10)

The most notable example is the Sixth Circuit, which thus far is the only federal appellate court to issue such a decision.(11) This is a welcome development, and has provided a remedy for some transgender employees against some forms of gender identity discrimination. For the most part, however, courts have continued to apply Title VII narrowly to exclude transgender people.(12) Moreover, even the few courts, including the Sixth Circuit, that have held that Title VII may protect transgender people against discrimination based on gender stereotypes have stopped short of holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination simply because a person is transgender.

Thus, it is essential that Congress make clear that discrimination against transgender people because of their gender identity is against the law.

Thank you for your leadership in convening this historic forum and for the opportunity to testify. Growing up in my small Texas town, I could not have imagined a day like this. So many transgender people and their families around the country are waiting and watching, hoping that Congress will take action to address this harmful discrimination and to help ensure that transgender people have an equal opportunity to work.


(1) The representation of transgender people in virtually all professions is evidenced by the broad range of occupations that have been the subject of transgender employment discrimination actions. See, e.g., Enriquez v. West Jersey Health Systems, 777 A.2d 365 (N.J. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (medicine); Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 (1985) (airline industry); Broadus v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1585257 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2000) (insurance industry); Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm, Inc., 2006 WL 456173 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2006) (sales); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (firefighting); Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (2005) (law enforcement); Schroer v. Billington, 525 F.Supp.2d 58 (D.D.C. 2007) (terrorism research analysis).

(2) Deborah J. Vagins, "Working in the Shadows: Ending Employment Discrimination for LGBT Americans," at 17 (American Civil Liberties Union, Sept. 7, 2007).

(3) Id. at 19.

(4) Mr. Baretto-Neto was represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. For a description of his case, see http://www.glad.org/News_Room/press73-4-23-04.html.

(5) California (Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12926(p), 12940, 12955, Cal. Penal Code § 422.76); Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-401(7.5)); Illinois (775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-102, 5/1-103(O-1)); Iowa (Iowa Code § 216.6); Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4552, 4553(9-C)); Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 363A.03(44)); New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. §10:5-3 et seq.); New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-2(Q)); Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 175.100, 659A.030); Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-6, R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-24-2.1(a)(8)); Vermont (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, § 144); Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040); and the District of Columbia (D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.11).

(6) A06584A, 231th Leg. (N.Y. 2008).

(7) National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "Jurisdictions with Explicitly Transgender-Inclusive Non-Discrimination Laws"(April 2008), available at http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/all_jurisdictions_w_pop_4_08.pdf.

(8) Transgender Law & Policy Institute, "Employer and Union Policies Prohibiting Discrimination Against Transgender People,"available at
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/employer/index.htm.

(9) See, e.g., Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 (1985) (pilot did not have a cause of action under Title VII because, based on the plain meaning of the word "sex" and the legislative history of Title VII, sex does not include a person's transsexual status); Sommers v. Budget Marketing, Inc., 667 F.2d 748 (8th Cir. 1982) (Title VII does not encompass discrimination against transgender persons); Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977) (Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect transgender employees); James v. Ranch Mart Hardware, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 478 (D. Kan. 1995) (same); Powell v. Read's, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 369 (D. Md. 1977) (same); Voyles v. Ralph K. Davies Medical Center, 403 F. Supp. 456 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (same), aff'd, 570 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1978); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, 89 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1832, 2002 WL 31098541 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002) (male grocery store clerk denied Title VII protection when fired for wearing female clothing off the job).

(10) Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that transgender firefighter who was transitioning from male to female was discriminated under Title VII against based on failure to conform to masculine gender stereotypes); Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that transgender police officer who was transitioning from male to female was discriminated against under Title VII based on failure to conform to masculine gender stereotypes), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 2005); Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Group, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 653 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment and holding that transgender plaintiff was entitled to prove her gender stereotyping claim).

(11) See Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); and Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 2005).

(12) See, e.g., Sweet v. Mulberry Lutheran Home, 2003 WL 21525058 (S.D. Ind. June 17, 2003) (holding that termination because of employee’s intent to change sex was not actionable as sex discrimination under Title VII); James v. Ranch Mart Hardware, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 478 (D. Kan. 1995) (holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender people).

<<< GOP Rep. John Kline questions need for transgender protections | Home | Shannon Minter testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Shannon Minter testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Shannon Minter, Esq., legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; and Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Text of Shannon Minter's testimony at transgender protections hearing | Home | Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. A PDF of her testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< | Home | Bill Hendrix testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Bill Hendrix testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, William H. Hendrix III Ph.D., chair of Dow Chemical's Gay, Lesbian, and Allies at Dow employee affinity group, testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. A PDF of his testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Text of Diego Sanchez's testimony at transgender protections hearing >>>

Text of Diego Sanchez's testimony at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Diego Sanchez testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is below. A PDF of his testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

Written Statement of
Diego Miguel Sanchez

To the

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
Committee on Education and Labor
United States House of Representatives
Room 2175
Rayburn House Office Building
June 26, 2008

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for adding my voice to those you hear today. My name is Diego Miguel Sanchez, and I am a 51-year old transsexual Latino man. I was born female and
transitioned to male. I grew up as an Army brat around the world, ending up in Augusta, Georgia, where my 80-year-old mother lives today.

When I was five, I told my parents that I was born wrong, that I felt like a boy inside. My mother showed me a magazine with Christine Jorgensen on the cover. She told me that she didn't know if there were other people like me – girls who felt like boys -- but that this woman was born a boy, felt like a girl and was able to become a woman later in life. Mom told me that by the time I grew up, it would be okay. From that time, my parents gently, privately, dually socialized me, but it was our secret, of sorts. My mom prepared me for life as girls are expected to be, and my dad taught me the lessons that boys needed to become men. It was rough – I had as many tutus as Tonka Trucks. But I could survive the former because of the latter. My parents always gave me hope, and my positive outlook on life, despite painful hardships, is the fruit of that loving labor. Mom was mostly right; it's almost okay for me these days.

I am grateful to be gainfully employed as the Director of Public Relations & External Affairs at AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts and AIDS Action Council in Washington, D.C. My college degree is in Journalism with a major in Public Relations from the University of Georgia. I am the only male Georgia letterman I know of who earned it on the women's tennis team. I was one of those Straight A, perfect attendance students. Dad always told me, "The harder you work, the luckier you get." I worked hard. I am lucky.

Because sex reassignment procedures weren't as developed in 1980 as today, I focused on work, hoping to make changes in the future. I spent nearly 20 award-winning years climbing the corporate ladder at several global companies including Coca-Cola, Burson-Marsteller, Holiday Inn, ITT Sheraton and Starwood Hotels.

I'm a loyal worker, a passionate leader and a man who had to wait, for fear of being fired, to be who I was always destined to be: Diego Miguel Sanchez, an honorable man. My career entailed navigating the newly named Glass Ceiling, probing limited opportunities for female professionals of color and trying to find a way to be a man while I looked like a woman in the workplace. It was heart-breaking and painful. But it was necessary. I did it because it was the only way I knew to save money to pay for sex reassignment, which I did later from my own savings.

I struggled with finding self-respect in a world that I never imagined would allow -- let alone accept or embrace -- someone like me, someone born seemingly wrong. I was an honest person who could be honest about everything except about me. I negotiated with my corporate colleagues for things that would moderately affirm me. It's the little things that seem like 'nothing' to others, that meant so much. It warmed my heart to receive a tie rather than a scarf as a company talisman. I asked people to use my first initial as my first name until I could change things medically and legally.

I have lived long enough to achieve those gains because I was able to do the ONE thing that military families are ordered to do when there’s a challenge: I sucked it up.

But when my head hits my pillow every night, I close my eyes and think about my friends who are transgender whose lives aren't easy. I miss my friend Alexander John Goodrum who took his own life. I feel guilty about my friend Ethan St. Pierre who lost his job just because he began his transition from female to male. I was the first transman he met, and he lost his job because he is brave and honest. It wasn't right. I still lose sleep over that injustice.

Because I work in public health, I know countless transgender people who are homeless, and I know these people by their names and character. These are good people who can't get work and whose lives are cast to the streets in large cities and small towns. It's a disgraceful injustice.

I flash my ID every day without concern. It's not questioned because I have had the luxury of personally paying to transition to male and aligning my IDs and myself. But I have friends whose licenses' and passports' gender don't match their identity, so they are disclosed as transgender the minute they show an ID, including when they try to get a job. I face these burdens when recruiting firms ask for my former names as part of their due diligence. It closes doors for me, and it limits the lives of my friends.

It's an injustice that we are ever evaluated for employment based on other people's comfort with our existence. I grew up in the South, where I wasn't allowed to swim in public pools because I'm not white. This experience today feels like a flashback.

I am before you today to affirm that transgender and transsexual people, including me, are equally human and deserve to be treated like other people. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Diego Miguel Sanchez, APR

<<< | Home | Diego Sanchez testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Diego Sanchez testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Diego Sanchez of the Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Text of Diego Sanchez's testimony at transgender protections hearing | Home | Col. Diane Schroer testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Col. Diane Schroer testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. A PDF of her testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Diego Sanchez testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Rep. Barney Frank testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Rep. Barney Frank testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Col. Diane Schroer testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Text of Rep. Tammy Baldwin's testimony at transgender protections hearing >>>

Text of Rep. Tammy Baldwin's testimony at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of her testimony is below. A PDF of her testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Statement for Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee
Hearing on Gender Identity
Tuesday, June 26, 2008

Thank you Chairman Andrews, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to testify today at this historic hearing.

Many of my colleagues have asked about the phrase "gender identity" and why employment protections based on gender identity and expression ought to be included in any employment discrimination legislation Congress takes up. I'll do my best to
answer any lingering questions and clarify what drives many in the LGBT community to demand an inclusive approach to eliminating discrimination in the workplace – one that does not leave the smallest and most vulnerable part of our community behind.

As you may know, gender identity is a person's internal sense of his or her gender. In the vast majority of the population, an individual's gender identity and his or her birth sex "match." But for a small minority of people, gender identity and anatomical sex conflict. A common way for many transgender people to describe this feeling is to say something to the effect of being "trapped in the wrong body." Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same and transgender people may be heterosexual, lesbian, gay or bisexual.

There are thousands of transgender Americans who lead incredibly successful, stable lives, are dedicated parents, contribute immeasurably to their communities, their country. I personally know transgender people who work in fields as diverse as defense contracting, broadcasting, community organizing, the legal profession – I could go on. They have transitioned successfully, many with the full support of their employers.

Despite these successes, because an individual was born one sex and presents themselves to the world as another—or in a way that other people may think is inconsistent with how a man or a woman should present themselves—he or she can face many forms of discrimination.

Hate crimes against transgender Americans are tragically common. Transgender people also face discrimination in the mundane tasks of the everyday – trying to find housing, apply for credit, or even see a doctor...and, of course, in the focus of today’s hearing: trying to provide for themselves and their families.

Some of you know that I practiced law for a few years in a small general practice firm before I was elected to the Wisconsin Assembly. On occasion, I represented clients who were fired in violation of Wisconsin's 1982 non-discrimination law that added sexual orientation to our state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

During that time, I met a transgender woman who left a lasting impression, though she was never a client. This woman had been fired from a management position at a large local employer when she announced to her boss that she intended to transition. And because Wisconsin law gave her no legal recourse, she faced an impossible situation – and ended up moving to a different state. I remember a time in my own life, when I thought I had to choose between living my life with truth and integrity about who I am, as a lesbian, or pursuing the career of my dreams in public service.

Among the things that made me change my mind was Wisconsin's Non-Discrimination law that passed four years before I first ran for local office… as an out lesbian.

The importance of nondiscrimination laws cannot be overstated. Substantively, they provide real remedies and a chance to seek justice. Symbolically, they say to America, judge your fellow citizens by their integrity, character, and talents, not their sexual orientation, or gender identity, or their race or religion, for that
matter. Symbolically, these laws also say that irrational hate or fear have no place in our work place.

Today, 39% of Americans live in areas explicitly banning discrimination based on gender identity and expression and at least 300 major U.S. businesses now ban discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Corporate America and the American people are way ahead of the Congress in acknowledging the basic truth we hold to be self-evident... that all of us are created equal... and the laws of the land should reflect that equality. It is high time that America declare discrimination based on gender identity and expression unlawful.

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support your Committee's efforts to do just this. For the record, I support an inclusive bill which ensures that hard-working Americans cannot be denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise be discriminated against just because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

All of us who have had the honor of working in this institution know that one of the greatest things about America is that it is both a nation and an idea. Our American Dream promises that no matter where we start, no matter who we are, if we work hard, we will have the opportunity to advance. This Committee can help fulfill that promise.

Thank you.

<<< Rep. Barney Frank testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of her testimony is here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Text of Rep. Tammy Baldwin's testimony at transgender protections hearing | Home | Rep. Robert Andrews opens transgender protections hearing >>>

Rep. Robert Andrews opens transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on transgender employment protections. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair. The subcommittee heard testimony from transgender citizens, Members of Congress, and business leaders on the necessity of including gender identity protections in civil rights laws.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq.

<<< Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) indicted >>>

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) indicted

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has been indicted on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms. Stevens' most recent HRC scores have been 0, 13, and 0.

<<< Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | House transgender hearing videos and transcripts available >>>

House transgender hearing videos and transcripts available

On 26 Jun 2008, the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on transgender employment protections. The subcommittee heard testimony from transgender citizens, Members of Congress, and business leaders on the necessity of including gender identity protections in civil rights laws. The video archive and testimony transcripts will be made available in subsequent postings.

Witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.), whose job offer from the Library of Congress was rescinded after she revealed that she was transitioning; Diego Sanchez of the Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D., chair of Dow Chemical's Gay, Lesbian, and Allies at Dow employee affinity group; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, who was fired from United Space Alliance, the prime contractor for the space shuttle program, after revealing that she was tranitioning; and Shannon Minter, Esq., legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

The entire hearing can be viewed here. The video lasts 01:54:05.

<<< Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) indicted | Home | Delaware candidate blogs about Stonewall Dems event >>>

Delaware Lieutenant Governor candidate blogs about Stonewall Democrats event

Matt Denn, Delaware's elected insurance commissioner, is running for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor. As he notes on his blog this morning, he got some politicking and some family time in this past weekend:

On the Boardwalk

We are having one of our usual, hectic Monday mornings at the Denn household, so the weekend update today will be somewhat abbreviated.

Unquestioned highlight of the weekend: after visiting the State Fair in Harrington and the Stonewall Democrats annual fundraiser in Rehoboth, the boys and I headed to the boardwalk where they enjoyed a nutritious post-dinner feast of Thrashers fries and soft ice cream and several games of Whac-a-Mole. (Mrs. Denn stayed home to engage in similar recreational activities such as weeding the garden.) Because I knew that I was going to change the boys into their pajamas before we got into the car to head home, I didn’t spend too much time trying to clean the food off their clothes. So if you saw a guy last weekend in a Matt Denn polo shirt walking down Rehoboth Avenue with two three-year-olds whose faces and clothing were smeared with chocolate ice cream and french fry debris, that was me, and thank you for not calling social services.

He doesn't take the kids along to hypnotize undecided voters with their cuteness; but that's the result anyway.

<<< House transgender hearing videos and transcripts available | Home | Roundup >>>

Roundup

♦ Labor unions are inexplicably ganging up on out congressional candidate Jared Polis, who is running for the Democratic nomination for Colorado's CD-02.

♦ Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA-05), a member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee that is reviewing Don't Ask Don't Tell, delivered a strong statement against DADT in yesterday's hearings.

♦ Numerous social issues will be on state ballots this year. Same-sex marriage is just one of them.

<<< Delaware candidate blogs about Stonewall Dems event | Home | Barney Frank slaps down Republicans over housing crisis >>>

Barney Frank slaps down Republicans over housing crisis

Today the House passed H.R. 3221, the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, with overwhelming Democratic support and substantial Republican opposition. The bill, which goes to the Senate and could be sent to the White House by next week, will provide relief for homeowners crushed under ballooning mortgage payments and gives the government more authority to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

During floor debate today, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04) read the riot act to recalcitrant Republicans who were trying to stall the bill. Among other points that he made, he noted that he and other representatives had tried for years to reform housing laws but had been obstructed by the Republican majority. In this video, Frank is fiery, irritated, lucid, and unstoppable. As always.

<<< Roundup | Home | Poll of military personnel on gays in the military >>>

Poll of military personnel on gays in the military

Following are details of a survey of U.S. military personnel who are serving or who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan regarding their attitudes toward gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. The survey was submitted in December 2006 to the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara by Zogby International. The Center specializes in studying Don't Ask Don't Tell.

26 ♦ percent of personnel who think gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military
37 ♦ percent of personnel who think gays and lesbians should not be allowed to serve openly in the military
37 ♦ percent who are neutral or not sure

47 ♦ percent of officers who think gays and lesbians should not be allowed to serve openly in the military

28 ♦ percent of personnel who say the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit has a negative impact on their personal morale
66 ♦ percent of personnel who say the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit has no impact on their personal morale
6 ♦ percent of personnel who say the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit has a positive impact on their personal morale

73 ♦ percent of personnel who say they are comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians
19 ♦ percent of personnel who say they are uncomfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians

52 ♦ percent of personnel who consider themselves more tolerant than their peers on the issue of homosexuals in the military
11 ♦ percent of personnel who do not consider themselves more tolerant than their peers on the issue of homosexuals in the military

<<< Barney Frank slaps down Republicans over housing crisis | Home | Capt. Joan Darrah testifies at Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings >>>

Capt. Joan Darrah testifies at Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings

Captain Joan Darrah (ret.) testified today in the House Military Personnel Subcommittee hearings on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA-53) is the subcommittee chair.

Darrah has substantial credentials in Naval Intelligence. She came out as lesbian after retiring in 2002. See her profile at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

<<< Poll of military personnel on gays in the military | Home | Rep. Patrick Murphy in DADT hearings, Part 2 >>>

Rep. Patrick Murphy in DADT hearings, Part 2

Watch as Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA-08) again refuses to take Elaine Donnelly's snarky evasiveness during today's Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings before the House Military Personnel Subcommittee. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA-53) is the subcommittee chair. According to Donnelly's own official bio, she has no military credentials whatsoever; she has plenty of right-wing ideologue credentials, however.

<<< Capt. Joan Darrah testifies at Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings | Home | Rep. Patrick Murphy is our own Perseus >>>

Rep. Patrick Murphy is our own Perseus

Watch as Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA-08) tries heroically to get a straight answer out of Elaine Donnelly, gorgon-in-chief of the anti-gay Center for Military Readiness. This exchange occurred during today's hearings before the House Military Personnel Subcommittee on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA-53) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Rep. Patrick Murphy in DADT hearings, Part 2 | Home | S.Sgt. Eric Alva testifies at Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings >>>

S.Sgt. Eric Alva testifies at Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings

Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Alva testified today in the House Military Personnel Subcommittee hearings on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA-53) is the subcommittee chair.

Alva was the first American servicemember wounded in the Iraq war. Hours after the initial invasion, he stepped on a land mine and lost his right leg. Alva came out as gay after leaving the service.

I dare you not to find a lump in your throat when he explains the etymology of his middle name, Fidelis: "Loyalty is literally my middle name."

His most damning indictment of DADT: "I had proudly served a country that was not proud of me."

<<< Rep. Patrick Murphy is our own Perseus | Home | Rep. Susan Davis opens Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings >>>

Rep. Susan Davis opens Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings

Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA-53) is chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

<<< S.Sgt. Eric Alva testifies at Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings Home | Disturbing profile of DNC chief of staff Leah Daughtry >>>

Disturbing profile of DNC chief of staff Leah Daughtry

The New York Times ran a very troubling profile on Sunday of Democratic National Committee Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry.

The ostensible purpose of the profile was to highlight Daughtry's attempt to bring people of faith into the Democratic fold. Numerous American progressives have been open about their religious beliefs -- Martin and Coretta King, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson -- and there is much concordance between the teachings of the major faiths and progressive ideology.

The article's big tent theme quickly got derailed, however, by a number of unsettling revelations about how exactly Daughtry has gone about wooing faith communities and the cost in Democratic principles of her doing so.

The most disturbing disclosure is that the DNC has funded blatantly anti-gay voter outreach in at least one state. The Alabama Democratic Party accepted DNC money and published a Faith and Values Voter Guide in local newspapers during the 2006 campaign. The twelve-page insert included a Covenant for the Future which promised to "defeat any efforts to redefine marriage or to provide the benefits of marriage to a same-sex union."

Alabama Democratic Party Chair Joe Turnham continued gay bashing after the 2006 election. In May 2007, as DNC Chair Howard Dean was preparing to visit the state, Alabama Republican Party Chair Mike Hubbard criticized Dean's "left-wing agenda". Turnham responded by saying in the local press that Hubbard

has gun control in New York with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney with gay marriage in Massachusetts....He shouldn't be taking shots at Howard Dean.

In his Chairman's blog just days earlier, Turnham also declared that

the Repub Party has welcomed 'pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun' Rudy and Mitt to Alabama"

Turnham's statements were so outrageous that State Rep. Patricia Todd, Alabama's only out elected public official, took Turnham to task in a letter that she made available to us here.

There are other disturbing aspects about the DNC's faith outreach relative to its LGBT outreach:

♦ Dean allowed Daughtry to create a six-member religious outreach team called Faith in Action at the same time that they eliminated the DNC's LGBT outreach desk;

♦ at least one FIA member has trained state party communications directors on how to deal with religious media, and Dean appeared on televangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson's 700 Club, but Dean refuses to speak with the Washington Blade, the widest-circulation LGBT publication in Washington, DC; and one of Dean's and Daughtry's subordinates, Julie Tagen, derided the Blade and other gay publications by writing in an e-mail, "I tend to use the Blade and other gay papers in the bottom of the birdcage". The Blade has published articles critical of the DNC's handling of LGBT concerns, including its elimination of the LGBT desk and its termination of gay employee Donald Hitchcock after Hitchcock's partner Paul Yandura criticized the DNC's failure to counter anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives;

♦ Daughtry oversaw the purchase of radio ads on Christian stations during the 2006 campaign, but almost no LGBT local publications received DNC funding.

Outreach to people of faith is certainly something that the Democratic National Committee should be engaging in, but it should be done as part of an effort to find common ground, not at the cost of sacrificing Democratic principles. That Daughtry and Turnham would sacrifice the LGBT community with such casualness will no doubt make some LGBT donors hesitate as they consider where to send their contributions.

When asked about the gay-bashing Alabama publication, paid for with funds much of which had been contributed by LGBT Democrats, Daughtry did not say, "This is an outrage. I will make sure that it never happens again". She did not accept responsibility for her failure to monitor those funds. She did not apologize for allowing money under her stewardship to be used to appeal to the basest elements in our society. Her response when asked about the Alabama publication: "The wonderful thing about the Democratic Party is that we have room for all kinds of opinions."

If a Democratic Party official had allowed party funds to be used to oppose interracial marriage rather than gay marriage and had then dismissed concerns with such flippancy, that person would have been out of a job immediately. But the LGBT community is the last group against whom it is still considered acceptable to be prejudiced. One just wouldn't think that the highest-ranking employee of the Democratic National Committee would be one of the people who find that acceptable.

Democratic committees that can use support include the Obama campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

<<< Rep. Susan Davis opens Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings | Home | Rinehart evades CNN questions >>>

Rinehart evades CNN questions

Oklahoma County Commissioner Brent Rinehart was interviewed for yesterday's CNN American Morning regarding the blatantly homophobic comic book that he produced to shore up far-right support for his flailing re-election campaign. Among other hateful declarations, Rinehart opined therein that getting "the kids to believe that homosexuality is normal" is satanic.

On his official county biography, Rinehart trumpets the fact that he was the "[l]one vote against Gay Pride banners on Oklahoma City streets". It is not clear if Rinehart is a deeply closeted, self-loathing gay man.

Listen as CNN's John Roberts tries to get Rinehart to give a straight answer about any of it:

<<< Disturbing profile of DNC chief of staff Leah Daughtry | Home | Comedy Central gets in on the Dole/Helms act >>>

Comedy Central gets in on the Dole/Helms act

Sen. Elizabeth Dole's (R-NC) decision to try to rename the Lantos/Hyde PEPFAR HIV/AIDS bill after homophobe Jesse Helms, first report here, is so crazy that even Comedy Central is giving it play.

<<< Rinehart evades CNN questions | Home | Progressive jobs and internships available >>>

Progressive jobs and internships available

Lots of campaign jobs available at Open Left.

<<< Comedy Central gets in on the Dole/Helms act | Home | What's Tammy Baldwin up to? >>>

What's Tammy Baldwin up to?

Out Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) has been busy in the last couple of weeks. Besides fulfilling her regular duties in the U.S. House of Representatives, she also has:

♦ expressed concern about the "very bellicose tone this administration has sounded on Iran";
♦ voted to override Bush's veto of the Medicare bill to delay cuts in physician payments;
♦ stood in solidarity with the Dalai Lama;
♦ held a conference call with other prominent Wisconsin women to laud Sen. Barack Obama's plans for women and for the working class and to criticize Sen. John McCain's lack of leadership; and
♦ helped move forward improvements for Madison's Dane County Regional airport.

Sources: Kathleen Masterson, The Capital Times; Ellyn Ferguson, Green Bay Press-Gazette; John Nichols, The Capital Times; Steven Elbow, The Capital Times; Craig gilbert, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; and Channel 3000.

<<< Progressive jobs and internships available | Home | Olbermann cites Dole in "Worst Person" category >>>

Olbermann cites Dole in "Worst Person" category

Elizabeth Dole's attempt to include the name of Jesse Helms in the title of the Lantos/Hyde HIV/AIDS bill, first reported here, has earned her MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann's scorn. Olbermann gave her a bottom-three mention in his regular Worst Person in the World hall of shame:

<<< What's Tammy Baldwin up to? | Home | Senate passes HIV/AIDS bill >>>

Senate passes HIV/AIDS bill

Details at Reuters. Every one of the "no" votes was a Republican. See the roll call.

<<< Olbermann cites Dole in "Worst Person" category | Home | The villainous Joker and the villainess Dole >>>

The villainous Joker and the villainess Dole

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) has a cameo in The Dark Knight, the new Batman movie that opens at midnight tomorrow. Leahy's recent HRC scores have been 100, 100, and 100. He's the distinguished gentleman on the left being manhandled by the Joker's henchmen. The flick also stars Brokeback Mountain star Heath Ledger as the villainous Joker.

And that's Sen. Leahy's colleague, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), on the right. The villainess Dole on Monday tried to name the AIDS bill after the villainous Jesse Helms, who built a career on gay bashing and gutting HIV/AIDS funding. Dole's HRC scores since she entered the Senate in 2003 have been 0 and 0.

And yes, it does indeed seem as if Leahy's co-stars get their hair and makeup done at the same salon.

<<< Senate passes AIDS bill | Home | Kent Snyder, the libertarian Terry Dolan

>>>

Kent Snyder, the libertarian Terry Dolan

Kent Snyder, the gay presidential campaign manager for conservative-libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX-14), died last month of pneumonia, leaving $400,000 in medical bills because the Paul campaign provided him with no health insurance. Besides being a congressman, Paul is also a physician.

Jesse Benton, the campaign's communications director, said it was Snyder himself who decided not to provide staffers with insurance, claiming that campaigns simply do not do so. The Obama, Clinton, and McCain campaigns, however, have all provided full health coverage for their paid staff. According to the Federal Elections Commission, Paul's presidential campaign had raised $35,053,492 by 31 May 2008 and had $4,526,323 cash remaining on that date.

Paul and his handlers have cultivated the image of a grandfatherly muppet who has the cranky-cute idea that government should just get off of everyone's backs. According to Lou Chibbaro in today's Washington Blade,

Gay libertarian activists have praised Paul for his longstanding views calling for all Americans to be free from government intrusion into their private lives through laws and regulations. Paul voted against a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

And yet last year Paul launched a frightening broadside on the floor of the House of Representatives against the right of gay people to be protected by the laws and the Constitution of the United States. Paul argued that states have the right to intrude into gay people's lives with legislation such as gay marriage bans and punitive sodomy laws, and that any federal court that rejected state intrusion into people's privacy was abusing the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In his floor speech, Paul threatened any federal judge who upheld the universality of the Constitution with impeachment and removal.

Paul's manifesto could easily have been delivered by arch-bigot senators Strom Thurmond in the 1950s or Jesse Helms in the 1980s. Paul's We the People Act legislation, the introduction of which was the occasion of his floor speech, would have prevented the U.S. Supreme Court from ruling in such crucial privacy rights cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. States consequently would still be able to ban the use of contraceptives, women's reproductive health rights, and gay people's right to intimate relations. And many states would if they could.

This is the man whom Kent Snyder served.

Snyder's fealty to such a vicious ideologue and the circumstance of his death are reminiscent of those of Terry Dolan. Dolan was a closeted gay man who served as the chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC), a far-right committee that was identified in 1979 by Time as one of the three most important organizations of the New Right that would sweep Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate majority into power the next year. Dolan worked tirelessly on behalf of a right-wing power structure that would later coldly turn its back on hundreds of thousands of gay men throughout the AIDS epidemic. Dolan himself would become an early AIDS casualty, dying in 1986 at the age of 36, abandoned to his fate by the very people he had helped into power.

The willingness of gay right-wingers like Snyder and Dolan to labor on behalf of politicians who oppose basic protection of the law to all citizens and who will even stand by as people die is nothing short of appalling. It is difficult to believe that Snyder did not know what Paul's true colors are, and yet he willingly served a man who is at his core a bigot and who is deeply opposed to basic equality for gay people like Snyder himself.

Some consider it not condign to speak ill of the dead, and yet Snyder and Dolan serve as necessary cautionary examples. They were Uncle Toms, and they show us the way of those who would sell themselves out by selling the rest of us out. That way lies infamy and oblivion.

Paul's floor speech on 05 Jan 2007, from the Congressional Record:

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or "privacy," including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.

In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.

Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile
to liberty.

It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

<<< Yes, that's Leahy on the left | Home | New JibJab >>>