#where are you as lgbtq protections are not codified into law | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

twig-tea · 3 months

Text

Canadian LGBTQ+ rights; a whirlwind summary

Back in August of 2023 @wen-kexing-apologist wrote an absolutely stellar piece here, and I didn't want to co-opt it (especially because it was already written with an American gaze and I don't want to pile on/distract from the fact that we're talking about Thai BL) so I decided to make this a separate post. And then it lingered in the sad pile of my drafts. But, I'm gonna post it anyway, and take this as an excuse to talk about Canadian history of LGBTQ+ rights apropos of absolutely nothing except the most recent move of the provinces (specifically Saskatchewan) to use the notwithstanding clause to force through legislation that the courts have said goes against our charter of rights and freedoms--specifically legislation that says a teacher cannot respect a child's pronouns without permission of the parent. This is being taken to court (latest as of this writing is that in Feb 2024 the group fighting the law was granted the right to be heard by the court in spite of the notwithstanding clause being invoked, so there is still a chance of it getting revoked via the courts).

WKA talks about what the conversation was like in the US around queer rights in the 20th century; highly recommend reading the linked post first. In Canada the conversation was a little different though with very similar themes; we had the shift to a focus on "privacy" as the driver of our rights long before the HIV/AIDS epidemic, in the 1960s. So much of the push and pull of our laws around homosexuality and gender identity and expression have had to do with the public vs private.

Sodomy has been illegal in Canada since colonization (earliest known conviction: 1648) but laws against gross indecency, which included dancing, kissing, or touching between two men, didn't get codified in Canada until 1892 (and not extended to apply to women until 1953 (thanks)). While these laws essentially outlawed any physical public affection between men from the turn of the century, the fervor to root out and eliminate gayness from society didn't really reach its pitch until mid-century.

I need you all to know about the Fruit Machine, which was an ostensibly "scientific" detection device to identify and purge gay and lesbian civil servants from the military and public service in Canada. While the machine was built in the 1950s and used through the 1950s and 1960s, the practice of using psychology, polygraphs, and interrogation to force military and public servants to come out and take a voluntary discharge existed through to the 1990s.

Our former Prime Minister PE Trudeau made famous the line "there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" as part of his so-called decriminalization of homosexuality 1967; this is of course a joke because "buggery" and "gross indecency" stayed on the books for another 20 years, the only difference being they were only punishable if the people involved were under 21, there were 3 or more people present, or the participants were performing these acts outside of their home. You may notice that this meant the policing of public space was where and how homophobia continued to be perpetuated by the state via police.

Highlighting the importance of privacy as a framework for gay rights at this time, The Right to Privacy movement was the name for one of the forerunners of modern Canadian LGBTQ+ rights groups through the 1970s--though worth noting that this group in particular was criticized for its exclusion of WLW and our trans siblings (some of whom of course overlap). The infamous bathhouse raids of 1981 ("Operation Soap"), leading to at the time the largest arrest in Toronto's history, were one of the precipitating factors in the recognizable start of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. In 1986, five years after the raids and thanks to massive effort by LGBTQ+ organizing, sexual orientation was added to the protected list of attributes that it is illegal to discriminate against under the Canadian Human Rights Act (gender identity and expression was added in 2012), and in 1987 "anal intercourse" was made legal for those over 18 (the legal age of consent was made the same for everyone--16--in 2019), and "gross indecency" as a law was finally repealed. The fight for marriage equality was the next step after achieving real decriminalization, and was strongly based on the right to freedom from discrimination as protected by the Human Rights Act.

[Just going to take this moment to note that for some reason they never struck off the law criminalizing sodomy when more than two people are present; this is still an inequality on the books now and people do (rarely) still get charged with it.]

In the late 1980s and 1990s, the censorship fight was most famously held in the written sphere--if you've seen the movie Better than Chocolate, you might already be familiar what I'm talking about. From approximately 1986 through to 2000, Canada Border Services targeted shipments to queer bookstores, holding them up, sometimes destroying the content, putting those businesses at risk, and preventing queer content that passed through border control to be stocked in physical stores. It took the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in 2000 to shut down that practice as an illegal suppression of a bookstore (Little Sisters in Vancouver, BC, shout-out!)'s right to freedom of expression.

Raids on safe spaces for sexual activity continued to be a driver for action through to the 21st century. The WLW bathhouse the Pleasure Palace (changed from "Pussy Palace" in the late 90s to be more inclusive of our sisters without that particular body part) was raided in the year 2000; 19 years after Operation Soap, and notably the first and last raid on a queer woman's bathhouse in Canadian history. What followed was a massive public coal-raking of police, including the very telling call to action: "out of the bars! Into the streets!" I don't think this was necessarily the intended implication at the time, but looking back the threat was that if we were not given our rights, we would be in everyone's faces (and conversely if we were given our rights, we'd be quiet). The legalization of marriage between any two consenting persons of legal age came five years later in 2005 (I don't mean to imply this effort was the only reason--the fight for marriage equality was active all the way through the 90s and early 2000s; it's just an interesting parallel that two of the biggest wins for equality for queer people in Canada came 5 years after a historic police raid).

One of the factors in gaining acceptance of LGBTQ+ people in Canada was the fight for marriage equality; as it focused the conversation on sameness rather than difference. The queer activism movement here pivoting from messaging around bathhouses and being left alone to marriage equality was an intentional, strategic attempt to be accepted as the same rather than being honoured for our differences. And that fight coming after the HIV/AIDS epidemic and bathhouse raids is no accident as it framed queer people directly in opposition to the stigma of promiscuity that surrounded assumptions about gay people which fed into the lack of support for medical intervention, research, and treatment for HIV/AIDS (here in Canada too, our history is just as gross on that front, people just don't talk about it as much. But Canada followed the US government's example, and so people were left without medical resources for at least eight years in Canada (since the first cases were identified here in 1982) and THREE YEARS after they had been approved by the US--AZT wasn't available in Canada until 1990. Three years in which people died unnecessarily. We similarly approved PrEP four years after the FDA, in 2016. Today, despite "universal health care", if you want access to PrEP, it will depend on the province you're in as to whether you can get it at all for free or whether you need to pay--in my province, it takes 2 months to get free PrEP).

Today, just over 50% of the people with HIV/AIDS in Canada are men who have sex with men; it's estimated 80% of people infected with HIV know their status, of those 75% are being treated, and of those 89% are effectively unable to transmit the virus. In that context, the ongoing fight re: HIV/AIDS in Canada today is around decriminalization, specifically decriminalization of drugs (since ~20% of HIV infections are from IV drug use--one of the many reasons I support harm reduction strategies), and the decriminalization of non-disclosure (since Canada is one of the few places where you can be charged for not sharing your HIV status with a sexual partner). Until very recently, we were also fighting to be able to give blood--it was only in 2022 that men who have sex with men were allowed to donate blood in Canada, which meant every visit to a blood donation clinic involved questions about the gender of your sexual partner(s). And, as mentioned at the top, one of the rights we are fighting to retain right now, is the right to have our gender expression respected without forced outing to a parent or guardian; Once again, the fight in Canada has become centered around the right to privacy.

Slightly tangential to the topic at hand, but I would be remiss in talking about moments in recent history when the law did not prosecute us, but it failed to protect us. In the 2010s, a serial killer was targeting men who he thought he could get away with making disappear; and he was right. The police ignored calls from the community to treat the case as a serial killer for years. Bruce McArthur killed 8 men who had gone missing from Toronto's Gay Village between 2010 and 2017, several who were vulnerable because they were distant from their families (because they were gay and closeted), homeless, and/or in immigration limbo (waiting for status), so it took longer for them to be reported missing. During this time, through to just weeks before the arrest, the Toronto Police insisted in public statements that there was no serial killer.

Black and Indigenous queer people have regularly died as a result of the police being called while they were in crisis. An unnamed trans woman (who was midgendered by the SIU after her death); Regis Korchinksy-Paquet, both in 2020. In 2022, Dani Cooper, queer activist who advocated against police-run wellness checks, was shot and killed by police during a wellness check called for them.

As a positive step, in 2016, Black Lives Matter Toronto staged a protest as part of the annual Pride Parade, making a list of demands, but the one that got the most coverage was the demand to ban police at Pride. This was taken up by the Pride Toronto committee, and since 2017 police have been banned from having an official float or presence at the parade. This has been taken up by several Canadian cities including Vancouver and Hamilton and inspired action in other cities globally.

With that context, in which queer people are rightfully distrustful of police, it is alarming that police-reported hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people (one of the only ways we have of tracking hate crime consistently) had a record-breaking increase in 2023.

In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (the son of PM Trudeau quoted above) gave a public apology to LGBTQ+ Canadians. Here's just a brief excerpt:

"To the kids who are listening at home and who fear rejection because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity and expression; And to those who are nervous and scared, but also excited at what their future might hold; We are all worthy of love, and deserving of respect. And whether you discover your truth at 6 or 16 or 60, who you are is valid. To members of the LGBTQ2 communities, young and old, here in Canada and around the world: You are loved. And we support you."

The important part about this apology was twofold; one, it explicitly named many of the specific instances of oppression I mentioned above, and two, it listed the things the government was doing to make reparations. This included the repeal of the law that equalized the age of consent (which went through two years later, as mentioned above), the pardoning of people who had a criminal record due to unjust laws based on LGBTQ+ discrimination, settlement of a class action lawsuit for victims of The Purge, and a commitment to work towards better resources for mental health and housing for LGBTQ+ people, as well as a committment to continue working to remove the barriers for gay men to donate blood (which went through in 2022). One of the other important achievements was the change to allow an "X" option under gender on Canadian Passports (so the three available options are M/F/X) in 2019 [some provincial gender opt-out options have existed since 2017].

The current government is by no stretch perfect, but it has been good to see some of these moments of our history acknowledged and corrected for. As the global pressure towards fascism continues, it's critical that we remember these changes are the result of hard work, not inevitable "progress", that these fights are ongoing and require our energy, and that change, using a variety of tactics, is possible.

Quick hit facts if you prefer a list to a narrative:

In Canada, it was illegal for men to hold hands with men or women to hold hands with women in public until the 1960s;

The government tried to expunge us from public service in the 60s and 70s;

it was illegal for men to have threesomes until the 1990s;

bathhouse raids were made possible due to legislative inequalities through the 2000s;

Canada took three years longer than the US to approve treatments for HIV/AIDS, four years longer to approve PrEP, and still today access can be complicated/expensive;

it was possible to be of legal age to have sex but not anal sex until 2019;

Gay men were barred from donating blood until 2022;

Canada remains one of the few countries in the world where you can be prosecuted for not disclosing your HIV status (though does not apply if you retain a minimal viral load);

In 2023 some provincial governments tried to make kids choose between gender expression and their privacy (and potentially safety) from their parents; as of March 2024 that fight is still actively being fought.

The take-aways I hope people get from this post:

This history is more recent than we pretend, and is ongoing

Framing gay rights as right to privacy vs right to being not prosecuted for being in public is nuanced and intertwined

Transphobes need to fuck off

Some references/further reading/watching:

Brief history of LGBTQ+ laws in Canada at the Canadian Encyclopedia

The Fruit Machine documentary made by TVO

Article on HIV/AIDS in Canada policy written by one of the policymakers

Timeline of HIV/AIDS Developments (only goes to 2010 so does not include PreP, which was approved in Canada in 2016, four years after its availability in the US)

Article on The Pleasure Palace raid by one of the organizers

Article on the Bathhouse Raids 40 years after Operation Soap

Article on Bruce McArthur's crimes and the review of how police handled the case by former judge Gloria Epstein

Regis Korchinksy-Paquet and the unnamed trans woman dead after interactions with police

Dani Cooper's death

Article about the Supreme Court case brought by Little Sisters bookshop

HIV Non-Disclosure Law Fact Sheet

Article about the end of the blood ban for men who have sex with men

Black Lives Matter Toronto on their 2016 action at Toronto Pride

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's apology

Gender "X" Options on Passports

Stream Better Than Chocolate (you may need to look up where it's available in your region)

Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium

Glad Day Bookshop (Makes a claim for being the oldest queer bookshop in the world; one of the few queer public spaces being maintained/actively protected as more and more of our spaces are eroded, and also just a personal fave so I'm taking the excuse to shout it out too)

#canadian history #lgbtq history #typed so that i can stop thinking it #for reference #long post

44 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

For everyone who's like "that bill doesn't ACTUALLY codify anything, and states only have to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states, they can still ban them if/when Obergefell is overturned"

-The definition of "codify" is "to write into law" - if you thought it meant "makes it supremely overruling everything and absolute" that's a you thing. Same-sex marriage was never codified - it was judicially decided. Now it is (as is interracial marriage).

-Cases take time to work their way through the court system to get to the point where SCOTUS can overturn a precedent. As we've seen in the last few months, a lot of people were able to work and organize and get state protections for reproductive rights. It would be a similar strategy.

-It's a big fucking deal that one of the two main political parties has solidly swung behind lgbtq rights in the last few decades where it is mainstream and de rigueur, and that 12 Republicans, for whatever reason, joined them in passing this legislation. This is not something that a lot of people would have expected even 10 years ago.

-For all the "realists", here's something - we're never going to get rid of the "religious freedom" exemptions in laws until we get more Democrats elected to Congress and more judges appointed, and even then it's really baked into this country. We're likelier to get serious gun control before we get minimizing religious freedom. And, as a lot of businesses and individuals have seen, it costs more to hate.

The bill isn't perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect bill, and this finally legislatively overturns DOMA and establishes same-sex marriage and interracial marriage as a right to be recognized all across the nation, a right that if not recognized or codified means a lot of privileges and resources are denied to lgbtq people if they aren't able to legally marry.

368 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year

Photo

Get ready for Dobbs 2.0, a decision that will far exceed the damage done by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health.

In Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health, the radical majority on the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to privacy that protects reproductive liberty. As a result, the debate over regulation of abortion was returned to the states. Or so we thought.

It is likely that a single federal judge in Texas will issue a nationwide ban on Mifepristone, a drug approved by the FDA for more than two decades to induce therapeutic abortions. The ruling, if made, will effectively outlaw or deny access to abortions across vast swaths of the nation—even in states where legislation or the state constitution protects the right of reproductive liberty.

We have reached this sorry state of affairs because ultra-conservative federal judges in Texas have rigged the system to ensure that all challenges to reproductive liberty and LGBTQ rights are funneled to a single judge with extreme religious views. The situation is explained by Dennis Aftergut and Laurence Tribe in Slate, The Texas-Sized Loophole That Brought the Abortion Pill to the Brink of Doom.

Aftergut and Tribe write,

The problem here goes beyond a single hearing, or even this single case. The real issue is systemic. Far-right groups have created a judicial pipeline to predictable triumph in one culture war battle after another: from Kacsmaryk in the plains of the Texas panhandle, to the hyperconservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, to the radically stacked majority on the Trump-packed U.S. Supreme Court. One Amarillo-based judge with carte blanche, virtually certain his extreme views will prevail on appeal, is apparently planning to curtail abortion access across the country.

[Here, there is] a coordinated national strategy, enabled by a district court federal bench, to bring right-wing legal causes into a single courtroom where a favorable result is a sure thing and where fair-minded appellate review has also been hijacked.

There is a simple—albeit difficult to achieve—solution. We need only elect a Congress and president willing to enact legislation to reform the federal judiciary. That will require (in my view) a carve-out of the filibuster, an expansion of the Supreme Court, curbs on the ability of a single federal judge to issue nationwide injunctions, restrictions on the ability of the Supreme Court to issue merits-based decisions on its “shadow docket,” and enactment of an enforceable code of ethics on the Supreme Court (among many other reforms).

At some point, the imposition of an extreme religious ideology on all Americans by a new class of judicial aristocrats—or “juristocrats” as described by Aftergut and Tribe—should cause Americans to reclaim their constitutional birthright. We have been too complacent in the face of a concerted assault over the last decade. Perhaps Dobbs 2.0 will be the decision that finally causes Americans to understand that the reactionary judges aren’t going stop until they have effectively codified their religious beliefs in federal law. The coming decision will hurt. Let’s turn our outrage into action.

North Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider case underlying Moore v. Harper.

On Tuesday, March 14, the North Carolina Supreme Court will hold a hearing to reconsider its ruling in the case underlying Moore v. Harper, currently on appeal before the US Supreme Court. You may recall that Moore v. Harper raises the question of whether the Independent State Legislature theory insulates the NC state legislature from judicial oversight.

Last year, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned congressional district boundaries drawn by the state legislature. When the partisan composition of the NC Supreme Court flipped from Democratic to Republican, the new Republican majority on the court agreed to reconsider its ruling—for no good reason other than that it could.

Chances are good that the NC Supreme Court will reverse its prior ruling, thereby mooting the appeal to the US Supreme Court. The complicated procedural background and possible outcomes are explained by Democracy Docket, North Carolina Supreme Court To Rehear State-Level Redistricting Case Underlying Moore v. Harper - Democracy Docket.

Like the rogue federal judges in the Fifth Circuit, the Republican judges on the NC Supreme Court are making nakedly partisan rulings because they can. Like the solution for the federal judiciary, the solution in North Carolina is through the ballot box.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

#Corrupt SCOTUS #Opus Dei SCOTUS #Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B Hubbell Newsletter #Women's Rights #women's history #reproductive freedom #reproductive rights #political #the law

42 notes · View notes

pugetsoundsocialistrifle · 1 year

Text

Puget Sound Socialist Rifle Association Statement on Washington State bills 1180 and 1240. (These bills are so-called “Assault Weapons Bans.”)

We sent a member to a public comment session on these bills but unfortunately they did not get a chance to speak. What follows is the statement we had prepared.

“The right to self-defense is a natural right, intuitive and "self-evident" to all rational beings. It is formalized in our state constitution (Art. 1 Sec. 24) and codified in our state laws (RCW 9A.16.20 Sec. 3). The incidence of hate crimes is increasing in Washington and elsewhere; victims of these crimes, primarily members of the BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities, should not be hindered in their ability to exercise the right to self-defense.

In fact, the rhetoric around our trans citizens has become so toxic that none of our many trans members felt comfortable sharing their name and face in a space where many of the speakers today and at least one representative on this committee seek to deny them a peaceful existence. One member did provide a statement and I would like to share her words with you now.

‘I am a transgender woman living in a country that appears to be descending into a transphobic fever dream. I am a gun owner. It appears that the two-party system is now a choice between a party of predominant gun owners that wants my community dead and a party that wants to prevent my community from effectively defending itself. In recent years, my community has experienced a rise in hate towards us and thus we have participated in a rise in self-defense training and gun ownership. We are supposed to have a right to self-defense according to the Washington constitution and a right to own firearms according to the U.S. constitution. Arbitrary and restrictive laws on gun ownership violate those principles. In the absence of effective firearms, I do not trust the police to defend us in the case of a dire emergency or even in day-to day life. I have been threatened, sneered at, and physically hurt by police in Washington State. Two SPD officers participated in the storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. More Americans were killed by police in 2022 than any previous year on record. So why is it that the police deserve to carry AR-15 rifles and I do not? Is my life less precious than theirs? I do not believe so.’

Now, the rationale of those supporting this bill and likely the thoughts of some committee members right now is that it is law enforcement's job to intervene in such instances. That is a fatally flawed assumption.

Federal courts up to and including the supreme court have ruled repeatedly that the police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens who are not in custody, (DeShaney vs. Winnebago, 1989[3]; Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, 2004 [4]), and if you're a homicide victim, there's a 1 in 3 chance that police won't even identify a suspect[6], and as of 2020, about a 50% chance that your murderer will be convicted[7]. We're left to conclude that we must keep ourselves safe.

This bill claims this is a public health emergency but in 2022 in WA more people were killed by police than in mass shootings and despite being 13th in gun sales nationwide, WA was 39th in gun violence in 2022.The FBI notes that in 2019, about 2.5% of all murders were committed with rifles of any kind, less than 1/4 of what was committed with knives [8].

https://gunresponsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022WA-GV.pdf Those numbers hardly constitute a public health crisis.

However, attempting to reduce gun violence is a worthwhile endeavor. Over the course of decades, study after study have concluded that the greatest indicator for violent crime and gun violence is economic circumstance. Poverty. This bill does not attempt to address the cause of gun violence. It is merely a misguided and ultimately ineffective attempt to address a symptom.

Passage of this bill would merely be a pyrrhic victory for democrats. Doing nothing to address the cause or symptoms of violent crime while providing ammunition for conservatives to campaign against vulnerable seats locally and nationwide. It would force more citizens to rely on ineffective and untrustworthy law enforcement while ignoring the scary but undeniable fact that ultimately, we keep us safe.”

#gun control #washington #washington state #socialist rifle association #assault weapons #politics

39 notes · View notes

bills-bible-basics · 2 years

Text

Another Sad Day for America: Respect for Marriage Act Hello, my friends. Well, those liberal-minded senators did it! As you have probably already heard, they passed the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act”. Worse yet, as was predicted would happen, all three amendments to the act, which were crafted to more fully protect Christians and Conservatives from litigation by the LGBTQ crowd, were REJECTED! Now the bill goes to the House — where it will easily pass — and then to the president’s desk to be signed into law by Joe Biden. In short, while the SCOTUS — Supreme Court of the United States — recognized same-sex “marriage” as a constitutional right, the passage of this bill codifies same-sex “marriage” and makes it the law of the land. That means that the Supreme Court cannot overturn it — as they did with Roe v. Wade — because the bill was passed by Congress, and there is nothing specific in the US Constitution -- that I am aware of, at least -- which the Supreme Court can use as a justification to overturn this soon-to-be ungodly law. As you may know, that is exactly what the liberals wanted to do: make same-sex “marriage” bullet-proof against the Supreme Court. Now they are halfway to doing it! To the dismay of millions of American Christians, the USA continues to rebel against God’s Laws and pave her way to hell, as we read in this verse: “The wicked‭ shall be turned‭‭ into hell‭, ‭and‭ all the nations‭ that forget‭ God‭.‭” Psalm 9:17, KJV It should now be even more evident that many Americans -- including many American politicians -- worship God in name only, but their actual works/actions speak to the contrary. They in fact defy His holy Word! Just watch how in coming months/years, the passage of this law will result in even more litigation against Conservatives who embrace Bible-based, Christian values, by the LGBTQ crowd. As I said, this bill empowers the gay and lesbian community, and they obviously know it. Below is a link to a Washington Times article regarding this latest development: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/29/same-sex-marriage-bill-passes-senate-lawmakers-rej/ https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/another-sad-day-for-america-respect-for-marriage-act/?feed_id=18459&_unique_id=63878d47af597&Another%20Sad%20Day%20for%20America%3A%20Respect%20for%20Marriage%20Act

1 note · View note

thinktosee · 3 years

Text

INSTITUTIONAL HATE CRIME – A NARROW DEFINITION OF GENDER AND MORALITY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES TO THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY

Image courtesy Amnestyusa.org

“When he was 16 years old, he came to my room and said he wanted to talk to me. And I said, “Yeah, sure go ahead.”

“Well, I thought you should know that I’m gay,” he told me simply.

I looked at him and all I could think of was, How am I to protect him from discrimination and bullying? Yet all I could manage to say to him at this critical time was, “Well, that’s great. I’m glad you told me. We are your family and we support you.” I reached out and hugged my son.”(1)

- from David’s biography, “Walking in my Son’s footsteps. David’s fight for freedom.”

“It is possible that the law, which is clearsighted in one sense, and blind in another, might in some cases, be too severe.” (2)

- French philosopher, Montesquieu (1689-1755)

Why would a parent, upon discovering that their child is gay, feel a sense of foreboding where it concerned the child’s safety and security? And what and who caused this feeling of fear or foreboding in me?

The ancient law (1871, amended 1938) against homosexuality in Singapore and in many parts of the former British Empire, remains in force to this day. (3) Generations of citizens were and continue to be narrowly socialized to the belief that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexual or same-sex love and marriage deviate from the normative. This law levies an enormous burden onto the LGBTQ community in so far as it enables or activates societal discrimination where none existed before, foments hatred and disdain among the citizenry for same-sex relationships, and upends justice, equal rights and dignity for the LGBTQ community.

That was the basis for my fear when David shared with me that he was gay. How does one begin to address an issue which is institutional and systemic in its very foundation? The law is the problem, failing miserably to serve justice, as Montesquieu averred. This is the challenge which the LGBTQ communities throughout the world have been grappling with for centuries. It is a struggle paid in sacrificial blood, many times over. And it will go on, until a time when we acknowledge that diversity and inclusivity are mutually reinforcing. Love does not get filtered at the border because the state or religious institution says it must. It is they who have placed a limit on their love, apparently.

Global Historical Overview of homosexuality

The history of the LGBTQ communities and cultures on our planet is as colourfully and richly elongated and layered as any within the realm of human civilization. Ancient cultures such as “Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek and Roman accommodate homosexuality and crossdressing among….its citizens since the earliest recorded times.” (4) Similarly, in “ancient China….same-sex sexual behaviors were well-received and tolerated. Positive descriptions of homosexual behavior, or Nan-Feng as it was called, in historical records and in Chinese literature can be dated back to the Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD).” (5) Pre-European colonial African societies, including in what are present-day Nigeria and Uganda, were relatively inclusive in their approach to same-sex or gender relationships.(6) In the First Nations or pre-settler/colonial American societies, two spirits and multiple genders were universally embraced and accepted. (7)

These societies exhibited a keen sense of spirituality and diversity, of moderation and acceptance of LGBTQ peoples and cultures, which we in this enlightened age may find quite surprising. We should not however. Researchers have, to some degree, attached the adverse change in society’s approach to homosexuality to the onset of European colonialism (16th to 20th centuries) :

“In the age of European exploration and empire-building, Native American, North African and Pacific Islander cultures accepting of “Two-Spirit” people or same-sex love shocked European invaders who objected to any deviation from a limited understanding of “masculine” and “feminine” roles.” (8)

- Prof. Bonny J. Morris

“Transgender histories in the United States, like the broader national histories of which they form a part, originate in colonial contact zones where members of the arriving culture encountered kinds of people it struggled to comprehend.” (9)

- Prof. Susan Stryker

Accompanying these colonial invasions, were European administrative, linguistic, religious, educational, philosophical and juridical systems, beliefs and traditions. This alien cultural web, in most part codified, either through a caste or racially-affected administrative system or via prayer book and canons, or both, had its intended effect of diminishing or worse, eviscerating the native or indigenous culture, including their ancient belief system. Displacement and assimilation of the natives to the new paradigm were achieved through these extreme mechanisms.

To understand the criminalization and persecution of LGBTQ peoples and cultures, it is necessary to appreciate the intent of colonialism – a private cum state economic model (the East India Companies, Hudson Bay Company, etc.) requiring the creation of a unified or standardized, and exclusively hierarchical system of conduct and control, onto a traditional (organized) and diverse society or culture. This is to assure the latter’s coherence to the colonial enterprise through a coercive (violent), and extensive system of natural resource allocation and exploitation. Genocide and slavery were among its most extreme and tragic manifestations. Modern colonialism, depicted by European conquests across the planet, is arguably the first attempt in recent memory, to creating a unitary world – standardization of laws and governing institutions to address the complex administrative challenges inherent in diverse cultures and norms within the European empire. Diversity of cultures, thought and behaviours were among the first victims. The histories of the First Nations’ societies in the Americas and Australia serve as prime and tragic examples. (10), (11) It should also be stressed that European colonialism, in the context of this essay, includes 20th century Soviet and China-style communism, where an alien and totalitarian ideology was coercively employed across the Eastern European and Central and East Asian landmass, to suppress the local or indigenous peoples, their cultures and beliefs, in furtherance of a unitary political, economic and social order. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Union were also at the forefront of research into medical and psychotherapeutic or “corrective” procedures for homosexuality.(12)

The history and dignity of the LGBTQ peoples are inextricably linked to the plight of the indigenous communities, as they struggled from the 16th to 20th centuries against European-sourced colonialism. While almost every former European colony is considered an independent state today, the laws against same-sex relations and marriage remain on the statutes in many of these domains. Societal attitudes have no doubt evolved over the years, and consistent with the growing awareness of LGBTQ culture and social justice movements. A factor which appears to be holding the state back is the feeling that society is not ready to accept equal rights for the LGBTQ community. (13) That being the case, what are we doing to prepare society for a future which recognizes and confers equal rights to the LGBTQ community, as we would any other citizen or community? Or as this Time Magazine article headlined :

“Homophobia Is Not an Asian Value. It’s Time for the East to Reconnect to its Own Traditions of Tolerance.” (14)

In Singapore’s context, what are we, as a society doing to :

- learn more about LGBTQ rights, discrimination and culture?

- what are the public education system and mass media doing about this?

- why are foreign-owned businesses prevented from sponsoring LGBTQ festivals and gatherings? How does this play out in terms of encouraging or dissuading local businesses to lend their support?

- learn of the discrimination against LGBTQ people in terms of equal access to public housing, employment, marriage and mental health care?

These are just a few questions which society should address constructively.

Years from now, when equal rights for the LGBTQ community have come to pass in most parts of the world, historians will look back and perhaps conclude that the community was subjected to a prolonged and systematic campaign of hate, which was originated and sustained by the state, and in some domains, performed in concert with religious figures/institutions.

“David was gay. He cared deeply about the rights of LGBTQ people everywhere. He attended the annual Pink Dot event since 2013. He felt discrimination in any form, especially through the law, was nothing short of Bullying. This included Singapore’s Penal Code Section 377A, criminalizing all gay persons…..David felt strongly that overcoming discrimination requires an unwavering commitment to free speech. He would never compromise….” (15)

- “Walking In My Son’s footsteps. David’s fight for freedom.”

Sources/References

1. Singh, Harmohan. “Walking in my son’s footsteps. David’s fight for freedom.” p68. Thinktosee Press, 2020

2. Montesquieu. “The Spirit of Laws.” Book IX, Chap 6. Originally published in 1748.

3. Radics, George Baylon. “Section 377a in Singapore and the (De)Criminalization of Homosexuality.” p3. National University of Singapore. 2015

4. Wilhelm, Amara Das. “Tritiya-Prakriti : The People of the Third Sex: Understanding Homosexuality, Transgender Identity and Intersex Conditions Through Hinduism.” p68. Xlibris Corporation, 2010.

5. Zhang, Yuxin. “China’s misunderstood history of Gay tolerance.” The Diplomat. June 22, 2015

6. Alimi, Bisi. “If you say being gay is not African, you don’t know your history.” The Guardian. Sep 9, 2015

7. Davis-Young, Katherine. “For Many Native Americans, embracing LGBT members is a return to the past.” The Washington Post. Mar 30, 2019

8. Morris, Bonny J. “History of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Social Movements.” American Psychological Association

History of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Social Movements (apa.org)

9. Stryker, Susan. “Transgender History in the United States and the Places that Matter.” A Theme Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer History. National Park Service, Dept of the Interior. 2016

10. Holocaust Museum Houston, “Genocide of Indigenous Peoples.”

HMH | Genocide of Indigenous Peoples

11. The Guardian, “The killing times : the massacres of Aboriginal People Australia must confront.” Mar 3, 2019

12. Alexander, Rustam. ”Homosexuality in USSR (1956-1982).” p173. University of Melbourne. 2018

13. Velasquez, Tony. “Keeping it straight. PM says Singapore not ready for gay marriage.” ABS-CBN News, June 27, 2015.

14. Wong, Brian. “Homophobia Is Not an Asian Value. It’s Time for the East to Reconnect to its Own Traditions of Tolerance.” Time Magazine, Dec 17, 2020.

15. Singh, Harmohan. “Walking in my son’s footsteps. David’s fight for freedom.” P130. Thinktosee Press, 2020

1 note · View note

xtruss · 4 years

Text

Supreme Court Bars Workplace Discrimination Against LGBTQ People; Ruling May Be Transformative

DemocracyNow.Org | June 16, 2020!

The ruling could have a huge impact on the estimated 8 to 11 million American LGBT community, who are not protected against workplace discrimination in most US states.

In a historic 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, forbidding workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, applies to gay and transgender people. The decision comes just days after the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act. “This truly is a historic ruling,” says Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. “This is going to have a transformative effect on federal civil rights laws in the context of housing, education and healthcare, as well as credit.” We also speak with journalist Imara Jones, creator of TransLash.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York, joined by my co-host Juan González at his home in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Hi, Juan.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hi, Amy. And welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to begin with the Supreme Court ruling Monday, that landmark ruling that a civil rights law protects gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in the workplace. The historic 6-to-3 ruling marked a massive victory for the LGBTQ community, as well as everyone, as was penned by one of the court’s most conservative justices: Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in stating that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, applies to gay and transgender people. At least half of the 50 states previously allowed employers to fire workers for being LGBTQ.

One of the key cases the court considered was that of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home in 2013. Stephens did not live to see her victory in the Supreme Court. She died last month at the age of 59. The Supreme Court also reviewed the case of Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who said he was fired for being gay. He died in an accident in 2014. This is Zarda’s lawyer, Gregory Antollino.

GREGORY ANTOLLINO: It’ll be a catalyst toward changing history. You know, it’s a new decision. It’s going to take the states that don’t protect LGBT rights time to adjust to, but it is certainly a catalyst, an historical one. And that sounds bigger than I can imagine at this time.

AMY GOODMAN: The victory comes amidst a nationwide uprising against police brutality and racism that’s often shone a light on violence against Black trans women. In Brooklyn Sunday, at least 15,000 people marched through the streets in defense of Black trans lives after two more Black trans women were killed last week. It also comes just days after the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act.

Well, for more, we’re going to Boston, Massachusetts, to speak with Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. He was one of the attorneys for Aimee Stephens in the landmark Supreme Court civil rights case to protect LGBTQ workers.

Chase, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the significance of the victory, and the fact that the person who wrote the majority opinion was the Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch?

CHASE STRANGIO: Thanks, Amy. And thanks for having me back and actually being able to talk about something positive for once.

You know, this truly is a historic ruling. And it absolutely — the court was unequivocal that federal prohibitions on sex discrimination include prohibitions on discrimination against LGBTQ people. So this means you cannot be fired across the country for being LGBTQ or otherwise face employment discrimination.

But I think what is also so important is that courts use Title VII cases to interpret all of the other federal civil rights laws that prohibit sex discrimination, so this is going to have a transformative effect on federal civil rights laws in the context of housing, education and healthcare, as well as credit. So this truly is a historic win.

And in terms of the breakdown, absolutely, we briefed this case for Neil Gorsuch. He was our — he was our swing vote. He is a textualist. His jurisprudence is premised on the idea that you look to the words of the statute, not to the intentions of Congress at the time a statute was enacted. And we hoped that he would stick to his principles instead of reverse-engineer an outcome based on politics. And he did that. And the chief joined. And I am shocked, but it was the right and righteous decision. And we were right on the law, and so were they.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Chase, in terms of the implications of this decision, just last week, the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act. And they announced this, ironically, on the fourth anniversary of the Pulse massacre that claimed 49 lives in Orlando, Florida, at a gay nightclub. Your sense of how this — would this decision have an impact even on this latest move of the Trump administration?

CHASE STRANGIO: Absolutely, it will have a huge impact. So, one of the things to point out is that the Trump administration issued a comprehensive anti-trans regulation at 4 p.m. Eastern time on a Friday, knowing that the Supreme Court was going to issue opinions 10 a.m. on Monday morning and could likely undo the very regulations that they were putting forth. So it was an act of just absolute cruelty towards LGBTQ people, and people who need access to abortion, I might add, as well.

But ultimately, a federal agency cannot contradict the statute that it is implementing. And the ACA has a prohibition on sex discrimination, and that is the source of the protection. So the Trump administration is not the final word on the meaning of sex discrimination under federal law; the Supreme Court is. And they just made just absolutely clear that prohibitions on sex discrimination include LGBTQ people. So I think that rule is dead on arrival.

You know, obviously, people are going to continue to face discrimination. We know that even when legal protections are in place, particularly our Black and Indigenous and Brown trans sisters, our fem sisters, are facing relentless discrimination, and so we have to keep fighting. The laws is not the only source of protection, absolutely, but this is going to have a cascading effect. And all of the administrative actions that this administration has taken, since day one, in 2017, from rescinding Title IX student guidance, those actions are completely undermined by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Imara Jones into the conversation, journalist, founder and creator of TransLash and a Soros Equality fellow. If you could comment on the significance of Friday’s Trump order that would take away protections for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act, and then what happened yesterday, Imara?

IMARA JONES: Yes. Thank you, Amy. And it’s great to be back on, as well.

Those regulations that allowed for equal access to trans people are pivotal in two primary ways. The first way is that for trans people who either need or choose to have medical interventions to aid with transition, either hormones or surgeries, we know that those medical interventions are lifesaving. They have a dramatic impact not only on people’s ability to, quite frankly, stay alive, but also to have an amount of well-being that allows them to be full citizens, and so it’s pivotal in that way.

The second way, of course, is that we know that many trans people are afraid to go into healthcare facilities, and that fear is driven by the fact of people’s past experience with discrimination. I even have had that happen before. And to codify that in the law — even with the existing regulation, as Chase pointed out, people still face discrimination. So that was the case. But to codify that and to expand that means that, again, that with regards to regular healthcare or lifesaving healthcare that’s not related to transition, that trans people would either not be able to access it because of the decision of those healthcare providers or not go in because of that fear that’s based on past discrimination. And all of that’s happening against the backdrop of COVID-19, and so it was particularly cruel in so many ways.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I wanted to ask Chase if you could talk about — you were one of the attorneys for Aimee Stephens, one of the lead plaintiffs in this case, in this historic case. Could you tell us a little bit about her story, and also the unfortunate fact that she passed before the final court ruling?

CHASE STRANGIO: Yes, and that part of the story is absolutely heartbreaking. Aimee, like many trans people, like me, struggled internally for many years, and ultimately, somewhat later in life, came out as transgender to her family, and really had hope that her employer would accept her as who she is. And she wrote this incredibly beautiful letter to her colleagues and her boss at the Michigan funeral home where she had worked for many years and was a model employee. And she wrote this letter, and she was immediately fired, just because she is transgender. And that was in 2013. So she spent the last seven years of her life fighting this case, fighting for justice, even when many people told her that she had no claim.

Ultimately, it was the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that brought the case against her employer, when the Obama administration was enforcing federal civil rights laws to protect trans and LGB individuals. After the election, we intervened on Aimee’s behalf to ensure that someone in the case was defending her rights, knowing that the United States would likely shift positions, which they ultimately did. At the United States Supreme Court, it was the employers and the United States against the workers. And so, you know, this was an incredible victory for workers, in general. This was an incredible victory for expansive interpretations of civil rights laws.

And the reality is that Aimee lost her job. She lost her financial security. She lost her health insurance, because we live in a country that ties access to health insurance to employment, which is tragic in and of itself. And her health began to decline as a result of that. So she spent the last seven years of her life not only fighting for the basic dignity of the recognition that what happened to her was wrong, but while she was precariously situated because she did not have financial security, which led directly to her premature death just weeks before the Supreme Court ruled in her favor in this case.

And I think that is a reminder that discrimination leads to death. And that is especially true for Black people who face higher rates of discrimination in employment, higher rates of discrimination in housing and shelter access, and, as we know, higher rates of deadly violence from the police. And so, we have to connect the fact that two of the three individual workers have died before the outcome of this case, and that is directly tied to discrimination. And we have a responsibility to not only ensure the enforcement of this action, but go much farther, to ensure justice for our full community.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, let’s go back for a moment to hear Aimee Stephens in her own words.

AIMEE STEPHENS: I’ve been living basically two lives: one at home and in public, and one at work. And in the beginning, that wasn’t so bad. But as time goes on and as time progressed, I got to the point that living two lives, being two people, was becoming downright impossible. And I knew that I couldn’t keep going that way. And things came to a head in November of 2012, when I stood in the backyard with a gun to my chest, pondering the question: If I can’t go forward and I can’t go backwards, where does that leave me? And if this is all I have to look forward to, then what’s the point of continuing? And in that hour, going over that and over that in my mind, I chose life, and I realized that I liked me too much to just disappear and go away.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Aimee Stephens speaking at an ACLU news conference before she died last year in September.

0 notes

payprosalaska · 5 years

Text

LGBT Bias Hurts U.S. Economic Growth, Fed President Says

The unemployment rate for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) is nearly double the national average, according to the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That bias, John Williams said, is holding back the economic growth of the U.S.

The Fed is making its own workplace and policies more inclusive, including flying the LGBT rainbow pride flag outside its New York City offices for the first time in June, which is LGBT Pride Month, and giving employees the option to add gender pronouns to official e-mail signatures, Bloomberg reported.

Williams made his remarks at the OPEN Finance Forum on Tuesday in New York City, calling for organizations to have cultures where people feel comfortable bringing their whole selves to work.

SHRM Online has collected the following stories from its archives and other trusted news sources on the topic of LGBT bias in the workplace:

Fed’s Williams Says Bias in U.S. Economy Is Holding Back Growth

Nearly half of LGBT people are closeted at work, and the top reason LGBT workers don’t report negative comments they hear about LGBT employees is because they don’t believe that anything will be done about it, Williams said.

“This gets to the heart of why the ‘inclusion’ piece of diversity and inclusion is essential, and a personal priority. Obviously, there’s a moral imperative for diversity, and numerous studies have shown the benefits to both productivity and the bottom line.” (MarketScreener)

State LGBT+ Business Climate Index

A report from Out Leadership ranked U.S. states on how inclusive they are of LGBT+ community. It incorporates 20 carefully selected and nuanced markers. Massachusetts, California and Connecticut scored highest, while South Dakota, South Carolina and Mississippi ranked at the bottom. (Out Leadership)

Why it Can Still be Hard to be LGBTQ at the Office

Why is the workplace still difficult terrain for many LGBTQ adults—one that can present its own particular complications and challenges?

Among the reasons, here’s one startling fact: In the U.S., you can still be fired in 26 states simply for being LGBTQ, with no legal recourse. Even after decades of trying, the U.S. Congress seems unlikely to explicitly extend federal employment non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ Americans anytime soon. (Linked In)

Memo to Employees Announcing the Gender Transition of a Co-worker

This template from the Society for Human Resource Management is a resource that HR professionals may use—with the employee’s permission—to inform staff of the gender transition that the employee is or will be undergoing. It also addresses some common questions. (SHRM Online)

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity]

Multinationals Seeking Top Expat Talent Battle Anti-LGBT Laws

Although more than two dozen countries have legalized same-sex marriage, some 70 nations have anti-LGBT laws, and many more have discriminatory policies, according to Bloomberg. That’s pressuring global companies, which depend on being able to move talented employees around the world, to find ways to help workers and their families in countries that lack protections for LGBT people. (Bloomberg)

Quick Take: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Workplace Issues

The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association says there are 74 countries that prohibit discrimination in employment because of sexual orientation. They include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. And as of 2018, 93 percent of Fortune 500 companies have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. (Catalyst)

Are Federal LGBT Protections Coming to the Workplace?

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall on whether federal law prohibits employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity—and Congress is considering a bill that would codify protections based on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) status. The proposed Equality Act (H.R. 5) would afford broader protections than what the Supreme Court is currently considering in the cases before it. (SHRM Online)

//window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId: '649819231827420', xfbml: true, version: 'v2.5' }); };

//(function(d, s, id){ // var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; // if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} // js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; // js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; // fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); //}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); function shrm_encodeURI(s) { return encodeURIComponent(s); } function RightsLinkPopUp() { var url = "https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet"; var location = url + "?publisherName=" + shrm_encodeURI("shrm") + "&publication=" + shrm_encodeURI("Legal_Issues") + "&title=" + shrm_encodeURI("Justices Hear ERISA Reimbursement Case") + "&publicationDate=" + shrm_encodeURI("11/11/2015 12:00:00 AM") + "&contentID=" + shrm_encodeURI("6badda72-62e7-49e8-b4bd-ebbd02a72a17") + "&charCnt=" + shrm_encodeURI("7399") + "&orderBeanReset=" + shrm_encodeURI("True"); window.open(location, "RightsLink", "location=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,width=650,height=550"); } Source link

The post LGBT Bias Hurts U.S. Economic Growth, Fed President Says appeared first on consultant pro.

0 notes

guiafeminino · 6 years

Text

Suddenly, six teens running for Kansas governor doesn’t seem so preposterous

By Monica Hesse / The Washington Post

MERRIAM, Kan. – A report from the Midwest, where a gangly hope has arrived in the form of children enrobed in various assortments of khakis and blazers, because six teenage boys are running for governor of the state of Kansas.

The would-be boy governors of Kansas. This was a funny concept for a while, and then it became absurd, and then a national tragedy happened and it became not funny but actually an emotion approaching tender, even aching.

But on the Monday before Valentines Day, as a half-dozen minors vied for the highest office of a state that had never bothered to codify any gubernatorial age requirements, it was still absurd. And so on that afternoon, while a suburban mom named Carrie Stracy debated whether to make meatloaf or use up the salmon in the fridge, her son, Tyler Ruzich, sat in his bedroom and discussed his candidacy.

“I have always thought of myself as more moderate, almost an Eisenhower Democrat,” said Tyler, 17, whose opponents in the Republican primary this summer include the current governor and the Kansas secretary of state. “For me, the question of government is a question about adequacy. There shouldn’t be an effort to grow, but there should be adequate funding to cover programs.”

Regarding the so-called “Kansas Experiment,” a tax cut enacted by former Gov. Sam Brownback, R, that left the state topsy-turvy with ballooning class sizes and shuttered social programs – “I am most certainly against that,” Tyler said.

Tyler has a slight build, dark blond hair and an earnest way of saying, “I’m not too sure about that” when he wants to think something over. He drives a rustbucket Oldsmobile to get to Shawnee Mission North High School, where he is a junior, or to pick up his girlfriend at a different high school. The girlfriend didn’t know Tyler was running when they met, but she learned shortly thereafter when they were walking through town and someone jauntily shouted, “Hello, Guvnor!”

At present, Tyler was a long way from his party’s nomination, but he did have a slogan – “A Republican for the Next Generation” – and he did have a website, and he did have an 11-year-old sister named Sadie who had taken to wearing a pale blue T-shirt reading “Ruzich for Governor,” especially when she heard company was coming.

—

Tyler was technically the second teenage gubernatorial candidate to join the race. The first was Jack Bergeson, a 16-year-old Democrat from Wichita, who declared partly to offer a full-throated Obamacare defense – the Affordable Care Act helped his family – back in the summer of 2017. Tyler heard of Jack through social media and reached out; it was Jack who convinced him they could make a big statement about Kansas’s sorry state of affairs if there were teen candidates from both parties. Tyler, who was the captain of his school’s debate team and whose wall was plastered with a poster-size U.S. Constitution, logged onto the state’s website and downloaded the necessary forms.

The third teenage candidate was Ethan Randleas, a 17-year-old Wichita Libertarian. The fourth was Dominic Scavuzzo, 17, a Republican from Kansas City; Scavuzzo’s classmate Joseph Tutera, 16, became the fifth a few weeks later. The sixth was Aaron Coleman, 17, a Green Party candidate, although several of the others confessed they were not entirely sure Coleman was still running (“I’ve never seen him at anything,” Dominic told Tyler recently) and his Twitter account seemed to operate in fits and starts.

Still, it could be said with certainty that either five or six teenage boys were running for governor in the state of Kansas.

They had come to mean something. They had come to reflect the morass of the country. Fifteen months ago, Donald Trump had won the presidency based on the idea that politics were so corrupt, Americans could only trust an outsider with no experience. Now Trump’s polling numbers were in the toilet and the boy governors of Kansas represented yet another reboot: Truly outsiders. Truly no experience. If Kansas laws permitted a passel of hormonal teenagers to clog the ballot – well, then, some onlookers ruefully shrugged, maybe those were the candidates we deserved.

The aspiring boy governors had been to debates. Granted interviews. They traveled in a pack dressed in their best sport coats – the kind parents buy teenage sons, with room to grow in the sleeves, giving the illusion that the candidates themselves were proper-sized; it was their clothing that was too big.

—

At around 4:30 p.m., Carrie knocked on her son’s door frame.

“Did you find someone?” she asked.

A few hours before, a producer from Soledad O’Brien’s news show, “Matter of Fact,” had called, inviting Tyler to Washington for the show Thursday morning. The producer offered the stipulation that Tyler needed an adult chaperon. Carrie said she could chaperon while Tyler’s stepdad watched Sadie, but offered the additional stipulation that Tyler must find someone to cover his shift bagging groceries at the HyVee.

“I’ve been texting people,” Tyler told her. “I thought Kelsey could do it, but she has choir practice.”

Eventually, with no luck, Tyler pulled on his parka and drove to the store, rationalizing that it would be harder for co-workers to turn him down in person. “I’ll just wander,” he decided, scanning the aisles and spotting a kid in an apron.

“Hey, Houston? Are you working Wednesday?”

“I don’t know.”

“Can I check your schedule? I need someone to cover my 4-to-8. I have to go to Washington.”

The swap arranged, Tyler grabbed a Sprite and took it to a register where an older woman named Sherry was rubbing her lower back.

“Tyler!” she said, perking up as she scanned the soda.

“How’s your back doing, Sherry? Are you back up to 35 hours yet?”

One of the things Tyler appreciated about HyVee was how he got to interact with people of all ages. He liked his colleagues, how they came from different walks of life.

“You know, lots of people ask me, what can you, Tyler Ruzich, do for people my age?” Tyler said, back in his car. “I say, we keep continuing these Old Man Principles that aren’t working. In [Alexander] Hamilton’s time, someone my age could be commander of a frigate. Did the Founding Fathers consider that a 17-year-old might be governor? I don’t know. Did they consider that a reality-television businessman would become president of the United States after losing the popular vote? Probably not.”

—

The next morning, Tyler got up and drove to a nearby Steak ’n Shake. The aspiring boy governors had been invited to debate each other in a little town called Hillsboro, and Tyler planned to carpool with Dominic.

“Jack’s not going to be there,” Tyler told Dominic once their burgers arrived. “He couldn’t miss any more math.”

“Got it,” said Dominic, whose gubernatorial preparation had involved working at his mom’s frozen yogurt shop and joining his school Spanish club.

“His running mate will be there, though,” Tyler said. “And Ethan will be there. That will be . . . fun.”

Dominic laughed. A byproduct of the boy governors’ youth: outsiders had begun to think of them as a unit, as if they all belonged to the same political party, called “Young.” But they believed in different things.

Tyler was the most liberal of the Republican candidates. He supported “LGBTQ-plus rights.” He supported protecting the Ogallala Aquifer, the water table beneath the Great Plains states. At debates, Tyler often found himself tangling with Ethan the libertarian, who opposed him on almost every issue.

The only thing that they agreed on was that the lawmakers making decisions about the state’s education didn’t have to go to the state’s schools. And that the politicians running the country weren’t the ones who were going to inherit it. Wasn’t it a civic responsibility for the teenagers to become politically involved?

If they didn’t change things, who would?

“Have all the TV people been reaching out to you?” Dominic asked as they drove past flat fields and rusty water towers. Dominic told Tyler he’d gotten a call from Lionsgate.

“Lionsgate?” Tyler repeated. He wasn’t sure about the people wanting to make movies. It was hard enough to be taken seriously without bringing Hollywood into the mix. Especially for the Republican candidates. While Jack, the 16-year-old Democrat, had been invited to participate in events with the party’s older candidates, the GOP had shut out Tyler and Dominic from anything official.

A Republican state lawmaker was now trying to pass a bill saying that in all future elections, candidates must be 18. “We have age requirements on voters,” one of the bill’s supporters, Rep. Keith Esau, had told the Kansas City Star. “Anybody who’s running should be able to vote for themselves.”

Tyler felt wounded by this exclusion but compensated by accepting every news interview. This seemed the best way to gain exposure for his positions, but the interviewers almost never wanted to talk about his positions, just his age. He practiced deflection: “I guess if I’m governor, I could keep pardoning myself for truancy,” he said when reporters asked, winking, how he could finish high school from the governor’s mansion. “But on a more serious note. . . .”

On a more serious note, he wanted to talk about governmental transparency, he told the reporters. On a more serious note, he wanted to talk about how his party could connect more with young people. On a more serious note, could they have a conversation about net neutrality, and how he saw its repeal as a way of taxing poor people?

“Yes, I am old enough to drive,” he repeated wearily to a reporter on the telephone. He paused. “I drive a ’94 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera.”

—

Tyler and Dominic arrived at the Hillsboro debate a few minutes late, victims of a faulty GPS, and by the time they got to the high school auditorium, Ethan and Jack’s running mate, Alexander Cline, were already onstage (Alexander later described Jack’s absence as an “unavoidable scheduling conflict,” sidestepping the question of math class).

Alexander wore a traditional boy-governor suit. Ethan, the Libertarian, wore a T-shirt with a cartoon snake and the slogan, “No step on snek” – a “Don’t tread on me” interpretation for the 21st century – and was expounding on family farms. “The way to help is to get the government out of the farm,” said the candidate, who had worked on his own family’s since he was 11. “The struggle for small farms is too great.”

“That’s why you subsidize them,” offered Tyler, joining him on the stage.

The candidates talked about tax rates and their views on abortion, and then a teenage audience member went to the microphone for the next question:

“Tyler, do you plan on keeping conceal-carry laws the same? If not, what do you plan on doing to change them?

Tyler nodded. “I believe, first of all, that the Second Amendment needs to be upheld. However, I still believe that when it comes to – Now wait, I haven’t even said anything controversial yet,” he said as Ethan began to protest. “What I’m going to say is that public university students should not be allowed to carry guns on campus. We are too many school shootings too late.”

“My sister goes to Kansas State,” Dominic jumped in, citing a campus that permitted concealed weapons. “Professors do not feel safe there. It’s just spun into madness.”

After the debate, the candidates posed for a photo, and then Dominic and Tyler drove home and Tyler went to his job and spent the next five hours standing at a cash register, ringing up ice cream tubs and packages of frozen chicken.

—

Tyler and his mother were driving to the airport the next day, Valentine’s Day, when his phone buzzed with a news alert: Police were seeking an active school shooter in a Florida town called Parkland.

By the time they checked in for their flight to Washington, Tyler’s phone told him the death toll was rising. He thought about his own school. What if the shooter had been there, and Tyler had been caught, hiding for his life? Or what if, because he’d skipped his last class to make it to the airport, he’d been safe while his classmates were left to hide alone? He decided that would have been worse.

By the next morning, the teenage students of Parkland were already making their voices heard. Tyler watched as David Hogg went on CNN and implored lawmakers: “We’re children. You guys are the adults. You need to take some action.” There were videos of bloody bodies on Snapchat, and Tyler was putting on his blazer and going to the Newseum for Soledad O’Brien’s show.

Jack had been invited, too, and the two sat in armchairs across from their interviewer, who for once didn’t ask whether they were old enough to drive.

“One of the big stories of the week is another school shooting,” O’Brien said. “What would be your strategy for bringing an end for what people would agree is clearly a crisis?”

Tyler and Jack told her they both believed in gun-control measures.

Did Tyler realize, O’Brien asked, that this put him in opposition with most Republicans?

Tyler had bags under his eyes, and AP exams he needed to register for, and he needed to be back in Kansas by that evening because he had to be in school the next morning. His voice was a little hoarse.

“If I’m making an enemy of the NRA, that’s something I’m kind of proud of, to be honest,” he told O’Brien. “I’ve seen what gun violence does. It’s time that we change the rhetoric and the discussion. Because clearly we are too far gone to say it’s a mental illness problem.”

Was that the right answer to have given on national television? He wasn’t sure. It was what he believed. Why couldn’t any of the adult politicians seem to say what they believed, he wondered. The kids were all saying what they believed. Whatever the consequences, the kids believed in something.

Tyler spent the rest of the week following the news back home in Kansas, along with all of the other boy governors.

In quieter moments, when he wasn’t trying to spin things, he admitted that his chances of winning were not very good. But then again, he would turn 18 by the time the primaries rolled around this summer. And because of that, he at least had already registered to vote.

Source Article

The post Suddenly, six teens running for Kansas governor doesn’t seem so preposterous appeared first on The Different Points To Consider When Searching For Best Apartments In Shawnee KS.

More Info At: http://www.guiafeminino.com/suddenly-six-teens-running-for-kansas-governor-doesnt-seem-so-preposterous/

0 notes

topinforma · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Mortgage News

New Post has been published on http://bit.ly/2rXLuMJ

senate-to-consider-bill-prohibiting-housing-discrimination-against-lgbt-people

Currently, the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability, but that could soon change thanks to a newly introduced bill backed by several prominent Senate Democrats.

The bill, the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2017, would expand the Fair Housing Act to cover gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes.

The push to expand the protections of the Fair Housing Act is being led by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, who spent much of his pre-political career as a fair housing attorney.

Also backing the bill are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin; Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland; Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass; Maggie Hassan, D-New Hampshire; Patrick Leahy, I-Vermont; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York; Ron Wyden, D-Oregon; Ed Markey, D-Mass, Al Franken, D-Minn; Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon; Corey Booker, D-New Jersey, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nevada; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island; and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

The legislation is a companion bill to a similar bipartisan action introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year by Reps. Scott Taylor, R-Virginia; and Brad Schneider, D-Illinois, which is still in subcommittee.

Adding gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes would ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans, Kaine said.

“As a former civil rights attorney who focused on fair housing, I learned that a house is more than just an object. It’s part of the very definition of who you are as a person and is central to every American’s life,” Kaine said.

“Because of incomplete protections in federal housing law, LGBT Americans can face discrimination when they try to buy or rent a home, just because of who they are,” Kaine added.

“This is about equality, and no American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love,” Kaine said. “I would like to thank Rep. Taylor for his leadership on this issue, as well as all the civil rights attorneys out there fighting for justice on this issue every day.”

Of the bills, Taylor said that expanding the Fair Housing Act would ensure equal protection for all Americans.

“This bill protects and codifies a fundamental American principle: fairness, respect, and equal treatment under the law,” Taylor said. “Nobody should face discrimination about where they live because of who they love.”

Adding the federal protections is critically important, according to the Human Rights Campaign, which bills itself as “the nation’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans.”

Currently, only 20 states along with the District of Columbia explicitly outlaw housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while another two states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“This patchwork of protections leaves millions of LGBTQ people vulnerable,” the Human Rights Campaign said.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign Government Affairs Director David Stacy celebrated the bill.

“In far too many places across the country, LGBTQ people are at risk of being denied housing or kicked out of their homes just because of who they are,” Stacy said.

“What side of a state line you live on should not determine your ability to find a place to live without fear of discrimination,” Stacy added. “We thank Senator Tim Kaine for his continued leadership working to end unjust discrimination against LGBTQ people.”

0 notes

bills-bible-basics · 3 months

Photo

Another Sad Day for America: Respect for Marriage Act Hello, my friends. Well, those liberal-minded senators did it! As you have probably already heard, they passed the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act”. Worse yet, as was predicted would happen, all three amendments to the act, which were crafted to more fully protect Christians and Conservatives from litigation by the LGBTQ crowd, were REJECTED! Now the bill goes to the House — where it will easily pass — and then to the president’s desk to be signed into law by Joe Biden. In short, while the SCOTUS — Supreme Court of the United States — recognized same-sex “marriage” as a constitutional right, the passage of this bill codifies same-sex “marriage” and makes it the law of the land. That means that the Supreme Court cannot overturn it — as they did with Roe v. Wade — because the bill was passed by Congress, and there is nothing specific in the US Constitution -- that I am aware of, at least -- which the Supreme Court can use as a justification to overturn this soon-to-be ungodly law. As you may know, that is exactly what the liberals wanted to do: make same-sex “marriage” bullet-proof against the Supreme Court. Now they are halfway to doing it! To the dismay of millions of American Christians, the USA continues to rebel against God’s Laws and pave her way to hell, as we read in this verse: “The wicked‭ shall be turned‭‭ into hell‭, ‭and‭ all the nations‭ that forget‭ God‭.‭” Psalm 9:17, KJV It should now be even more evident that many Americans -- including many American politicians -- worship God in name only, but their actual works/actions speak to the contrary. They in fact defy His holy Word! Just watch how in coming months/years, the passage of this law will result in even more litigation against Conservatives who embrace Bible-based, Christian values, by the LGBTQ crowd. As I said, this bill empowers the gay and lesbian community, and they obviously know it. Below is a link to a Washington Times article regarding this latest development: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/29/same-sex-marriage-bill-passes-senate-lawmakers-rej/ https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/another-sad-day-for-america-respect-for-marriage-act/?feed_id=144100&Another%20Sad%20Day%20for%20America%3A%20Respect%20for%20Marriage%20Act

0 notes

stabbyhobbit · 7 years

Text

NOT SO FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT TEXAS HAS A TRANSPHOBIC BATHROOM BILL IN THE WORKS

It’s called Senate Bill 6, and the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, is trying to pass it. It targets inclusive bathrooms in schools and government buildings, and lets businesses discriminate as they please.

Here is Dan Patrick’s statement on it:

January 5, 2017

AUSTIN – Lt. Governor Patrick issued this statement today following the filing of Senate Bill 6, the Texas Privacy Act, by Senator Lois Kolkhorst (R – Brenham):

“The people of Texas elected us to stand up for common decency, common sense and public safety. This legislation codifies what has been common practice in Texas and everywhere else forever — that men and women should use separate, designated bathrooms. It is supported by an overwhelming majority of Texans including both Democrats and Republicans, Hispanics, African-Americans and Anglos, men and women.

“SB 6 also ensures that businesses have the freedom to determine their own bathroom policies and that no public school can institute a bathroom policy that allows boys to go in girls restrooms, showers and locker rooms and girls to go in boys restrooms, showers and locker rooms.

“This issue is not about discrimination — it’s about public safety, protecting businesses and common sense. I congratulate Sen. Kolkhorst for filing SB 6 and for her commitment to protecting the privacy of Texans and keeping them safe.” (source - Lt. Governor’s official website)

He also supported North Carolina’s similar, awful, HB2 HERE

You can bug him about it here:

https://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/ (Bottom of the page)

https://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/contact/

More information here:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/5/14173882/texas-transgender-bathroom-law-lgbtq

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/religious-leaders-enter-both-sides-fight-over-transgender-bathrooms/cVnoZmOrBIbx3l4qcTeTAK/

Statesman article under the cut

The fight over legislation to block transgender-friendly bathroom policies ventured into the religious realm Thursday as faith leaders gathered in Austin to promote competing views.

The day began with a closed-door briefing for Christian pastors by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton and other state officials who see religious support as crucial to the passage of Senate Bill 6, which would limit the use of bathrooms in schools and government buildings to the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate.

The event by the U.S. Pastor Council was billed as “show up time” for those who would lead the fight in support of the bill.

That was followed by an afternoon gathering of more than 40 religious leaders — many holding signs reading “My faith does not discriminate” — who oppose SB 6 as immoral.

“Our lawmakers are considering anti-transgender bathroom bills and bills that come disguised as religious freedom — dangerous pieces of legislation that place a religious mask over what amounts to state-sanctioned discrimination,” said the Rev. Taylor Fuerst of First United Methodist Church, where the event was held.

SB 6, one of Patrick’s priority bills, would bar public schools from allowing transgender students to use multistall bathrooms that conform with their gender identity. Businesses could choose their own bathroom policies, but city anti-discrimination ordinances would be blocked from requiring transgender-friendly public bathrooms.

House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, has questioned the need for the bill, and Texas business and tourism leaders have denounced the legislation as damaging to the economy.

Thursday’s briefing for Christian pastors, held at Hyde Park Baptist Church, drew about three dozen protesters.

The event was closed to reporters, but a news release from the Texas Pastor Council said SB 6 was a central issue at the gathering.

Pastor Willie Davis of Houston said the fight over SB 6 reminded him of the battle against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which voters rejected in 2015. The ordinance banned discrimination based on a range of factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

“We proved that these ordinances create unequal rights for a tiny few who are broken and hurting that, instead of pointing them toward hope and healing, trample on the safety, privacy and freedom of our women and children,” Davis said in a written statement.

The fight against transgender bathrooms was based on lessons learned in the civil rights movement, he said.

“Equal protection means exactly that, and we must keep all Texas women and children from suffering the violation of their privacy and safety that American blacks fought to eliminate,” Davis said.

Pastor Steve Branson of San Antonio said the religious leaders plan to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions on SB 6.

“This is simple. The Legislature will either protect decency, safety and freedom for all Texans equally by passing SB 6, or bow to radical liberalism that does not reflect the Texas we love,” Branson said.

A different message was offered at First United Methodist, where religious leaders met to mark the relaunch of Texas Believes, a coalition of interfaith leaders who minister to gay, lesbian and transgender Texans or adhere to a doctrine of inclusiveness.

It is time for progressive religious leaders to reclaim the moral center, said the Rev. Neil Cazares-Thomas of the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas.

“We were founded on a system of liberty and the pursuit of happiness and equality for all people, not just for some,” Cazares-Thomas said.

“We believe in the separation of church and state. But more than that, we believe in the separation of church and hate,” he said. “Enough is enough, and we are not going to be silent anymore.”

Rabbi Mara Nathan of Temple Beth-El in San Antonio said Jews, who face hatred “for simply being who we are,” are commanded to use that experience “to reach out and protect the most vulnerable in our midst.”

“A bill like SB 6, cloaked in religious platitudes, is offensive,” Nathan said. “We are all created in the image of God.”

The Rev. David Wynn, a transgender man and a pastor at Agape Metropolitan Community Church in Fort Worth, said he has grown weary of seeing his community pushed to the margins “under the guise of religious freedom.”

“For those who support these attempts to legislate discrimination based on religion and call themselves Christian, please stop. You don’t get it. It’s offensive,” he said.

#bathroom bills #transphobia #transmisogyny #trans bathroom bills #texas #austin #senate bill 6 #sb6 #dan patrick #politics #I'm probably gonna keep posting this somewhat regularly until I start to hear more about it from things besides my hometown's local newspape

0 notes