Missing Link

Gay and Transgender Issues in the Workplace

 

It Takes One to Know One

                             By Brian McNaught

     In my youth, if someone called you a "homo" or a "moron," the reply was usually, "It takes one to know one," meaning "You'd have to be a homo to recognize another homo." It was an inane comment but it usually shut them up more effectively than "So is your mother."

     Today, that same phrase – "It takes one to know one" - has a completely different and much richer meaning for me.

     Alan Goldstein was the Jewish boy who lived behind me growing up in Flint, Michigan. He was my best friend for many years. It was through the time I spent with Alan and his family that I initially learned about Jewish celebrations such as Hanukkah, and also about the sting of anti-Semitism which I saw in Alan's face when another Christian eight-year-old in the neighborhood called him a "kike." …

 

(To finish reading this offering, please go to http://www.glbtatwork.blog.com.)

 

 

Nadine Smith

Executive Director

Equality Florida

PO Box 13184,

St. Petersburg FL 33733 

Ph: 813-870-3735

Fax: 727-499-6925

nadine@eqfl.org

www.eqfl.org

Visit www.eqfl.org and become a member today! 

! 

Women say mall cops arrested them for kissing

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6243685.html


Women say S.A. mall cops arrested them for kissing
Feb. 3, 2009

SAN ANTONIO - Jessica Garcia intends to prove in court that security officers at Rolling Oaks Mall unfairly targeted her and her girlfriend when they were arrested in December on trespassing and other charges.

Garcia said the officers - a Bexar County sheriff's deputy and an employee from a private security company - began harassing them Dec. 26 because her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek while sitting inside the mall on a bench.

Mall officials said the women, both 22, were acting inappropriately and were told to leave because they were not complying with the shopping center's code of conduct.

Danielle Pardue, the mall's marketing director, denies the women's claims of discrimination and said security officers would evict anyone found kissing in the mall, regardless of sexual orientation.

"If our security officer feels that is disruptive to our shoppers and our business, then they have that authority to make that determination," she said. "It's their responsibility to make sure our shopping place is an enjoyable shopping place for everyone to be."

Pardue also stressed that contrary to what the women claim, they weren't arrested because they were kissing, but because they re-entered the mall after being told to leave.

But Garcia feels otherwise.

She was scheduled to appear in court today, but her lawyer had to postpone the date for later this month.

Garcia said the officers intentionally harassed the couple, accusing them of kissing and having "swapped spit."

Read more:  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6243685.html

Voting for the freedom to marry does not hurt politicians, new study confirms

A new study by Freedom to Marry released today shows that voting for the freedom to marry and against anti-gay/anti-marriage measures does not cost politicians reelection:  http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/new_study_shows_pro-marriage_legislators_win.php

The Best Interests of the Child: New York Times Editorial

 January 6, 2009

 

The Best Interests of the Child

 

W.H., an infant, was reportedly removed from her parents by Arkansas's Department of Human Services after she was taken to a hospital with injuries that strongly suggested abuse. Fortunately for W.H., her grandmother, a registered nurse, was eager to take her in. But there was a hitch. Her grandmother lives with another woman, and a ballot initiative recently passed in Arkansas makes it illegal for gay and unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt or become foster parents. Arkansas courts should strike down this offensive new law.

 

Arkansas has a long tradition of allowing child welfare professionals to decide who should become a foster or adoptive parent. Anti-gay forces, however, have campaigned to disqualify gay people. In 2006, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a regulation barring gay people from becoming foster parents.

 

Last year anti-gay activists promoted Act 1, a ballot referendum that broadened the ban to include unmarried heterosexual couples. In November, it passed with about 57 percent of the vote. The A.C.L.U. of Arkansas is challenging the new law, on behalf of a group of would-be parents and children, contending that it discriminates against gay and unmarried straight couples and that it makes it impossible to place children in the best homes.

 

The new law is undeniably discriminatory. Under Arkansas law, people convicted of major crimes, including contributing to the delinquency of a minor, remain eligible to adopt children or become foster parents. Single people who have no partner — or who have a large number of casual sex partners — are also eligible. Anyone who is in a committed relationship, gay or straight, but is not married is automatically barred.

 

The new law also interferes with the Department of Human Services' ability to do its job of making individualized assessments of prospective parents and placing children in the homes that are best able to meet their needs. As the W.H. case suggests, an unmarried couple could be the most qualified parents. And because of the shortage of foster parents, the ban is very likely to make children wait substantially longer for a loving home.

 

Arkansas's new law was a victory for the forces of bigotry and a major setback for the guiding principle of the law in adoption and foster care: the best interests of the child.

 

 

Smith to discuss ‘What’s Next For Equal Rights After Amendment 2?’

http://www.island-reporter.com/breaking_news/articles.asp?articleID=5551

Smith to discuss 'What's Next For Equal Rights After Amendment 2?'

The Democratic Club of the Islands is featuring Nadine Smith, Executive Director of Equality America, to speak to all interested islanders on Thursday, January 15 at 7 p.m. at the Sanibel Public Library, 770 Dunlop Road.

Previously, Smith was director of The Human Rights Task Force of Florida. She joined the organization in 1993 after serving as one of four national co-chairs on the 1993 march on Washington, D.C. and taking part in the historic, first-ever meeting between LGBT leaders and a sitting U.S. President (Bill Clinton) in the White House.

Smith has led advocacy efforts in Florida at the state level at a time of unprecedented attacks on the gay and lesbian community, serving as Equality Florida's lead lobbyist, heading efforts to stop discriminatory legislation and ballot measures and to overturn Florida's ban on adoption by gay and lesbian parents.

Her experience in community organizing, social change and politics includes her service as campaign manager for Citizens for a Fair Tampa, a successful effort to prevent repeal of that city's human rights ordinance, and her own campaign in 1991 for Tampa City Council. An award-winning journalist, Smith has written syndicated columns for general audience publications.

Democratic Club of the Islands members are also urged to attend this meeting to hear exciting news about the restructuring of the club and to learn new opportunities for activism in the Obama era. Call Brian Anderson at 472-2206 for more information.

[Undo 2] Bob Barr: No Defending the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,1855836.story From the Los Angeles Times Opinion No Defending the Defense of Marriage Act The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays. By Bob Barr January 5, 2009 Excerpt 1

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact. I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed. The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise. DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

Excerpt 2: 

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions. Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves. In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions. Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.

--
Posted By Nadine to Undo 2 at 1/06/2009 12:52:00 PM

It is important to say these things out loud.

President-elect Barack Obama believes "marriage is between a man and a woman".

Barack Obama does not think gay couples' relationships are worthy of the same stature as his and Michelle's.

He does not believe that gay couples deserve the precise same legal recognition or status that his marriage confers to him and his wife.

He believes we should have a different, inherently lesser, legal framework to protect each other and our children.

It is important to say these things out loud.

President-elect Obama enters the White House with a record of support and  a better platform on issues of LGBT equality than any other president this country has known.

He opposed amending state constitutions to single out gay couples to ban them from marriage. He supports  federally recognized Civil Unions. He oppose federal legislation and constitutional measures that ban marriage recognition for gay couples.

He supports the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, will push the Hate Crimes bill and supports an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination law. 

By all accounts he has a laudable record of pushing for equal rights and we must work with his administration relentlessly to manifest these promises.

But he also believes there is a quality to heterosexual relationships that make them worthy of a higher status by society under the law.

Barack Obama believes "marriage is between a man and a woman".

He says gay couples can have civil unions, domestic partnership, some other, different, diminished copy of an arrangement.

It is important that we not pretend we don't already know this.

I am awed by Barack Obama. His words inspire me. His intellect comforts me. His grassroots campaign was a beautiful, diverse and powerful thing to behold.

After years of a Bush/Cheney cynicism, war, arrogance and incompetence I wept tears of joy for Barack Obama's election.  For the historic shift and transformational meaning that a Black president heralds for our country, I beamed with pride. Change is coming and I am hopeful.

But when it comes to the issue of marriage, Barack Obama is wrong. 

I have criticized  the selection of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. 

Warren compares gay relationships with incest and pedophilia and runs a psychologically reckless, "ex-gay" ministry out of his mega-church. 

His presence on the dias should be challenged vigorously. 

But I will not lie to myself. I will not make Warren the proxy for the unspoken disappointment and anger at Barack Obama for his more nuanced insult to gay couples when he says "marriage is between a man and a woman". We must be prepared to help President Obama lead and we must be willing to tell the truth when he is wrong.

When it comes to the issue of marriage Barack Obama is wrong. 

Gay people deserve equal protection under the law. Our families deserve precisely the same benefits, protection and legal recognition as straight couples receive.

It is important to say these things out loud.

John Ridley: The U.S. Goes Global With its Anti-Gayness

John Ridley: The U.S. Goes Global With its Anti-Gayness

 

Funny thing about this great land of ours. She's got no problem fighting for what's right (Civil War), but she doesn't always make the simple stand for righteousness (Civil Rights movement).

This past Thursday the United Nations, which excels at issuing proclamations, circulated one that is as marginally effectual as it is symbolically strong. It was just a little ole declaration seeking universal decriminalization of homosexuality.

Wasn't saying Gays could get married.

Wasn't saying Gays could show up at your house and read your kids Heather Has Two Mommies.

It was just saying, you know: "Hey, Iran, when you're done with that show trial, could you possibly not hang those two guys who engaged in a love whose name you dare not speak."

And if you think I'm being hyperbolic, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay notes that ten countries still have laws making homosexual activity punishable by death.

But the U.S. did not sign the declaration. 

READ MORE: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-us-goes-global-with-i_b_152489.html

Newsweek "Takes a Bullet" On Gay Marriage

By Mary E. Hunt

As a theologian, I sometimes wonder if anyone cares about what we write. But Newsweek's cover story (December 15, 2008), "Our Mutual Joy," set off a firestorm of responses so voluminous that it temporarily shut down the magazine's comments function on their Web site. Time's "Person of the Year" issue would be lucky to get as much attention as the enormous response to a religion editor's pro-gay marriage piece. Apparently, religion still matters.

What does it mean, though, that this story has generated such controversy? The most obvious point is that people still care what religions say about matters of sexuality, for reasons that sometimes remain obscure. I doubt that the same reaction, and surely not the same huge numbers and rabid intensity, would have accompanied a progressive religious treatment of the war in Iraq or the death penalty. So why same-sex marriage? Why the private sphere and not the public forum?

One reason is that as Christianity has lost its hegemony in an increasingly religiously pluralistic society, Christian conservatives have staked their shrinking claims on changing personal ethics. First abortion, now same-sex marriage, and soon, end-of-life issues, are seen as litmus tests of orthodoxy. These issues define who's in or out and, more importantly, who's making decisions for a society.

The Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, has learned this the hard way lately. He has been urging his (kicking and screaming) colleagues to acknowledge global warming and join him in "creation care." They tolerated him even as they denied the scientific consensus because they mistakenly took ecology to be a larger-than-life issue that did not touch the daily lives of people.

But when he voiced tepid support, not for marriage, but simply for civil unions for same-sex couples, he was forced out of his position. Marriage is closer to home. That straw broke the camel's back because the issue is easier for people to grasp—and is thus where religious authorities could seem to be wielding real social power. Which is an illusion, after all, since global warming touches a lot more people than same sex marriage.

Read the rest here:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/865/newsweek_takes_a_bullet_on_gay_marriage/

The Associated Press: Top evangelical resigns after backing gay unions

Top evangelical resigns after backing gay unions

An outspoken and polarizing voice in conservative Christian politics
resigned effective Thursday from the National Association of
Evangelicals after a radio interview in which he voiced support for
same-sex civil unions and said he is "shifting" on gay marriage.

The Rev. Richard Cizik's comments — made on a Dec. 2 "Fresh Air"
broadcast on National Public Radio — triggered an uproar that led to
his stepping down as NAE vice president of governmental affairs.

A fixture in Washington for nearly three decades, Cizik has played a
key role in bringing evangelical Christian concerns to the political
table. But in recent years, he earned enemies in the movement for
pushing to broaden the evangelical agenda. His strongest focus was on
"creation care," arguing that evangelicals have a biblical
responsibility to the environment that includes combatting global
warming.

READ MORE: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jARZSY_v6MYj98bNdK2rolNhIsSwD950RJH80

Opponents of gay couples marrying often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

Our Mutual Joy

Lisa Miller

NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: Read more at http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/output/print

Orlando LGBT Community and Allies Form New Unity Coalition

Orlando LGBT Community and Allies Form New Unity Coalition

One Orlando unites a broad spectrum of diverse organizations and
individuals in a common purpose to obtain equality and dignity for all
Floridians, and to repudiate and oppose anti-gay bigotry and
discrimination.

Established in the aftermath of the passage of the discriminatory
"Marriage Protection Amendment" to the Florida Constitution, One
Orlando has been formed to unite the larger Central Florida community
in an effort to counter prevalent and dangerous anti-gay bigotry.
Nonprofit organizations, civic and community groups, faith
institutions, businesses and individuals throughout the Central
Florida region will combine their resources and talents to oppose
discrimination and prejudice wherever it occurs in our community. The
new coalition will also organize the local efforts of the national
grassroots movement Join the Impact.

Participating organizations include: The GLBT Center of Central
Florida; Equality Florida; Metropolitan Business Association (MBA);
Human Rights Campaign (HRC); ACLU of Central Florida; PFLAG (Parents,
Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) of Orlando, Brevard and Polk
Counties; Gay & Lesbian Lawyer Association of Central Florida (GALLA);
Joy Metropolitan Community Church; First Congregational Church of
Winter Park; Hope Unites United Church of Christ; First Unitarian
Church of Orlando; Oasis Fellowship Ministries; St Dorothy's Catholic
Community; Orlando Gay Chorus; Rainbow Democrats; Log Cabin
Republicans; Orange County Democrats; The Ryan Skipper Foundation;
UCF's GLB Student Union, GLBT Alumni Association, and Office of
Diversity Initiatives; Orlando and Lakeland Youth Alliances; Be Real;
Rollins College Office of Multicultural Affairs; Planned Parenthood of
Greater Orlando; and NOW of Central Florida.

OneOrlando.org invites all like-minded individuals and organizations
to join us in this all-volunteer, grassroots movement as we stand
united against destructive anti-gay discrimination and homophobia in
our city and state. Upcoming events include a holiday food drive, and
a candlelight vigil on Saturday, December 20, 2008 at First
Congregational Church of Winter Park. Details will follow.

# # ##
OneOrlando.org is a unity coalition of Central Florida nonprofit
organizations, faith institutions, businesses, and individuals which
are united in a common purpose to combat discrimination and anti-gay
bigotry in Florida. More information is available at
www.OneOrlando.org.

NEWSWEEK: The Religious Case For Gay Marriage

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy | Newsweek.com

Excerpt:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their
word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham,
the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his
beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children
with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham,
Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these
fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of
marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an
indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle
Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for
those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than
to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm
endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any
contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their
wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about
gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have
it be so.

For more: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support GOP "Should Be Shot"

Nadine Smith 10:00am Nov 19th Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support GOP "Should Be Shot"   Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support GOP "Should Be Shot" - The Huffington Postk: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=902885304&k=6VMU44V4R5ZM5DFHSKX2VS

Comedian Wanda Sykes Comes Out: "I’m Proud To Be Gay and Married"

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2008

Wanda Sykes @ LV Gay Rally: "I'm Proud To Be Gay"

Dozens of rallies were held around the nation on Saturday to protest the passage of anti-gay ballot measures in CA, Fl, AZ and AR. Sykes was married to her wife in California. The passage of  Prop 8 and re-banned same-sex marriage and sparked a fury. But only one that I know of featured a prominent celebrity coming out of the closet, and that would be the one here at the GLBT Community Center. Here she is...

I've also posted the audio of Sykes' remarks and my brief interview with her in the podcast feed. It adds up to about 8 minutes and you can hear it by clicking here or you can save it to your computer by right-clicking here. 

Here's a little bit of what Sykes said. She started by talking about how exciting it was to her to see Obama elected:

"I thought, man we are moving in the right direction. And then at about 11 o'clock I was crushed. We took a huge leap forward and then got dragged 12 feet back. I felt like I was being attacked, personally attacked, our community was attacked. I got married Oct. 25, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation, I felt like I was living my life, I wasn't in the closet, but I was just living my life. Everybody who knows me personally, they know I'm gay. And that's the way people should be able to live our lives, really. We shouldn't have to be standing out here demanding something we automatically should have as citizens of this country. ... They pissed off the wrong group of people. They have galvanized a community. We are so together now and we all want the same thing and we shouldn't have to settle for less. Instead of having gay marriage in California, no, we're gonna have gay marriage across the country. When my wife and I leave California, I want to have my marriage also recognized in Nevada, in Arizona, all the way to New York. ... I'm proud to be a woman, I'm proud to be a black woman and I'm proud to be gay."

In my interview with her, she said this: "People shouldn't have to talk about their sexual orientation, we shouldn't have to do it, but with the legislation that they passed, I can't sit by and just watch. I just can't do it."

Sykes also disputed the much-reported claim that 70 percent of black voters in California voted to ban gay marriage. Several prominent writers, including Dan Savage here, have railed against homophobic blacks. Wanda said the exit polls were wrong and admonished me, "Please stop spreading that 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on Prop 8 because it's just not true."

After the speeches, the very large -- figure more than 1,000 people -- crowd lined Sahara Avenue with signs. This gives some sense of how immense this was.

Source: Karen Ocamb