KnowThyNeighbor.org

DotOUT.org Transgender Rights: Boston City Councilor Question #1

 

From DotOUT.org's August 29, 2011 Candidate Forum Held at The Ledge in Dorchester, MA for Boston City Councilor Candidates Districts 2, 3, AND 7.

Question #1:  As a Boston City Councilor, do you support non-discrimination laws protecting the transgender community and what actions have you or will you take to ensure the passage of this important legislation?

 From DotOUT.org's August 29, 2011 Candidate Forum Held at The Ledge in Dorchester, MA

Suzanne Lee (District 2):  I believe that one of the most integral parts in the current movement for social change is the protection of our transgender friends and neighbors.  I fully supported the transgender resolution that the City Council passed unanimously this year, and I believe that we need to continue our efforts to both educate the public and work with the state legislators to pass statewide transgender rights legislation.  As a City Councilor I would work closely with transgender rights organizations such as MTPC and MassEquality to help fight discrimination here in Boston and to help aid our state legislature to finally bring transgender equal rights legislation to Massachusetts.

As both an immigrant and a woman, I have battled racial and gender barriers my entire life.  Through my decades of work in the community I have fought discrimination in any and every form.  I founded and chaired the Chinese Progressive Association over 30 years ago, and we have worked with the Chinese community as well as across Boston to fight discrimination and build a movement for social change.  I see the transgender community as an important part of this movement, and believe working for transgender rights is the next step in my work for social change.

Marydith Tuitt (District 3):  I believe we should accept everyone for themselves, I am supportive of the transgender bill now on the books on Beacon Hill and with my boss in trying to get it passed.

Martin Hogan (District 3):  I have for a long time supported the rights of all and I will continue to do so.  I will fully support any and all legislation that supports non-discrimination laws.  We have come too far in this country and specifically the city of Boston to allow that type of hatred and divisiveness to fester in our neighborhoods.

Stephanie Everett (District 3):  As a Boston City Councilor I would strongly support non-discriminating laws that protect the transgender community.  I applaud the siting Council members for unanimously passing An Act Relative to Transgender Equal Rights in March.  I was honored to serve for a Senator who co-sponsored An Act Relative to Transgender Equal Rights (S. 764), ans as a City Councilor would work with my state counterparts to encourage the passage of the bill.

Craig Galvin (District 3):  Yes, I support non-discrimination laws, and I will aggressively advocate for legislation that promotes equality and secures civil liberties for all residents.  I will continue to support and encourage others' participation in public outreach and education that promotes inclusion and celebrate all aspects of life experiences.

John O'Toole (District 3):  As was previously reported, I do support non-discrimination laws protecting the transgender community.  I would lobby the representatives in the house an senate to encourage passage of this legislation.

Frank Baker (District 3):  Yes.  As a City Councilor, I would have no direct legislative authority over the bill, but I would speak with my contacts at the state level to encourage passage.

Tito Jackson (District 7):  Yes, I do support non-discrimination laws protecting the transgender community.  I am immensely proud of the Patrick Administration's Executive Order that protects Transgendered State Employees from discrimination.  As a City Councilor, I will work with my colleagues on the Council and our counterparts in the State House to protect Transgendered people from discrimination by passing the Transgender Equal Rights Bill.  This piece of legislation should be law.  In the wake of the death of a transgendered woman who was beaten to death in Chelsea, it is about more than just providing equal rights, it is about shielding them from violence.

Sheneal Parker (District 7):  As a prospective City Councilor, and a proactive citizen of minority decent I support non-discrimination laws.  Gender Identity like sexual orientation is not a choice or something that should be debated by anyone but the individual person.  Throughout the last decade we've witnessed how groups have been alienated and targeted and we must do what we can to protect them........We must be clear on the seriousness and illegality of harassment, prejudice, discrimination or hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

John K. O'Toole, Signer of Anti-Gay Petition and Candidate for Boston City Councillor, Marches in Boston Pride 2011

What Is Being Described by Some Boston LGBT Who Attended Saturday's Boston Pride March 2011, The Appearance of John K. O'Toole, Candidate for District Three Boston City Councillor, as "A Misleading Representation of His Support for the LGBT Community," the Candidate Himself Begs to Differ

Whether it was activism on the part of a so far "anonymous" person advocating for the LGBT Community or a political stunt perpetrated by one of the campaigns in the Boston City Councillor, District Three race, Saturday's Boston Pride March yielded the name of one particular candidate, John K. O'Toole, who did in fact sign VoteOnMarriage.org's Anti-Gay Marriage Petition back in 2005.  

KnowThyNeighbor.org received an email Saturday from Alex Scheufler who attended Boston Pride 2011 of a photo of one of at least a dozen laminated posters along the parade route which copied candidate, O'Toole's, name and address from the KnowThyNeighbor.org website which houses the Massachusetts Secretary of State's Database of the list of signatories on the Ballot Initiative from 2005 which if successful would have retracted the Goodridge Decision and ended Marriage Equality here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  These posters which faced outward towards the crowd included a red circled X and clearly and boldly spelled out "Don't Elect John O'Toole, He Works Against Us." 

As a point of clarification, no one at KnowThyNeighbor.org was responsible for these posters.  However, this type of activism IS exactly what our core mission advocates and encourages.  KnowThyNeighbor applauds those who take it upon themselves to stand by their own personal activism.  We provide the lists of those who sign anti-LGBT petitions and our blog is replete with facts and names of those who contribute to, are involved with and are complicit in campaigns that would hurt our whole community. Some of those names would surprise you.  

But as always, I ask those activists who are being brave and standing up for themselves and our community to remember--KnowThyNeighbor is about empowerment through dialogue.  Dialogue IS the silver bullet.  It is important to hear from a signer why he or she signed this anti-gay petition.  You may all remember Mike Cahillane for District Attorney who said he signed the anti-gay petition knowingly in an exchange for that signature gatherer's signature on the Greyhound Rights petition that Cahillane was sponsoring--not good!  And of course, can we not forget Mary Z. Connaughton for Auditor, who refused to answer why she signed the anti-gay petition, claiming it was none of anyone's business, even when grilled by NECN--equally not good.  But these candidates and politicians all have phone numbers listed on line and Candidate for District Three Boston City Councillor, John K. O'Toole is no exception.

At 4:33 PM, June 11, 2011, Candidate John K. O'Toole, returned KnowThyNeighbor's call.  He was unaware of the posters which were lining the Boston Pride Parade route.  He was made aware of the fact that his name appeared on KnowThyNeighbor as a signer of the anti-gay petition about 4 months ago and he claims to have faxed an affidavit to KnowThyNeighbor about 1 month ago. We are checking into that. Mr. O'Toole would like to see his actual signature, but I reminded him that this is nearly impossible as those records at the Secretary of the Commonwealth are most likely destroyed.   

John O'Toole claims to have signed many petitions during the 2005 ballot initiative cycle including beer and wine in supermarkets, dog rights etc.  He made it very clear to KnowThyNeighbor.org that he is not happy with his name being associated with the Anti-Gay Marriage petition and that he has taken very forthright actions to support Marriage Equality from political and personal perspectives.  The former as being a co-signer of a 2007 petition which was drawn up by the Dorchester pro-LGBT activist group, DotOUT, as a tool to lobby Senator Jack Hart to switch his vote on Marriage Equality before the last vote. John O'Toole has also marched in three separate Boston Pride Parades and when asked by us, he immediately spoke out in favor of the current Transgender Equal Rights Bill which is in committee and before the Massachusetts Legislature.  

Richard O'Mara, Dorchester Activist and DotOUT Steering Committee Member, had much to say about this.  According to O'Mara, DotOUT has not yet given its endorsement in the District Three City Councillor race and from a personal standpoint, the appearance of John O'Toole's name on the KnowThyNeighbor list of signers of the anti-gay marriage petition disturbs him.  "I have not jumped on to support John (O'Toole) yet and am not comfortable with him yet due to his signing," said O'Mara, "To the best of our knowledge, he signed, and John needs to do some explaining.  He needs to address it."  O'Mara also said that his own feelings about John O'Toole's signing are known all the way up to Mayor Menino's office and mentioned the Mayor himself and Justin Holmes as being aware of this.

In the many phone calls that KnowThyNeighbor made to provide fair coverage of this story, it was suggested to me from two separate unrelated sources that fingers are being pointed at one campaign for having created these anti-O'Toole posters which were dispersed and mounted throughout the Boston Pride Parade Route.  Both sources suggested the Craig Galvin campaign as the alleged perpetrator.  One source said, "Craig Galvin's campaign has been making a very big deal about John O'Toole being a signer of the anti-gay petition for weeks now."  Craig Galvin, who also marched with supporters at Boston Pride this Saturday is running for the same City Councillor seat as John O'Toole. 

When I confronted Craig Galvin about these alleged accusations, Galvin stated that no one from his campaign that he knows of was responsible for these posters.  Galvin also stated that he and his fellow marchers were very aware of the posters along the route and that they saw the posters on Saturday "like everyone else did."  Everyone else (apparently) did not include John O'Toole or O'Toole's seventeen fellow marchers according to O'Toole.  KnowThyNeighbor needs to  point out that these posters were strategically mounted to sign posts along the route facing outward so that parade onlookers would see them, not the participants in the march itself.  Craig Galvin is a Marriage Equality supporter and wanted me to know that it is a "big issue" to him as he is a supporter of Constitutional Rights.  Like with O'Toole, I asked Galvin how he felt about the current Transgender Equal Rights Bill before the Legislature and while his initial response to me was, "I thought you were going to ask me questions about the Pride Parade" and "I need to look into the Transgender Bill and get back to you," he did call me back later that evening and told me that he supports it.

Some things never change.  Politics will always be politics and the truth may not always be told.  I am sure we will be hearing much more about this race for the Boston City Councillor, District Three seat. LGBT people have alot of soul searching to do and hopefully so do the candidates.  One thing though, it seems that we have not forgotten about the wounds that were inflicted upon us in our continued fight for equality. 

 

Tom Lang, Director

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MA Transgender Rights Bill Exposed

Here We Are In February of 2011 And The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Which Was the First in the Nation to Legalize Same Gender Marriage, Which Defeated Attempts to Take Away These Marriage Rights Through a Ballot Initiative Process and Which Has an Attorney General Who is Suing the United States to End DOMA on Behalf of Its Citizens, Still Has Not Been Able to Pass Legislation Protecting Transgender/Transsexual People Against Workplace, Housing, and Public Accomodations Discrimination

So what is going on in Massachusetts, "The Land of Marriage Equality" with the Transgender Rights Bill which was re-filed last month with the same language it has had for nearly 3 years?Remember even with 104 Co-Sponsors it was not allowed to be voted on in last session (2010) even with majority support in the House and Senate? With public support of the Governor in two terms now, the visible support of parents of transgender/transsexual children, the support of such mainstream religious institutions as the Episcopal Diocese  , other localized support through action such as that of the Boston City Council as early as 2002, and all the right pro-active visibility days by the MTPC and Transgender/Transsexual Activists who have real stories to tell about the need for such a law ?

My analogy is that we trying to bake a cake.  The recipe is correct, everything is mixed, the batter is in a pan in the oven, the oven works, the temperature button is on.  Why don't we have a cake?  Because the power company has NOT provided any electricity.  The ONLY explanation here is that MA Transgender Rights Bill is being blocked from the top down.  Someone or some people are not allowing this bill to move forward, be voted on.  This month's bombshell in Boston Spirit Magazine of an interview with former Senator and Bill Co-Sponsor Richard Tisei (R) who blames MassEquality for "losing the public relations battle" on the bill and "dropping the ball" which caused the current situation.  Tisei also recounts how he helped set up MassEquality to participate in the MA GOP Convention in 2010 by securing MEQ with a booth there and access to events at the convention including parties for networking.  According to Tisei, all this was pre-arranged with MassEquality 3 weeks in advance and the day of the Convention MEQ pulled a 'no-show."  Instead of being there to combat the onslaught of what Tisei describes as a Kansas-based anti-trans cellphone campaign directed at over 3500 GOP delegates, MassEquality chose to use that day and Charlie Baker's response to the "Bathroom Bill" messaging immediately for its campaign tool to help Deval Patrick win re-election. But probably the most disturbing of the Tisei revelations he alleges against MassEquality is its lack of lobbying with the co-sponsors.  That MassEquality "came at the beginning of the legislative session" when they filed the bill, obtained 104 co-sponsors including himself, and then in 2 years, the co-sponsors "never heard from them again."  According to Tisei, "They never called.  They never did anything. They never asked for help."  

Back in August 2010, after the end of the Legislative Session and with no vote having been taken up on the MA Transgender Rights Bill, KnowThyNeighbor attended JTIMA's Prop 8 Day at Copley Square.  I was immediately approached by MEQ volunteers "postcarding" for the MA Trans Bill asking for my email address and if I supported the bill.  Outraged I took it up with some of the young volunteers and asked, "where the hell were you for the past year?"  Dan Hoffer, a MassEquality hire, originally from the Harold Ford campaign and having worked on the Cape Ann part of our marriage fight, now one who deals with legislative work was immediately put on the defensive and told me, "we have 25-30 legislative campaigns we are working on, we cannot be expected to have worked on the Trans Bill too."  So, the Lobby Days, the Hearings, the Press Play, the Visibility---all what I call a Potemkin Village.  

According to activist, Denise Leclair, in 2003 Transgender/Transsexual people were told to wait until after Goodridge was done with, then from between 2004 and 2007 were told to wait until after we successfully killed the ballot initiative, then were told to wait until after MA got rid of the 1913 Law which prohibited out of state same sex couples from marrying here if their home states did not recognize their marriages (this repeal was in July of 2008).  Were Transgender/Transsexual people told to "wait" for so long that now it is just "company policy" to pretend we are working on their rights instead of being truthful?  Equality Maryland has no problem it seems leaving TG/TS people out of the public accommodations part of its bill right now as we speak while having all of the LGB(T) messaging centers like Pam's House Blend, Bilerico Project and others promote this bill like its the new wave of trans support coming from our community. But with MassEquality and its messaging centers I guess it was okay to pretend to be giving priority to our bill instead of being truthful on its mission--providing support for 25-30 legislators.  Where was BayWindows or any of the other media, including BlueMassGroup, the various blogs, newspapers etc to get to the bottom of what was holding this bill up?  NOTHING from any of them.

And this points to my suggestion to all of you to pause and think about this.  I personally do not think MassEquality was calling all the shots here.  Oh it was complicit all right.  Remember my cake analogy from earlier?  MassEquality is not the electric company.  It is more the oven.  This bill was not voted on because the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, both Dems, would not call a vote.  There was no "community outrage" directed at either of these two entities which is in and of itself telling-- so let's go up the ladder a little further...John Walsh, MA Dem Party Chair who may not have wanted to lose any votes in various races for Dems?  We are being told that many Dems would have taken a hit on this bill.  Which I find funny because, 104 leges co-sponsored the bill in a very public record...where was their "hit?"  Are we expected to believe that the anti-lgbt groups would make a distinction between sponsorship and voting in their anti-trans messaging?  Another thing to note here, in Twelve States and the District of Columbia, where Gender Identity and Expression are part of the anti-discrimination laws, not one state produced a ballot initiative directed to remove these laws by popular vote.  So what was the problem?  Inquiring minds, pissed off activists like myself and transgender/trannsexual people who have been back-burnered and betrayed want to know.

We still have not been able to identify the man or people behind the curtain, though we can now easily see what room the curtain is hanging in.  I throw this out there...Maybe the ladder goes up a little higher to Congress where our own Barney Frank who once removed transgender/transsexual people from the languishing ENDA Bill, has been saying recently that you cannot expect to get a anti-discrimination bill which includes gender identity and expression passed in Congress if you cannot even get it passed in a state like Massachusetts. But my question to Congressman Frank is this..."on that comment, are you stating fact or projecting?"

Tom Lang, Director of KnowThyNeighbor.org

 

 

Iowa Cans Judges, Ready for SSM Fight

Quick now, name the state with the motto, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"!

The answer is Iowa. Tuesday its voters seemed oblivious to that in voting three judges off their Supreme Court bench for their daring to prize the liberties and rights of homosexuals. In last year's unanimous ruling, all seven justices ruled that forbidding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Iowa votes on retain judges and a simple majority keeps or tosses them.

The Des Moines Register reports the slight majority to remove them was a rural v. urban divide.

Iowa had a clear conflict between its comity requirement (595.20) accepting marriages legal in other states (like that MA) and its gender/age statute (595.2) based on the Defense of Marriage Act, stating "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid." As in other states on this issue and different direct conflicts, the justices didn't have a lot of choice. Liberty, rights, and well, the law, was right in their faces, as reflected in their decision.

As befitting judicial demeanor, the three to be removed (Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices Michael Streit and David Baker) issued a statement. The only hint of negativity was a mention of "an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups" in the months before the this vote, which they in Iowa call the merit selection system.

Back here in Blue Massachusetts, putting high-court judges up for recall seems dreadfully political and likely to prevent impartiality on the bench. Poll based legal reasoning appears far too political.

Regardless, the trio concludes uncontentiously with:

Finally, we hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.

Coming up looks like an embittering battle worthy of our own agon here against overturning our Supreme Judicial Court ruling affirming same-sex marriage. The Iowa Senate is alone in an equally split (25-25) Senate against Republican House and Governor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal says there'll be no vote on the subject. As the Register reports:

Gronstal believes the right thing means protecting the civil rights of gays and lesbians. He reaffirmed Wednesday that he won't bow to pressure, no matter how nasty it gets.

"The easy political thing for me to do years ago would have been to say, 'Oh, let's let this thing go. It's just too political and too messy,' " Gronstal said. "What's ugly is giving up what you believe in, that everybody has the same rights. Giving up on that? That's ugly."

Those not so hot on separation of powers and inclined to limit rights to selected groups crowed about the people speaking, while LGBT-rights advocates decried politicizing the courts.

In an amusing thread lost in the rural fury, existing Dem. Gov. Chet Culver is likely to be the one to appoint three replacement judges, not erstwhile and resurrected Gov. Terry Branstad. The latter wants a DOMA-style constitutional amendment.

Iowa was the third state in the nation to go for marriage equality. Those who respect the state motto are in for a fight on maintaining liberties and rights.

Cross-post note: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

Iowa, same sex marriage, marriage equality, judges, Gronstal, Culver, Granstad

KnowThyNeighbor Demands Names of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Survey Creators

Now That Pentagon Spokesperson, Geoff Morrell, Has Disclosed The Name of the Private Contractor, Westat, Which Created the Bias-Baiting Language in The Don't Ask Don't Tell Survey, KnowThyNeighbor is Asking for the Names of the "Professionals at Westat" Who Developed These Questions  

While Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis warns LGBT servicemembers that the truly inflammatory and bias-baiting language in the DADT study sent out to 400K service members last week may in fact be the cause of privacy concerns and she is asking that they do not participate in the survey, KnowThyNeighbor is taking a different approach.

KnowThyNeighbor is demanding to know the names of all individuals involved in the composing of the survey--all those involved in the creation of these questions including the privately contracted Westat employees, members of the Pentagon Working Group (as it is being called) and anyone else who had actual "hands on" involvement with the wording, choice and/or vetting of these questions. KnowThyNeighbor is also demanding to know the process in selecting the criteria used to formulate these bias-baiting questions.  This process affecting a public policy and the lives of, for now, voiceless American heroes who risk their lives for this country needs to be remain in the public's eye and in the public realm. 

Geoff Morrell, Pentagon spokesperson, admitted that No LGBT Advocacy Groups were consulted in the process of question selection in this DADT Survey and he assures the public and the servicemen and women participating in the survey (400,000 to be exact) that any perceived biases in the survey were only due diligence "to help the military determine what adjustments might be necessary 'when DADT is repealed.'"  But before the surveys to the 400,000 participants have been returned, Morell and the Pentagon have already suggested the segregation of troops "in order to preserve the privacy and modesty of heterosexual service members in group showers and barracks."  So it seems this survey already "skewed" to a foregone conclusion regarding troop segregation based solely on the nature of the questions themselves.

Why does KnowThyNeighbor want the names of the individuals involved with and responsible for the DADT Survey Creation?  To run these names against party affiliation databases, campaign contribution databases, public affiliations, known religious affiliations, associations and connections, etc.  Too many brave men and women serving this country have been kept silent far too long, being told that you can die for this country but don't you dare tell anyone who you love.  And now they are being dragged through this disgusting process, further demeaned by the nature of the questions of this "survey"  and treated once again as sub-human, morally corrupt animals.  Well, it is time to know who is responsible.

Tom Lang, Director of KnowThyNeighbor

Washington State OpEds support Signature Disclosure but have yet to explore the morality of voting on minority rights

There have been a spate of opinion pieces here and here supporting Washington State's open government laws and highlighting Representative Reuven Carlyle's recently filed bill (HB 2418) clarifying that petition signatures are part of the public record and must remain so.

Another recent online opinion piece also supported Government Open Records but took pains to distance themselves from what they see as potential "harassment" while ignoring the documented and pervasive harassment of same-sex couples and their families by organizations like Protect Marriage Washington. Comments at this online news source are restricted to 500 characters, so here is a response to this piece:

The drive to get Referendum 71 onto the ballot and overturn the most recent Domestic Partnership Rights expansion bill had only one practical outcome.  

It was designed to hurt same-sex couples and their children (18% of same-sex couples in Washington are raising children under 18 years of age) by continuing discrimination that injures families and stripping away equal rights granted by the legislature.  

The people of Washington State have a right to know who, acting as citizen legislators, is proposing legislation in our state that hurts families - and most especially legislation that discriminates against a minority. Washingtonians have had that right for many years and have exercised it several times with no ill effects or, indeed, much notice by the general public at all.

So how did we get here?  

• In January 2006, after 29 long years of effort the legislature finally passed the most basic of civil rights protections for gays and lesbians, the Anderson Murray Civil Rights Bill (ESSHB 5688), which added "sexual orientation" to existing legislation that protects other minorities from employment, housing and financial discrimination.
• In February 2006, Tim Eyman filed Referendum 65 to overturn the anti-discrimination bill with the stated goal of prohibiting the state government from requiring any school, church, employer, or other public or private entity to impose quotas, set-asides or other preferential treatment to any individual or group based on sexual orientation and sexual preference.  The justification for the referendum was that "The people do not support preferential treatment because the people do not want it to be used as a basis for requiring the legalization of same-sex marriage".
• In the 2007 legislative session, two bills were introduced (HB 2277 & HB 2255) into the Washington State legislature by Republican Representatives Chandler, Armstrong and Kretz, which would have made petition signatures secret by removing them from the public record.  If bills like this were to pass the legislature it would allow a majority of Washington voters to advocate against minorities in secret with no transparency to prevent abuse of the initiative and referendum process. A frightenting and sobering possibility for a minority whose rights are routinely put to the vote in the wake of signature petition campaigns.
• Finally, in 2009 the Domestic Partnership expansion bill passed and Referendum 71 was duly filed to overturn the law granting couples in Domestic Partnerships, both gay and straight, the same state level rights and responsibilities that married couples enjoy.  Once again, the broad justification for repealing the bill was to prevent the "legalization of same-sex marriage", an issue not covered by a simple expansion to the already existing domestic partnership scheme.

WhoSigned.org could have simply waited until after the referendum signatures had been submitted to request the names and announce that we would make the records made public and released by the Secretary of State accessible to the public. Then the discussion would have been about voters being "ambushed" because they didn't know that their petition signature was a matter of public record.  Realistically, anti-gay groups would still have performed all the same legal maneuvers they've subsequently used here and in other states across the nation to hide their actions from the public and preventing disclosure. 

In being open and announcing before signature gathering commenced, we were able to fulfill our goal to bring awareness of the public nature of petition signature records and the responsibility we all bear when signing them, and help drive unprecedented scrutiny of the signature verification and certification process for this hurtful and blatantly discriminatory referendum.  

It's gratifying to know we are in complete accord on the value of reasoned and respectful debate as well as transparency. Intimidation and discrimination diminish us all, but most particularly when it comes wrapped in a referendum attacking the lives and families of people we love.  

There is, however, an element of the discussion that Opinion pages like yours could spend more time and (virtual) ink on…

Voting on the rights of a minority is wrong.  If a bill institutionalizing discrimination or restricting rights were to be proposed for any other ethnic, national or religious group the public would be rightly outraged and it would be quickly found to be unconstitutional.  

Why is it not just acceptable, but expected that people get to vote on our rights?  The public is now so in the habit of voting on what rights gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are allowed, that no one pauses to think about how immoral, how corrupting, and how fundamentally un-American it is to vote on any minorities rights.

Considering the future of our petition and initiative process as a tool for change, we need to think carefully about the kinds of issues and legislation it is best equipped to address.  There is much to be learned from other jurisdictions like Washington D.C. where civil rights laws limit the ability of the majority to vote on restricting the rights of a minority.  

We all know that one day there will be another initiative or referendum petition trying to roll back existing protections or, even further in the future, a newly passed marriage equality bill.

When that happens let’s hope that rather than focusing on shallow perceptions of the tactics or motives of either side, the Opinion pages instead focus on the morality of voting on minority rights and on what justice or injustice the public allows to be done to minority families in their name. 

- Brian Murphy, Director - WhoSigned.org

Colbert highlights Protect Marriage Washington's "Hate that Dare Not Speak It's Name".

In a hilarious piece earlier this week The Colbert Report trained a national spotlight on Protect Marriage Washington's campaign to strip away domestic partnership rights and keep the names of petition signers secret.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

While we puzzle out "Gay Duck Marriage" and exactly what your "Sexual Orientation Orientation" might be, let's talk to everyone we know in Washington State and ask them to vote APPROVE on Referendum 71.

By Brian Murphy (WhoSigned.org) 

Focus on the Family Getting Out of "Ex-Gay" Business

Pulbished in OnTopMag.com:

 

Amid declining revenues, Focus on the Family is getting out of the “ex-gay” business.

The AP reported the socially conservative group was facing a “serious budget shortfall.”

In a letter to donors, Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus, explained that the group is about $6 million in the red for the year.

Focus' Love Won Out conferences will be acquired by Exodus International, whose motto is “freedom from homosexuality though the power Jesus Christ.” Focus said it will continue to support the workshop financially.

“There is no one better equipped to take over the operation of Love Won Out than Alan [Chambers] and his team,” Melissa Fryrear, gender and sexuality department director for Focus, said in a statement. “They have been with us since the beginning. They have stood alongside us in sharing the hope that, with Christ, transformation is possible for those unhappy with same-sex attractions. And we will stand alongside them as they continue to share that message as the organizer of Love Won Out.”

The group announced last February that its founder, James Dobson, and his wife, Shirley Dobson, were relinquishing control of the Colorado-based ministry. Dobson, known for his fiery anti-gay rhetoric, continues to host the group's radio broadcast and speak on behalf of the organization.

“Everyone knows these are challenging times for organizations and individuals all across the globe,” Focus Vice President Gary Schneeberger said in a statement. “It is not an inexpensive undertaking to put on a Love Won Out event; and contrary to what our detractors say, the conferences rarely have recouped the financial investment made in them. That is a cost we have always paid because of the positive impact the events have had.”

The announcement comes on the heels of a new American Psychological Association (APA) report that says reparative therapy – the controversial gay-to-straight treatment promoted by Love Won Out and Exodus International – does not work and may be psychologically harmful.

At the heart of the therapy is the notion that being gay is a choice, and sexuality can be returned to its “normal” state, mostly through religious means.

The APA also overwhelmingly (97%) approved a resolution that repudiates the therapy.

Wayne Besen, who founded Truth Wins Out to fight the “ex-gay” movement, called the news a “positive development.”

“There is a shrinking market for their product,” Besen told The Denver Post. “This is a very positive development, because it shows Focus on the Family wants to get out of the ex-gay business – though not completely. But if this were something they were really vested in, they would have kept it in-house.”

“Exodus is thrilled with this opportunity as the Love Won Out conference is a natural fit in our ongoing efforts to share the hope we've found,” said Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, in a statement.

Focus on the Family said a November 7 conference in Birmingham, Alabama would be its last.

 

This news comes only days after the American Psychiatric Association declared homosexuality a normal variation of sexuality:

 

Associated Press- The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

In a resolution adopted by the APA's governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of "reparative therapy" — a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain gays can change.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-4 vote. The APA said some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

Instead of seeking such change, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the 150,000-member association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.

The report breaks new ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality.

The article goes even further adding:

The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.

WA Ref. 71 won't make ballot if Invalid Signature trend continues

The numbers from last nights signature verification are in with 29940 signatures examined so far, a little over 21.74% of the 137,689 submitted signatures have been checked.  There are now 4,057 invalid signatures, with 113 duplicates, which gives an overall invalid signature rate of 13.55%.  Referendum 71 petitioners need their overall invalid signature rate to be at 12.428% or lower for the referendum to be on the ballot.

State Senator Ed Murray has been looking carefully at the numbers and sees reason to be hopeful.  He also points out that the way some numbers were being reported were confusing and made it seem like petitioners might be on track for the ballot.  He correctly points out that the current trend in invalid signatures shows petitioners failing in their bid to put the rights of loving couples and families to a vote this November.

In statistics, confidence levels or intervals tell us how sure we can be of a particular outcome. Now if elections workers had sampled completely randomly rather than working their way through the signatures methodically then confidence intervals would be accurate.  If we apply them to the current data and ignore duplicates entirely it gives about a 1 in 200 chance that Referendum 71 will be on the ballot (a confidence level of between 99% and 99.9%).  If the invalid signature rate of the last few days remains constant, then the odds of the referendum being on the ballot will decrease even further.  As at 7:00am this morning, the numbers are:

Total Submitted:       137,689
Total Checked: 29,940
Total Invalid: 4,075
Total Duplicates:       113
Total Invalid %: 13.5504342%

Brian Murphy
Director
WhoSigned.org

WA Referendum 71 Petitioners join emerging national movement to suppress Public Records and Disclosure

WhoSigned.org plans to make Referendum 71 public records accessible to the people of Washington State.  How the people of this state use these public records is, as with everything, their decision and unlike Referendum 71 petitioners we have faith in the people's judgment and desire for civil and lawful discussion on our families urgent need for equal treatment under the law.

It's important for everyone to recognize that the court action to prevent the Secretary of State from releasing any public records on Referendum 71 isn't an isolated event.  Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, the law firm behind the court action temporarily preventing us getting access to the records, is the same firm behind the challenge to public disclosure of donors in California in the wake of Proposition 8.  What we're seeing is an emerging national strategy of the aggressors painting themselves as victims and making public records secret to protect those who fund and advocate for our families continued second class status and treatment.

In past civil rights struggles is was white cloth and stitching that hid the identities of the intolerant from public view.  In this generation's civil rights struggles it's shaping up to be a cloth of faux victim-hood stitched tight with threads of legally imposed secrecy and misinformation.

In Washington State there is nothing a voter can do to remove their signature from a petition once it's submitted.  Paid Signature gatherers are not registered, how they are paid is not regulated, and per signature payment is well recognized as an incitement to fraud in other ballot initiative states.  No wonder the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center gives Washington State a failing "F" grade in their July 2009 report card. 

We hope to give voters who were misled a way to correct the record and discover the extent of signature fraud.  When it may come down to just a handful of signatures placing Referendum 71 on the ballot, understanding what part fraud and paid signature gatherers might have played is essential in ensuring the integrity of the ballot initiative and referendum process. 

We call on the Secretary of State to vigorously defend our public disclosure laws making public records for Referendum 71 available to all who request them, and to restore public faith in open government in Washington State.