I promise I will post about the Mayor's LGBT Advisory Council meeting. I can't promise to be particularly witty. I've been debriefed by no less than five people about this meeting, including someone from the Mayor's team, so I'm already a little over it.
However, I spent more than 12 months pushing for this Council to take shape and do something so I promise to stick with it for the long haul.
Some good news from the PA Supreme Superior Court ...
In an opinion that at once awarded homosexual parents equal custody rights and criticized a Dauphin County Common Pleas judge for potential gender bias, the state Superior Court overturned a 25-year-old precedent.
The previous precedent, the court wrote in a 7-1 opinion, set a presumption "based upon unsupported preconceptions and prejudices -- including that the sexual orientation of a parent will have an adverse effect on the child."
"Such preconceptions and prejudices have no proper place in child custody cases, where the decision should be based exclusively upon a determination of the best interests of the child."
The PG does a thorough job with this story, explaining how the concept of custody rulings continues to evolve around the best interests of the child. The idea that one type of parent is automatically a better custodial parent because of their identity (mother, white, married, etc) is set aside.
I also like that the higher court slapped down the lower court judge for clear gender bias in his ruling.
In a written slap at Judge Kleinfelter, the court noted that during the hearing, he referred to the father in the case as "Sergeant," though he referred to the mother by only her first name, and not "Lieutenant."
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is dedicated to eradicating gender discrimination in our court system," Judge Christine Donahue wrote. " Given all of the hard work in the uphill battle against gender discrimination, we would be remiss if we did not remind the trial court that Mother and Father are entitled to equal deference to their respective ranks when being addressed by the trial court."
Ms. Misturak-Gingrich applauded the court for its rebuke.
"That kind of behavior was very obvious and offensive," she said. "We thought it was indicative of the judge's bias."
Yes. Every female lawyer who was ever forced to wear a skirt or dress in court is giving a high five right now.
My little quibble is that the Post-Gazette (and other Pgh media outlets) continue to use homosexual as a descriptor for the LGBTQ community. If any reporters read this blog, I'd point them to the GLAAD site on media stylebooks.
There's a perception among certain LGBTQ leaders that the media is not sensitive to our isses. I don't agree with that perception, especially with regard to the Post-Gazette. But I do, however, think this sort of dated language contributes to this perception. Homosexual is a clinical term. Use it when necessary, but it wasn't necessary in this article -- in fact, using the term reinforced the very perceptions underlying the original decision. Sort of a Post-Gazette lving in a glass house while casting stones at Dauphin County Common Pleas Court scenario?
Tonight, the Mayor's LGBT Advisory Committee will be holding its first meeting with representatives of the community. I will be live tweeting the meeting so you can be there, too!
The invitation asked us to bring along our top three concerns/issues related to the LGBT community in Pittsburgh. I have one very concrete, easy to address proposal (AND a solution that won't cost money). Do you have any suggestions? You can email or tweet me if you do.
GOP delegates unsuccessfully tried to force a floor vote on a bipartisan resolution (HJR5) called the "Marriage Protection Amendment." The proposal calls for a statewide referendum on whether to amend West Virginia's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
This week, Republicans launched a push to make the House vote on measures they say Democrats have allowed to die in the legislative process. They want to do that by "discharging" bills from committees, bringing them directly to the floor for a vote.
Except for Delegate Tom Louisos, D-Fayette, the House's Democratic majority on Tuesday voted to postpone consideration of the Republican motion to discharge the marriage amendment.
Later, the committee that controls the flow of bills decided to keep that motion off the House's agenda.
The issue has some life in the WV Senate, but this is definitely good news.
This was posted as a DailyKOS diary yesterday. Thoughtful people are not buying into the idea that we must capitulate on equality to run a viable candidate in the general election.
[T]here's also a need to be bold enough that if you win, you have a mandate to actually pass laws that address the problems the state faces (like the lack of civil rights for LGBT people). Some people think Onorato or Wagner strike the right balance, and I respect their opinion. On the other hand, I remember how electability worked out in Bush vs. Kerry in 2004. In hindsight, a clearer contrast like Howard Dean might have been a better choice to go up against Bush.
I'm not against Onorato, Wagner or Williams. I just think we can do better.
Let's ask the gay employees of Allegheny County if we can do better.
Republicans are jumping on board the social media wagon at a much faster rate than Democrats. I did add the PA House Democratic Campaign Committee and Dan Keller who is running for the House seat in the 20th district (against Chet/Adam Ravenstahl who has no actual presence except for an allegedly hefty war chest).
But this morning, I learned that US Congressional candidate Mary Beth Buchanan is tweeting. From her page, I found SIX GOP clubs that are using Twitter. Three updated within the past 24 hours, 2 within the past month and 1 last tweeted in June 2009. I also found another GOP State Senator and the Senate Republican Caucus.
The local GOP is actually conducting a full-scale social media training, including Twitter, for committee folks. They are embracing this technology. Democrats can't let Bill Peduto and Natalia Rudiak do all the heavy lifting. Complacency is not a good organizing tool.
Surely all those $3000 fees that ACDC will be collecting this go around can pay for a little training?
I caught this op/ed piece in Sunday's Forum section of the Post-Gazette a little later in the afternoon. I'm glad I held off writing about it because some interesting contextual information on DADT has since been released.
CMU graduate student Karen Mesko shared her painful journey as a member of the Reserves which she entered after realizing that being in the closet as a gay woman would be too difficult for full-time enlistment.
One part struck me. Because some of her coworkers at her civilian day job were also Reservists, she didn't even have the luxury of being out in her civilian life. That one factor created a permanent wedge, she writes.
I began working at a large, progressive corporation. To my surprise, two of my new colleagues were themselves in the National Guard and Reserves. "Don't ask, don't tell" had followed me all the way to my cubicle in a Fortune 50 company. I kept to myself, but in the course of the workday I inevitably had to lie about my friends, weekend plans and relationship.
This same distance separated me from my fellow officers and soldiers at drill weekend each month. I worked hard but rarely socialized. The careful distance I maintained prevented me from forging close friendships in my unit. If I did detract from unit cohesion, it wasn't because I'm gay, it was because I couldn't be openly gay.
One of the worst aspects of being closeted is not just feeling like less of a person, but becoming less of a person -- less open, less honest, less trusting.
This sounds like a horrible way to live and a succint explanation of how DADT has a negative impact on the troops it ostensibly exists to protect. Forcing people to lie to one another erodes the cohesion necessary for full effectiveness.
It also erodes the human beings living with this weight on their shoulders. We don't know if Mesko's work environment would have been welcoming to her identity as a lesbian, but the presence of other Reservists trumped whatever environment the corporate culture created. Other Reservists can be anywhere and I had never considered that prior to this article.
Kudos to Karen for sharing her story. I urge you to read in its entirety.
In related news, Servicemembers United announces that Senator Lieberman will introduce legislation to repeal DADT.
“I have been asked by both the White House and by advocacy groups within the gay rights community to be the lead sponsor, and I’m glad to do it,” Lieberman is quoted as saying.
Debate over the repeal process itself has been swirling for months (years?). Legislative action or Presidential decree? Time frames? It is incredibly complicated. I've been following the blog/national LGBT organization debate for months and I'm still confused.
SU's press release has this to say
To strengthen the prospects for the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and to reduce political risk, the President can still order the Pentagon to include “Set End-date / Delayed Implementation” repeal language in one of the legislative policy transmittals that will soon be sent to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees by the Department of Defense. These policy proposal packages serve as indications of White House and Pentagon support for policy changes to be included in the next National Defense Authorization Act.
Additionally, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee could insert Senator Lieberman’s new bill into the Chairman’s mark of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, which will soon be drafted. Such a move, especially in combination with the Presidential action through Pentagon policy transmittals, could turn out to be the path of least resistance for repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and could help shield vulnerable members of the President’s and the Chairman’s own party.
From what I gather, most folks agree to suspect implementation of the policy so no one else will be discharged and the establistment of termination date for the policy. Its just that no one wants to be the fall guy in the 2010 midterm elections.
Another related note. The New York Times runs a piece on research indicating the LGBTQ soldiers don't disrupt units as has been much ballyhooed by opponents of the repeal.
The 151-page study, which updates existing studies on gay service members in Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, offers the first broad look at the issue in foreign militaries since Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell” earlier this month.
The report concludes that in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass “comings out.” The report found that “there were no instances of increased harassment” as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.
In addition, the report says that none of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, and that benefits for gay partners were generally in accordance with a country’s existing benefits for gay and lesbian couples.
On implementation, the study said that most countries made the change swiftly, within a matter of months and with what it termed little disruption to the armed services. Mr. Frank said the study did not look at what happened if the change was implemented gradually because, he said, “I don’t think any of the militaries tried it.”
Rip the bandaid off quickly and be done with it. The US is going for a more delayed approach; I wonder if this data will have any impact?
Can we really afford to lost any more thoughtful, bright, articulate women like Karen Mesko before this is resolved?
A race is on for a local state House seat currently held by Mike Turzai (R) who voted in 2006 to amend the PA Constitution to "protect" marriage. Democrat Sharon Brown of McCandless is challenging him. Turzai is not supporting HB 300. The marriage equality bills and hate crimes legislation haven't been introduced in the House so our litmus test is a bit thin. Well, except for amending the Constitution. Whatever you think of that.
We'll keep you updated on Brown's campaign.
Speaking of HB 300, you can follow its progress here.
Maria of 2 Political Junkies reminds us that anti-choice can be very anti-woman, pointing out something I such much bandied about on Twitter yesterday - Utab is criminalizing miscarriage. It has been the case that causing someone else to have a miscarriage was a crime. Now Utah can begin monitoring women's behavior to determine potential fetus threats. A little too The Handmaid's Tale for my taste, eh? We are not incubators.
A burning question for me has always been "Who else in my family is gay?"
I'm an amateur geneaologist of sorts. I've been working on the family tree for about 10 years and have close to 1300 individuals listed. Mind you, a lot of these folks are sideways branches ... plus Ledcat's family and a few other really extended family members. I'm not particularly fussy about being source oriented. I began with family tradition, found some online census records and went to town from there. Sideways means I track the siblings of my direct ancestors. It can be very helpful to find parents who go to live with an adult child, especially after being widowed. It also gives me access to potential living cousins.
I've made some interesting discoveries along the way. I've bumped into all sorts of relatives. This morning, I had an email from a man who may be my second cousin via adoption. His great-aunt was adopted by her parents. She's also my great-aunt by birth. The real intrigue is that her adoptive parents are somehow related to her, but the exact relationship was lost to the ages because people "didn't talk about it" back then. So now we have a chance to maybe learn about it. Fascinating.
I also have intriguing mysteries around specific relatives. A great-grandmother who has no paper trail before she and her 3 siblings popped onto the radar in the 1920 Census. A family (Lescallette) who immigrated to the US under mysterious circumstances that none of the family geneaologists can figure out ... where did they come from and why?
Old census records are fascinating in and of themselves. The handwriting can have a big impact ... my great-grandmother is listed as Elisabeth, Elizabeth, Bette, Edna, and Elsa. A great-great-uncle was William F, William P and William J on three different documents. Pryor was Prior. You can imagine how Lescallette has been spelled!
But there are fascinating tidbits. Occupations, for example. Very early documents were sparse, but around 1890 onward the details about jobs are there ... the job title and the employer. Sure, most everyone worked for J&L as we are a big Southside family, but not everyone was a laborer ... bookkeepers, store clerks, office help. No one married into either the Jones or Laughlin family as far as I can tell. LOL.
Back to the gay question. Of course, the Census doesn't provide specific insight, but there are bachelors and spinsters who remain in their parents' households through 1930 (the last year the Census is available for free at ancestry.com). I can also find a few men still unmarried vis a vis their WWII Draft Cards. That's suggestive, but certainly not conclusive. Just like our "guesses" about my cousins continue to be guesses at best.
I get a bit envious when LGBTQ friends talk about their lesbian sisters or nieces or perhaps a gay cousin or two. I feel I'm missing out on that dual connection: family and "family" if you know what I mean. The closest comparison is probably how an only child feels when people talk about their siblings. There's just something about that shared experience which feels special ...
Speaking of counting families, it is Census time again. While the instrument is not perfect, it has been one of the single most important measurements of the presence of LGBTQ individuals and families in the US.
Our Families Count is a website dedicated to the visibility of the LGBTQ community in the 2010 Census.
Here's an important excerpt from the website:
Why should I care about the census?
The census creates an essential portrait of our nation every 10 years. These data are used to determine the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives and provides key population numbers for Congress and the administration to determine how federal dollars flow to the states and cities for health care, housing, and English as a second language classes. Census information is also used in the enforcement of an array of civil rights laws in employment, housing, voting, lending, education, and the availability of bilingual ballots and interpreters at poll sites. The census has a big impact on our political power and economic security.
Since 1990, when the census added the “unmarried partner” designation on its form, LGBT people in same-sex relationships have provided the first visible record of our partnerships in the history of our nation. These data have been very important in countering anti-gay lies, myths and misperceptions about the diverse LGBT community. For instance, the 2000 Census showed that same-sex couples live in nearly every county in the nation, and that black and Latino same-sex couples are raising children at nearly the rates of their heterosexual peers, while earning lower incomes. The average household income of Asian Pacific Island same-sex couples is more than $3,800 less than that of non-API same-sex couples and more than $8,800 less than that of different-sex API couples.
If I recollect properly, the 2000 Census showed that Pennsylvania was home to at least 25,000 same sex households and more than 250,000 heterosexual unmarried households. That's a very important distinction because most marriage equality backlash efforts impact those quarter million families, too. And while it is easy to say "at least they have the option of getting married" that may not always be the case. There are plenty of situations in which economic survival makes marriage a poor option.
Regardless, it is important that we be counted. Now the regular census form doesn't ask about sexual orientation or gender identity. The extended form sent to a subset of Americans does ask more specific questions. The Census has counted same sex partners since 1990, but this is the first year they will identify (and release) data on same sex spouses. So it collects data on families. There is advocacy underway to add the questions because it is important information to address federal level concerns, such as economic and health disparities.
Here's an interesting interview:
So perhaps some little Kerr descendant in the far off 21st century will learn that her great-great-great Aunt Sue lived with her same sex partner, Ledcat.
