POLL: Huge Majority Supports LGBT Workplace Equality

A new poll commissioned by Human Rights Campaign confirms that the vast majority of Americans believes that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should be illegal.

The poll found a vast majority (77 percent) of voters support protecting LGBT people from discrimination in employment.  The support for employment protections defies conventional political wisdom, reaching across party and ideological lines.  Seventy percent of self-identified Republicans and 67 percent of conservatives support anti-discrimination laws.  Support is strong even among groups who tend to be less supportive of LGBT issues, such as seniors (69 percent among voters over age 65), those with a high school degree or less (68 percent), observant Christians (77 percent), born-again Christians (74 percent), and residents of the Deep South (72 percent). 

In a finding showing a need for more public outreach and education for employment non-discrimination laws, most voters believe anti-discrimination laws already exist.  Eighty-seven percent of voters believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay and 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.  Even in states without anti-discrimination laws, 75 percent of voters think it is illegal under state law to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. 

Of course there is pending federal legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would actually make the law comport with what most people believe the law is already: illegal to fire workers because they are LGBT.

But it is absolutely unlikely to pass Congress while the Republicans control the majority of the U.S. House.

SCOTUS Aiming To Be Factor In 2012 Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced some decisions recently which indicate that they will be a major factor in the 2012 presidential election. They announced they would decide three politically fraught cases: the constitutionality of the health care reform law, the constitutionality of Texas's congressional redistricting map and the constitutionality of Arizona's wildly xenophobic immigration law SB-1070.

Cal Sup Ct Rules 7-0 Initiative Proponents Have Standing

The long-awaited decision by the California Supreme Court on the question of whether initiative proponents have the right to defend their measures in court when elected officials like the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend them was released today.

The Court ruled unanimously that initiative proponents do have standing under state law to defend their ballot initiatives.

As usual, Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly has the best analysis:

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was very clear about its answer: 

[W]e respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so. 

The decision came about resulting from a request by the Ninth Circuit in the ongoing challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The case, in which the trial court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in August 2010, is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit appeals court sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question. The California Supreme Court accepted the invitation to answer the certified question and heard oral arguments on the question on Sept. 6.

As the California Supreme Court found the proponents to have a "particularized interest" and "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit now is likely to find that the proponents do have standing under federal law to bring the appeal -- although the court need not do so. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

It's unfortunate that the Court opened up the can of worms to allow all initiative proponents to defend their statutes under state law. Considering how many ballot measures we have in California, this is an incredibly important decision.

That being said, it is very exciting that now we basically must get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Brown case which will give us a federal appellate court level ruling on the question of marriage equality.

Gov. Brown Signs Two Bills Outlining Transgender Protections

The legislative session in California has come to a close and Governor Brown is busy signing or vetoing bills that made it through the Democratically controlled legislature.

Two bills that are of great interest to the LGBT community are Assembly Bill 433 and Assembly Bill 887.

The Transgender Law Center trumpeted the enactment of the bills into law (and explained what they do):

These laws have been years in the making.  Through our statewide survey of almost 650 transgender Californians, the 1,200 calls that our legal team receives annually and our conversations with you at events around the state, we discovered two problems that continued to resurface: We found that California's nondiscrimination laws were often not accessible to those who needed them the most. Employers, health care providers, housing authorities - even transgender and gender non-conforming people - were unaware that it is illegal to discriminate against transgender Californians. Our legal rights were hidden within the definition of "gender", leaving many people in the dark about their rights, and many institutions out of compliance responsibilities. This had an especially severe impact on low-income and trans communities of color who tend to face employment discrimination at higher frequencies within transgender communities.   We heard from many transgender people who were unable to change their birth certificates and other identity documents due to financial and medical barriers. Onerous and outdated standards for court-ordered gender changes created unfair and damaging barriers that disproportionately impacted trans people of color, immigrant trans people, low-income trans people and others who could not overcome the many hurdles to securing basic identity documents. These are identity documents we all need to work, travel, and be our authentic selves. With the help of your input and our partners at Equality California and GSA Network, we came up with two legislative solutions to these problems. The Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) takes existing protections based on gender and spells out "gender identity and expression" as their own protected categories in our nondiscrimination laws. By making these protections explicit, people will more clearly understand California's nondiscrimination laws, which should increase the likelihood that employers, schools, housing authorities, and other institutions will work to prevent discrimination and/or respond more quickly at the first indications of discrimination. The Vital Statistics Modernization Act (AB 433) will alleviate the confusion, anxiety and even danger that transgender people face when we have identity documents that do not reflect who we are. The bill will streamline current law and clarify that eligible petitioners living or born in California can submit gender change petitions in the State of California. The Vital Statistics Modernization Act conforms California's standards to the standards set by the United States Department of State for gender changes on passports, and it makes common-sense changes to the law that ensure the process is simple for qualified petitioners to navigate.

It should be noted that California law already prohibited discrimination against transgender individuals but because the words "gender identity" or "gender expression" did not appear in the most common places in the California code lawyers would look these anti-discrimination protections were not well publicized or well-understood.

The new laws make it explicitly clear that California's non-discrimination laws also cover transgender residents.

Prosecutor Decides To Retry Brandon McInerney (As An Adult)

Lawrence King (left) and the person who shot him to death, Brandon McInerney 

Well, this is interesting news. Last month a mistrial was declared in the first trial of Brandon McInerney for the murder of Lawrence King. MadProfessah was ashamed at the result and implored prosecutors to retry McInerney for the point blank shooting of his middle school classmate in February 2008.

Today comes word that prosecutors will again try McInerney as an adult for the crime, but will drop the hate crime charge, basically making the wrong choice TWICE. Many LGBT activists like myself insist that the murder was a hate crime, because it is clear that McInerney targeted King for death because of his gender identity. However, since both boys were under 18 years old (McInerney had barely turned 14 at the time of the crime) there are also many LGBT activists who disagree with the decision to try him as an adult.

The San Jose Mercury News reports:

Prosecutors on Wednesday announced their intention to pursue a murder charge in adult court against 17-year-old Brandon McInerney. However, a hate crime charge will be dropped, Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox said.

Last month, a judge declared a mistrial after a nine-woman, three-man panel couldn't reach a unanimous decision on the degree of McInerney's guilt for killing 15-year-old Larry King. After a series of votes, seven jurors were in favor of a voluntary manslaughter conviction, while five others supported either first-degree or second-degree murder.

Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell set a Nov. 21 trial date, according to Fox, but it's unclear if it will be held in Ventura County. The first trial was moved to Los Angeles County due to pretrial publicity.

McInerney was 14 in February 2008, when he is accused of killing King at E.O. Green Junior High School during a computer lab class.

Prosecutors contend McInerney embraced a white supremacist philosophy that sees homosexuality as an abomination. Police found Nazi-inspired drawings and artifacts at his house, and a white supremacist expert testified at trial the hate-filled ideology was the reason for the killing.

Authorities maintained the shooting was premeditated and deserving of a murder conviction. During the trial, Fox noted at least six people heard McInerney make threats against King in the days leading to the shooting.

Defense attorneys acknowledged that McInerney was the shooter but explained that he had reached an emotional breaking point after King made repeated, unwanted sexual advances. They also have argued that juvenile court would be the best venue to try their client.

The reactions from the LGBT community to this news will not be good.

WATCH: Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Sup Ct

There is also excellent analysis of yesterday's California Supreme Court oral arguments (featuring newly minted Justice Goodwin Liu) available at TowleRoad.

Jury Deliberating Anti-Gay Hate Crime Verdict

The trial of Brandon McInerney for the point-blank shooting (twice!) of fellow teenager Lawrence King has now reached the jury deliberation stage.

Towleroad posts the AP report:

"Jurors began their discussions on Friday to determine whether 17-year-old Brandon McInerney is guilty of first-degree murder in the slaying of 15-year-old Larry King at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard. The panel is expected to deliberate for only a couple of hours because a juror has a prior commitment...McInerney has pleaded not guilty to one count each of murder and a hate crime. If convicted, he faces more than 50 years in prison. Jurors also can consider a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum 21-year term."

MadProfesssah has been following the story of this case very carefully, from the reports of the shooting, to the debate over whether the death penalty should be a factor and jury selection and now the trial itself.

More Analysis Of Zombie Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws

Sodomy laws, or state statutes which criminalized sexual contact between people of the same sex were some of the most pernicious aspects of anti-LGBT discriminatory practices that negatively impacted the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

The 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas basically ended the era of legal gay apartheid but there are 18 states which, today, 8 years later, still have sodomy laws on their books.

MadProfessah noted that Mother Jones discussed this curiosity last April and now Equality Matters and other LGBT media outlets are starting to take notice.

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

New York Assembly Passes Marriage Equality 80-63

Openly gay Assemblymember Daniel O'Donnell

For the fourth time since 2007, a marriage equality bill has passed the lower house of the New York State legislature, this time with a vote of 80-63 on Wednesday.

Gay City News reports:

This was the Assembly’s fourth vote on marriage equality, each one of them successful, since 2007. Upper West Side Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, an out gay Democrat, is the lead sponsor.

On the heels of two Republican senators pledging their “yes” votes in recent days, the majority in that chamber met behind closed doors for more than four hours on Wednesday morning, only to announce they would pick up the discussion again the following day. Senators who have yet to firmly commit to one side or another refused comment or stuck to their noncommittal positions.

The public count of Senate supporters stands at 31, one vote shy of a majority.

The Assembly floor debate offered a preview into the rhetoric that might soon be echoed in the Senate, as members voting yes made passionate speeches supporting equality and a largely tepid opposition raised concerns about infringement on religious values and the dangers of “redefining marriage.”


[...]


Supporters lined up to dismiss the standard opposition claim that marriage is a timeless institution that would be irreparably harmed by the governor’s legislation.

“It’s actually not true,” said Manhattan Assemblyman Dick Gottfried, who was the originating sponsor of marriage equality legislation, handing off that role to O’Donnell in 2007. “If we were to look honestly at what the institution of marriage was as little as a hundred years ago, we would be looking at an institution we scarcely recognize.”

Like several of his colleagues, Gottfried pointed out that the history of marriage included treating women as property and not allowing mixed-race marriages.

“It was all about property, it was all about hierarchy,” he said. “It was not at all about love.”

Hopefully the fourth time is the charm!

TN Groups File Lawsuit Against Anti-Gay Law

Excellent news! A coalition of LGBT Tennesseans have joined together to file a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted anti-gay law passed by the state Legislature which would repeal all existing local LGBT civil rights ordinances and prohibit the establishment of any ordinances which protect groups which are not currently protected in state law.

From the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tennesseans Challenge Discriminatory State Law
Councilmembers, Residents, Organizations File Suit Calling HB600 Unconstitutional

(Nashville, TN, June 13, 2011)—A group of local elected officials, individuals, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights organizations filed a lawsuit today in Davidson County Chancery Court, challenging the state’s recent passage of House Bill 600, which prohibits local municipalities and counties, including local school districts, from enacting local laws or school policies that protect gay and transgender people against discrimination. The bill was passed earlier this year, just weeks after Nashville added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing local anti-discrimination law.  The new law also prohibits localities from protecting any other group that is not already protected under state law, which would include veterans and people with disabilities, among others.  

According to the complaint filed today: “HB600 embodies an animus toward gay and transgender people so strong that the Tennessee legislature was willing to repeal policies protecting students against bullying and harassment and to make other groups suffer as well, merely to prevent gay and transgender citizens from obtaining needed protections.”   

“This law is contrary to core Tennessee values,” said Abby R. Rubenfeld, the suit’s lead attorney. “Tennessee is the volunteer state—we help each other, we don’t single out certain Tennesseans who are deemed unworthy of help. Our legislators abused their power by preventing localities from assisting their own citizens. Rather than considering what is best for our state, they passed a law based on disapproval of gay and transgender people, which the Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions do not permit.”    

“Fifteen years ago, in fact—in a case quite similar to this one—the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, ‘if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest’,” said Rubenfeld, citing Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred localities or the state from passing laws to prohibit discrimination against gay people.

The suit’s plaintiffs, represented by Nashville attorney Rubenfeld, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, include:

•    Lisa Howe, the extremely successful Belmont University soccer coach who made a “mutual decision” to leave her coaching position unexpectedly and despite a highly successful career, immediately after sharing with her team that she and her same-sex partner were having a baby.

•    Metro Councilmembers Erik Cole, Erica Gilmore, and Mike Jameson, representing District 7, District 19, and District 6, respectively. Councilmembers Gilmore and Jameson were co-sponsors of BL2011-838, the Metro ordinance which extended existing anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees of Metro government contractors.

•    Shirit Pankowsky, a rising senior at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School (MLK) and founder and president of MLK’s Gay/Straight Alliance. By stripping Metro’s ability to protect its citizens from discrimination, HB600 also strips protections from Metro Nashville Public Schools’ LGBT students who face discrimination.

•    Dr. Marisa Richmond, president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and longtime advocate for gay and transgender equality at the federal, state and local level.

•    Wesley Roberts, a teacher at Hume-Fogg Academic Magnet School and a co-sponsor of the school’s Gay/Straight Alliance.

•    The Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and sustaining the equality of gay and transgender Tennesseans.

•    The Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, a statewide organization which advocates for transgender-related legislation at the federal, state and local levels.

“I want my daughter to grow up in a state that treats everyone equally,” said Lisa Howe. “This lawsuit is necessary because the legislation is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the majority of the legislature didn’t read the bill carefully and think through its consequences. But that’s why we have the Constitution and the courts to interpret it—so that the rights of everyone can be protected.”

“The state legislation was disguised as an effort to ensure consistent business regulations across Tennessee counties. But that was a Trojan horse pretext for getting this passed. Every county has unique zoning regulations, unique employment regulations, and so forth. Why is it only now, and only on the issue of discrimination, that we suddenly need uniformity? If every county now needs to be identical, should we abolish city councils across the state?” said Metro Councilmember and suit plaintiff Mike Jameson.
 
No individual businesses went on record in support of HB600, and some of Tennessee’s largest employers, including Nissan, Alcoa, FedEx, AT&T, Whirlpool and Comcast, opposed the bill. In addition, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce issued a public statement in opposition to the bill on the day it was signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam.

“Under the very thin guise of protecting businesses and commerce, Tennessee passed a law specifically intended to encourage discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the community,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This law is part of a larger, national strategy to attack cities and counties that attempt to protect their citizens from discrimination based on characteristics that bear no relationship to job performance, talent, or one’s ability to contribute to society.”

Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The lawsuit, which will proceed in state court, seeks injunctive relief to stop the enforcement of HB600 and an order from the Court declaring the law unconstitutional.  

Media Contacts:

Erik Olvera
NCLR Communications Director 
Office: 415.392.6257 x324
Mobile: 415.994.3242
EOlvera@NCLRights.org

Abby R. Rubenfeld 
Rubenfeld Law Office 
Office: 615.386.9077 
ARubenfeld@RubenfeldLaw.com

GRENADA: Man, 41, Charged Under Sodomy Law

Since I was born on the island of Grenada in the Eastern Caribbean I'm always attentive when the island-nation appears in the news. According to the AP, a 41-year-old man has been arrested and charged with sodomy for having consensual sex with a 17-year-old man.

The age of sexual consent in Grenada is 16 but while the sex in question was consensual, local law prohibits sodomy under the charge of "unnatural connection."

Grenada is one of several Caribbean nations that has laws banning sex between men. The penalty in most islands, including Grenada, is up to 10 years in prison, although Barbados and Guyana have life imprisonment, according to a 2010 United Nations report.

Many islands remain socially conservative, with Jamaica considered one of the most hostile islands toward homosexuals. A gay right activist was killed there last year, and three gay men were attacked and beaten in St. Lucia in March. Gay cruises to the region also continue to draw protesters.

In Grenada, gays are discriminated against and find it hard to find employment and housing, said Nigel Mathlin, president of GrenCHAP, a local nonprofit organization that represents marginalized groups.

"The government, they are very much aware of the changes that need to be made, of bringing our laws into line with international human rights principles," Mathlin said.

I'll be following this case relatively closely. I really don't see how the Caribbean nations of Barbados, Trinidad, Grenada and Jamaica can expect to have a vibrant tourism industry while still maintaining anti-gay sodomy laws and an unwelcoming, discriminatory atmosphere.

It's good to see that there is some organized resistance and challenge to explicit homophobia on the island of Grenada in the form of GrenCHAP and Nigel Mathlin.