Equality news round-up: new campaign highlights military servicemembers in same-sex marriages, and more

By Scottie Thomaston

- Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has teamed up with Freedom to Marry for a campaign that will highlight the effects of the Defense of Marriage Act on military servicemembers. The campaign is called ‘Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Serve.”

- Manny Pacquiao, a world-famous boxer, is recently reported as saying gay people should be put to death and he opposes President Obama’s marriage equality position. The National Organization for Marriage highlighted his views on the president’s statement approvingly.

- Via press release, an FDA committee has recommended the approval of a rapid, in-home HIV test:

FDA Committee Recommends First Ever Rapid In-Home HIV Test

Could Significantly Increase Proportion of Americans Aware of HIV Status, Reduce Transmission

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Blood Products Advisory Committee recommended approval of the first ever in-home rapid HIV test. The product – the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test – is manufactured by OraSure Technologies, Inc. and is the same device as the OraQuick Rapid Test, which is already approved for use in a broad range of health care settings and is the standard of care at most testing sites around the country. Its accuracy, ease, and efficiency have been repeatedly demonstrated in national studies.

“Approximately 50,000 individuals in the U.S. are newly infected with HIV each year,” said National Minority AIDS Council Director of Legislative and Public Affairs Kali Lindsey. “Even more alarming is the fact that one in five people living with HIV in America do not know it. The OraQuick In-Home HIV Test would provide an important tool to supplement current HIV screening efforts by providing an accessible, relatively inexpensive device that can be used in the privacy of one’s own home. This is especially important for minority communities, where HIV stigma often prevents individuals from utilizing traditional testing services.”

Recently, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined the extent to which current policies and practices present barriers to HIV testing. It concluded that minority populations are not only infected at a higher rate than their White counterparts, they shoulder a considerably higher percentage of undiagnosed HIV/AIDS cases. While the percentage of unrecognized HIV infection among Whites is 18.8, that number is 29.5 among Asians and Pacific Islanders, 25.8 among Americans Indians and Alaskan Natives, 22.2 among Blacks and African-Americans, and 21.6 in Latinos.

“Individuals with unrecognized HIV infection are more likely to unknowingly transmit the virus to others,” continued Lindsey. “In fact, they are as much as three and a half times more likely to transmit the virus than those who know their status, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. Research shows that most individuals take steps to reduce the risk of transmitting the virus following an HIV diagnosis. Expanded access to testing, including through accurate in-home screening, is an essential tool in slowing the spread of HIV. At the same time, we must ensure that those who do test positive can easily access care and support services, much like those included in the OraQuick testing package.”

“NMAC believes the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test would provide a critical expansion of current prevention efforts, particularly among minority populations isolated by the persistent stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS,” concluded Lindsey. “We applaud the committee’s decision today and urge the FDA to approve its use.”

- Law professor Michael Dorf credits the right wing for the launching of the marriage equality movement.

- In a round-up yesterday I noted that the New York Times seemed to be blaming a transgender murder victim for the attack on them. GLAAD says they are doubling down.

- The gay son of a Colorado lawmaker who helped kill the civil unions bill is speaking out.

- Apparently Mitt Romney is on video saying in 2006 that the price of same sex marriage is paid by the children.

- Civil disobedience actions continue in North Carolina after its passage of Amendment 1.

- There was a bomb threat scare at the HRC and other LGBT rights organizations’ buildings yesterday.

- A Senate committee will vote on the Domestic Partnerships Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBOA), which would ensure same-sex partners of federal government workers receive some federal benefits. UPDATED: They voted.

5 Comments May 16, 2012

President Obama threatens veto of two GOP House bills over anti-gay provisions

By Scottie Thomaston

Mitt Romney and the Republican party seem to have nearly retreated entirely on the issue of LGBT rights and marriage equality. When you look at what the party was doing just a few short years ago in 2004-06, you see a party highlighting their homophobia and announcing it at campaign stops all across the country. Even President Bush was unafraid to call attention to his anti-gay positions and his support for opposite-sex-only marriage. Republicans didn’t think LGBT people deserved equal rights, nor did they even believe people who are LGBT should be able to fight and die for our country if they choose, unless they stayed in the closet. This strategy was pushed particularly hard in Ohio but its effects reverberated all over. Of course, studies would later show that anti-gay campaigns and ballot initiatives have long-term effects on mental health and family stability. And they incite violence against those of us who are the most vulnerable. The party would become so homophobic during those years that when President Bush himself suggested that gays and lesbians deserve to have access to civil unions, it led to much disagreement within the party.

Now, the GOP has become silent over the issue and even its leaders like Speaker John Boehner are facing constant criticism for not speaking to issues that seem to be important amongst a certain set of conservatives. Rick Santorum recently even suggested that the party should re-fight gay rights issues once more to rally the base. And Mitt Romney had an opportunity to do that recently – he gave a speech at Liberty University – and didn’t take it. He mentioned marriage one time, saying it is “a relationship between a man and a woman.” And even on the rare occasions he addresses it, he suggests that people have different views that should be respected.

There is only one way in which the GOP has expressed its anti-gay sentiments: through passage of House bills with added homophobic language, or with language stripping provisions in favor of gay and lesbian families. Recently this happened with two bills: the House put forward a version of the Violence Against Women Act that stripped provisions that would protect gays and lesbians from domestic violence. There are LGBT victims of domestic violence as well, and there is no good reason to exclude them from receiving help and protection when they need it most. It’s nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize the relationships and families of people Republicans don’t like. The White House’s veto threat states, in part:

The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. No sexual assault or domestic violence victim should be beaten, hurt, or killed because they could not access needed support, assistance, and protection. In addition, H.R. 4970 does not include important improvements to the Clery Act found in the Senate-passed bill that would address the high rates of dating violence and sexual assault experienced by young people in college and other higher education institutions. The bill also weakens critical new provisions in the Senate-passed bill that would improve safety for victims living in subsidized housing.

The House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act also has several anti-LGBT provisions. Think Progress says:

In its one Statement of Administration Policy, the White House outlined numerous reasons it opposes the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains a military “license to bully” provision and restricts same-sex marriages or similar ceremonies from being held on military bases.

After the president’s announcement that he supports marriage equality, I think some people, including myself, expected the president to make that statement and then pivot to other issues facing the American people. It has not turned out that way – he has done interviews reiterating his position, and he is now including “marriage equality” in some campaign speeches, reminding voters that it strengthens families. Republicans might have become quieter on these issues but it’s clear they are willing to work on passage of unnecessary and hateful anti-LGBT bills. Fighting back against this onslaught should be a priority. And calling them out for it is necessary.

8 Comments May 16, 2012

Equality case updates: McLaughlin, Sevcik Blesch

By Jacob Combs

H/t to Kathleen for posting these in Quick Hits

Yesterday saw a flurry of filings in three of the marriage equality cases currently wending their ways through the court system.  In the military DOMA case McLaughlin v. Panetta, the Department of Justice filed a response to BLAG’s motion to intervene essentially arguing that BLAG should not be allowed to intervene in the cases substantive due process arguments.  As the DOJ writes, because the Executive Branch is still actively enforcing DOMA, “there remains a live case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants.” In addition, the defendants in the case (which are representatives of the federal government) plan to continue filing in such a way that BLAG will be able to argue for the constitutionality of the law.  BLAG also filed an unopposed motion to submit a consolidated reply memorandum supporting their motion to intervene and an accompanying memo supporting their motion.

In the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, which filed by Lambda Legal in Nevada and seeks a right to marriage equality in that state, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the case.  The Coalition was one of the proponents behind the ballot initiative, Question 2, that put a marriage ban in the Nevada state constitution in 2002.  Because of that, the Coalition argues that it has a stake in the outcome of the case and should be allowed to intervene.  It will be interesting to see how the district court handles this application, which is similar in some ways to other applications for intervention made in the Prop 8 case in California.

Finally, in the DOMA case Blesch v. Holder, filed by Immigration Equality on behalf of several binational couples, BLAG has moved to intervene.  We’ll have links to those documents as they become available!

4 Comments May 16, 2012

Equality news round-up: NOM’s Brian Brown on President Obama’s marriage equality statement, and more

By Scottie Thomaston

- Brian Brown of the race-baiting National Organization for Marriage calls the vote in North Carolina “the end of Obama.” He predicts certain doom and things of that sort:

If Obama gets his way and DOMA is overturned, it’s only a matter of time before marriage is redefined for the entire country. Now he has signed up as an official cheerleader for that outcome.

As if that wasn’t enough, same-sex marriage radicals will descend on Charlotte and demand that the cause become a central plank of the Democratic Party platform. Nancy Pelosi is already enthusiastic about the prospect.

- Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer announced his support for marriage equality recently, following the president’s announcement of full support. It appears all the Democratic leaders are in support of marriage equality at this point.

- Democratic senate candidate in Nebraska (and former senator) Bob Kerrey also announced his support of marriage equality.

- Is marriage equality driving a wedge in the Republican party?

- Virginia’s General Assembly has rejected a qualified judge because he’s gay.

- Mitt Romney is intent on ignoring the issue of marriage equality.

- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently made a joke about the president and marriage equality, and many aren’t happy with his comments. Tony Perkins of known hate group Family Research Council said:

“I don’t think it’s a laughing matter. I don’t think this is something we should joke about,” Perkins said. “We are talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate. … It’s not something to poke fun at other people about. This is a very serious issue.”

To see some of Tony Perkins’ comments on gay people, see GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project.

- A big GOP donor gave the maximum amount to Mitt Romney, and now that the president has announced support for marriage equality and Romney has announced opposition to even civil unions and gay adoption, the donor is switching to Obama and is asking for his money back. More here.

- A GOP representative says firing someone because of their sexual orientation is fine.

- Do Republicans support ENDA or not?

13 Comments May 15, 2012

Democratic advisor predicts limited backlash for Obama over marriage equality

By Jacob Combs

Writing in The Week, Democratic advisor Robert Shrum, who worked on both the 2000 and 2004 presidential race as well as many senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns, takes a close look at the possible electoral effect of President Obama’s announcement in support of marriage equality last week.  Since Obama’s ABC interview with Robin Roberts, pundits have been quick to predict how the president’s move will either help or harm him, pointing to the passage of Amendment One in North Carolina and George W. Bush’s 2004 victory on the coattails of a marriage ban in Ohio as proof.

But as Shrum points out, the individual dynamics of the swing states that will be up for grabs in November show that any backlash against Obama that might come from anti-gay voters is likely to be minimal:

Not only do a majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, but 50 percent of Ohio Republicans favor it or civil unions.  And the Ohio outcome this time is likely to be shaped far less by Obama’s position on marriage equality and far more by Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout — which would have devastated the Buckeye State.

Iowa and Virginia are frequently cited — but it very likely won’t happen there. Obama has a 10-point lead in Iowa, where voters wouldn’t do again what they did in the tea-fouled year of 2010, removing three of the state’s Supreme Court justices who had joined a unanimous opinion striking down a ban on same-sex marriage. That decision still stands. And the old Virginia of Jerry Falwell is increasingly outweighed by the new Virginia that stretches from the Washington suburbs to Richmond.

Well, then, what about North Carolina, which just passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment? The implicit assumption is obvious, simple, and wrong. Here is the bottom line: In any swing state, voters for whom animus to marriage equality is the single, burning issue aren’t casting a ballot for Obama anyway. If you are so intent on discriminating against gay Americans that this issue alone determines your presidential choice then you are almost certainly uncomfortable with an African-American in the White House.

Shrum also points out the illogic in two other predictions of marriage equality fall-out: that Obama’s announcement will rile up the religious right and that it will lose him support amongst African-Americans.  While some have said that making marriage equality an issue will cause religious conservatives who are skeptical of Mitt Romney to rally behind the Republican nominee and break up the apathy they’ve been feeling (and showing) during the Republican primaries, it’s hard to imagine these conservative voters would have sat out the election rather than come out to the polls in favor of whatever alternative to Barack Obama they were presented with.

In terms of the African-American vote, Shrum predicts the opposite of the conventional punditry wisdom that socially conservative blacks may become less enthusiastic in their support of the president.  To the contrary, he argues that Obama’s leadership could persuade more of the African-American community to rethink its position on marriage equality, which could end up having an significant effect on marriage referendums in states like Maryland.

In the end, the electoral effects of last week’s announcement will probably be limited: marriage equality will not be a central issue on voters’ minds come November.  And in a way, that’s a real victory.  With any luck, once Democrats (and other politicians) see that supporting equal rights isn’t the electoral albatross that it may have seemed, they will be persuaded to campaign for those rights more aggressively, creating a kind of virtuous cycle that will speed up the progression of LGBT equality in our country.

UPDATE: Writing in The Daily Beast, Allison Samuels examines the possibility of the shift amongst black voters that Shrum lays out in his article.  Also, in a Pew Research Center poll released yesterday, 68% of black respondents said that Obama’s interview had no effect on their opinion of him, while 16% said it made them view him more positively and only 13% said it made them view him less positively.  Those numbers are even better than the overall numbers, and the numbers for white voters, demonstrating that marriage is unlikely to be a wedge issue between Obama and the African-American community this election.

10 Comments May 15, 2012

Previous page