Equality news round-up: ExxonMobil considering banning job discrimination against LGBTs, and more

By Scottie Thomaston

- The pastor in North Carolina who recently said gays should be put behind an electric fence until they die out apparently has a history of these types of comments: an audio recording of a 1978 sermon was uncovered in which he laments that gays aren’t being hung from trees anymore.

-Ten national polls have now said that a majority of Americans support marriage equality.

- A proposed anti-bullying bill in Illinois was defeated.

- Another same-sex binational couple is spared from deportation.

- CBS Sports notices a shift in attitudes on gay issues in sports.

- From Colorlines, “”

- Yesterday Bryan Fischer, the anti-gay leader of known hate group American Family Association, tweeted a racist comment about “the Obama Plantation”

- ExxonMobil will consider banning discrimination against LGBT people.

- There is a new DNC/Obama campaign LGBT outreach site. Geidner at Metro Weekly has more.

- NAACP has a long history of fighting for LGBT equality.

11 Comments May 23, 2012

Congressman introduces Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2012

By Scottie Thomaston

Jurors who are LGBT can be removed from trials simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law doesn’t prohibit juror discrimination on that basis, though the Supreme Court has ruled – in Batson v. Kentucky that jurors can’t be discriminated against on the basis of race. The Department of Justice had an opportunity to address the issue in 2011 after it decided that laws affecting gays and lesbians should be subject to heightened scrutiny, but it declined:

And as recently as last year, the U.S. Department of Justice told a panel of judges that it “takes no position” on whether the case law that prohibits attorneys from removing jurors based on race or sex should be extended to cover sexual orientation.

Now a congressman – Steve Rothman (D-New Jersey) is proposing a bill, the Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2012, to prevent jurors from being dismissed for being LGBT:

The Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2012 will prohibit potential jurors from being dismissed because they are part of the LGBT community.

“The fact that it is still lawful for lawyers to dismiss potential jurors solely on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and has to change,” said Rothman said in a statement.

“Until the 20th century, women in many states were barred from serving on juries and it was not until the 1980s that prosecutors were prohibited from systematically excluding African-Americans from juries. It is past time for America to take the next step against bigotry and inequality and pass the Juror Non-Discrimination Act.”

This is an important issue, in part because of the institutional bias that exists in the criminal legal system:

[I]n a great many cases, prosecutors tend to play on LGBT stereotypes in order to obtain a conviction. They have used the idea that being transgender is sneaky and deceitful to get a guilty verdict from jurors that might be swayed by homophobic language. They’ve even, in some cases, used homosexuality in family court to accuse the person suing for custody of being an alcoholic and sexually promiscuous, based on completely incorrect but long-held stereotypes.

LGBTs and gender non-conforming people are also often denied effective counsel. This happens on purpose in some instances, but in others, their lawyers are just ineffective. They are unaware of the lives of their LGBT clients and what’s an acceptable way to represent them and what is not. Another problem with lack of effective representation is the fact that many LGBTs are – despite the common stereotype – poor and unable to afford good lawyers who would do the research required for effectiveness.

Since stereotypes about LGBT people are often used to get convictions, and since in a lot of cases even defense attorneys aren’t adequately informed on LGBT issues, it’s even more important to at least allow a case to be heard by a jury of someone’s peers. At some point in the process of arrest and trial, the accused person should be able to have their defense heard by people willing to take it seriously instead of dismissing it based on long-held views about LGBT people.

Even when there’s direct evidence of discrimination nothing is done:

A 2003 civil case in Missouri hinged on a juror’s “alternative lifestyle.”

After Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation attempted to repossess a vehicle belonging to William and Jennifer Brooker, the Brookers filed a counterclaim saying that Nissan sold them a car that had previously been in an accident without disclosing that fact.

During jury selection, lawyers for Nissan struck a juror named Mitchem.

“Mr. Mitchem is different, that’s the best I can put it. I think he’s just someone who would not necessarily be defense minded,” the attorney for Nissan said. The attorney later added, “I have tended to find that people with alternative lifestyles are — or perceived alternative lifestyles — tend to be fairly liberal in their thinking.”

The Brookers, according to the appeals court, claimed that the removal of Mitchem “constitutes grounds for a new trial because he was impermissibly kept from the jury on the basis of ‘sexual orientation.’”

The court disagreed, writing that Nissan’s counsel “did not inquire into Mr. Mitchem’s sexual preference, he simply surmised, based on Mr. Mitchem’s appearance and demeanor, that he was potentially biased against corporate defendants.”

“Missouri has not declared that it is a Batson violation to use a peremptory challenge on the basis of perceived alternative lifestyle,” the court wrote. The court went on to note that Missouri has not adopted legislation protecting LBGT people from discrimination, adding: “If the Missouri legislature desired to protect this class in jury selection, as California has, it would have enacted such a statute. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has yet to include sexual orientation within the purview of Batson. … Thus, there is no reason for this Court to expand the boundaries of Batson at the present time.”

At least until the courts decide to include sexual orientation and gender identity in challenges against the removal of a juror, this law would be a necessary step toward justice.

2 Comments May 23, 2012

More Americans strongly support marriage equality than strongly oppose it, new poll finds

By Jacob Combs

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll released today marks a new milestone for public opinion on marriage equality: by a significant margin, more Americans are now strongly in support of marriage equality than strongly opposed to it.  Fifty-three percent of Americans support the freedom to marry, with 39 percent of respondents saying they strongly support it, and 32 percent saying they strongly oppose it.  These numbers are a significant shift from March, when strong support and strong opposition were at equal levels.  Strong opposition is now at its lowest point since 2004.

This increased support is likely due in part to increased exposure of LGBT individuals in society: the survey found that 71 percent of Americans personally know someone who is gay.  In addition, knowing someone who is gay makes people 20 points more likely to support marriage than those who don’t.

Perhaps even more strikingly, the ABC/Post poll found that support for marriage equality has reached a new high amongst African-Americans at 59 percent, up an incredible 18 points from similar polls conducted this spring and last summer.  Sixty-five percent of African-American respondents expressed support for Obama’s announcement on the issue.

Once again, party lines on the issue are evident: Republicans and conservatives oppose marriage equality by a 2-1 margin, while evangelical white Protestants oppose it by a 3-1 margin.  White Democrats support it by a 2-1 margin, while a full 68 percent of independents support marriage rights, while 43 percent strongly supporting them.  This last statistic is perhaps the most significant going forward: with such marked support among independents, it seems that marriage equality as a wedge issue is decidedly a thing of the past–at least in the court of public opinion.

Intriguingly, the ABC/Post poll asked respondents whether they favored a state-by-state or federal approach, and found that 49 percent favor the former while 46 percent support the latter.  Support for federal marriage rules was higher amongst supporters of marriage equality, while support for a state-by-state solution was favored by opponents.

The poll’s full results can be found here.  Perhaps the most exciting element of new polling information like this is the fact that is simply isn’t that newsworthy–all the survey opinions are pointing in the same direction.  Still, the ABC/Post poll’s findings amongst African-Americans and independents is extremely positive.  Clearly, an ever-growing (and fast growing) cross-section of Americans believes that equal marriage rights for all is simply the right thing to do.

22 Comments May 23, 2012

Equality news round-up: Harvey Milk Day news, and more

By Scottie Thomaston

- A new NBC/WSJ poll suggests that President Obama’s announcement that he supports marriage equality will likely have no effect on his re-election prospects. 62% of adults say his support of marriage equality doesn’t matter to them. 54% would ‘support’ a law making marriage equality legal in their state, but only 24% would ‘actively support’ it.

- Yesterday Dharun Ravi was sentenced to 30 days in jail after being convicted of bias intimidation and invasion of privacy in the death of Tyler Clementi, and the sentence got mixed reactions from gay advocates and legal observers.

- A student in Ohio may wear his “Jesus is not a homophobe” t-shirt, a court has ruled.

- The DOJ has finalized its rule to prevent sexual abuse in federal prisons. The rule addresses LGBT prisoners as well.

- Today is Harvey Milk’s birthday. He would have been 82 years old. LA Weekly has more including excerpts from a speech Milk gave:

“Gay brothers and sisters, what are you going to do about it? You must come out. Come out… to your parents… I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out… to your relatives. I know that is hard and will upset them but think of how they will upset you in the voting booth. Come out to your friends… if they indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors… to your fellow workers… to the people who work where you eat and shop… Come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes from Dade, [Florida] to Eugene, [Oregon]. If Briggs wins he will not stop. They never do. Like all mad people, they are forced to go on, to prove they were right! There will be no safe ‘closet’ for any gay person. So break out of yours today — tear the damn thing down once and for all!”

The Washington Post has more as well.

- The North Carolina pastor who said he wants gay men and lesbians put behind an electrified fence and leave them to die out is facing nationwide backlash as well as local protests.

- Brian Brown of NOM wants to debate Dan Savage, so Savage said the debate will have to be at his dinner table:

Where? My dining room table. Place? Seattle, Washington. Here’s the deal. We can fill a room with my screaming partisans and your screaming partisans and we’ll both play to our respective peanut galleries and I think both of us have a little bit of grandstander in souls and we will work that and I think that will create more heat than light. And so what I’d like to do is challenge you to come to my house for dinner. Bring the wife. My husband will be there. and I will hire a video crew and we will videotape sort of an after dinner debate.

The trick here is you have to knowledge my humanity by accepting my hospitality and I have to acknowledge yours by extending my hospitality to you. And I’m willing to do that.

- Here is more on the NAACP’s decision to support marriage equality and fight ballot initiatives designed to oppose it. Not everyone is happy with their resolution, of course.

- Nebraska’s governor wants to put antidiscrimination ordinances to a public vote.

7 Comments May 22, 2012

DOMA: Initial en banc hearing denied in Golinski, oral argument set for week of 9/10-9/14

By Scottie Thomaston

Thanks to Kathleen for this filing

In Golinski v. OPM District Court Judge Jeffrey White struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. In reaching the decision, the judge said that “the appropriate level of scrutiny to use when reviewing statutory classifications based on sexual orientation is heightened scrutiny.” Judge White, a George W. Bush appointee, also suggested that DOMA may not even pass rational basis review.

The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and an initial en banc hearing was requested and denied today.

Back in April, we wrote about the latest developments in Golinski, noting that the motion to expedite the case was granted, and a briefing schedule was set, pending a possible decision on initial en banc review. Since that was denied, the expedited schedule remains in place and the case is set for oral argument the week of September 10-14.

The plaintiff Karen Golinski is represented by Lambda Legal.

16 Comments May 22, 2012

Previous page