Equality Fairfax

Though Maine’s rejection of equality is disappointing this article is worth reading as it shows how acceptance of marriage equality is growing throughout the county. That article also links to a paper that is the source for the charts.

Here in Virginia, support for same sex marriage has grown from 25% in 1994 to about 38% in 2008. That still puts us seriously below a majority but it’s interesting to note that the anti-marriage amendment vote had roughly 42% “no” votes. So, even some people who don’t support marriage equality didn’t support a constitutional amendment to discriminate.

Looking at it by age group, the 18-29 year old group, in 2008 here in Virginia were 55-60% in favor of marriage equality. This speaks volumes in terms of how long Virginia’s institutionalized homophobia will last.

Virginia has often been listed as one of the most homophobic states in the country, but, at least by the data represented in this paper, we are in the middle of the pack. We have had some of the most homophobic legislators but this paper shows that this attitude doesn’t exist in the general population to the same degree is has in the General Assembly. Alabama’s citizens would appear to be the least in favor of marriage equality and this article in the Advocate shows how very much alive that homophobia is when a principal will cancel a prom rather than let two lesbians attend as a couple.

Most of the readers of this already know that Maine voters repealed Maine’s marriage equality law. This is a major disappointment but there were positives last night. It appears the attempt to repeal Washington state’s domestic partnership law may have been defeated though by the slimmest of margins. Voters in Kalamazoo, Michigan also soundly defeated an attempt to repeal that city’s non-discrimination law.

Though the result in Maine is disappointing, we mustn’t let it discourage us. In any movement there are always setbacks and while California and Maine are major setbacks we must take that disappointment and channel it into positive action.

One of the lessons from Maine is that urban voters supported our cause while rural voters didn’t. Unfortunately, there simply weren’t enough urban voters in Maine. Most states probably don’t have enough big cities to offset the large but more diffuse population outside the urban regions. As a community, we’ve done a pretty good job of educating voters in urban and suburban areas. Most of us live in these regions. It’s probably safe to say that most people who live in rural areas don’t have much contact with openly gay people. Until we can reach that group, we’re always going to be living on the razor’s edge in votes like this.

Here in Virginia, marriage equality still has a long road ahead of it but there is still a great deal of work to do to make Virginia a safer place for us to live. We need to continue to work to get a state law passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in state hiring. At the federal level we need to continue to work to pass ENDA and repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Progress on those issues will ultimately help move the marriage equality issue forward.

Congratulations to the citizens of Vermont and Iowa! Last week’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling and today’s vote in Vermont have brought great news to a community still a bit numb from the setback in California. The best part of today’s news is that the Vermont legislature was able to override a veto from the governor and that for the first time in America, a state has passed a marriage equality law without a court ruling.

New England has become the epicenter of marriage equality in America with Vermont joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Six percent of the states now support marriage equality. That’s a small percentage but it’s double the three percent it was a week ago.

Virginia is still far behind these states legislatively, judicially and socially, but as the rest of the country sees that world really isn’t going to end because two men get married and that the sky won’t fall when two women say, “I do” then we’ll experience some climate change of a positive sort.

Congratulations to Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts and thanks for blazing a trail for the rest of us to follow!

Last night, Sean Penn was very outspoken about the need to support equality for all, and to overturn Proposition 8 in California because it’s the right thing to do.  As he accepted the Oscar for his role in the film ‘Milk’, Penn made a reference to the protestors outside their venue, implying that those who supported Proposition 8 to revoke the civil marriage rights of gay and lesbian couples should reflect on their choice.  He wanted them to know and understand that their support was shameful, and that if they don’t get that at this point in time, perhaps in the future they or their children will.

This is what I call speaking truth to power.  And we need more of our elected leaders, even right here in Virginia, to start doing it.  Delegate David Englin is one such Virginia hero to many of us, as he introduced a bill to repeal that stain on the Virginia Bill of Rights known as the “Marshall-Newman Amendment”, knowing full well that there was no hope it would even pass out of a subcommittee.  Shame on those who impede the full civil rights of any American citizen.  I will be reporting more on what happened in this session up to the crossover in subsequent posts.  There is reason to hope.

To those Virginians opposing equality who know they’re ultimately wrong, even if it’s difficult to come to terms—what are you waiting for?  Repeal the Marshall-Newmann Amendment.  Pass anti-discrimination legislation.  Get your heads out of your butts.  Please do the right thing and be part of the change you know is right.  To the rest, of you, please take Sean Penn’s advice.

Thank you, Sean Penn.

h/t:  Eileen Levandoski.

At the start of the 2009 General Assembly Session, Equality Virginia’s legislative agenda included ten bills covering nine different topics — all of which would have a positive impact on gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people in Virginia if enacted.  Two issues, nondiscrimination in public employment and equity in group life insurance, were targeted as key priorities.

This past Tuesday marked “Crossover” day, which is the day when the houses of introduction must complete work on their bills. As of that time, one of the two bills to provide equity in group life insurance had passed the Senate and is pending in the House.  In addition, we are continuing to watch a bill to expand the state’s bullying law, which has been significantly modified since its introduction.  All of the other bills on the legislative agenda failed to pass in their respective houses of introduction and they are “dead” for this session of the legislature.  Additional detail regarding bills and the consideration they received is provided below.

In addition to the bills supported by Equality Virginia, we were able to force a vote on the floor of the House on the issue of discrimination by asking Delegate Adam Ebbin to offer an amendment to the budget that would have prohibited the discriminatory discharge or lay off of public employees based on the employee’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, or status as a veteran.  The budget amendment was narrower than the bill Delegate Ebbin offered in order to avoid procedural challenges to its consideration.  Delegate Ebbin offered introductory remarks regarding the reason for the proposed budget amendment which are set out in an appendix to this memo.  There was no comment or debate on the amendment.  A recorded vote was taken and the results were 42 YES, 55 NO and 3 Not Voting.  You can click the link to get the complete list of who voted how.

 NONDISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT HB 2385 (EBBIN) SUPPORT

Would offer all public employees protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as other factors, such as race, religion and veteran status.

This bill was our number one priority, and a major goal was to get a fair hearing for the bill in the House this year.  The bill was heard thoroughly in the Professions/Occupation/Administrative Process subcommittee of House General Laws.  Delegate Ebbin was afforded an opportunity to present the bill and Equality Virginia testified in favor of it, as did the Director of the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management and Robley Jones from the Virginia Education Association.  In addition, the AARP and the Virginia Governmental Employees Association also were cited as in support of the legislation.   Mr. Jack Knapp, the lobbyist for the Virginia Federation of Independent Baptists, was the only person to speak against the legislation.

After Delegate Gilbert had finished his line of questioning, which included questions posed to the representatives of the VEA and the State Department of Human Resource Management about whether they supported the gender identity provisions of the bill (which they affirmed they did), Delegate Jackson Miller moved to strip the gender identity language from the bill.  The motion passed on a voice vote supported by Delegates Miller, Gilbert, E.T. Scott, Carrico and Cosgrove and opposed passionately and eloquently by Delegate Eisenberg.

Delegate Jackson Miller then moved to report the bill as amended.  Delegate Scott made a substitute motion to table the bill.  Delegates Miller and Eisenberg voted against the motion to table.  Delegates Cosgrove, Carrico, E.T. Scott, and Gilbert voted for the motion to table.  Delegates Ward and Barlow were not present at the meeting. 

 GROUP LIFE INSURANCE HB 1726 (RUST) and SB 945 (HOWELL) SUPPORT

Would allow employers to extend group life insurance policies to any class of persons as agreed to by the employer and its insurer as is now the case with group health insurance.

The Senate passed the Senate version of this bill, SB 945, by a vote of 32-7:

YEAS–Barker, Blevins, Colgan, Deeds, Edwards, Hanger, Herring, Houck, Howell, Hurt, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, McDougle, McEachin, Miller, J.C., Miller, Y.B., Norment, Northam, Petersen, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Ruff, Saslaw, Stolle, Stosch, Stuart, Ticer, Vogel, Wampler, Whipple–32.

NAYS–Cuccinelli, Martin, Newman, Obenshain, Puckett, Smith, Wagner–7.

The House version of the bill, HB 1726, failed in a subcommittee of House Commerce and Labor on a tie vote on a motion to report:

YEAS– Saxman, Morgan, Melvin, Sickles–4.

NAYS– Ware, R.L., Nixon, Janis,  Joannou–4.

ABSTENTIONS–0.

NOT VOTING—Hargrove, Ward, Kilgore–3.

Delegates Hargrove and Ward, who we believed would vote favorably on the measure, were absent attending a Virginia War Memorial Commission meeting and a wake, respectively.

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION HB 1625 (ENGLIN) SUPPORT

Would allow localities to expand groups protected from housing discrimination under state law to include GLBT persons.

This bill would have given localities flexibility to extend protection from housing discrimination to groups not covered by the state housing law.  The bill was tabled in the Housing Subcommittee of House General Laws on an unrecorded voice vote.

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION HB 2668 (SCOTT) SUPPORT

Would add sexual orientation to the protected classes under the Virginia Fair Housing Law.

This bill would have added “sexual orientation” to the Virginia Fair Housing Law covering all rental and sales transactions.  The bill was tabled without significant discussion in a subcommittee of House General Laws.  The vote was recorded: Delegates Oder, Carrico, Cosgrove, and Fralin voted to table; Delegates Dance and Bulova voted against tabling; Delegates Hull and Jackson Miller were not present.

 FAIRFAX COUNTY NONDISCRIMINATION BILL HB 1933 (PLUM) SUPPORT

Would authorize Fairfax County to add “sexual orientation” to its local nondiscrimination ordinances and policies.

This bill would have allowed Fairfax County, in an exercise of home rule, to amend its local nondiscrimination ordinances to include “sexual orientation.”  Heather Lawson, Vice Chair of the Fairfax Human Rights Commission came to Richmond to testify in favor of the bill. 

The bill died in a subcommittee of the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns on an unrecorded voice vote.  Members of the subcommittee voting to table the bill included the chair of the subcommittee, Delegate Crockett-Stark and Delegates Orrock, Iaquinto, Poindexter and Massie.  Delegates Hall, Caputo, Pollard and McQuinn voted against the motion to table.  Delegate Marshall was not present.

 FAIRNESS IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS HB 2375 (ENGLIN) SUPPORT

Would establish that the state can’t consider the income of a person in deciding on the eligibility of a family or household for health and social services if the relationship of that person to the family isn’t recognized by the Commonwealth.

This common sense measure, which was supported by the Family Foundation (“it’s only fair given the passage of the amendment”), sailed through the Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions by a vote of 21-0, and was recommended for passage by the health and social services subcommittee of House Appropriations.  Nonetheless, it was not acted upon by the full Appropriations Committee.

 STANDARDS FOR MODEL ANTI-BULLYING POLICY HB 1624 (ENGLIN) SUPPORT

Would establish standards for the State Board of Education to follow in amending its current model student conduct policies addressing bullying. As introduced, the bill would require the model policy to specifically address bullying directed at a student because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

This bill was amended substantially by the patron and the House Education Committee after introduction.  The only new language left in the bill adds “the use of electronic means for purposes of bullying, harassment, and intimidation” to the topics that must be addressed in the model student conduct policy.  As amended, the bill passed the House by a vote of 94-5.

 REPEAL THE MARSHALL-NEWMAN AMENDMENT HJR 657 (ENGLIN) SUPPORT

Would be the first step toward repealing the Marshall-Newman amendment that added to the bill of rights of the Virginia Constitution an amendment denying all relationship recognition to GLBT couples.

This resolution died in the constitutional amendment subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee on which the following legislators sit:  Janis (Chairman), Putney, Hargrove, Cosgrove, Frederick, Phillips, Alexander, Morrissey

On an unrecorded vote, Janis, Putney, Hargrove, Cosgrove, Frederick, Phillips and Alexander all supported a motion to pass the resolution by indefinitely.  Only Morrissey voted no. 

Arguments against the resolution centered on the fact that Virginians had approved the amendment by a wide margin only two years ago and that there was no compelling evidence to suggest that a majority of Virginians had changed their mind.

Alas, the reaction in California and around the nation has been swift in rallying supporters of marriage equality to our cause.  An organization named Join the Impact is rallying people across the nation to show up at planned locations on November 15th and demand our right to civil marriage with our partners, not only in California, but everywhere. And guess what?  It’s coming here to our own neck of the woods.

People have taken to the streets by the tens of thousands to demand marriage equality–people of all orientations and backgrounds.  We must stand tall and stand together to win our civil right to marriage with the person we love.

So what do you all say?  Why don’t we join en masse our GLBT friends, neighbors, and allies at the US Capitol and demand what is rightfully ours?  I would suggest that we join for equality right here in Fairfax, or perhaps Arlington or Alexandria, but with short notice, it may be best to join the demonstrations already planned.

Folks, it’s time we stand up and fight back.  If we don’t who is going to fight for our civil rights?

Please leave a comment if you plan to join other EF members Saturday, or if you’d like to offer or share a ride downtown.

Together, we can make this happen.  “Yes we can” sounds familiar doesn’t it?

There are many details available yet, but Connecticut appears poised to be the third state to support marriage equality. Here is one article that provides some detail.

This has been a four year journey through the legal system and it’s timing, coming just a month before the election, could have some effect on the national debate. I suppose this ruling, like those in California and Massachusetts is going to spawn another amendment effort but, for now, at least, we have another state where equality has the upper hand.

Here’s some really encouraging news.

Our friends at Garden State Equality released a Zogby poll on Tuesday that shows 59% of New Jersey residents support the idea of the legislature changing New Jersey’s civil unions law into a marriage equality law.  Only 36% of respondents opposed such a change.

Additionally, when initially asked if they support marriage equality, 50% of respondents said yes they did, and only 42% opposed it.  When a follow-up question asked if the civil unions law is judged inadequate and whether it should be changed to a marriage equality law, 59% said they supported that.  When asked if marriage equality in New Jersey is inevitable, 69% indicated that they think it is, and an astounding 71% said they didn’t think any supportive legislators would be harmed by supporting such a law.

More good news in this poll for supporters of trans-inclusive rights according to the press release.

“In one of the poll’s most interesting questions – probably the first time the question has appeared in any poll – a clear majority of New Jerseyans believe insurance companies unfairly discriminate against transgender people by not covering the medical treatments that doctors deem vital to gender transition. 53 percent said this denial by insurance companies is unfair, while only 36 percent said it is fair.”

All in all, things are coming up roses in the Garden State!

It will be interesting to encourage Equality Virginia to complete such polling in the Old Dominion, particularly since Virginia is being heavily polled in 2008 for the Presidential race.  It might be more economical to poll this year.

Previous polls released covering the issue in Virginia have been less favorable to the idea of marriage, but recently support had been as high as 57% for people who supported marriage or civil unions.

The California Supreme Court seems to be on a roll regarding the civil rights of its gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens.

Yesterday, the court ruled unanimously that an Oceanside, CA lesbian couple’s rights were violated by fertility doctors who cited their religious beliefs when refusing to help impregnate one of them.  The decision sets a strong precedent on the reach of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act which includes explicit and strong protectionsfor persons who are customers or clients of any businesses in California on the basis of race, age, gender, and sexual orientation.

This victory is huge in that people attempting to legitimize illegal discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom” will not be able to do so in California.  This interpretation is, in fact, consistent with anti-discrimination law enforcement and judicial decisions at the federal and state levels for decades.

Could we imagine the furor over such a decision if the issues involved were race?  If a white gynecologist refused to treat a patient because she was African-American, for example, and this doctor believed that the Bible prohibited the interaction of races (which used to be argued in this country)–does anyone think that there would be any question as to whether this type of discrimination is protected by religious freedom?

You see, there is no prohibition on religiously bigoted people believing that it is wrong for lesbian couples to bring children into their family.  What this decision makes clear, however, is that any person who feels this way is not free to refrain from practicing medical services for a customer who happens to be gay or lesbian, unless of course they refrain from practicing this service for all persons.

This is exactly the same logic that has been behind the most championed of civil rights laws at the federal, state, and local levels since the days of the Voting Rights Act.  To insinuate that this is at all surprising or unfounded would be silly.

One does wonder what this case would have meant for the California woman who sued the large online dating site company, E-Harmony.  We will never know, since the Arizona-based online dating giant opted not to list the profiles of California couples on their web site rather than succumb to decency and respect for GLBT people, and settled the lawsuit.  What will companies and businesses like this do when ENDA is passed, and they can’t get away with state-by-state discrimination, or as more and more states take the rational course of protecting their GLBT citizens?

Of course, we are likely to hear a very predictable chorus of alarm from right-wing reactionaries screaming that they can’t become doctors or open businesses or services for fear that they will have to treat their LGBT customers with the same courtesy and respect that they treat everyone else.

Marriage is one of those topics that has proven remarkably emotional. We have certainly spent our share of emotional and physical energy arguing in support of recognizing gay marriage. This is not another of those articles. Instead it’s a brief recap of where we stand.

This was prompted by the announcement that one of our board members was going out to California where he and his partner would be formally tying the knot. Congratulation to Jay and Chuck! I know this event means more to them than simply receiving a piece of paper even though there won’t be any practical changes to their life here in Virginia.

Now that Massachusetts is permitting out of state marriages even when those marriages aren’t recognized in the state of residency, there are two options for gay couples to marry in the U.S., California on the west coast and Massachusetts on the east. Civil unions are possible in New Jersey and Vermont. It is also possible to marry in Canada, Belgium,  the Netherlands, Norway,  Spain and South Africa.

Even though their marriages probably won’t be recognized in their home states and certainly won’t be recognized by the federal government, thousands of people have traveled to one of these destinations to marry.

In some ways this is largely a symbolic act. Of course, symbolic acts still have meaning; sometimes more meaning than they would otherwise. In other ways it can put a couple into a legal limbo that could unintentionally complicate their lives should they decide to end their marriage and they live in a state without any recognition of that marriage. Exactly how those situations will get resolved remains to be seen but it’s clear that people aren’t waiting for those precedents to be set. 

Here in Virginia, where the legislature seemed to make a hobby of banning gay marriage, we now have an amendment to the state constitution banning us from marriage and prohibiting any state recognition of our relationships. This amendment will eventually be repealed or overturned. It is clear that progress on social issues will change things, even here in Virginia, but the time frame is unpredictable other than later is more probable than sooner. Yet, still people who live in Virginia head out of state and even out of country to marry.

Equality Fairfax would like to know if you have married out of state or if you are planning to. Please let us know either by leaving a comment to this article or by sending an email to info@equalityfairfax.org. While comments to the website are public, your emailed responses will be kept confidential. This will give us a better sense of how important marriage is to you.

Are there wedding bells in your future? Have you already had a ceremony? We’d love to hear your story!