thomascwaters.com

Last year, when Iowa adopted same-sex marriage, most, if not all of the press it received claimed major surprise. Could this really be Iowa? Was this midwestern state really farther ahead than California and New York? At the time, I shared some of the surprise, and figured the advancement of marriage equality was the product of timing and circumstance. But when I saw this posted to Twitter today, I realized that it had been far more than merely timing and circumstance. Iowa, really is ahead of the curve in terms of creating a space where equality that grow.

Governor Chet Culver proclaims Wednesday January 27 Iowa Gay-Straight Alliance Day. This is the fourth year of Iowa’s GSA Day – and Iowa is the only state in the nation with such an event.

There are a few words thrown around when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer (GLBTQ) rights. Equality, Tolerance, Liberation are but a few. Unpacking the language used around these issues is a blog post all by itself. But there are two points I want to make today.

Today honors Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools and colleges.

The day, organized by Iowa Pride Network seeks to honor student GSA groups in high schools and colleges that work to end violence and harassment of students including those that are GLBT.

Meanwhile here in Pennsylvania, our currently recognized state-wide organization has two bills introduced in the house, that don’t seem to be going anywhere fast. Maybe the approach is all backwards. By focusing almost exclusively on legislation, we are missing the opportunity to change public perception and build alliances. Yes, in Iowa, the far right has tried to overturn same-sex marriage, but the vast majority of Iowans are fine with letting it be.  We don’t have that broad level of acceptance that Iowa seems to demonstrate. The moderate stays more moderate in Iowa- or so it seems.

GSA’s make a difference!

GSAs decrease absenteeism, name-calling, harassment and assault. According to the 2007 Iowa School Climate Survey, in schools with GSAs, GLBT students are:

· 25% less likely to be verbally harassed because of their gender

· 23% less likely to skip class

· 23% less likely to be physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation

· 21% more likely to report never having been sexually harassed at school

· 12% less likely to be physically harassed or assaulted because of their gender expression

Where is our governor?

This is the fourth year for this event, and I have to admit, I feel a bit jealous. Here in Pennsylvania, I don’t think it is a secret that our governor is more supportive of GLBTQ rights than he is against them. But where is his public statement or any public notice from him on our issues? Governor Rendell hasn’t even publically come out and spoken in favor of the passage of HB 300, a nondiscrimination bill that covers housing, employment, and public accommodations.

I believe the thinking is that most of the state is more conservative, and so it is better for the governor to be quiet. But what does Iowa say about that type of strategy?

We have two democratic candidates running for governor. Take a few minutes to pick up the phone or drop them a letter and ask them: Will you be more voal on GLBTQ issues than the current governor?

via Iowa Gov. Chet Culver proclaims ‘Iowa Gay-Straight Alliance Day’ | ProudParenting.com.

I follow the idea that all politics are local, and given that, the most amount of good, will come by looking for and utilizing leadership and action at the local level. I believe we need state-wide and national organizations, and I’m glad Equality PA is out there doing what it is doing to create change and work for LGBT rights. However, as long as we have a shared set of goals, the real work may best be done on a smaller scale, and I think that scale may be county or regional.

For example, PA HB 300 is or should be a major priority to get passed this year. It has already been moved further through the process than ever before! There are plenty of legislators in the Western PA area that need to be contacted, educated about the importance of this legislation and encouraged to vote for HB 300. This means your friends and my friends, and folks who are part of all of the local organizations making it their priority to set up meetings with their legislators, and sending personal letters to these men and women in Harrisburg (not emails). Western PA could make or break HB 300. What leadership is or isn’t apparent at a state-wide level isn’t going to be the deciding factor, but lots of local people hounding their friends, and neighbors to call, send a letter or visit with the representative.

If the last year hasn’t taught us anything, it must be that change will happen when a large enough mass of people demand it, and the easiest way to grow that mass is through local and regional organizations.

In reply to your comment about Onorato. All politicians need educating about the issues important to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer residents of our state. Some need very little education, but many need much, much more. I would rather put time and energy into getting my friends to meet with their legislator so that we get these folks voting for our needs. Simply blasting those who are not on board (or far enough on board) doesn’t really move them any further along. Let’s call out who is not on board, but then get past that, and get to work schooling them!

Two examples from my own experience. When I went to speak with my house rep, Joe Preston, he told me I was the only constituent who had contacted him about HB 300! We can not expect house reps to get on board if we are not contacting them. Fortunately, Joe is a friend to our community. But I know there are plenty of reps who are like Joe and have had no one has contact them. I also had the pleasure of meeting with a group of constituents who went to see Joe Petrarca in Vandergrift. I am 100% sure it was the first time he say at a table with a Trans person , and was able to hear first hand why nondiscrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations is critical.

Lastly, there are state-wide groups like the ACLU and the Women’s Law Project that both need our support and greatly deserve it. And Equality PA is moving forward. But no matter how we perceive the level of leadership out there, we already have the tools we need to make progress. We do that, by each of us stepping up to the plate and making the time and energy to write letters, and make visits with our elected officials.

I watched the live video coverage of the New York Assembly’s debate on the NY Marriage Equality Bill. I’m writing about it because of the way it colors my thoughts and views about PA HB 300. While I am not sure, I’m betting that these NY representatives are somewhat similar to the PA Representatives who sit in Harrisburg and do the same type of thing I’ve been watching on the video feed. These men and women, have been all over the place in terms of their ability to speak and communicate eloquently. They are just real people who are doing service to their state, and to their constituents. But while they may exhibit a wide ability at speaking, they all demonstrate a high degree of passion for what they do, and care for the people they represent. This seems evident.

I’ve been expressing (and will continue to do so) that the best way to help gain state-wide non-discrimination legislation here in Pennsylvania, is for anyone who supports this to go and talk, one-on-one with their representative. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight- doesn’t matter. If you support greater fairness in housing, employment, and public accommodations, let your representative know, by sitting down and having a conversation with them.

Get together!

When I met with Joe Preston last week, he felt it was very important for straight supporters to get their voices in on this issue. Especially with representatives who may not be in favor of HP 300. I’d agree with that, although we know that the easiest way to change minds about this, is when people find out and get to know someone who is GLBTQ. So, get together! when 2 or 3 people sit down with a representative, and there is a diversity around the table of straight and not-straight, that can be powerful!

Attitudes don’t change overnight!

Especially with representatives who are on the fence or opposed to HB 300, it may take more than one 30 minute meeting to get them to support this bill. I don’t think that is a bad thing! I want a house of representatives that cautiously consider everything placed before them. So, issue advocacy has to be seen as an ongoing project. If you meet with your representative this week, find a few other people to go next week, and the week after that, and the week after that. Allow these visits of 3 or 4 people to become an opportunity for more and more people to become involved with their government.

Care about your representative and his/her thoughts and feelings!

Those who are not supporters, or on the fence about HB 300 have their reasons- the way they got to the position that they hold. do you know what it is? It is probably unreasonable to expect them to support the bill unless you can offer them alternative viewpoints that make sense to them or address their concerns. So take the time to understand where they are coming from, and offer your perspective rather than simply confronting them or accusing them of being on the wrong side of an issue. Every side looks like the “right” side of an issue to someone. So, take the time and effort to understand their perspective. Demonstrate mutual respect.

But use this idea even with those representatives that are in favor of the legislation. Don’t be there, just to use them to get the legislation you want. Find out what they feel is important to your area, and what they feel passionate about. Your “partnership” or put another way, your on-going working relationship with your representative needs to be good for you and for your neighbors locally and across the state.

Be personal, but know the facts!

Lastly, be able to talk successfully about HB 300 and the talking points for it, as well as be able to address factually, the common arguments against it. While you are not there to be “an expert” on the issue, at the same time, it isn’t enough to just say, “Vote for this because it is important.” Your conversation will be most successful if you can talk personally about how this bill influences you , your family and loved ones, and your neighbors, and then also talk honestly about the facts concerning this issue.

Need some help?

There are a number of resources to help you! From my blog, you can download a pretty comprehensive instruction and guidelines booklet called “How Average citizens Can change Government Action: Working With Your Elected Officials.” It provides most everything you need to have a successful meeting with your representative. But here are some other sources of assistance. You can contact a local organization or a statewide group. If you aren’t sure where to begin, contact Equality Advocates PA, and they can point you towards a group local to your area

How Marriage Equality and Non-discrimination Connected

Preface: I began to write this a week ago. Then, at the end of the week, I along with some constituents, met with PA Representative, Joe Petrarca. One of his concerns about PA HB 300 was that it was just a stepping stone for gay marriage. It was clear that while he could possibly vote for a nondiscrimination bill, he is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. I intended to write about each of his concerns, and decided that this started-but unpublished post was a good place to write about the issue of PA HB 300 and Marriage Equality.

Over the weekend, I began to think that I needed to re-prioritize my time and focus. Actually, I’ve been thinking that for a while, but have decided I need to take action towards that goal. So, I thought I’d stop writing about Marriage Equality. It is an easy topic to blog about as so much is happening in that arena, but in terms of importance, it is not at the top of my list. By all means, those who are pushing for it, go right ahead and push. But for me, I’d like to re-focus my energy on the battle for other, and what I’d call even more basic civil rights. This would be to write more exclusively on the issues of anti-discrimination legislation and hate-crimes legislation. OK, that is pretty easy to say, but how about operationalizing it? Maybe not as simple. Because for the opposition, these struggles are one in the same, or at least two heads of the same monster. So, on either front, an understanding of the other is important, if not critical to success.

If you read back through my blog, somewhere, way back in the Fall I voiced by basic position on same-sex marriage. I am definitely not against it, but it isn’t the direction I think we ought to be fighting. I think we would get further if the struggle was for same-sex unions that carry 100% of the civil rights that marriage allows heterosexual couples. Now, I get the whole separate but equal is not equal argument, and I actually agree with it. but I think the word Marriage is a black hole of a problem that gets in the way of the real issue which is protecting the rights of families of all types. By focusing on Civil Unions (which is probably a big enough battle as it is) with all the same civil protections, we can avoid some of the whole religious opposition to marriage /destroying the santicty of marriage  battle. There will still be religious opposition, but the arena for the real issue will be civil rights as it should be. But, no one put me in charge, so that is just my opinion- not the direction of the battle itself.

The link below is to a Catholic web site article about same-sex marriage, yet the major evidence they lay out to show how religious liberties are threatened by Marriage Equality, are all cases that have everything to do with discrimination situations. These are becoming, or will become so familiar to any activist, but they are at the foundation of the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) recent attack campaign. So, today, I’d like to respond some to this Catholic.net article, and then over time, I’d like to see if I can shed some light on how/why these issues become so entangled,  and what if anything, we can do about it as we work for anti-discrimination legislation in a number of states.

I think this is really important.

I had dinner with my dad last night who is a fairly religious protestant (Methodist) and a conservative republican. While we did not talk about Marriage Equality that explicitly, there is no doubt that he is against it, and sees marriage in the traditional sense of between a man and a woman. But, he told me he also believes that all individuals deserve to be treated fairly, and he can support anti-discrimination legislation to protect against discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. So, understanding how to untangle these two issues will be important to help move anti-discrimination forward.

Although the opposition doesn’t want that to happen. They want these things all entwined because gay marriage is scary to so many. The move towards marriage really fuels the fire and anti-discrimination legislation is one of the targets. Joe Petrarca brought this up. It seemed to me that the possibility that HB 300 would set the stage for same-sex marriage would be enough for him to vote against it.

I have for a while, maintained that nondiscrimination legislation is not a steping stone for Marriage Equality. Not in the sense expressed by those who oppose gay rights. They characterize nondiscrtimination as if it were just a ploy to get the proverbial foot in the door. The reality is however, that these protections are extremely important on their own merit, and are sought out for that alone- the protections they provide. Nothing more and nothing less.

But from a different perspective, nondiscrimination legislation can be seen as foundational for Marriage Equality. What value is the right to be civilly married if you can lose your job solely for being gay or lesbian? hate crimes legislation and nondiscrimination legislation are stepping stones in the sense that they are foundational. Without them existing first for Lesbian and Gay people, Marriage Equality isn’t very useful.

From a different and important perspective however, they are not stepping stones to gay marriage in that both hate crimes and nondiscrimination cover people not affected by same-sex marriage per se. Bisexuals and transgendered people are not as clearly impacted by Marriage Equality, yet are critical recipients of hate crimes and nondiscrimination. We use the phrase “gay rights” loosely, and yet need to remember that is stands for a wide and diverse set of communities and issues that are all related, but not exactly alike. Maybe for the opposition, it is all the same thing. Everything we are talking about in terms of Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (GLBTQ) is not heterosexuality with Barbie femininity and Ken masculinity.

Over history the rights of some have always been oppressed so that the dominant viewpoint may not be threatened. It is a form of control. For example, well after the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks were still being denied the right to vote out of the belief that if they had that right and executed it- all hell would break out? The belief of some, that these other people were less than equal fueled the desire to maintain control. It was a long time between the declaration of freedom 1862/1863 and the true freedom and right to vote in 1965. Even earlier in the history of slavery, the dominant attempted to control their black slaves by forcing upon them Religion yet, in many parts of the Americas, slaves were kept illiterate. While the tactics used were different, it is not that dissimilar to the ways the modern evangelical and Catholic church wishes to push its doctrine on everyone today. For the slaves, the result was the growth and proliferation of religious practices that continue today on the fringes of Christianity. Santaria is the best example where the catholic indoctrination was fused with ancient African belief systems to form a new religious expression. The religious indoctrination wasn’t really successful. The slaves did not become simply “good christians,” rather the religion evolved and became imbued with meaning and life as the people needed it to be. The desire to force one’s own beliefs on others has never truly been successful anywhere.

At the base of both nondiscrimination and marriage equality is a cornerstone of real equality.  Do GLBTQ people deserve to be treated as equal human beings? If yes, then the next question is how should that equality be actualized. Nondiscrimination and hate crimes legislation look at these questions from the perspective of the individual. Do I as a gay man, and an individual, deserve the right to work, find housing, etc, or is it acceptable to discriminate against me solely on the basis of my sexual orientation? Marriage Equality has nothing to do with that- with individual rights. This is the point where these two subjects have nothing to do with each other , even though both have a cornerstone of equality.

The insistence of the radical right to link nondiscrimination with marriage equality is an example of fear mongering since the term marriage carries such an emotional charge. The slope is a not-so slippery slope. To try to stop same-sex marriage by stopping nondiscrimination laws is like using a hammer to install a screw.

The last way that these two issues are not really connected, is that same-sex marriage legislation is about Civil Marriage as opposed to Religious Marriage. Most if not all of the uproar about it comes from the conservative religious community expressing fear that marriage as they define and know it as a religious covenant will be harmed. The religious institution of marriage is not really on the radar for activist. The goal there is civil protections. Legal nondiscrimination is as far away from the issue of religious marriage as it can be.

Catholic.net – .

Unintended Consequences

Last Thursday, I posted about meeting with PA State Rep Joe Petrarca, and he had four main concerns he expressed about PA HB 300. Today, I’d like to talk about his second concern- that bills sometimes have unintended consequences and should be thought through carefully. This is an important concern and one worth thinking about. It is one where the opponents to this type of leghislation have really had a field day spreading misinformation, and yet it is likely the argument against the legislation that should be taken most seriously. But then, I’d hope any legislation would be subjected to a process by which unintended consequences might be examined.

Rep Petrarca used an example in our meeting of a bill that was designed to get money out to where it was needed. The state gave money to intermediary organizations with the expectation that it would be passed further down, and this didn’t happen. The intermediaries kept the money. Good point. What is in PA HB 300 that would keep unexpected consequences from happening? I think there are two main points to make about this concern.

A simple change to existing PA law

Unlike the representative’s example, this is a very straight-forward bill (no pun intended). It adds language to the existing human relations commission nondiscrimination policies. In his example, there were two needed steps: 1) pass money down, and 2) expect money to be passed down further. Unless the language of the bill was designed to make the second part explicit, a problem could occur. PA HB 300 is quite different. The language is very clear. It adds Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. Both of these terms have pretty specific meanings. so there is truly very little ambiguity in the language of the bill. The language chosen is very intentional, and each term speaks to a different form of discrimination.

Sexual Orientation has very clear meaning. Individuals are either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual., That’s pretty clear. Gender Identity and Expression are also fairly clear terms, although truly less understood by most people. I think this is because “sexual orientation” has been a topic of conversation and cultural exploration for many years, but Gender Identity and Expression hasn’t had the same exposure. From music (I kissed a Girl) to TV (everything from the Real world to day-time soaps) to movies (MILK!), there is a long history of educating people about sexual orientation. A set of points about Gender Identity and Expression is posted to my blog.

Because this is a change to existing legislation, it is easy to look at the ways the existing protected classes have been interpreted, and where, if any, has the intention of the legislation been abused.

This legislation exists many places

In whole or in part, these protections exist in over 20 states and over 300 municipalities across the country . Of the Fortune 500 companies,  472 including the 27 that name Pennsylvania as home provide these protections already. For example, sexual orientation has been a protected class in Pittsburgh for almost 25 years and Gender Identity and Expression protected for 10 years! If this legislation is the catastrophe-waiting-to-happen that opponents say it is, there would be well documented cases to be found here or elsewhere. But none exist. None. I could find no documented valid case in any of my searching. Opponents to this bill cite 2 examples which I have discussed in an earlier blog post, but when each is investigated, in neither case were the results different from what would be expected. In both cases, a violation of religious expression is cited, but in neither case is that really what happened.

If this legislation was to cause unintended consequences, it would have happened by now somewhere across the 20 states, 472 major companies, or 300 regional or local municipalities where this language is in use.

A good bill for Pennsylvania

While the focus of this post is unintended consequences- as if these would all be negative, it is useful to see how this language can protect many Pennsylvanians who may not even realize what it has to offer them. Consider how Gender Expression protects all Pennsylvanians. There may be a woman, who doesn’t fit the stereotypical example of feminine, but who is passed over for a promotion. She is heterosexual and married, yet her gender expression is judged unfairly. Or a heterosexual man who is assumed to be gay because he dresses well or talks with his hands.

The use of clear language, lack of any known problems from a long history of this type of legislation existing, and the ability to protect all Pennsylvanians, makes this a good piece of legislation for us today.

I posted this morning that I was headed to Vandergrift to meet with state rep Petrarca and some of his constituents, and wanted to write a follow up about the meeting. Meetings of this type are called lobbying your representative. Today was a bit of “walking the walk” for me. I’ve been posting for a few months now about how important these one-on-one meetings are to issues like PA HB300. Not only are they effective, they touch upon the very basis of our democratic process. So, today, I had a chance to put into practice the Instruction Booklet I wrote and that can be downloaded from my blog. PA HB 300 adds to the existing PA non-discrimination laws by adding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression as protected classes.

Joe Petrarca is a really likable guy and it was easy to talk with him He listened to what our gathered group had to say, and ask good questions as a means to better understand how this bill would affect the lives of everyday people in the state of Pennsylvania. so let me follow the instruction booklet and see how all the steps worked to make a successful meeting.

Brian, who lives in Vandergrift, scheduled the meeting. Which turned out to be pretty simple. If there is a hard part of this, it is that representatives are generally in their districts available to meet on Thursdays and Fridays. I was already off today for vacation but the others had to take the time from work for the meeting.

We prepared for the meeting in a few ways. We each knew what we wanted to say, and went over a plan for how we could allow the meeting to work beforehand. Brian had met with him previously about HB1400, a predecessor to HB 300, so we had some idea as to what his concerns were at that time.

we arrived pretty much right on time for the meeting with a box of donuts for the office staff. In my instructions I write:

Remember that everyone in the room wants the same thing: what is best for the State and its constituents. Your role is to help the elected official and his or her staff understand how the issue or legislation at hand will accomplish that shared goal.

That is really what happened. Petrarca’s interest in that outcome as well as that of all of us present was very clear.

The last 2 steps of the process is to follow up with a thank you note and continue to build the relationship which we all are going to do.

There! That wasn’t so hard!

If you have read my posts and feel hesitant to take that next step and meet with your rep, please take my word for it. It really is that easy, and it is very valuable!

I wouldn’t be surprised if today was the first time, Joe Petrarca met a transperson. That alone was powerful: for him to hear a person talk about how this bill will impact her life. All of us know that on some level, there is little special about us. We really are just like everyone else. But that is exactly part of what we need to share. So take the next step- meet with your state rep and ask them to support PA HB 300.

Joe expressed a few concerns that I think are worth talking about. I’ll most likely break them up over a few posts but the first one I want to address is this. Joe expressed that many in Harrisburg aren’t sure there is really a discrimination problem to address. Do people really lose their jobs or fail to get hired? Do people have trouble getting housing? What does discrimination in public accommodations look like in the state?

This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, GLBTQ folks may not want to come out and identify themselves out of fear of discrimination, and on the other hand, if they don’t come out  and give voice to their experience, no one knows what discrimination has occurred. A lawyer I know shared with me that even in situations where sexual orientation was the reason for the action, a person’s lawyer may hide that and focus on sex discrimination since sex is already a protected class. So the case won’t be understood as sexual orientation discrimination even if that was what it was.

To help legislators like Joe understand this issue, we need to be able to show him examples where discrimination has occurred, and also help him understand the degree to which GLBTQ people may live in the closet  so as to protect themselves as much as possible.

Joe Petrarca said himself, “no one deserves to be discriminated against.” If we can continue to speak to the concerns about this bill, we will continue to mopve thios bil towards successful passage.

I posted earlier about a conservative blog called A Right Turn. The link to at the bottom of this post. The post is interesting in that the writer claims that no one should be discriminated against only for being gay or transgender, but then goes on to claim the bill does many things it does not do. PA HB 300 provides protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. Here is what was said in terms of Babette Joseph:

State Government Committee Chairwoman Babette Josephs, D, 182nd, Philadelphia claims that 80% of Pennsylvanians could be kicked out of their apartments, treated badly in public accommodations,or lose their jobs if this bill isn’t passed. She has taken her cue’s from President Obama well, again another democrat trying to play alarmist to get their agenda pasts. Just as Obama has over and over created a crisis and fear to hurry through spending legislation Ms. Josephs is attempting to create the fear that most of us are at risk. The fact is the gay and trans gendered population of Pennsylvania is FAR lower that 80% of our population.

I contacted her office for a clarification and received this in reply:

What I actually said was that 80% of Pennsylvanians live or work in communities that do not offer the protections from discrimination that House Bill 300 provides. To put it another way, only 20% of Pennsylvanians live in communities that offer these protections.

This refers to the 13 municipalities in Pennsylvania that have already enacted civil rights protections on their own accord. Allentown, Easton, Erie County, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Lansdowne, New Hope, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Swarthmore, West Chester and York each have municipal ordinances similar to H.B. 300. State College also has an ordinance that covers only sexual orientation in housing and employment. But the fact remains that an individual can live in Harrisburg and be protected from discrimination and lose these protections by crossing the bridge to his place of work in Camp Hill. House Bill 300 addresses this problem by giving state-wide protections to people in Pennsylvania from another highly documented form of discrimination. It is neither justified nor defensible for a person’s geographical location to effect the basic right to live and work without discrimination in our Commonwealth.

Representative Babette Josephs

http://arighturn.com/right.php/2009/03/17/pa-house-bill-300#c10

I’m off this morning, joining Brian and Emilia, to meet with PA Representative Joe Petrarca about PA HB 300. This is a very different type of action from writing a blog or participating within the blogosphere, and one I am looking forward to. Our here on a blog, non-discrimination is a concept- an idea to be discussed and supported, and fought over. But sitting down with real people, the subject of the meeting is “our real lives.” No longer is nondiscrimination a concept- or a group of words on a page. It is something that impacts real people in very real ways.

On the virtual side of this, I’ve been in a dialogue (if you can call it that) with someone who writes a conservative blog. I don’t know if this person is a male or female or even their name. They know all of this about me however. It started when I posted a comment on his/her blog. They wrote:

I do not feel anyone should be fired jobs or removed from their housing based SOLELY on the fact that they are Gay or Transgender,

Which is precisely what PA HB 300 does. Unfortunately, they followed that cool statement with a bunch of fear based stuff that isn’t at all what this bill is about.

The blogger responded to me, and I again replied, but those are no where to be found on his/her blog. They are comments waiting to be moderated. Yet the blogger has continued to email me. and I leave reading these emails and think this is all such crazy stuff!

So, I’m looking forward to this meeting where real people will sit and talk and listen to each other. Where the real life impacts of this legislation will be the topic instead of crazy fear-based stuff.

Discussions on PA HB 300 frequently focus on only a few issues when the truth is the bill provides protections for a broader number of Pennsylvanians including those who are bisexual. The linked article describes some of the issues surrounding bisexuals in our society, and I thought added another dimension to the discussion.

The Independent Collegian – Bisexuality presents challenges for many.

This is a wonderful video that talks about gay marriage, but in doing so discusses in some detail 4 cases that are ofte used by the religious right to attack any form of legislation dealing with GLBTQ issues. All 4 have been cited in terms of the PA HB 300 battle.