thomascwaters.com

Is Ex-Gay a Sexual Orientation?

I saw a post to Twitter the other day about Ex-Gays and Disney, and then yesterday another Twitter post:

@GrrrlRomeo: Why do Ex-Gays want to be known as former homosexuals instead of, ya know, heterosexual? #lgbt

Because this tweet didn’t contain a URL, I’m not sure if it is directly related to the link below, but it is at least conceptually, and what’s up with that? Is Ex-Gay a Sexual Orientation? The short answer is, “no,” but perhaps the important question isn’t “is it?” but rather, “why this push to identify as ex-gay as opposed to identifying as straight and why, the attempt to portray ex-gay as a sexual orientation?”

First, I want to look at the Disney stokeholder story, and then share my thoughts about the broader subject, and at the same time, take a jab at a popular gay blog, Joe.My.God.

Ex-Gays and Disney

You can follow the link below for the full story as it appears on Joe.My.God, a popular (and very good) weblog for GLBT related news and information. Sometimes I think that when I grow up (as a blogger) I want to be like Joe.My.God or Pam’s House Blend, and then at other times, I want to grow up to be Rachel Maddow. I know, she isn’t a blogger, but I think my viewpoint is often more like hers- I like to try and look for the bigger picture and connect the dots within the bigger story. Back to the story- I saw a post of it to Twitter with a link back to Joe.My.God.  The gist of it, is that a shareholder, Bobbie Strobhar, submitted a resolution that would add “ex-gay”  as a protected sexual orientation under  the employee discrimination rules.

He seems to have a warped view of what discrimination protection in the work place is all about, not to mention a failure to grasp the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation:

Though people may use other labels, or none at all[2], sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. The continuum between heterosexual and homosexual does not suit everyone, however, as some people identify as asexual.[3](from Wikipedia)

Because Disney’s policy stipulates that a person can not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, then, ex-gays would already be covered no matter what label they use to describe themselves or where upon the continuum they fall. Since most ex-gays still experience an attraction to people of the same-sex, they may not identity as straight, even though they choose to force their sexual actions into an opposite-sex paradigm, or remain celibate.

But the wording  used by Strobhar is telling:

It is about time Disney treated ex-gays with the respect they deserve,

Since when is protecting against discrimination about respect? A person’s ability to be hired or not fired, ought to be based upon their qualifications and ability to do the job, and nothing else. But Strobhar, and PFOX who is supporting the resolution aren’t really concerned about employment, but rather an attempt to portray ex-gays as victimized and persecuted by gay activists. You know how evil those gay activists can be.

“Disney’s exclusion of ex-gays from its sexual orientation policy and programs reinforces the second-class status of ex-gays, and contributes to the negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, in a press release announcing the resolution.

I’m not sure what planet Griggs is from if she feels that Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexuals are treated as first class citizens, and she seems to miss the point that if gay people weren’t treated as second class citizens then there wouldn’t be any first class/second class distinctions to begin with.  In my experience, it isn’t women and men themselves who identify as ex-gay who are frowned upon by activists and/or others, but rather the rhetoric that’s used by the anti-gay organizations that suggest that gayness can be cured If gayness was something that can be sured, then hose who are ex-gay and have been cured, would now be straight, and would already be covered by Disney’s existing discrimination protections.

We have seen this failure to understand nondiscrimination protections before. Those, especially those of the far right religious position try to claim that nondiscrimination coverages only cover gay people, when it reality they simply mean that no one regardless of their sexual orientation (straight, gay, or bi) can be discriminated against. I think they see it that way, because it would never occur to them that they could be discriminated against for their sexual orientation, so they only see it as a law that protects gay people because they want to discriminate against gay people.

There is only one real reason to want ex-gay added to non-discrimination language. To do so, would document that being gay is a choice, as it would identify a person’s choice to either be gay or to be ex-gay. Okay, maybe there is a second reason too. It muddies up the definition of sexual orientation. Homophobes try to do this all the time, but not usually in such a subtle way. Usually they do it by suggesting that protections based on sexual orientation would protect a whole range of sexual fetishes such as necrophilia or pedophilia. None of these are orientations. Nor is ex-gay. but if one of these can be added to a non-discrimination statement, then the door will be open to question any sort of protection.

PFOX Won?

When I started this blog entry, the focus was on the ex-gay inclusion point, but as I researched the story, another point has risen to the surface.  Joe.My.God seems to be purposefully misrepresenting a similar case:

In August, PFOX won their case in Washington DC that the National Education Association recognize “ex-gay” as a sexual orientation.

When I read that I was amazed. How could that happen? How could a judge or a jury decide a case like that? So I started to look for more information about it to see what was up with that? There are a few links in the stories themselves:

• Link in Current Disney story on Joe.My.God to previous Joe.My.God story about the PFOX/NEA story
• Link to an article in The Advocate

The text from Joe.My.God to the Advocate is “they won,” yet the Advocate article is titled, “ Split Decision on “Ex-Gay” Protections.” It seems to me a far stretch from split decision to they won, especially when the part of the decision that could be considered as for them, really isn’t so clear. While PFOX declared a victory, this was pure spin. Wayne Besen from Truth Wins Out blog wrote:

“The court’s decision stated the obvious and the spin from PFOX’s loss is downright bizarre,” Besen said in a statement. “I think PFOX has furthered its reputation as a group that distorts the truth and exaggerates the facts to further its strange political agenda. This is a group that has no sense of reality and lives in a parallel universe devoid of reason and logic.”

In an article for the Washington Blade, it is described as ” …dismissed the PFOX lawsuit and upheld the OHR decision finding “no probable cause” that NEA engaged in…”

In a little noticed ruling, a D.C. Superior Court judge found in June that people who consider themselves “ex-gays” are protected from discrimination under the sexual orientation provision of the city’s Human Rights Act. But in the same ruling, Judge Maurice Ross also found that the Washington-based National Edu-cation Association did not violate the Human Rights Act by refusing to allow Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays, Inc., to run an information booth at an NEA convention in 2002.

How Joe.My.God got “they won” out of a dismissed lawsuit is truly a mystery!

Story about disney Stockholder Resolution: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/10/ex-gays-ask-disney-for-inclusion-in.html

The language used by the Illinois Family Institute has also found it’s way into some discussions here in Pennsylvania in regards to PA HB 300. Some have tried to argue that protection based on sexual orientation is too broad and protects a whole slew of things that is really doesn’t.

PA HB 300 would add to the existing PA protections- adding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations.

Joe. My. God.: Box Turtle Bulletin Forces Illinois Family Institute To Recant Hate Crimes Claim.

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

Kate asked:

Do you think HB300 would have more support if the “gender identity” portions were excluded?

Thanks for a good question!

I think that the general public understands “sexual orientation” better than “gender identity and expression” and in that sense, yes, it might seem easier to pass without gender identity and expression, but more generally speaking, no I don’t think that would make that much difference here in Pennsylvania. Unlike how the issue has gone in some other states, here, the primary issues with the bill have nothing to do with transgender issues. It seems to me that there are a few main points that come up over and over in discussions with legislators: 1) Religious Exemption from hiring gay or lesbians; 2) Is this bill really needed? Legislators aren’t aware of how many cases of discrimination happen on a yearly basis; BUT, the big issue is gay marriage! People are afraid that this bill is only put forth to open the door for gay marriage. The reality is that discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations is a significant (and in my opinion, more important issue) than gay marriage.

In some other states, where sexual orientation is already covered, transgender protection has been hard for the general public mostly because of the way opponents have stolen the discourse and filled it with misinformation.

I also think that it has to be all or nothing. IF, we really care about equal rights, we can’t accomplish that piece meal, or by sacrificing one group or another. Either we buy into the fact all Pennsylvanians deserve equal protection under the law, or we don’t.

Lastly, “Gender Identity and Expression” is important from the standpoint of protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight people! It isn’t just about transfolk! Consider it this way. A woman goes to work everyday. She has short hair, curt in a somewhat masculine cut. She is never seen in a skirt or dress. She is single, and no details of her personal life are known by her fellow employees. Rumors begin to spread about her. What is the basis of this? Is it her sexual orientation? No!  She is more of a butch woman, but she could be heterosexual, right? When she is passed over for a promotion, or if she experiences any harassment- it is about her gender expression.

Or consider this: A man goes to a job interview. He is quite animated, and talks wit his hands which are a bit flamboyant. He isn’t hired, because the interviewer assumes he is gay. He may be, or he may not, but it is his gender expression, or the perception of it that he is judged by.

OK, one more point, I’d like to make. Gender expression and identity has already been protected in Pittsburgh, and some other locations for quite some time, so in PA, we have a history of these protections. We know that providing these protections state-wide will not have negative impact for the state, but just the opposite. It makes PA more competitive in today’s business world, where companies want to be located in places that value diversity and protect civil rights. Here, opponents can’t use the fear mongering about what horrific things can happen, because, if they were going to happen we would see examples for the many years that transfolk have been protected here in Pittsburgh as well as elsewhere.

Thanks for the question! I wonder what you think? Leave a comment and let me know-

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 – .

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture

Okay, I’m really tired of the Miss California-I-was-so-mistreated garbage. I don’t have any expectations that my post, added to all the verbiage out there is going to make it stop, but at least I’ll feel better after getting it off my chest. The final straw for me was the linked commentary below. Now, Christians are the victims? Good grief. But the part that really made my blood boil was this:

She returned an equally direct and honest answer that was well thought out and expressed,

THAT’s when I said, OK, I’m tired of being quiet- I am going to write about this.

First, here is my opinion on what happened. Then, some ranting about all that has transpired since.

Hilton posed a reasonable and excellent question to the constestent. It was far from an easy question. The topic is truly controversial. A good answer would have to be thoughtful, honest, and respectful of both sides of the issue. The constestent may have got the honest part right, but failed big time on thoughtful or respectful. The vote fell as it did. I don’t see any problem with that. Then Hilton added insult to injury by being his normal controversial self calling her names. He was a total ass, and single-handedly presented to the National Organization for Marriage their only hope for gaining any popularity.

I have no problems with the fact that she expressed her personal viewpoint against same-sex marriage. But that wasn’t the question. No one asked her what was her personal feelings about the subject. She didn’t really answer the question posed to her. Not only that, but in voicing her personal opinion, she did so in a highly offensive way, while saying some things that are either untrue or just confusing. I can’t find much of anything that Hilton did after the answer that was acceptable, except how he scored her. Past that, he was a total fail! So she failed in her answer, and he failed in his response to the answer.

Now, it is no surprise that Perez Hilton acted without class, respect, or common decency. He is Perez Hilton, and to expect him to rise to any reasonable level of respectful discourse would be expecting too much. He’s a gossip queen who knows how to stir the pot so the speak. But that is no excuse for his actions either. Miss CA’s answer however was totally surprising. Her inability to walk the fine line between sharing one’s personal viewpoints but doing it in a way that is respectful of all, is alarming, and shows her to be inadequate to be the winner. That’s why I believe she deserved a poor score.

So, let’s look at both the question and the answer:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

That she didn’t realize that her answer would come across as offensive is no surprise. She goes to a Christian school where there is little diversity of opinions or people. She is very used to environments where there isn’t two very different and highly emotional viewpoints to things. And I truly feel bad for her in that regard. When you live sheltered away, you lack the experiences to enable you to act more compassionately towards everyone.

So, what does her answer mean? Mr. Adamo feels it was well thought out, direct and honest. When you cut through everything, she basically said, “No, every state should not follow because I think marriage is between a man and a woman. The entire country should go one way, because she thinks so? Because she thinks so? I can see that this would be a sufficient reason why she might do something, but Hilton’s question asked her what she thought the rest of the country should do, and personal opinion just isn’t enough to go on. it may have beren an honest portrayal of her feelings, but lousy reasoning. Now, if she had said, she believed that most Americans were not ready to accept same-sex marriage and tradition hold marriage to be between a man and a woman. That may still have pissed off some people, but it would have been a reasonable argument to support her position. and if she had said something along the lines of ” I think we as a country need to find a way that the rights of all can be protected while at the same time protecting the traditiuonal definition of marriage,” she would have started to display some well-thought out respectful dialogue that both is true to her personal beliefs and aknowledges that not everyone holds the same views.

Come on, Mr Adamo! Well, thought out? Direct? What does it mean to say, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other?” First, this is inaccurate. Only people in three states can choose one or the other (although one or the other what is a reasonable follow-up).  but here is her first step away from a winning answer.  Here she is trying to find something to say that will reflect the diverse opinions on this issue. She wants to come across as pro- freedom to choose. I think she genuinely doesn’t want to force others to see things only her way. That’s fine, but she just didn’t find the right words. Yes, thinking on your feet is hard. winners can do it more successfully than she did.

But here’s the part where she failed big time. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe…” Her country? Her family? By speaking in the possessive of “my,” she alienates all those who feel differently than she does. They must not belong in “her country?”  But wait, that is a direct contradiction to her first statement that Americans can choose one or the other. So which is it? My Country! My Way? Or Americans can choose?

Mr Adamo, if respecting both sides of a highly emotionally charged issue is being politically correct, then we need more of that all around, not only with this subject. but I don’t think the lack of a “politically correct” answer is what caused her loss. It was the lack of a well expressed comment that allowed her to be true to her personal feelings, but spoke to the issue in such a way that both respected differing viewpoints and was a valid argument for the question of “why or why not.”

I can’t disagree with Mr Adamo that Hilton’s behavior post the episode was atrocious at best. I don’t however think Hilton speaks for me or the thousands of GLBTQ people who are demanding equal rights. The GLBTQ communities are no more monolithic than the straight community.

What’s unfortunate is how Miss CA has been treated through all of this including how she is being used by Mr Adamo to advance his own cause. She said, “No offense to anybody out there.” It was not her intent to cause a controversy with her answer. In that sense, she isn’t dumb as Hilton labeled her, but naive. So now she is being exploited by all sides in this battle over marriage.

The other thing that has happened is that the real issue- why same-sex couples do or do not deserve equal rights is again lost in craziness. I tend to think that’s how they like it. There are no valid emotional-less valid reasons why loving committed same-sex couples do not deserve equal rights under the law. When a straight couple is married there are about 1000 civil rights and civil privileges that become theirs immediately. Same-sex couples who have a civil union- about one quarter as many of those, and for couples like myself and my partner who have been together 10 years… nothing.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture.

This Forbes.com story provides a number of statistics from polls over time that demonstrate attitudes towards GLBTQ issues. It is a good read.  The title is about Gay Marriage, but the polls deal with many aspects of gay acceptance. for instance, Should Gays have equal rights in terms of job opportunities? 55% said yes, in 1977, and 89% in 2008! Numbers like that demonstrate why protections like PA HB 300 are timely and aligned with public opinion.

Gay Marriage And Public Opinion – Forbes.com.

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.

This information was provided by the Value All Families Coalition

A Quick FAQ on Gender Identity/Expression Protections

In House Bill 300, “gender identity or expression” provides necessary protections for transgender people from discrimination at work, in housing, and in public accommodations.

What is Transgender?

Transgender people are individuals of any age or gender whose appearance or personal characteristics differ from stereotypes about how men and women are “supposed” to be. This generally refers to transsexuals, who live their lives in a gender different than their sex at birth, and also covers people who are androgynous or who cross-dress at home or in social settings outside of work. Transgender also refers to men and women whose appearance or characteristics are perceived to be gender non-conforming, such as a masculine woman or feminine man. Transgender people may be lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual.

Why Are Transgender-inclusive Laws Needed?

Transgender people face severe discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Those living openly have high unemployment rates or are under-employed. Housing and public accommodations are very difficult to obtain or use. For people who are not living openly, disclosure can mean loss of employment or housing. If not actually fired, transgender people who transition while working in their current job often deal with harassment from co-workers.

Isn’t This Already Illegal?

While discrimination against transgender people often occurs due to misperceptions about sexual orientation, transgender people are not protected under sexual orientation. And, courts have held that transgender people are not protected by disability or sex discrimination laws either. Transgender people are only protected in the ten jurisdictions in Pennsylvania that have passed local ordinances banning this discrimination—the first was Harrisburg in 1983. This is about 17% of the state by population.

What Have Other Communities Done?

Other jurisdictions in the United States have successfully passed local and state legislation that protects transgender people from discrimination in employment, education, housing, and public accommodations. By population, 39% of the U.S. is now covered with one of these clearly transgender-inclusive laws, including 13 states and over 100 localities.

What About Business?

Many businesses have voluntarily adopted policies protecting their transgender employees. In fact, as of March 2009, 175 of the Fortune 500 companies have implemented nondiscrimination policies that included gender identity/expression. Judging employees by the quality of their work is considered a best business practice to retain experienced employees and to hire the best qualified applicants. Businesses do not adopt these policies only because it is the right thing to do, they do it for the reason they do most things—it helps the bottom line.

Do These Laws Work?

Because the first law passed in Minneapolis in 1975 and because 39% of the U.S. population lives in a jurisdiction with a gender identity/expression non-discrimination law, there is a lot of information about how these laws work and they work very well. Overwhelmingly, instances of discrimination are resolved informally when an entity is made aware of the law, exactly how these laws are supposed to work. In a small number of cases, a complaint is filed with the local or state enforcement agency, an investigation is done, and a settlement or determination reached. Finally, despite the widespread nature of these laws, only a handful of cases have ever reached the courts. The desired effect of these laws is to deter and reduce discrimination, rather than to punish it after the fact; experience from other states shows that this has been a success.

email : Webview.