Rules finalized last year empower patients to designate their own visitors, including same-sex partners
Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new guidance to support enforcement of rules that protect hospital patients’ right to choose their own visitors during a hospital stay, including a visitor who is a same-sex domestic partner. These rules, finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in November, apply to all hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. The guidance also supports enforcement of the right of patients to designate the person of their choice, including a same-sex partner, to make medical decisions on their behalf should they become incapacitated.
"Couples take a vow to be with each other in sickness and in health and it is unacceptable that, in the past, some same-sex partners were denied the right to visit their loved ones in times of need," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "We are releasing guidance for enforcing new rules that give all patients, including those with same-sex partners, the right to choose who can visit them in the hospital as well as enhancing existing guidance regarding the right to choose who will help make medical decisions on their behalf.”
The rules updated the Conditions of Participation (CoPs), which are the health and safety standards all Medicare- and Medicaid-participating hospitals and critical access hospitals must meet, and apply to all patients of those hospitals even if they are not on Medicare or Medicaid. Among other things, the CoPs require hospitals to explain to all patients their right to choose who may visit them during their inpatient stay, regardless of whether the visitor is a family member, a spouse, a domestic partner (including a same-sex domestic partner), or another type of visitor, as well as their right to withdraw such consent to visitation at any time.
Existing CoPs also protect the rights of hospital patients to have representatives who can act on their behalf. HHS has updated the guidance for these rules to emphasize that hospitals should give deference to patients’ wishes concerning their representatives, whether expressed in writing, orally, or through other evidence, unless prohibited by state law. The guidance issued today is intended to make it easier for family members, including a same-sex domestic partner, to make informed care decisions for loved ones who have become incapacitated.
CMS today sent a letter to State Survey Agencies, which conduct on-site inspections of hospitals on behalf of CMS. The letter highlights the equal visitation and representation rights requirements and directs SSAs to be aware of the guidance when evaluating hospitals' compliance with CoPs.
“This announcement is another step toward equal rights for all Americans, and it is another step toward putting the patient at the center of our health care system,” said CMS Administrator Donald M. Berwick, M.D. “All patients should be afforded the same rights and privileges when they enter our health care system, and that includes the same opportunity to see their significant other.”
In other news of interest to the LGBT community, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), another agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, today announced a $248,000 grant to the Fenway Institute** to create a National Training and Technical Assistance Center to help community health centers improve the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations.
For more information on the CMS rules issued in November, please visit: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/11/20101117a.html
For the letter sent to State Survey Agencies, please visit: http://www.cms.gov/SurveyCertificationGenInfo/PMSR/list.asp#TopOfPage.
Posted by The National Task Force. Reposted at keystothecloset@blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Gays Are Us: Why LGBT Equality Is Not a “White” Issue
Martin Luther King Jr., speaks at a Selma, Alabama church in this January 1965 photo. King wrote in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
By Rev. Dr. Dennis W. Wiley | August 17, 2011
At last month’s 102nd annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a historic workshop focused on overcoming homophobia within the black community. As an African American, heterosexual, male pastor of a traditionally black Baptist church in the inner city of Washington, D.C., I was glad to see this legendary organization take this small but important step in its increasingly inclusive perspective on civil rights.
There are some, however, including the Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., an NAACP national board member, who see no parallel between gay rights and civil rights. Expressing this conviction at a rally last May, he demanded that the gay community “stop hijacking the civil rights movement.”
This statement, subtly suggesting that “civil rights” is a black issue and “gay rights” is a white issue, implies that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, equality is not a priority for black people. This sentiment, particularly prevalent regarding the issue of marriage equality, is often expressed in a variety of ways, including, “This is not our issue,” “This is not a priority for the black community,” and, “We have more critical matters to consider.”
One of the problems with this “either/or” approach—that this issue is either “black” or “white”—is that it creates a false dichotomy between LGBT issues and other issues of social justice. Another is that it fosters a hierarchy of oppression in which certain matters are placed at the top of the political agenda while others are tabled.
The greatest problem with this approach is its failure to highlight how multiple forms of oppression are interconnected. This failure to “connect the dots” deceives black and other marginalized groups into believing that dealing with vital issues impacting our communities can, at best, be postponed indefinitely, or, at worst, be ignored completely.
The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s offers several examples of this type of failure to connect the dots. For instance, when Martin Luther King Jr. accepted the invitation to lead a nonviolent, direct-action, voting rights campaign in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, white liberals criticized him for being an “outside agitator” and for moving too fast.
In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he responded by first informing his critics that what was happening in Birmingham was directly connected to what was happening in his hometown of Atlanta. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” he wrote. Second, he replied that the word “‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never’” and that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
Another example occurred when King spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Although his detractors failed to discern the relationship between the civil rights and peace movements, King was clear that the goal of his controversial stance was not only to save lives in Vietnam, but also to “save the soul of America.” In so doing, he connected the dots of what he called “the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism.”
Two other examples reveal King’s own inner struggle to detect the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression.. With regard to the role of women, the civil rights and black power movements were characterized by rampant sexism. Although women played pivotal roles in each, they were primarily relegated to subordinate positions and often treated as sex objects. This was not unusual because, throughout most of the 20th century, race consistently trumped gender as the primary social justice issue within the Black Church and community. Black women were expected (and usually consented) to suppress any notions of women’s liberation—often characterized by black men as a “white” issue—in the interest of black unity, racial solidarity, and the affirmation of black manhood.
This leads us to the other issue of oppression with which King privately agonized—homophobia. Like women’s rights neither King nor any other civil rights leader lifted up gay rights as a goal of the movement. Bayard Rustin, however, one of his chief nonviolent strategists, was openly gay. King staunchly supported Rustin’s role in the movement, despite objections from some of his closest allies, until 1960.
When Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the powerful, influential, and charismatic black pastor and U.S. congressman from Harlem, New York, threatened that year to circulate a false rumor that Rustin and King had been involved in a homosexual affair, King—much to Rustin’s disappointment—promptly accepted Rustin’s resignation. It was not until 1963, when King again stood solidly behind him, that Rustin was assigned the responsibility to plan, organize, and orchestrate the phenomenally successful March on Washington.
These examples of connecting, or failing to connect, the dots of oppression help us to understand that the quest for human justice, freedom, and equality cannot be fragmented. The layered complexity of human identity forbids it. To claim that we are for racial equality while ignoring women’s equality, or to insist that we support justice for the poor but disdain justice for LGBT persons, is to engage in a precarious game of self-deception in which the ultimate irony is that we ourselves become the inadvertent objects of our own rejection, self-hatred, and internalized oppression.
If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today at the ripe old age of 82, I believe his consistently evolving consciousness would have removed his blind spots of 43 years ago. Just as he was a trailblazer in protesting the Vietnam War, I contend that he also would have been a pioneer in the struggle for women’s rights and LGBT equality. This is why so many of his former associates who are still alive—including Congressman John Lewis and the NAACP’s own Julian Bond—are unequivocal in their support of gay rights, including marriage equality. The same was true of his late widow, Coretta Scott King. They have understood that LGBT oppression is not some alien or superfluous concern that has little or nothing to do with other justice issues critical to the black community and that, in fact, it is a critical issue of civil rights.
The Reverend Dennis W. Wiley, Ph.D., is pastor of the Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C. He is a contributor to the Fighting Injustice to Reach Equality, or FIRE, initiative at the Center for American Progress, which explores the impact of public policy on gay and transgender people of color. This is his first of a series of columns in which he will discuss progressivism within the black church.
By Rev. Dr. Dennis W. Wiley | August 17, 2011
At last month’s 102nd annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a historic workshop focused on overcoming homophobia within the black community. As an African American, heterosexual, male pastor of a traditionally black Baptist church in the inner city of Washington, D.C., I was glad to see this legendary organization take this small but important step in its increasingly inclusive perspective on civil rights.
There are some, however, including the Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., an NAACP national board member, who see no parallel between gay rights and civil rights. Expressing this conviction at a rally last May, he demanded that the gay community “stop hijacking the civil rights movement.”
This statement, subtly suggesting that “civil rights” is a black issue and “gay rights” is a white issue, implies that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, equality is not a priority for black people. This sentiment, particularly prevalent regarding the issue of marriage equality, is often expressed in a variety of ways, including, “This is not our issue,” “This is not a priority for the black community,” and, “We have more critical matters to consider.”
One of the problems with this “either/or” approach—that this issue is either “black” or “white”—is that it creates a false dichotomy between LGBT issues and other issues of social justice. Another is that it fosters a hierarchy of oppression in which certain matters are placed at the top of the political agenda while others are tabled.
The greatest problem with this approach is its failure to highlight how multiple forms of oppression are interconnected. This failure to “connect the dots” deceives black and other marginalized groups into believing that dealing with vital issues impacting our communities can, at best, be postponed indefinitely, or, at worst, be ignored completely.
The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s offers several examples of this type of failure to connect the dots. For instance, when Martin Luther King Jr. accepted the invitation to lead a nonviolent, direct-action, voting rights campaign in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, white liberals criticized him for being an “outside agitator” and for moving too fast.
In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he responded by first informing his critics that what was happening in Birmingham was directly connected to what was happening in his hometown of Atlanta. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” he wrote. Second, he replied that the word “‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never’” and that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
Another example occurred when King spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Although his detractors failed to discern the relationship between the civil rights and peace movements, King was clear that the goal of his controversial stance was not only to save lives in Vietnam, but also to “save the soul of America.” In so doing, he connected the dots of what he called “the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism.”
Two other examples reveal King’s own inner struggle to detect the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression.. With regard to the role of women, the civil rights and black power movements were characterized by rampant sexism. Although women played pivotal roles in each, they were primarily relegated to subordinate positions and often treated as sex objects. This was not unusual because, throughout most of the 20th century, race consistently trumped gender as the primary social justice issue within the Black Church and community. Black women were expected (and usually consented) to suppress any notions of women’s liberation—often characterized by black men as a “white” issue—in the interest of black unity, racial solidarity, and the affirmation of black manhood.
This leads us to the other issue of oppression with which King privately agonized—homophobia. Like women’s rights neither King nor any other civil rights leader lifted up gay rights as a goal of the movement. Bayard Rustin, however, one of his chief nonviolent strategists, was openly gay. King staunchly supported Rustin’s role in the movement, despite objections from some of his closest allies, until 1960.
When Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the powerful, influential, and charismatic black pastor and U.S. congressman from Harlem, New York, threatened that year to circulate a false rumor that Rustin and King had been involved in a homosexual affair, King—much to Rustin’s disappointment—promptly accepted Rustin’s resignation. It was not until 1963, when King again stood solidly behind him, that Rustin was assigned the responsibility to plan, organize, and orchestrate the phenomenally successful March on Washington.
These examples of connecting, or failing to connect, the dots of oppression help us to understand that the quest for human justice, freedom, and equality cannot be fragmented. The layered complexity of human identity forbids it. To claim that we are for racial equality while ignoring women’s equality, or to insist that we support justice for the poor but disdain justice for LGBT persons, is to engage in a precarious game of self-deception in which the ultimate irony is that we ourselves become the inadvertent objects of our own rejection, self-hatred, and internalized oppression.
If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today at the ripe old age of 82, I believe his consistently evolving consciousness would have removed his blind spots of 43 years ago. Just as he was a trailblazer in protesting the Vietnam War, I contend that he also would have been a pioneer in the struggle for women’s rights and LGBT equality. This is why so many of his former associates who are still alive—including Congressman John Lewis and the NAACP’s own Julian Bond—are unequivocal in their support of gay rights, including marriage equality. The same was true of his late widow, Coretta Scott King. They have understood that LGBT oppression is not some alien or superfluous concern that has little or nothing to do with other justice issues critical to the black community and that, in fact, it is a critical issue of civil rights.
The Reverend Dennis W. Wiley, Ph.D., is pastor of the Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C. He is a contributor to the Fighting Injustice to Reach Equality, or FIRE, initiative at the Center for American Progress, which explores the impact of public policy on gay and transgender people of color. This is his first of a series of columns in which he will discuss progressivism within the black church.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Recipients of civil union license: 'We wanted to make a statement'
By Rex Huppke, Ruth Fuller & Serena Maria Daniels Chicago Tribune, June 1, 2011
Every Valentine's Day for the past seven or eight years, Roseann Szalkowski and Barb McMillan walked into the DuPage County Clerk's office to ask for a marriage license, and every year the answer was the same: no.
Today, promptly at 8 a.m. when the clerk's office opened, McMillan asked department supervisor Judi Wilkovich the same question.
"I'd like to ask for a marriage license," said McMillan, tears welling in her eyes. An equally emotional Wilkovich, who for years was saddened to turn the couple away, again couldn't grant a marriage license, but she told the couple, "I'm happy to say that you can apply for a civil union license."
Amid applause from clerk's office workers, Szalkowski, 50, and McMillan, 60, who come from Roselle and have been together 11 years, were the first to be granted a civil union license in DuPage County.
Illinois is now the sixth state that allows civil unions or their equivalent, and two other states — Hawaii and Delaware — have passed civil-union laws that have not yet been enacted.
Advocates of gay and lesbian rights say the civil union law is a historic moment worthy of celebration, but they stress that it in no way marks the end of their work. The next step would be to follow either a judicial or legislative path toward the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Similar scenes to the one in DuPage played out around the Chicago area this morning, the first day that same-sex couples were eligible for civil-union licenses.
In Cook County, Janean Watkins and Lakeesha Harris camped overnight outside the Daley Center to be the first in line as the state's new civil-unions law kicked in.
"It's historic," said Watkins, who has been with Harris for 10 years. "We wanted to be first. We wanted to make a statement. For us, for our kids. It really means something."
The couple has six children who will all be in attendance at a formal civil union ceremony tomorrow.
Watkins and Harris were followed by more than 100 other couples who arrived early to get licenses.
Vicki Kenyon and Lisa Martin of Skokie were up at 4 a.m. and headed to the Daley Center to get a license to legally cement their nearly 10-year relationship.
"We thought we'd just get it done in Skokie," Martin said. "But then we figured, hey, if they're going to throw a party downtown, we should be there, be part of history."
Couples can obtain licenses starting today, but must wait a day before holding a ceremony. On Thursday, the governor and Mayor Rahm Emanuel will be on hand in Millennium Park as more than 30 couples enter into civil unions.
The group The Civil Rights Agenda plans to host another cluster of civil union celebrations on Friday at the Chicago History Museum. Anthony Martinez, the group's executive director, said at least 30 couples signed up, reflecting the widespread enthusiasm he has seen in the city's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Linda Zetterberg, 59, and Sherry Burlingame, 52, wed in Ontario, Canada, on May 27, 2005, but showed up to the DuPage County clerk’s office today to see if their marriage would recognized in Illinois now that civil union licenses are being issued.
Plus, they wanted to be around to congratulate other same-sex couples.
“We’ve waited for a long time for this,” said Zetterberg, just as the office’s first couple became licensed. “We had to drive with all of our paperwork in a glove compartment in case anything happens.”
DuPage County clerk’s office officials told the couple they did not know whether foreign marriage licenses are now honored in Illinois and said they would have to defer to their legal department.
Workers who typically issue marriage licenses also had to make adjustments in how they addressed the civil union applicants.
One couple, Martha Flores, 37, and Jessica Meyer, 33, of Westmont, who became licensed just before 11 a.m., for example, didn’t know the proper term to use when referring to their relationship status would be once they held a ceremony.
“Certified” would be the proper term to use, not married, said Wilkovich, the department supervisor, who had to learn the appropriate terminology.
Flores and Meyer have been together since 2009. Flores moved in with Meyer shortly afterward.
The couple from Glendale Heights said they initially wanted to have a less formal commitment ceremony, but decided to hold off when they learned of the possibility that civil unions would be legalized in Illinois.
Stress Once the possibility became reality, “I didn’t want to wait because I was afraid that what happened in California would happen here,” said Flores of California’s constitutional amendment in 2008 that limited marriage to be between only a man and a woman.
By 11 a.m. at the DuPage County clerk’s office five people had been granted licenses to certify their civil unions. Meyer was surprised to find the office empty when the couple arrived.
Flores was not.
“For the most part I thought DuPage County was pretty homophobic,” Flores said.
To the couple’s surprise, everyone in the office treated them with respect.
“You’ve been waiting a long time,” the woman who licensed the couple told them as they walked out of the door.
At an unrelated event today, Gov. Pat Quinn applauded the law.
"I signed that law, and I think it's a good law," Quinn said. "I think it makes us a better state. I think it's important that Illinois be a place of tolerance and welcoming to all."
In Lake County, about a dozen couples lined up outside of the clerk's office this morning.
Sam Johnson, 45 and Michael Maurello, 44, of Beach Park, who have been together for 12 years, said that while they didn't need a piece of paper to show their commitment to each other; they came to be a part of history.
"Since so many people went to so much trouble to make this happen we wanted to show our appreciation," Johnson said.
"It is important to show our support in numbers," added Maurello, who said he works at the Art Institute of Chicago and has seen the numbers of people demonstrating against civil unions downtown. "If they repeal it, hopefully they won't be able to take this away from us."
Mel Robson, 39 and Jessie Ritter, 33, of Gurnee, a lesbian couple, came to the courthouse this morning with their 2-year-old daughter, Bella Ritter-Robson. The couple has been together for almost 11 years.
"This is a big step for our family, so she should be a part of it," Ritter said.
The couple had a wedding for family and friends over five years ago.
"That was the celebration," Robson said. "This is the paperwork that follows."
rhuppke@tribune.com sedaniels@tribune.com
Posted at keystothecloset.blogspot.com
Every Valentine's Day for the past seven or eight years, Roseann Szalkowski and Barb McMillan walked into the DuPage County Clerk's office to ask for a marriage license, and every year the answer was the same: no.
Today, promptly at 8 a.m. when the clerk's office opened, McMillan asked department supervisor Judi Wilkovich the same question.
"I'd like to ask for a marriage license," said McMillan, tears welling in her eyes. An equally emotional Wilkovich, who for years was saddened to turn the couple away, again couldn't grant a marriage license, but she told the couple, "I'm happy to say that you can apply for a civil union license."
Amid applause from clerk's office workers, Szalkowski, 50, and McMillan, 60, who come from Roselle and have been together 11 years, were the first to be granted a civil union license in DuPage County.
Illinois is now the sixth state that allows civil unions or their equivalent, and two other states — Hawaii and Delaware — have passed civil-union laws that have not yet been enacted.
Advocates of gay and lesbian rights say the civil union law is a historic moment worthy of celebration, but they stress that it in no way marks the end of their work. The next step would be to follow either a judicial or legislative path toward the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Similar scenes to the one in DuPage played out around the Chicago area this morning, the first day that same-sex couples were eligible for civil-union licenses.
In Cook County, Janean Watkins and Lakeesha Harris camped overnight outside the Daley Center to be the first in line as the state's new civil-unions law kicked in.
"It's historic," said Watkins, who has been with Harris for 10 years. "We wanted to be first. We wanted to make a statement. For us, for our kids. It really means something."
The couple has six children who will all be in attendance at a formal civil union ceremony tomorrow.
Watkins and Harris were followed by more than 100 other couples who arrived early to get licenses.
Vicki Kenyon and Lisa Martin of Skokie were up at 4 a.m. and headed to the Daley Center to get a license to legally cement their nearly 10-year relationship.
"We thought we'd just get it done in Skokie," Martin said. "But then we figured, hey, if they're going to throw a party downtown, we should be there, be part of history."
Couples can obtain licenses starting today, but must wait a day before holding a ceremony. On Thursday, the governor and Mayor Rahm Emanuel will be on hand in Millennium Park as more than 30 couples enter into civil unions.
The group The Civil Rights Agenda plans to host another cluster of civil union celebrations on Friday at the Chicago History Museum. Anthony Martinez, the group's executive director, said at least 30 couples signed up, reflecting the widespread enthusiasm he has seen in the city's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Linda Zetterberg, 59, and Sherry Burlingame, 52, wed in Ontario, Canada, on May 27, 2005, but showed up to the DuPage County clerk’s office today to see if their marriage would recognized in Illinois now that civil union licenses are being issued.
Plus, they wanted to be around to congratulate other same-sex couples.
“We’ve waited for a long time for this,” said Zetterberg, just as the office’s first couple became licensed. “We had to drive with all of our paperwork in a glove compartment in case anything happens.”
DuPage County clerk’s office officials told the couple they did not know whether foreign marriage licenses are now honored in Illinois and said they would have to defer to their legal department.
Workers who typically issue marriage licenses also had to make adjustments in how they addressed the civil union applicants.
One couple, Martha Flores, 37, and Jessica Meyer, 33, of Westmont, who became licensed just before 11 a.m., for example, didn’t know the proper term to use when referring to their relationship status would be once they held a ceremony.
“Certified” would be the proper term to use, not married, said Wilkovich, the department supervisor, who had to learn the appropriate terminology.
Flores and Meyer have been together since 2009. Flores moved in with Meyer shortly afterward.
The couple from Glendale Heights said they initially wanted to have a less formal commitment ceremony, but decided to hold off when they learned of the possibility that civil unions would be legalized in Illinois.
Stress Once the possibility became reality, “I didn’t want to wait because I was afraid that what happened in California would happen here,” said Flores of California’s constitutional amendment in 2008 that limited marriage to be between only a man and a woman.
By 11 a.m. at the DuPage County clerk’s office five people had been granted licenses to certify their civil unions. Meyer was surprised to find the office empty when the couple arrived.
Flores was not.
“For the most part I thought DuPage County was pretty homophobic,” Flores said.
To the couple’s surprise, everyone in the office treated them with respect.
“You’ve been waiting a long time,” the woman who licensed the couple told them as they walked out of the door.
At an unrelated event today, Gov. Pat Quinn applauded the law.
"I signed that law, and I think it's a good law," Quinn said. "I think it makes us a better state. I think it's important that Illinois be a place of tolerance and welcoming to all."
In Lake County, about a dozen couples lined up outside of the clerk's office this morning.
Sam Johnson, 45 and Michael Maurello, 44, of Beach Park, who have been together for 12 years, said that while they didn't need a piece of paper to show their commitment to each other; they came to be a part of history.
"Since so many people went to so much trouble to make this happen we wanted to show our appreciation," Johnson said.
"It is important to show our support in numbers," added Maurello, who said he works at the Art Institute of Chicago and has seen the numbers of people demonstrating against civil unions downtown. "If they repeal it, hopefully they won't be able to take this away from us."
Mel Robson, 39 and Jessie Ritter, 33, of Gurnee, a lesbian couple, came to the courthouse this morning with their 2-year-old daughter, Bella Ritter-Robson. The couple has been together for almost 11 years.
"This is a big step for our family, so she should be a part of it," Ritter said.
The couple had a wedding for family and friends over five years ago.
"That was the celebration," Robson said. "This is the paperwork that follows."
rhuppke@tribune.com sedaniels@tribune.com
Posted at keystothecloset.blogspot.com
Monday, May 23, 2011
Nissan, Comcast, FedEx, AT&T on verge of getting gay rights law pulled in Nashville
Thursday, May 19, 2011 Posted by John Aravosis (DC) at 5/19/2011 08:16:00 PM at http://gay.americablog.com/2011/05/nissan-comcast-fedex-at-on-verge-of.html reposted at keystothecloset.blogspot.com
It's abominable.
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce - chaired by Nissan, and whose other board members include such companies as Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG, Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare - actively lobbied for a religious right bill in the Tennessee legislature that would rescind Nashville's civil rights protections for its gay and trans citizens, and which bans every city in Tennessee from passing any civil rights laws, for anyone, ever again.
The bill passed yesterday. It's on its way to the state's Republican governor for his signature, unless he vetoes it.
And these companies led the way in making it happen. And let me reiterate, these companies aren't just members of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. These compares are all on the board of directors of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. They run the TN Chamber.
Joe and I just launched a campaign to pressure the governor to veto the bill, and to punish every company involved in making this bigoted legislation happen. Please join our campaign today and sign this open letter to the companies involved. We're going to be writing a lot about this in the coming days.
Make no mistake, this was legislative gay-bashing at its worst. The legislation was crafted by the religious right in order to repeal Nashville's new ordinance protecting gay and trans residents from discrimination. Apparently not discriminating against their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees was just too much to ask from Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG. Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare. According to the TN chamber of commerce, of which they all sit on the board, abiding by such protections would be too much of an "additional burden." Really? It's now a burden to simply not discriminate against your own employees? I'm a lawyer, it's really not that complicated of legal advice. Simply don't discriminate against your employees. How complicated is that? So why would these companies, as board members of the TN chamber, permit their own organization to kill this gay and trans civil rights law?
And don't for a minute buy the chamber's excuse that this is about business, not prejudice. Every other minority is protected in the state under federal law. Gays and trans are not. The law was the idea of the religious right. The lead lobbyist on the law was the religious right. The only victim of the law was the LGBT community. This law was specifically written and intended to repeal Nashville's new civil rights ordinance protecting gay and trans citizens, period.
Tell me again how this was only about business.
And don't think that this is only about Tennessee. If the religious right, and their new corporate henchmen, are successful in repealing current, and banning future, gay rights law in Tennessee, they'll do the same thing in every single state until only a handful of states protect our community.
After all, if the state of Texas were to pass a gay rights law and Tennessee didn't have such a law, then it would be oh so confusing for these poor corporations, having one law in TX and another in TN, and they'd simply have to lobby the Texas legislature to repeal statewide civil rights protections too - right? And if some day America passes ENDA, but, say, Singapore has no such protections, imagine how confusing it would be for poor Nissan and FedEx to have two different laws in two different countries. I guess they'd have no choice but to oppose a federal ENDA too. After all, that is the logic of their "business" argument, isn't it?
This has to stop now.
Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG. Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare don't know the meaning of pain. They just ticked off the wrong community.
Please sign our open letter to each of those companies, demanding they immediately withdraw their support for this hateful legislation, and that they tell the governor to veto the bill now.
This is only the first step. We are not going to let these companies get away with this. Stay tuned.
It's abominable.
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce - chaired by Nissan, and whose other board members include such companies as Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG, Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare - actively lobbied for a religious right bill in the Tennessee legislature that would rescind Nashville's civil rights protections for its gay and trans citizens, and which bans every city in Tennessee from passing any civil rights laws, for anyone, ever again.
The bill passed yesterday. It's on its way to the state's Republican governor for his signature, unless he vetoes it.
And these companies led the way in making it happen. And let me reiterate, these companies aren't just members of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. These compares are all on the board of directors of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. They run the TN Chamber.
Joe and I just launched a campaign to pressure the governor to veto the bill, and to punish every company involved in making this bigoted legislation happen. Please join our campaign today and sign this open letter to the companies involved. We're going to be writing a lot about this in the coming days.
Make no mistake, this was legislative gay-bashing at its worst. The legislation was crafted by the religious right in order to repeal Nashville's new ordinance protecting gay and trans residents from discrimination. Apparently not discriminating against their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees was just too much to ask from Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG. Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare. According to the TN chamber of commerce, of which they all sit on the board, abiding by such protections would be too much of an "additional burden." Really? It's now a burden to simply not discriminate against your own employees? I'm a lawyer, it's really not that complicated of legal advice. Simply don't discriminate against your employees. How complicated is that? So why would these companies, as board members of the TN chamber, permit their own organization to kill this gay and trans civil rights law?
And don't for a minute buy the chamber's excuse that this is about business, not prejudice. Every other minority is protected in the state under federal law. Gays and trans are not. The law was the idea of the religious right. The lead lobbyist on the law was the religious right. The only victim of the law was the LGBT community. This law was specifically written and intended to repeal Nashville's new civil rights ordinance protecting gay and trans citizens, period.
Tell me again how this was only about business.
And don't think that this is only about Tennessee. If the religious right, and their new corporate henchmen, are successful in repealing current, and banning future, gay rights law in Tennessee, they'll do the same thing in every single state until only a handful of states protect our community.
After all, if the state of Texas were to pass a gay rights law and Tennessee didn't have such a law, then it would be oh so confusing for these poor corporations, having one law in TX and another in TN, and they'd simply have to lobby the Texas legislature to repeal statewide civil rights protections too - right? And if some day America passes ENDA, but, say, Singapore has no such protections, imagine how confusing it would be for poor Nissan and FedEx to have two different laws in two different countries. I guess they'd have no choice but to oppose a federal ENDA too. After all, that is the logic of their "business" argument, isn't it?
This has to stop now.
Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG. Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare don't know the meaning of pain. They just ticked off the wrong community.
Please sign our open letter to each of those companies, demanding they immediately withdraw their support for this hateful legislation, and that they tell the governor to veto the bill now.
This is only the first step. We are not going to let these companies get away with this. Stay tuned.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Potential Republican Nominees for President and Their Stances on LGBT Equality
Interactive: Conservatives on LGBT Issues
By Noel Gordon, Jeff Krehely
This interactive looks at the current field of potential Republican nominees for president and evaluates their stances on various LGBT-related issues in light of comments made in interviews, news stories, and articles. There are many potential challengers to President Barack Obama in 2012 but this interactive surveys the 13 politicians who have emerged as major contenders for the Republican nomination. Click on a candidate to view their comments.
Find out where each potential Republican nominee stands on the following issues: relationship recognition, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Employment Non-Discrimination Act, constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, adoption, Defense of Marriage Act, and spousal benefits.
By Noel Gordon, Jeff Krehely
This interactive looks at the current field of potential Republican nominees for president and evaluates their stances on various LGBT-related issues in light of comments made in interviews, news stories, and articles. There are many potential challengers to President Barack Obama in 2012 but this interactive surveys the 13 politicians who have emerged as major contenders for the Republican nomination. Click on a candidate to view their comments.
Find out where each potential Republican nominee stands on the following issues: relationship recognition, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Employment Non-Discrimination Act, constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, adoption, Defense of Marriage Act, and spousal benefits.
 |
Last year, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly “there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us.” |
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Goodbye, Mom and Dad. Hello, Parent One and Parent Two.
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Ed O'Keefe Washington
Parent One, Parent Two to replace references to mother, father on passport forms
Friday, January 7, 2011; 11:47 PM
The State Department has decided to make U.S.
The change is "in recognition of different types of families," according to a statement issued just before Christmas that drew widespread attention Friday after a Fox News report.
The announcement of the change was buried at the end of a Dec. 22 news release, titled "Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements," that highlighted unrelated security changes.
The new policy is a win for gay rights groups, a vocal and financially generous Democratic voting bloc that has pushed for the change since Barack Obama began his presidential transition in late 2008. The decision follows last month's vote to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which gay leaders consider one of their biggest victories in years.
Fred Sainz, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, called the news "a positive step forward for all American families. It was time that the federal government acknowledged the reality that hundreds of thousands of kids in this country are being raised by same-sex parents."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, blasted it as reflecting the "topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness." "This is clearly designed," he said in a statement, "to advance the causes of same-sex 'marriage' and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
He called on Congress to take action.
It was not immediately clear whether a similar change would be made to all federal documents. But after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced in 2009 that partners of gay American diplomats would be eligible for benefits accorded to spouses, the rest of the U.S.
In 2000, Clinton United States
Rosemary Macray of the State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs shrugged off complaints of political correctness and described the switch as an unremarkable bureaucratic tweak. "Really, there have been so many changes in the last 10 or 15 years with reproductive technology and the like, and so this is
why it is important for us to accurately reflect families in these applications," she said.
The DS-11 form is required of first-time passport applicants and children younger than 16. The change will go into effect Feb. 1 and will be part of an already-scheduled revision of passport forms, Macray said.
"It's not going to really involve any expense to taxpayers," she said.
sheridanm@washpost.com ed.okeefe@washingtonpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)