Making trouble? Of course!

Perennial "troublemaker," Antonia D'orsay, has asked the LGTB community a series of questions on The Bilerico Project:

1. Why should the LGBT split apart?

2. Why can't people other trans folk speak out on trans topics?

3. Why should the LGBT stay together?

4. Why should people accept letting trans people go from legislation?

5. Why should people accept letting gay men go from legislation?

6. Why are we all allies to each other instead of part of one another?

7. Why do people think there isn't an LGBT community?

8. Why do people think there is an LGBT community?

9. Why don't we start our own political party?

10. What makes a person part of the problem, instead of part of the solution or someone outside the whole issue?

The first 8 questions have, as an underlying assumption, something that's not true - that there are no trans lesbian and gay people so it's actually possible to split the community along those lines. I can't answer these questions without accepting this assumption, something I cannot do without denying the existence of at least part of who I am.

As far as question 9 is concerned, well, what possible good would it do in the political structure that exists in the United States? Even if it were possible to unite those who hold the extremely divergent political beliefs within the TBGL community it would use up so much energy and have so little beneficial effect on the fight for equality that I think it would be a waste of time.

The last question, #10, "What makes a person part of the problem, instead of part of the solution or someone outside the whole issue?" That one made me stop and wonder. How do I define someone who is part of the problem? How do I define the problem in the first place? I have to do that before I even start to consider the criteria for answering question #10. Is this referring to the problem of unity within the greater GBLT community? Is it the problem of the entire community's political and/or social oppression?

I suspect Ms D'orsay framed these questions in such an ambiguous way on purpose, to explore and expose LBTG people's prejudices and bad assumptions. The Deity knows there are all too many of us that hold such prejudices and bad assumptions, many times without even realizing it. It behooves us to follow the old advice about making the world a better place: Start with the one person you are certain to have control over. Yourself.

Today is the New York Statewide GENDA Call-in Day!

Please take a few minutes from your day to call New York Sen. Thomas Duane, the sponsor of GENDA in the Senate, along with your own senator, and ask them to please support equal protections by moving GENDA out of committee, onto the Senate floor and passing it into law. Talking points may be found at the site linked above, if you want them.

Senator Thomas Duane can be reached at 518.455.2451
Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith can be reached at 518.455.2701

The committee members that will have to vote for GENDA to get it onto the Senate floor:

Senator Craig Johnson can be reached at 518.455.2622
Senator Ruben Diaz can be reached at 518.455.2511 (Yes, that Ruben diaz)
Senator Pedro Espada Jr. can be reached at 518.455.3395
Senator Martin J. Golden can be reached at 518.455.2730
Senator Jeffrey D. Klein can be reached at 518..455.3595
Senator Michael F. Nozzolio can be reached at 518.455.2366
Senator William T. Stachowski can be reached at 518.455.2426
Senator George Winner can be reached at 518.455.2091

Please make at least one phone call to Sen Duane and your state senator. It's only a few minutes and can make the difference between getting equal protection or remaining powerless in the face of blatant discrimination in much of New York State. This year is our best chance to get this bill passed but it won't move unless we remind the Senate that marriage equality isn't the only vital issue for the GLBT community.

Thank you so much!

hugs & smiles
Emelye

More about New Hampshire

I received some more news that, unfortunately, does not relieve my suspicions. It turns out that more than 50 New Hampshire House representatives who are members of the Democratic party were absent from the non discrimination vote. I wonder why the representatives who were not present didn't think it was important enough to attend to the non discrimination vote. I assume they were present when the marriage equality vote was taken the day before. Why didn't they know, why didn't they care? Were they not told of how important the non discrimination bill was? Didn't anyone tell them trans people's survival, tied as it is to employment and housing availability, is a bit more important than being able to marry your same sex sweetheart? Why was the marriage vote scheduled first?

I've already been told by one person, but without any proof (I'm supposed to take their word for it), that there is no divide between the GLB and T portions of the community in New Hampshire. I will count that as one small piece of evidence that I may be wrong and it is far from being enough to convince me.

A Tale of Two Battles. (or was it three?)

I was very pleased, heartened even, when I heard on Wednesday that Gainesville, Florida had voted no to the cynical and hateful attempt by the so called “Citizens for Good Public Policy,” along with their right wing supporters from the Thomas More Legal Center, to roll back that city’s nondiscrimination law. Their attempt to remove the city law in favor of the much more limited Florida state non discrimination law, using scare tactics based on lies was defeated by 58 to 42% of the voters.

Amendment 1, as it was called, would have rolled back nondiscrimination protections for not only the trans community in Gainesville but also the gay, lesbian and bisexual community as well, since Florida state law does not recognize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as gender identity/expression. A strong coalition of GLB as well as T groups and individuals, along with the ACLU and NOW, fought the good fight and beat back the oppressors.

Today, however, I hear that the New Hampshire House defeated a bill that would have included trans people in their non discrimination law. The bill lost by 15 votes, 157-172. The day before this vote was taken, however, the NH House voted to pass a bill that would to make same-sex marriages legal, by a vote of 186-179. This particular coincidence fills me with dismay.

Why? Because the GLB community has been so focused on marriage rights that I suspect they gave non discrimination short shrift in their lobbying efforts. I am not connected with either of the campaigns in Gainesville or New Hampshire so this is conjecture but given past history and my own two eyes on how things work in New York State, I feel pretty safe with my suspicion. I hope to see some information from the trans community in New Hampshire that will make me wrong, but I dare say, I doubt it will come.

It is important to note that sexual orientation was and remains a protected category under New Hampshire non discrimination law. There was zero motivation then, from what I can see, beyond enlightened self interest (since gender expression is often variant within the GLB community) for them to devote the resources it would take to get trans people covered when their marriage rights were on the docket at the same time.

The “predators in bathrooms” lie apparently worked in New Hampshire. It didn’t in Gainesville. While I suppose there are many factors that came into play, I am almost certain the lack of support from the GLB community, distracted as they were by the marriage equality bill in New Hampshire, played a significant part in the defeat. I hope I’ll be proven wrong. I really do, but it’s about the same level of hope that I have for an inclusive ENDA, or the hope I have for real support from the HRC, not just words.

I'm already married, why should I care?

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_involved/freedom_to_marry_week_2009bl.php

I traveled to Albany on Tuesday, Feb 3rd, to talk about marriage equality to my state senator, Sen. Cathy Young (Republican and Conservative Party). I didn't get to talk to her, we spoke to one of her aides, so I wonder how much good my visit did to advance marriage equality. I tried to explain to the aide (I wish I had gotten a business card from her, I can't remember her name!) how it is that an trans woman who married before transition and remains married to this day is interested in marriage equality fro the GLBT community. It's actually pretty simple.

My spouse and I married in 1987 after being together for 5 years. I began therapy with an eye towards gender transition in December of 2005. One of our primary concerns was how this would affect our legal standing as a married couple. We found out that, generally speaking, since the marriage was contracted legally at the time, nothing short of death or divorce could dissolve it. Big sigh of relief! Yet, as I moved towards realizing my true self we also realized that our relationship is now that of a same sex couple. A legal same sex marriage, so to speak. (I tell incredulous people that we found a "loophole.") The problem now is that we don't "look" like we could be married! What would happen if one of us should fall ill or be in an accident. What if one of us were arrested? How could we defend our relationship and our rights in a medical or legal setting?

My solution has been to carry a copy of our marriage certificate (with my old name on it, they wouldn't allow it to be changed) and a copy of my name change court order to establish that I am the person named on the certificate. The big problem for me now, though, is that to defend my marriage I, or my spouse, have to out ourselves as a transgendered couple, leaving us both open to the discrimination and prejudice that this label brings. Since I, as a trans woman, am specifically excluded from the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the doctors, nurses or other hospital staff could legally discriminate against me. Of course, that assumes the people whom I have to convince that we are really in a legal marriage, accept the validity of the copies I carry with me. They could stall by refusing to accept them without proof, all of which takes precious time during which one of us could be dying surrounded by strangers. Making same sex marriage legal makes it the norm, hopefully making my defense unnecessary.

Should the unthinkable happen and my spouse and I are separated for any reason it is within the realm of possibility (well, so is winning the lottery!) that I meet someone and that we may want to marry. That brings in all sorts of other problems. I could meet the same horrible fate that Christie Lee Littleton met when her marriage of 7 years was invalidated by a Texas court (http://christielee.net/main1.htm). Or I could fall under the same kind of judicial violence as J'Noel Gardiner did in Kansas http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/03/22/kansas_ruling/print.html. Both of these cases would not have turned out as they did had equal marriage rights been the law of the land.

So it turns out that I should and DO care about marriage rights. Currently I have to out myself to defend my relationship leaving me open to legal, as well as illegal, discrimination. Some trans activists have pointed out that the fight for GLBT protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which I wholeheartedly support) or ENDA (which I have problems with, even the inclusive version) is much more important than the fight for marriage equality. I agree that they are yet I know I need to stand with the others in my community if I want them to stand for me. If we stand together there's no reason we can't have both issues resolved in our favor.