Rainbow Legal Talk

Day of Action, Day of Hope--Part II

This is a continuation of the last blog regarding the efforts of Equality NC during the Day of Action and includes a rundown of the different legislation facing North Carolina. While the information is based on North Carolina legislation, look for similar proposed laws in other states or jurisdictions.

 

Conform State Law to Lawrence v. Texas (House Bill 100)

While there was much celebration in the LGBT community after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in many states. Basically, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' anti-sodomy laws and every other state law as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Yes, there was much celebration at the decriminalization of consensual acts between adults.

 

Unfortunately, these laws remain on the books. Far from being simply a housekeeping item, there are still some severe consequences to the law being on the books. People can still be arrested, detained, fingerprinted, and (if they are smart) forced to hire a lawyer to defend them for a “crimes against nature” charge by the police. Yes, they will get a hearing, and, yes, they will eventually be released because the law is unconstitutional.

 

But what is the cost of this process? How many lost hours of work will there be? How much disruption of a person’s life will there be? For the rest of a person’s life, when applying for a job and they are asked have they ever been arrested, they will have to answer yes and then explain the circumstances of their arrest. Yes, far from being a simple nuisance on the law books, this law needs to go because there is such a huge potential for abuse by a single unapproving police officer or sheriff’s deputy, especially when the only reason for keeping the law on the books would be to allow that harassment to occur and give the officer the excuse “well, the law IS on the books.”

 

 

The Safer Communities Act (House Bill 207)

 

While probably the most basic of civil rights, it is a shame that they are not already in effect. I often hear that “gays should not have special rights” from the other side when discussing employment laws, or “every crime is a hate crime” when discussing hate crimes legislation. It’s a load of crap.

 

The most basic of function of government is to protect its citizens from harm, and so a variety of physical harms are classified as crimes. Assault and battery for harm, manslaughter or murder for death, and the lists go on. One thing that is clear in the law and has a long history is that even the same criminal “harm” can have different punishments. If someone is killed in a car accident, it is manslaughter with certain punishments. Killing someone in the heat of the moment is second degree murder with certain punishments. Finally, a planned and premeditated murder carries even higher punishments. In all cases, the victim is dead, but the intent of the person committing the crime can vary the punishments greatly. Giving a higher punishment for a crime committed because of a repugnant motivation does make sense.

 

Why, then, are some people opposed to giving higher penalties when the motivation for a crime is racism, sexism, or opposition to sexual orientation? We are not talking about giving more prison time if someone beats up another person who happens to be gay. We are talking about more prison time if someone beats up another person because they are gay. People in our country should not be subjected to any form of crime because they are gay. Or of a particular gender. Or of a particular race. It should simply not be allowed.

 

To be continued again…

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy Hurts War on Terror

While I don't expect the Bush Administration to do anything about it, one of the results from the Iraq Study Group coupled with other studies have shown that dismissing military personnel simply for being gay has hurt U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. A recent General Accounting Office report has shown that more than 300 language experts, more than 50 of whom were proficient in Arabic languages, were dismissed under the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. See the story at http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10772

The obvious problem is that intelligence is not being processed quickly enough because we do not have enough translaters. (This is actually something which has been shown to be a contributing factor to 9-11 since the U.S. had intercepted messages pertient to the attacks but which were not translated until after the 11th because of a lack of experienced translators.) Another problem with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is that people serving in the military who have been complying with the policy are still being dismissed because they are being outed by other members of the military. This actually has cost the military about $369 million to train new people to take the place of people who have been dismissed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Considering the huge problem of terrorism and the huge gaps in U.S. intelligence, maybe its time to put the interests of national security ahead of institutionalized bigotry against gays and lesbians who wish to serve their country during a time of war.

Brownback's "Gay Apartheid"

Here's a good follow up to the previous post about Senator Brownback's hold on Judge Neff's nomination. John Whiteside called Brownback's hold on the nomination Brownback's "gay apartheid," and he has a point. Any time someone actually has empathy or experience that goes against the Right Wing's desires, then judges and jury members should not be allowed to rule on cases.

"What's next? Someone who has too many black friends can't rule fairly on an affirmative action case? If you're not a Christian, you can't possible rule fairly in a case on separation of church and state? Perhaps no female judges should be allowed to rule on any sex discrimination cases." See the full post at: http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2006/12/sam_brownbacks_new_gay_aparthe.html

The Regressive Right has a few things going for it in its successful campaign of hatred against gay couples, which in turn supplies mountains of cash and votes from people who think they are doing "God's work". The biggest one is that many of their supporters don't know any gay people well enough to sympathize with them, and the media primarily enforces stereotypes that make these right-wingers not want to know them. Brownback's attitude is to misuse government to keep those people who may actually know gay people (and may actually see that they are not the proverbial boogeymen the Right wants them to appear) away from legal decisions.

Yes, calling it gay apartheid is accurate.

Judge denied post because she attended committment ceremony

Talk about wild-eyed, unreasoned prejudice... U.S. senator, presidential candidate and major political opportunist Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) invoked a little-used Senate procedure to block the nomination of Janet Neff as a federal judge. By putting a "hold" on her nomination, he has effectively stalled her becoming a federal circuit court judge. Neff, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge, has been nominated by President Bush to become a federal circuit court judge. Any Senator may put a hold on nominations for many lower-level offices that need Senate confirmation (including circuit court judges) if they feel there is an extreme case. There are no official mechanisms, laws or regulations around this rule, but senators essentially agree to respect these holds because someday they may wish to place such a hold on a nomination.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=10408

So what is the big, egregious affront Judge Neff made that caused Senator Brownback to put his foot down? She attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. Yeah, that's it. She didn't even preside over the ceremony, but because she is friends with a committed lesbian couple, she does not get to be a federal court judge. Probably after getting a lot of strange looks and negative comments over his actions, the Senator partially relented, saying he would release the hold on her nomination if she agreed to not take any cases regarding same-sex marriage.

The movement for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples has been likened to a lower-key version of the civil rights movement for black citizens in the 60s. Imagine this...

In the early 1960s, a Michigan court of appeals judge attends a religious marriage ceremony in Virginia for a black man and a white woman, which is not a legal marriage because at that time Virginia prohibited interracial marriage. The same judge is nominated to the federal bench, but his nomination is put on hold by a U.S. Senator from Kansas because he does not approve of the mixing of the races. After hearing a lot of criticism, the Senator says he'll release the hold so long as the judge agrees not to take any cases about marriage between black and white citizens.

Twenty years from now, remember this post and how absolutely closed-minded and disgusting the views of Senator Brownback will seem then. And this guy is running for President...

Tolerance vs Intolerance in High School

The more they fight, the more they end up exposed as bigots.

An Okeechobee, Florida high school has been the center of a legal storm ever since senior Yasmin Gonzalez tried to start a Gay-Straight Alliance club. If you didn't know it already, the purpose of a Gay-Straight Alliance is to promote tolerance and understanding of gay people. Apparently, tolerance and understanding are not proper values for some in Okeechobee.

See story at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-okee0306dec03,0,4128829.story?page=1&track=rss

The one quote I like most from this story comes from Terri Rubio, and insurance clerk in the town with kids in the high school: "The ACLU needs to go back to Washington, where people are more tolerant, and leave our nice little churchgoing town alone."

The ironic thing is that the law that Gay-Straight Alliances across the country are using in court to get the right to form in public schools was initiated by Christian groups in order to get their prayer clubs formed at a time when some schools were afraid of violating the separation of church and state by having these clubs. The law was formed to allow these "out of classroom" clubs as long as all other such clubs were allowed to meet as well. I guess it's true; "be careful what you wish for."

Gay marriage in Canada threatened by conservative Parliament

Welcome back to the issue of gay marriage being used as a football in politics. This time, I'm talking about Canada. Apparently the ruling conservative government wants to revisit the law that allowed marriage between same sex couples even though it is clear that banning gay marriage is out of step with the majority of the country. Check out the story at http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-11-30T002053Z_01_N29405021_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-SAMESEX-COL.XML

Gay marriage... uhh... I mean civil unions... in NJ

The NJ Supreme Court recently handed down a decision which is forcing the state to allow marriage for same sex couples within six months or some other system allowing equal rights. Now the legislature is not debating whether or not to allow equal unions for gay couples, but whether or not it should be called marriage. NJ's highest state court ruled 4-3 to forced the issue in late October and turned it over the legislature. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102500174.html)

While the decision looks like a razor-thin court decision for NJ partners, it was actually an overwhelming win. Some of the justices that voted against the decision did so because they thought nothing less than full marriage rights would solve the inequities. Now, while the NJ legislature is struggling with what to call the relationships (with "civil union" leading the pack), conservative groups are still fighting to deny equal rights for gay partners. (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-28-gay-marriage_x.htm).

Here's a novel idea... why not stop the state from issuing marriage licenses? Isn't marriage supposed to be a religious, spiritual institution? Why not have the state issue civil union certificates for any adult couple that wants it and then let the churches decide who does or does not enter into what is supposed to be a holy union?