Family Pride’s Blog

A little over a week ago, we brought you the story of Cathy James, an OUTSpoken lesbian mom in Florida who attended the ultra-conservative Family Impact Summit in Tampa. In case you missed the story, click here. Today, Cathy speaks out about her experience.

I want to thank David for asking me to comment on my experience at the Family Impact Summit. Jim Burroway from Box Turtle Bulletin pretty much summed up the interaction I had with the panelists so I would like to tell you about the press conference and a few comments I have after 2 weeks of reflection.

When I found out in mid-August that a large group of national anti-gay leaders and speakers would be meeting in mid-September about 4 miles from my house, I was aggravated. Under the leadership of Nadine Smith, Executive Director of Equality Florida, a half dozen local gay leaders joined with some heavy-hitters of our own, to plan a press conference and witness rally on the afternoon before the conference started. Speakers at the press conference included: Nadine Smith, Equality Florida; Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out; Rev. Irene Monroe, Faith In America; Sally Phillips, Hillsborough Florida GLBT Democratic Caucus; Rev. Phyllis Hunt, MCC Tampa; Marty Rouse, Human Rights Campaign; Barbara Leavitt, spouse of former ex-gay; Rev. Cedric A. Harmon, Americans United for Separation of Church & State; Michelle Kenoyer, a non-gay ally who lives about 5 miles from the site of the summit.

My aggravation turned to anger when my Florida District 56 State Representative Trey Traviesa and the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections became sponsors of the summit.

While planning the press conference I kept feeling that our response was too national. These bigots were in MY backyard and I was not happy about it. I talked with several friends about what WE could do. I didn’t want to waste a vacation day and $100 to attend the summit only to be told I am an abomination. We talked about a protest on Saturday. My Holy Spirit moment came when the summit opened up Free Sessions on both Friday and Saturday.

The Free Session on Saturday was a town hall entitled “Defending Marriage: What’s at Stake? My good friend Zeke and I signed up to attend. As a cradle Catholic who attended 12 years of Catholic school and 2 more at a Baptist college, I will never shy away from a discussion of religion. It was difficult sitting through the homophobic, ridiculous and illogical statements by the moderator Rena Lindevaldsen and panelists Peter Sprigg and John Stemberger, but my blood was boiling as the statistics expert Dale O’Leary said that I was much more likely to have psychological disorders and addictions than she was and that my partner and I are harmful to our child.

In pondering what I heard and what I said as scribed by Jim Burroway, I have the following observations:

• Be thoroughly familiar with what the anti-gay crowd is pushing to the religious community. They believe that they have a tried and true system to refute our demand for same-gender rights including marriage. The program, produced by Focus on the Family, is called Ten Persuasive Answers to the Question … “Why not gay marriage?” by Glenn T. Stanton. The pamphlet that accompanies the DVD they gave to all participants tells the reader to “Master the responses to these questions and you will be well-suited to defend the family.” You can study these questions here (1-5) and here (6-10).

• Do not ever be silent when someone is spewing hatred of our community. If you do not have the talking points or the courage to speak out, become an OUTspoken family. Family Pride will provide you with the materials to give you the knowledge and courage to combat our detractors. Seek out a Family Pride workshop or contact Family Pride and offer to help them conduct a workshop in your area.

• Do not accept bigotry as religious truth. Religious teachings that justify bigotry must not be sanctioned by our religious communities. Rather, they must be publicly exposed and denounced. Check out http://www.faithinamerica.info.

• Do not allow anti-gay bigots to use the “values” card. I am a values voter too! I value diversity. I value equality. I value my family.

• BE OUT & INVOLVED – It is so easy to stay at home and leave the work to others. Trust me, I did that until about 2001, but I found out that in Florida as a non-biological mom I have no legal rights in my child’s life. Be out in every part of your life – with family, at work, at church, at your child’s school. Serve on the board of your homeowners’ association, serve in ministries at your church, volunteer with the local or statewide LGBT advocacy group, volunteer at your child’s school, start a Family Pride chapter if your area does not have one.

• Financially support the work of Family Pride, other national, state and local advocacy organizations and political candidates that advocate for all citizens. Remember, they work hard for your family every day.

I’m not sure that this pontification is what David had in mind when he asked me to write a blog, but remember … be careful what you ask for!!

Cathy James is a founder and board member of Securing Our Children’s Rights, Inc., a statewide organization committed to repealing the ban on adoption by gay Floridians. She can be reached at cathy@ourchildrensrights.org.

As the ENDA debate and controversy continues, HRC’s only openly transgender board member, Donna Rose, resigned. Though long, we are reproducing her statement in its entirety. It’s important that we all read her powerful words:

Community. Integrity. Leadership. Vision. These are the foundational pillars of Equality. These are the values that draw many of us into advocacy roles. Those tenets provide a clear roadmap when things like politics, expediency, agenda, and power cloud the picture as they so often do. They pave the way to the moral high-ground, and those who follow them with trust and patience will ultimately find their efforts rewarded.

My name is Donna Rose, and I am the first and only openly transgender member of the Board of Directors of the Human Rights Campaign. I am the national co-chair for Diversity. I am the co-chair appointee-elect for the Business Council. I have spoken at events around the country on behalf of the organization, and I am a respected advocate for the transgender community.

My participation on the HRC Board has been a heavy burden. The relationship between HRC and the transgender community is one scarred by betrayal, distrust, and anger. I have become a focal point for much of that frustration and I accepted that responsibility with the hope that I could help to change it. In some very real ways I think I have been able to do that, or at least to help make that happen, and am tremendously proud of all we have achieved. Continue Reading »

As the 150+ citizens groups gathered together as UnitedENDA continue to fight for HR 2015, the fully inclusive employment nondiscrimination act, vital information regarding the failings of the new bill, HR 3685, is coming to light.

By now most of you know that the new bill no longer protects transgender people within our LGBTQ community. Protections for “gender identity” were specifically left out in the new bill. But that’s not all that happened to the ENDA this community has been working so hard to pass. According to Lambda Legal’s analysis of the new bill*, three other vital provisions are vulnerable in ENDA-2:

1. ENDA-2 does not protect people from discrimination based on “gender nonconformity.” In other words, it may be unlawful under ENDA-2 to fire someone for being “gay” or “lesbian,” but it will not be unlawful to fire that same person for being “nelly” or “butch.”

2. ENDA-2 no longer claims that an employer’s refusal to grant domestic partner health benefits to same-sex couples in a situation where they otherwise offer health benefits to opposite-sex spouses is discrimination. This backpedaling is based on marriage equality fears, not on the reality of what constitutes employment discrimination. Benefits given to some employees because their relationships fit “the norm” and not to others is a form of discrimination that should rightly be covered by any legitimate ENDA.

3. ENDA-2 gives in to religious-based discrimination by granting a blanket exemption to groups that claim a religious foundation. Religious exemptions should apply to legitimate faith-based institutions, not private companies that are run by religious zealots.

In other words, the issue of whether to support the original bill or the eleventh-hour substitute does not hinge solely on whether trans people are included or not. ENDA-2 is a watered down version of the ENDA we’ve all been fighting for. In this community we know we do not have many chances to pass legislation like the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. If we push an ineffective bill through now, we squander the opportunity to true achieve equality in the workplace. Still, even if these other provisions had remained intact, we would not support a bill that sacrifices unity for the benefit of some. A trans-inclusive ENDA is the only ENDA we want. For more information and opportunities to act, visit UnitedENDA.org.

*Note: Representative Barney Frank, who has championed ENDA for years and who most recently made waves by authoring the new version of ENDA, HR 3685, has responded to Lamdba Legal’s criticism in a blog post on Bilerico.com. On a personal note, I highly respect Rep. Frank and his outspoken efforts on behalf of the LGBTQ community. His thoughtful criticism was taken into account in writing this post. It should be noted, however, that Rep. Frank’s response to Lambda Legal has more to do with whether it’s politically feasible to include in ENDA the provisions discussed above, the provisions he altered or left out of the new bill. While I recognize the need to discuss political possibilities, I focused on Lambda Legal’s analysis in this post because I wanted to share a legal perspective on what the new bill does and doesn’t do, not whether it’s possible to pass a bill that does or does not do those things.

Many of us remember Mitchell Anderson from Doogie Howser, M.D. Anderson came out publicly back in 1996, and has been OUTSpoken on human rights issues ever since. We came across this guest post that Anderson wrote regarding LGBTQ families on the Visible Vote ‘08 blog (on the logo website) and wanted to share it with you.

I first voted in a Presidential election in 1980, the year that Ronald Reagan dragged the Moral Majority into Washington on his long coattails.

Since then, anyone who does not belong to a two-parent, non-gay, child-bearing family has been vilified by The Right.
They have co-opted the family as their issue. They call their crusade a fight for Family Values and yet they represent only a fraction of the real families in America.

In this election cycle, I would like to see Barack, Hillary, John and the rest of the Democratic field get back into the fight for all American families. I want them to acknowledge that in 2007 we are not all in two-parent, non-gay, child-bearing families.

They need to speak for the single parents who are trying to earn a living; secure health insurance for their children; buy into the American dream by owning a home; and get a decent public education that relies on academic thought and not fanaticism.

They need to speak for the families of immigrants, with and without papers, who came to this country in search of a better life, many of whom do the work that other Americans won’t. These are families that need a voice as much as anyone else.
And yes, they need to speak for and fight for the millions of families like mine – two guys and a cat.

We are the forgotten families. We are getting up each day, going to work, creating jobs, giving back to the community and living kind and gentle lives - yet our government, whom we pay to work for us, barely acknowledges our existence and our unequal rights, let alone our worth.

I happen to live on a very blue island in a very red sea. My day-to-day existence is one of acceptance, honor and love. My partner and I, and our cat Elmo, are lucky that our lives are supported by our family, friends and community.

And yet, we are not protected by law. The list of “what straight people can do that we can’t” is too long. The inequities of GLBTQ families must be addressed on a national level by the President of the United States. He or she cannot hide behind the argument that the states should decide these issues. After all, this is not the lottery or the sales tax. This is about people’s lives.

GLBTQ families are denied access to the full benefits of American life that we pay for just like anyone else. The next President needs to bring all families into the American dream – because we all really do matter.

By now, many of you are aware that Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), an historic piece of legislation for the LGBTQ community, is on shaky ground on Capitol Hill. Nervous legislators are concerned that the original version of ENDA, which is transgender-inclusive, will not make it to the White House. Family Pride and countless other organizations are 100% committed to passing the original, inclusive ENDA.

We know - and history shows - that when you leave one group behind, you perpetuate inequality, not move it forward. In the past, lesbian, gay and bisexual people have been pushed out of legislation in order to pass a watered down version. To our lesbian, gay and bisexual readers out there, let’s not play the same games that have been played with our lives. Let’s make sure the original ENDA passes, with transgender inclusion intact! Some in our community will argue that we should pass the non-inclusive ENDA now and come back later to protect transgender people. Let’s be clear: even in the state of Massachusetts - the only state in the nation with marriage equality - employment nondiscrimination was passed without transgender inclusion years ago, which it still lacks to this day.

Family Pride tips its hat to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) for leading the fight for an inclusive ENDA. Visit the Task Force’s action center to participate in this historic fight, taking the side of true equality - not equality for some on the backs of others.

I just learned about an important event set to kick off next Sunday, October 7^th, called “Seven Straight Nights for Gay Rights,” which aims to provide a venue for straight allies to vocalize their support for equality for the LGBTQ community in their local towns and cities.

The week of events includes everything from candlelight vigils to church potlucks in cities across the country, ranging from Seattle, Washington to Augusta, Maine.

7SN, as it is abbreviated on their website, is being organized by two Texas-based organizations, Atticus Circle, named after the To Kill A Mockingbird character Atticus Finch, who stood up for a wrongly accused black man, and Soulforce, a group which aims to attain “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of nonviolent resistance.”

I encourage you to spread the word and get your friends and family members involved. People can sign up to sponsor an existing event, host and organize an event in their town if one is not already scheduled, and to find the details for events already set up.

As Aaron Toleos, the featured ally on Boston’s event page says, “The gay community has been coming out of the closet for years. Now it is our turn to come out with our support for them.”

As many of you may know, during last night’s Democratic presidential debate, a question was asked about LGBTQ families. The question was:

The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children’s teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?

Then, today, Republican candidate Mitt Romney slammed the Democrats in a press release on his website:

Last night’s debate was just the latest example of how out of touch the Democratic presidential candidates are with the American people. Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade. This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand-up to their ultra liberal base and do what’s right for our children.

Family Pride is monitoring these developments and putting together a plan of action to educate the candidates and media. As we put together our plan, give us feedback through our comments. We want to know your thoughts.

We will keep you posted as the developments unfold.

It’s no surprise to LGBTQ parents that the insurance industry discriminates against them and their families. From marriage and partner recogniction to legal parent status and children’s access to health benefits, there are any number of obvious ways that insurance excludes LGBTQ people and their kids.

But rather than just thinking about how the insurance industry discriminates and excludes, I think it’s helpful to take it a step further, to truly wrap our brains around what’s going on:

The benefits packages that insurance companies provide not only discriminate and exclude, they define what specific illnesses, procedures, treatments, and, yes, even families are worth encouraging and supporting.

My package, for instance, includes funds for childbirth classes and support and education programs for expectant mothers, but says nothing of preparing parents who are adopting children, even infants who will be in their care from the first moments of life. The first thing to note here is that insurance companies often apply the term “medically necessary” as a rationale for providing benefits or not. In my reading, there’s nothing “medically necessary” about parent education classes for anyone, really. If parent education classes were “medically necessary,” why wouldn’t my insurance also cover home care assistance for chronically ill people, such as providing funds to hire someone to assistance in daily tasks like dressing, cleaning and feeding oneself. My insurance covers home care assistance for things like physical therapy, administration of drugs and other at home “treatments,” but not day-to-day personal care tasks, things that can vastly improve one’s quality of life and can be excessively difficult to do when debilitated by illness.

Elsewhere in my package there’s funding for gym memberships and nutrition counseling–also, in the strictest sense, not “medically necessary.” So what’s going on here? If insurance is willing to subsidize preventive care and health maintenance, which would include classes to educate new parents on how to best care for their kids, why not apply that rationale equally?

Whether insurance companies intend this or not, their current support of one type of parent (mothers who give birth) over others privileges one type of family over others. Why should lesbian moms or gay dads, for instance, not receieve benefits for parent education classes when they pay their premiums, as well? For that matter, why should any prospective parent who is not a pregnant woman be excluded from these benefits? If the health and well-being of the children is primary purpose behind a parent education benefit, why not equally care for all children?

This is just one of the many questions we must ask the insurance industry, which so greatly shapes our lives through our health. Anyone reading this post who feels categorically discriminated against or excluded from their insurance coverage should think not only about how they’re excluded but who is included and why. What groups and kinds of people are held up over others? Who receives benefits, who has coverage? None of this is black and white and all of it can change.

If you want to take action, assess your benefits package and see if you and your family are inappropriately excluded. You may not be able to get your provider to cover your partner without legal marriage, but you may make waves around things like parent education class benefits and other, less “political” subjects.

As something of a political junkie, I’ve been intrigued by how soon and how quickly the 2008 presidential race has progressed. That we are over a year out and already have supposed a “front runner” in at least one of the parties is striking.

I haven’t made up my mind quite yet – I refuse to succumb to the pre-primary hoopla – but I do have some favorites so far. There are a couple who I think would make a good president; another who I agree with but doesn’t stand a chance.

And then there are the ones whose candidacies I find troubling because their platforms are so diametrically different from my own. Once again, the anti-gay agenda has become a rallying point for some of the leading contenders on the right.

Touting himself as the only true conservative, Fred Thompson has emphasized his consistency on various social and fiscal issues. Unlike some of his counterparts, he hasn’t shifted his stance on gay marriage; he was always against it. Thompson has publicly endorsed a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage, but his language is more nuanced than previous attempts, and in his opinion, is more likely to pass.

As mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani is best known for his leadership on 9/11. He is also credited with “cleaning up the city” by cracking down on crime, albeit with a highly controversial police policy that targeted particular segments of the population. Always viewed as a social moderate, Giuliani has since shifted his stance on gay rights, but has tried to maintain a centrist stance.

A statement from his website reads, “Rudy Giuliani will nominate strict constructionist judges with respect for the rule of law and a proven fidelity to the Constitution. Those judges will follow the text of laws and of the Constitution and will not make policy from the bench.”
Read: “Dear Conservative Base, regardless of what I’ve supposedly stood for in the past, I won’t nominate anyone to the bench who supports all families (or a woman’s right to control her own body.)”

Mitt Romney, arguably my least favorite of the candidates on the right, spent the greater part of his tenure as governor of Massachusetts bad mouthing his constituency and whining about being a red dot in a bleeding-heart blue state. Though he declared himself as a more ardent supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney, showing himself to be little more than a disingenuous political opportunist, is now quite anti-gay rights.

Marc Fisher at the Washington Post wrote a story called, “Who Among Us Would Cast the First Stone? This Guy” last week on September 6th.

It all got me thinking… it is right or okay to out people like Senator Craig or Anderson Cooper or Jodie Foster? Fisher specifically talks about blogger Michael Rogers and his blog that has been used to out anti-gay politicians who are alleged to be gay themselves and if he is really liberating anyone or any lie. In fact Fisher wonders if they only outcome of Rogers’ outings is that legislators lock themselves tighter into the closet. Rogers claims he outs hypocritical politicians that have or have to the potential to pass laws that are hateful or hurtful toward glbt individuals and families, but are secretly glbt themselves (mostly “g”, let’s be real here) and his outing is a bit of a public service.

Okay, up until now, I understand that rationale and I agreed. Anti-glbt legislators or public figures (Ted Haggart) who have the power to hurt us and/or our families deserve to be out-ed.

But Fisher’s point forced me to think about Senator Craig specifically and his point about pushing him further into the closet. The whole thing is sad really. Will this latest controversy convince Craig to just come out already? My guess, probably not. Will he become rabidly homophobic now just to prove he isn’t gay? I don’t know.

Bottom line, I just don’t think it is as clear cut as Rogers claims it is and that it something we can all think critically about before we take pleasure in someone else’s truth being told. AND understand outing a powerful person could lead to more attacks on us and our families simply to prove a point.