Trump’s tweets get him in trouble all the time. But his recent tweets about banning trans individuals from serving in the military have now led to a lawsuit in federal court. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of five active trans service members in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause. According to the lawsuit, the five servicemembers have all  “followed protocol in informing their chain of command that they are transgender. They did so in reliance on the United States’ express promises that it would permit them to continue to serve their country openly. These servicemembers, like many others, have built their lives around their military service.”

Trump’s tweets were muddled, and sudden. The three tweet chain didn’t provide any information for how exactly a ban would be implemented, or what it would mean for trans individuals already serving.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

The announcement blindsided the Pentagon and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that tweet storm, none of those questions appear to have been answered. The Department of Defense says it is still waiting for formal guidance. But the fear and panic that trans military members felt was real, and the lawsuit argues that the tweet-based directive “already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Military Members Sue Trump Over Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect against employment discrimination based on sexuality.

The brief was in response to Donald Zarda’s lawsuit against his employer, a skydiving company called Altitude Express. Zarda believed that the company fired him in 2010 after he told a female customer that he was gay. According to trial documents, he did this so that the customer would not be uncomfortable that he was strapped so tightly to her.

Zarda died in 2014 in a skydiving accident. Two executors of his estate continued the lawsuit on his behalf. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is currently hearing the case.

The New York district court originally dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Zarda could not file under Title VII because the act does not cover sexual orientation. The Justice Department’s brief encouraged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court’s ruling.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination. It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts,” the brief says.

It goes on to add that since Congress never specified anything to do with sexual orientation in the act, the courts cannot act independently to change it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The legislation does not specify the exact meaning of “sex.” However, “in common ordinary usage, the word means only ‘biologically male or female,'” the brief continues.

But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that Title VII does protect sexuality. “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation,'” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT and HIV Project, said in a statement that he was relieved that the courts could interpret the Civil Rights Act, rather than Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump Administration.

“We are confident that the courts will side with equality and the people,” he concluded.

The Justice Department filed the brief the same day that President Donald Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service people in the military.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ: Civil Rights Act Does Not Apply to LGBT Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, a video clip of a 12-year-old girl coming out as gay in front of her Mormon church in Utah went viral. Her parents were supportive of her, but her story was interrupted when the microphone was shut off. The church leader then asked the girl, Savannah, to sit down.

After that, a lot of people took Savannah’s side, commending her for her courage and criticizing the church for silencing a child who spoke of something that is so important to her. Last month, she was interviewed in an episode of the Mormon gay podcast “I like to look for rainbows.” Her situation highlights a problem that many people face–how to balance being LGBT with their faith.

But Savannah’s story hasn’t quieted down. Last week, Mormon blogger Scott Gordon criticized Savannah and her parents for giving the speech during the weekly testimony meeting. He wrote that the media is wrongly trying to paint the church leader who interrupted her as the bad guy. Gordon wrote:

This isn’t about whether a girl is struggling with her sexuality, or about how a Church leader handled it. This is a clear case of hijacking a meeting, promoting false teachings, and exploiting a child’s inexperience to create a media event.

Savannah’s mother, Heather Kester, said that those words hurt. But she hopes that in the long run, her daughter’s speech could help bring about some positive change in the church. Savannah said she wanted to support other LGBT Mormons. “There’s been a lot of homicides or deaths, and a lot of them have been kicked out from their house because they have not been accepted by their parents, and that’s really hard,” she said.

The Mormon Church differentiates between “having homosexual feelings,” and acting on those feelings. According to a column on the website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church.” However, as soon as they act on those feelings, they commit a sin.

Last fall, the Mormon Church added a web page to its official website, in support of people that are Mormon and identify as LGBT. But the site still carries the same message; that being gay is wrong. It states that a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and that “will not change,” and warns that sexual desire can be fluid, so that young people shouldn’t rush to conclusions about their sexuality.

Many gay Mormons say this approach is not good enough. As recently as 2015, the church adopted a new policy that said same-sex couples who are married are to be seen as apostates. They could be forced to undergo disciplinary hearings and could be kicked out of the church. Children of a same-sex couple could not join the Mormon church until after they turn 18, and only after moving out from their parent’s home and publicly disavowing same-sex marriage.

This little girl is so brave. I think we can all learn something from her. Great job Savannah. ️‍https://t.co/qlaWuYQtsf

— Ally ️‍ (@ALeeStevens) June 18, 2017

“No part of me is a mistake. I do not choose to be this way, and it is not a fad,” Savannah said in her speech. This is a very brave thing to say when you are 12 years old. And she doesn’t seem to regret it, it even though the leader of the church cut her short by switching off the microphone.

“I think they did that because they didn’t want my message,” Savannah said on Wednesday. “I don’t want to be mean to them if this isn’t true, but I felt like they were scared of me and what I was saying.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mormon Church Cut Off Microphone When Young Girl Came Out as Gay appeared first on Law Street.

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have resigned in frustration with the Trump’s Administration’s apparent lack of interest in “the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic.”

Since its creation in 1995, the council has sought to craft national policy on the disease, prevent its spread, and promote effective treatment as a cure is developed, according to U.S. News and World Report.

The members of the council who quit began becoming concerned during the 2016 presidential campaign when the Trump team showed little interest in meeting with advocates for those struggling to survive the disease. At that point, while the council noted the Trump camp’s disinterest, they clung to the hope that he could be engaged on the issue once in office, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Things escalated when the White House site “Office of National AIDS Policy” was removed during Trump’s inauguration, said Scott Schoettes, a member of the council since 2014.

The final misstep was when the new American Healthcare Act was passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives, despite pleas from marginalized communities that it would have disastrous impacts, especially for those with HIV/AIDS.

New HIV infections in America declined 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, according to estimates from the Center for Disease Control. The council worked with the previous administration to create the new healthcare system that provided easier access to diagnosis and treatment. Those who quit the council felt that the new GOP bill would take that away.

Schoettes, and his peers, wanted to provide input for the council, but said that they could no longer stand idly by as the Trump Administration ignored their recommendations. Schoettes wrote in a guest column for Newsweek announcing the resignations:

The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and — most concerning — pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.

Trump has still not appointed anyone to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy after 150 days, while former President Barack Obama appointed a leader after only 36 days. Schoettes penned the column, but it was cosigned by his partners in resignation Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses W. Burley III, Grissel Granados, and Michelle Ogle.

While the council can have up to 25 members, it currently has only 15. The council last met in March, at which point the members wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price expressing concern about the repeal of the American Healthcare Act and the impact it would have on access to HIV/AIDS treatment. Price responded with an uninspiring, “perfunctory” response, according to Schoettes, which further frustrated the council.

Still, Schoettes says he and his colleagues have a desire to help the community they have worked with for many years. They don’t foresee Trump mustering any more interest than he has shown, but they hope other politicians find it necessary to work on a serious public health issue. The column finished:

We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Six Members of the HIV/AIDS Council Resign in Frustration appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian couple from Knoxville, Tennessee, has officially gotten divorced–but it wasn’t without a hard-fought legal battle that ended up involving the state legislature. In a first for the conservative southern state, a woman has been designated as the “husband” in a custody case. Knox County 4th Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan’s ruling, which was anticipated, came as the Tennessee legislature was attempting to file a bill that would preclude gay and lesbian couples from being covered under gender-specific words in custody cases.

Sabrina and Erica Witt were married in 2014 in Washington D.C., where gay marriage was legal. At that point, gay marriage wasn’t legal in Tennessee, so when they had a child via artificial insemination, carried by Sabrina, Erica wasn’t included on the birth certificate. McMillan initially ruled that because the language in the Tennessee custody law was specific, and referred to “husband” and “wife,” only Sabrina could have custody. However, more recently, he ruled that the law could be applied to their case.

McMillan’s decision granted both Sabrina and Erica custody. Erica is viewed as the “father” in this situation, and has the right to see her child. Moreover, she is on the hook for child support payments.

But, while the Witts’ case was making it way through the courts, local legislators took notice. A few days after the ruling, the state legislature passed a bill that requires judges in McMillan’s situation to give “natural meaning” to words that are gendered. Governor Bill Haslam signed the bill. However, the legislature was prevented from intervening in this particular case, by McMillan’s decision. The lawmakers are appealing that decision.

LGBTQ rights groups in the state and nationally reacted with outrage that the state legislature was inserting itself into an individual family’s custody battle.

However, that new law is already wrapped up in a lawsuit. Four married lesbian couples, each of whom are pregnant, are suing the state over the law, claiming that it clearly was enacted with the intention to discriminate against gay couples. There are also concerns that this law could conflict with the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why does the Tennessee Legislature Care About a Lesbian Couple’s Divorce? appeared first on Law Street.

Alabama’s new governor, Kay Ivey, effectively legalized a form of discrimination on Wednesday when she signed a bill into law that allows faith-based adoption agencies the ability to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt.

House Bill 24, also known as the Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act, prohibits the state from discriminating against child placing agencies on the basis that the provider declines to provide a child placement that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

“I ultimately signed House Bill 24 because it ensures hundreds of children can continue to find ‘forever homes’ through religiously-affiliated adoption agencies,” Gov. Ivey said Wednesday. “This bill is not about discrimination, but instead protects the ability of religious agencies to place vulnerable children in a permanent home.”

HB 24 was passed last month with heavy support from the state’s legislature, after a vote of 23-9 in the Senate and a vote of 87-0 in the House, with six abstentions. However, opponents of the bill–including the state’s only openly gay lawmaker, Rep. Patricia Todd–protested, calling it “bigotry in the first degree.” Opponents believe it puts the religious beliefs of the placing agencies above the needs of the child.

“We are deeply disappointed that the legislature and the governor took on this unnecessary, discriminatory bill instead of focusing on how to improve the lives of all Alabamians, no matter who they are or whom they love,” Eva Kendrick, state director of the Human Rights Campaign Alabama, told NBC News.

According to Kendrick, the new law will also permit agencies to refuse placements to mixed-faith couples, single parents, divorced people, or others whose family structure “conflicts” with the agency’s religious beliefs.

Ivey took office last month after the state’s former governor, Robert Bentley, was forced to resign after nearly being impeached following a sex scandal with a senior political advisor.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Passes Law Allowing Adoption Agencies to Turn Away Gay Couples appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Shooting in Paris Could Impact Presidential Elections

Just a few days before the first round of voting in France’s election, a terror attack in Paris has the potential to deepen the nation’s already dramatic political divide. One man, identified as Karim Cheurfi, opened fire with a machine gun on the Champs-Elysee, one of Paris’ famous streets. Cheurfi killed one police officer and injured two others. He was then shot by law enforcement.

There may be a connection to Islamic State–a note supporting the terrorist organization was found near Cheurfi’s body, and the organization claimed responsibility for the attack. However, Islamic State also got salient details about the attack wrong, and it’s unclear why.

Belgian minister says gunman killed in Paris shooting was French national https://t.co/hctNtRoZGQ pic.twitter.com/QyRaHgVvOT

— ITV News (@itvnews) April 21, 2017

The first round of voting for the French presidential election will take place on Sunday, and today was slated to be the last day of campaigning. The attack could have an impact on the election–far-right candidate Marine Le Pen has called for the closure of all “Islamist” mosques in France, and one of her leading opponents, Emmanuel Macron has encouraged the French people to not “give in to fear.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, reports came out stating that over a hundred gay men had recently gone missing in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta claimed that gay men had been “illegally detained, beaten, tortured with electric shocks” by officials. They were then allegedly locked up in secret prisons, including one former military facility. Now several media outlets have referred to these prisons as de facto concentration camps, after claims that inhabitants are regularly tortured and killed.

Though the exact situation is hard to glean, and proof would be hard to obtain, what is clear is that Chechen officials have a problem with gay people. The official response to the accusations is baffling–a spokesperson for the republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov said that the reports were “absolute lies and disinformation,” not because he condemned the atrocity of the reports, but because he claimed there are no gay people in Chechnya. “You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” he told the Interfax news agency.

He also claimed that had there been “such people” in Chechnya, their families and relatives would already have sent them “somewhere from which there is no returning.” Chechnya is a strictly conservative region and the majority of occupants are Sunni Muslims. Kadyrov has been criticized previously for forcing women to wear hijabs in public places, encouraging polygamy, and starting two conflicts.

Reports Say That Gay Men Are Being Held in Concentration Camps in Chechnya https://t.co/E5orv8yzKV pic.twitter.com/l1Qh5josHX

— The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) April 10, 2017

Human Rights Watch says the group has received information from reliable sources, including sources “on the ground,” that corroborates the information about detentions and torture. In a statement on its website, the group’s Russia Program Director Tanya Lokshina says that the number of sources and consistency of the stories leave her with no doubt that they are true. However, she wrote, she couldn’t reveal any details about the sources’ stories, for fear of repercussion against them.

People reacted strongly to the news and many questioned why this subject isn’t being given more attention.

Kadyrov denying gay concentration camps in Chechnya by saying ‘those people don’t exist in the republic’ is terrifying. Talk about this. pic.twitter.com/zs9yyxsqNo

— Meg V. Jones (@ItsMegNotMegan) April 11, 2017

What’s happening in #Chechnya today is literally what the Nazis did. Rounding up, torturing, and killing gay people. It’s abhorrent

— Ferenc G. Koszorus (@fgkoszorus) April 11, 2017

I’m calling on @nikkihaley to speak up against the reported #LGBTQ concentration camps in Chechnya. RT to join me. https://t.co/NM05ag67fA

— Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) April 11, 2017

A spokesman for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that the government would look into the matter, but didn’t provide any details about what would be done. He also suggested that any individuals that have suffered abuses should file a complaint and go to court. But that would be basically impossible to do in Chechnya. Lokshina from Human Rights Watch says,

These days, very few people in Chechnya dare speak to human rights monitors or journalists even anonymously because the climate of fear is overwhelming and people have been largely intimidated into silence. Filing an official complaint against local security officials is extremely dangerous, as retaliation by local authorities is practically inevitable.

One of the harrowing accounts explains how a man was beaten with a hose and tortured with electricity to confess that he was gay. He said he was locked in a room with 30 others and that security officials told him the crackdown orders came from the republic’s leaders. Gay people are also sometimes shunned and killed by their own families in Chechnya.

Gay men have reportedly started fleeing the region and deleting their social media accounts. For now the outlook is grim, but at least an LGBT group in St. Petersburg, where the gay community is relatively strong, has set up an anonymous hotline that gay Chechens can call if they need help.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reports Claim that Chechnya Has Created Gay Concentration Camps appeared first on Law Street.

Want to see the new “Beauty and the Beast” movie in Malaysia? Be our guest.

Disney’s live-action remake of the classic animated film won a small victory in the country recently, despite efforts from its censorship board to ban the film over the decision to depict one of the characters, LeFou, as a gay man. 

Malaysian censorship officials pushed to cut scenes suggesting that LeFou is gay, but Disney refused to edit it and the film’s postponed release date is now set for March 30 with a PG-13 rating.

Movies that feature gay characters can only be shown in Malaysia if the characters are portrayed negatively or renounce their sexuality. Malaysia is among a handful of countries, where homosexuality is either outlawed or condemned, that have tried to hinder the movie’s release.

In Russia, the film, which is rated PG in the U.S., has been restricted to viewers aged 16 and older. “Beauty and the Beast” was also pulled from cinemas in Kuwait, where an edited version might return to screens soon. Meanwhile, a group of churches in Singapore has issued a warning about the movie to parents.

The controversy can likely be traced back to the U.S., where, before the movie even came out, a drive-in owner in Alabama said he would refuse to show it because he opposed the inclusion of a gay character on religious grounds.

So what exactly happened in the film to spark such a global scandal? It turns out, the representation of a gay character may actually be overhyped. LeFou is a sidekick to the villain Gaston, and it is implied throughout the story that he has an unrequited crush on Gaston. One scene shows LeFou dancing with another male character for about three seconds, but he never explicitly reveals his sexuality.

If anything, the scene–which director Bill Condon described as an “exclusively gay moment”–deserves criticism for being too subtle, according to some LGBT advocates. Bustle’s Martha Sorren writes:

I can acknowledge that Condon has taken a (small) step forward with this scene, but I’m certainly not going to praise the director and cast for representing the gay community when they did so little to represent us.

Sorren adds that LeFou’s effeminate gestures reinforce stereotypes about gay men, and that his unreciprocated feelings for Gaston could cause “straight people–especially the young viewers who will undoubtedly see ‘Beauty and the Beast’–to think that their gay friends are going to develop creepy, obsessive crushes on them.”

Sorren’s concerns echo those about another beloved children’s tale that stars Emma Watson. In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that the character Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series is gay, but critics were disappointed that she never made this clear in the books or movies, and questioned whether she was just tossing in a token gay character as an afterthought.

Though Disney has taken steps to expand racial diversity in its movies in recent years, members of the LGBT community hope to see the studio create more characters like them. Last spring, some fans of the movie “Frozen” started a campaign to give the main character, Elsa, a girlfriend in the sequel.

And then, of course, there’s this perspective:

imagine boycotting beauty & the beast because of a gay character while being totally cool with a teenage girl falling in love with a buffalo

— Tyler Oakley (@tyleroakley) March 5, 2017

It’s certainly not a Disney production without a happy ending. Disgruntled fans could not stop “Beauty and the Beast” from becoming a box office hit. In fact, boycotters who complain about too many women or people of color in Disney’s movies have never had much success before–just look at the attempts to bring down the company’s first “Star Wars” film, “The Force Awakens,” two years ago.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Beauty and the Beast” to Premiere in Malaysia Despite Controversy over Gay Character appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! We hope you enjoyed your weekend. ICYMI, we had some pretty great stories last week. From cell phone plans that give to charity, to South Dakota passing discriminative laws against LGBT couples, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

New Career, New Phone, New Cause: 5 Reasons to Check out TPO Mobile

Any change in life–whether it be a graduation, a new job, or a move, always comes with a hefty to do list. TPO Mobile wants to help make that to do list a little shorter–by helping you find the perfect cell phone plan. And not only will TPO Mobile help you save some money with a reasonably priced and reliable phone plan, it will also help you check off one other thing on that to do list: making sure you set aside some money for charity.

South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

What’s Going on with Canada’s Cannabis Raids?

Months before lawmakers in Canada are expected to take up marijuana legalization legislation, police in Toronto have been raiding dispensaries; a number of individuals have been charged at this point. Just last week, police raided dispensaries across three cities. The targets were all Cannabis Culture branches, the popular chain owned by Canada’s so-call “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery. Emery and his wife were arrested at an airport last week and charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and possession. They were en route to a cannabis festival in Spain.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

According to Daugaard, the bill is intended to protect private organizations–largely faith-based–who act in the best interests of children, from being sued. But advocacy group argue that this bill is just discriminatory, harms children who could otherwise find loving homes, and would allow agencies to turn away couples of different faiths, people who have been divorced, and single parents.

According to Laura Dorso, vice president of the LGBT research and communications at the Center for American Progress, this measure will disproportionately affect LGBT couples and single mothers:

SB 149 allows religiously-affiliated foster care and adoption agencies to turn away qualified LGBT parents and single moms who simply want to start families and give young people a safe, loving home. Same-sex couples are six times as likely to foster than different-sex couples are, and this bill proves once again that opponents of equality are happy to put children at risk and deny them permanent homes to further their anti-LGBT agenda.

The ACLU of South Dakota pointed out in a statement that this law flies in the face of many organizations’ preferences:

South Dakota’s choice to do this now may contribute to some fears that in the Trump era, it will become open season on LGBT rights. Trump’s record on LGBT rights is wishy-washy at best, and there was talk of an executive order that would have overturned workplace protections for LGBT individuals that were instituted by the Obama Administration. While that executive order was reportedly squashed by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, concerns remain high. Although South Dakota’s law only applies at the state level, the battle for protections remains nationwide.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples appeared first on Law Street.

There’s only one day left before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. The other day it was confirmed that the Girl Scouts will be there and the announcement led to some backlash for the group. But hopefully, things will run smoothly.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s Last Press Conference

Yesterday, President Barack Obama held his last White House press conference as POTUS. He said that he’s willing to openly oppose Donald Trump if there is any “systematic discrimination,” and he’ll speak up if he feels that America’s core values are at stake. Obama also defended his decision to commute Chelsea Manning’s sentence and said he’s proud to have contributed to advances in LGBT rights. He elected not to comment on the Democratic politicians who are boycotting Trump’s inauguration.

Obama spoke about diversity and said he thinks the U.S. will see more presidents of color, as well as a female president, Latino president, Jewish president, Hindu president, you name it. “Who knows who we are going to have. I suspect we will have a whole bunch of mixed up presidents at some point that nobody really knows what to call them,” he said.

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants — you’re supposed to be skeptics,” said Obama https://t.co/B1of0UBbGP

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone! If you feel a little down because of all the celebrity deaths at the end of 2016, take a much-needed break and enjoy today’s RantCrush. Read through our rants of the day and end on a funny note with a fantastic parody video featuring a singing Barack Obama. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Police Officers Believe Alexa Could Solve This Murder Case

A November 2015 case that involved a dead man found floating in a hot tub could possibly be resolved with the help of Amazon’s Alexa. At least that’s what the police in Bentonville, Arkansas believe.

Victor Collins was found dead in James Bates’ backyard hot tub–the two worked together. Broken bottles, a black eye, and bloodstains around the tub made it seem like a clear murder case, but there was no hard evidence. But Bates had an Amazon Echo, an electronic device that reacts to the activation word “Alexa,” like Apple’s Siri. When you activate it, it starts recording and streams what you say to an online server. Police seized the device and asked Amazon to hand them the recorded information from its server. But Amazon said “no way.”

Police want to interrogate Amazon Alexa re: murder suspect. Someone..thing..is always listening now.https://t.co/9zDrx6Z56n

— Ira Flatow (@iraflatow) December 28, 2016

“Amazon will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us,” a company spokeswoman said to the LA Times. The Echo only starts recording if someone says the activation word, so the chances that it would contain something of value in a murder investigation are very slim. But hey, who knows? Maybe it’s worth a try.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

You’re out holiday shopping with a friend and suddenly the Chestnut Praline Latte you ill-advisedly chugged hits…what do you do? For most people it’s simple–you find a public restroom–but in the case of 60 percent of transgender Americans, the choice is often to avoid public bathrooms altogether.

According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, released Thursday, nearly 60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public bathrooms in the last year because they were afraid of being confronted, harassed, or assaulted.

The anonymous online survey was comprised of the responses from a total of 27,715 transgender adults–approximately 2 percent of the U.S.’s estimated transgender population— making it the largest survey examining the experiences of transgender people in the United States.

The nonprofit National Center for Transgender Equality also found:

• 12 percent of respondents reported being verbally abused in a public bathroom in the past year.
• 1 percent said they had been physically assaulted in a bathroom in 2015.
• 32 percent said they limited how much they ate or drank so that they wouldn’t have to use a public restroom.
• 8 percent reported having contracted a urinary tract infection or kidney infection as a result of avoiding bathroom use.

These results coincide with legal battles between LGBT activists and conservative lawmakers over bathroom battlegrounds.

In March, North Carolina’s controversial “bathroom bill” (House Bill 2) made it mandatory for transgender individuals to use a bathroom according to the sex they were assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. Advocates claimed the law was necessary to protect women from “predators” and children from “untraditional values.”

As a result, the Justice Department filed a complaint against the state of North Carolina to stop the discrimination against transgender people.

But the data extended beyond just bathrooms. Respondents’ answers also showed that transgender people are more than twice as likely as the general public to live in poverty, and three times more likely to be unemployed (and four times more likely to be unemployed if they are a person of color).

Nearly nine out of ten (86 percent) reported being harassed, attacked, sexually assaulted, or mistreated in some other way by police. And 40 percent attempted suicide in their lifetime, nearly nine times the attempted suicide rate in the U.S. population (4.6 percent)

According to the survey’s summary:

The findings reveal disturbing patterns of mistreatment and discrimination and startling disparities between transgender people in the survey and the U.S. population when it comes to the most basic elements of life, such as finding a job, having a place to live, accessing medical care, and enjoying the support of family and community

You can find the complete survey results here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Survey: Transgender Americans Fear Public Restrooms appeared first on Law Street.

Taiwan is poised to become the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Lawmakers from the country’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party are working on three marriage equality bills at the moment, one of which is expected to pass within the next few months.

Relative to the rest of Asia, Taiwan is progressive in its social attitudes. Polls suggest most citizens, especially young people, support same-sex marriage, and President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s first female leader, is a marriage equality advocate as well. “Every person should be able to look for love freely, and freely seek their own happiness,” she said at the gay pride parade in Taipei, the largest in Asia, last year. This year’s parade drew thousands of people.

Taiwan has a vibrant LGBT community. Unlike some other Asian nations, same-sex intercourse is legal in Taiwan, as is sexual reassignment surgery. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned in workplaces and schools. Taipei has a “gay village,” with gay bars and shops. McDonald’s aired a commercial in Taiwan in which a son tells his father he is gay (over a McCafe coffee). The video came out on YouTube in March, and has garnered over two million views and thousands of likes.

If Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage over the next few months, it will become the first Asian nation to do so (including the Middle East), and will join a list of over 20 countries that have done the same. Taiwanese citizens seem to support marriage equality, including 80 percent of people ages 20 to 29, according to one recent study.

A 2013 poll found that 53 percent of Taiwan supports gay marriage, with Catholics and Protestants as the main opposition, though both groups combined only account for six percent of the entire population. LGBT people still struggle with coming out to their parents and grandparents, as homosexuality is still a taboo among older generations.

Friction exists among lawmakers as well. Some members of the main opposition Nationalist Party’s Central Standing Committee oppose same-sex marriage. In 2013, they helped halt a bill that would have legalized same sex marriage. But as the effort is gaining support among the public and the Legislative Yuan (Taiwan’s lawmaking body), same-sex marriages will likely be a reality in Taiwan soon enough.

President Tsai would certainly like to lead her country in that direction. “In the face of love, everyone is equal,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taiwan Set to Become First Asian Nation to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

This. Is. Really. Happening.

Yesterday was a dark day. Hillary Clinton delivered a classy but painful concession speech, saying, “this is not the outcome that we wanted and we worked so hard for, and I am sorry that we did not win this election.” She spoke to supporters and campaign staff in New York about how she did not manage to break the glass ceiling and become the first female president, but that someday, someone will.

Five moments from Hillary Clinton’s concession speech that will break her supporters’ hearts. pic.twitter.com/FjDLpaAwto

— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 9, 2016

Clinton and her listeners were emotional, and many people cried. But she kept a positive and dignified tone, ending with the words: “Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead.”

Thank you @HillaryClinton for your speech and for your endless bravery. We are stronger together.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) November 9, 2016

And today President Obama is meeting with Trump in DC to go over practical matters. He also kept it cool by telling people, “We’re all on the same team,” referring to our hope that the country will be governed in a good way. Let’s hope that can happen.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The commonwealth of Virginia recently unveiled a new tourism campaign, specifically aimed at attracting LGBT travelers. Given that some states (looking at you, North Carolina and Mississippi) have been the given travel advisories from other countries warning LGBT travelers, it makes sense that one state is trying to appeal to that niche of the tourism market.

Virginia is playing off its longstanding slogan–“Virginia is for Lovers”–with “Virginia is for all Lovers.”

New “Virginia is for all Lovers” campaign promotes LGBT tourism https://t.co/hQZq3b0SAm pic.twitter.com/7zjbAIXcgf

— Arlington News (@ARLnowDOTcom) September 23, 2016

The new travel site reads:

We hope you’ll use Virginia.org/lgbt to explore our LGBT-friendly lodging, dining, history, shopping, attractions, events and outdoor experiences statewide. Our website also includes meeting spaces, itineraries, and all the resources you need to plan your dream wedding or honeymoon.

Our listings have been self-designated by Virginia business owners and hosts as LGBT-friendly. New listings are being added every day, so please return often to find the most authentic, safe and welcoming Virginia experiences for your family and friends.

The tourism campaign will also include merchandise, and will consistently reevaluate and build on the listings of LGBT-friendly destinations and venues. The new tourism plan is the result of an LGBT tourism task force created by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe almost two years ago.

McAuliffe stated:

Virginia is proud to be an open and welcoming destination for every visitor attracted by our scenic mountains and beaches, as well as our world-renowned restaurants, wineries and breweries.

I am pleased the Virginia Tourism Corporation has created this landing page to connect travelers with inclusive, LGBT-friendly establishments across the Commonwealth. Virginia is truly for lovers, and we hope you have an unforgettable experience visiting the greatest state in the greatest nation on Earth!

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, Virginia made $23 million in tourism in 2015, and 5 percent of the visitors identified as LGBT. With the new campaign, Virginia may soon see that number rise.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Tourism Starts Marketing to LGBT Travelers appeared first on Law Street.

Hey, hey, it’s Friday.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now?

Daily Beast Outs LGBT Athletes In Rio

The Daily Beast is in big, big trouble after one of its reporters used the popular dating app, Grindr, to bait Olympic athletes into interviews. Two problems: The athletes had no clue they were being interviewed, and the reporter, who is straight, later used the interviews to out the athletes as gay.

The bigger ethical issue, though, lies in the fact that in many countries represented at the Olympics, homosexuality is often punishable by death. So Nico Hines, douche bag of the year, is facing major backlash, particularly from Slate, which published a scathing article condemning his actions. The Daily Beast has since taken down the article and released an apology from the Editor-in-Chief.

So…@dailybeast is trash. @NicoHines is trash.
Whomever Hines’ editor is is trash.

Duly noted.

You don’t endanger lives for clicks.

— April (@ReignOfApril) August 11, 2016

It is disappointing that the @thedailybeast published @NicoHines‘ story in the first place. That wasn’t journalism.

— deray mckesson (@deray) August 11, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

With only a few days until the official start of the Republican National Convention, it seems all anyone can talk about is what is going to happen in Cleveland. While we all spent the past week practically bursting with anticipation as we waited for Donald Trump to announce his vice presidential running mate, now that the news is out the build up to the convention has seemed to plateau. But, good news for all you thrill-seeking political followers out there, because drama is back! Not five minutes from the site of the convention in Cleveland, a new billboard has popped up, and it’s a good one.

A giant billboard of Trump and Ted Cruz kissing just went up 5 minutes from the RNC https://t.co/OD96csFsCNpic.twitter.com/YcLjGt1EXP

— JamesMichael Nichols (@jamesmichael) July 14, 2016

That’s right folks, this gigantic billboard right outside the RNC features an artistic representation of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz kissing.

The billboard–which was funded and put up by Planting Peace, a non-profit focused on spreading peace through humanitarian aid–reads, “Love Trumps Hate. End Homophobia.” Aaron Jackson, the President of Planting Peace, claims that this billboard is a direct response to the recently released GOP platform on LGBT issues.

Many have noted this week that the platform up for ratification at the convention is perhaps the most homophobic platform that the Republican party has ever seen. While the platform has some expected positions, like defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it also includes much harsher and intolerant provisions, such as subtle support for conversion therapy. Republican leaders, like president of the Log Cabin Republicans Gregory Angelo, are disappointed with these archaic stances on homosexuality:

Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’–it’s all in there. This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either. Heck, it’s not even Donald Trump’s!

Planting Peace’s response to these hateful stances is an attempt to remind members of the LGBT community that they matter and are loved. The group insightfully points out in a statement:

What Donald, Ted and the Republican platform either fail to realize, or realize and just don’t seem to care about, is that their words and actions toward our LGBT family–especially LGBT children–have meaning and impact. LGBT children hear these messages telling them they are nothing but second class citizens and are left feeling somehow broken or “less than.”

The group hopes this billboard will challenge conservatives at the convention and, really, people everywhere to think about the effects that their hate can have on people in the LGBT community. Thus far, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, with people posting online about how art like this makes America a great country.

Hateful speech and homophobic party platforms are not something that our country should support ever, especially not in 2016. It’s time for love to trump hate. Here’s to hoping Ted Cruz and Donald Trump making out will forever burn that reality into the minds of closed-minded people everywhere.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Billboard of Trump and Cruz Kissing Displayed Next to RNC appeared first on Law Street.

As the Republican National Convention–which will be held in Cleveland, Ohio–approaches, the GOP is drafting its platform. A party’s platform doesn’t set any requirements or binding language, but it does provide guidance for the party’s direction in coming years. It can be an opportunity for a party to show that it’s made progress on issues, or that it’s ready to move in an optimistic direction. Unfortunately, this year it seems that the GOP is once again taking an archaic view on social issues. Here’s a look at some of the crazy things that have come up in platform talks:

Pornography

The GOP may be taking a stand against porn, deeming it a “public health crisis.” The draft party platform currently includes an amendment written by Mary Frances Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, that states:

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which closely linked to human trafficking.

While fighting human trafficking is certainly laudable, the rest of the amendment is a bit overdramatic, and there’s no real evidence to suggest that porn has destroyed the lives of millions.

Gay Marriage

After  gay marriage’s big SCOTUS win last summer and the fact that almost 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, you would think that the GOP would cool it on insisting that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You’d be wrong.

Some on the platform committee–including Rachel Hoff, the first gay individual to sit on that committee–wanted to soften the GOP’s language on gay marriage. But they were overwhelmingly voted down. For now, it appears that opposition to same sex marriage will stay in the platform.

Bathroom Mania

There was the HB 2 craziness in North Carolina earlier this year. Now, multiple states are suing the Obama Administration over a directive that requires public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity. So, it follows that there would be language about bathrooms in this year’s GOP platform draft. Here’s a draft of that language:

This is the draft language opposing Obama admin’s guidance to schools re: trans kids and bathrooms/locker rooms pic.twitter.com/OyWfVaxbB5

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) July 11, 2016

Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory Angelo talked to the Daily Signal, and made a good point about how ridiculous this addition seems:

This is a foolish issue to nationalize and talk about within the Republican Party platform. It literally drags the platform into the gutter when so many people who are on this committee seem hell-bent with some obsession with bathroom use.

Conversion Therapy

Another socially conservative issue that became a topic of discussion was gay conversion therapy. Delegate Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council introduced conversion therapy language into an amendment and the subcommittee voted to approve it. Gay conversion therapy (sometimes called reparative therapy) is a discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, and has been banned by multiple states. Perkins stated:

It’s what it says, it’s whatever therapy that a parent wants to get for a minor child. There’s states that are trying to restrict what parents can do for loving their children. Parents have a better idea I think than legislators or government bureaucrats.

via GIPHY

What’s Next?

And there you have it, all the crazy stuff that could be included in the GOP platform. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the fact that some of these topics were even up for discussion isn’t a great sign when it comes to social progress in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the GOP Platform Stay Stuck in the Past? appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute save, a U.S. District Judge struck down Mississippi House Bill 1523 late Thursday night to prevent it from going into effect on the first of July. After Mississippi residents spent several months in shock over discriminatory policies disguised as religious liberty bills, it’s a little surprising that there hasn’t been more buzz surrounding this act.

The Mississippi Bill, known as the Religious Accommodation Act, allows businesses to deny service to members of the LGBT community because of religious beliefs. Essentially, the bill would have given members of the community who do not support homosexuality the right to discriminate against those people if they believe serving them violates their religious beliefs. It would allow business people in foster care, counseling, school administration, facility rentals, and wedding services to act based on their religious beliefs without repercussions for denying service to customers based on sexuality.

Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the presider in the case against this bill by the Mississippi Center for Justice and Campaign for Southern Equality, ruled in a 60-page decision that this specific religious law was not permissible under the Constitution. While there are some laws that protect religion in the state of Mississippi, Judge Reeves acknowledged that other laws protect the practice of all religions. This specific bill would only be protecting certain beliefs of certain citizens of a religion. He wrote:

If three specific beliefs are ‘protected by this act,’ it follows that every other religious belief a citizen holds is not protected by the act.

Not to mention that, if the bill were to go into effect, it would be discriminatory against members of the community:

A broad-based system by which L.G.B.T. persons and unmarried persons can be subjected to differential treatment based solely on their status.

At the end of the day, protecting one religion over all others is not constitutionally sound.

The pro-LGBT groups that have been supporting the repeal of this bill celebrated this morning as the decision was announced.

.@HRC commends Federal Judge’s decision to block implementation of Mississippi’s harmful HB 1523 #RepealHB1523 pic.twitter.com/c4b9kSVr5N

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: We won! 60-page order from Judge Reeves stops enforcement of #HB1523 in Mississippi.

— Southern Equality (@CSElive) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Implementation of HB1523 in Mississippi #RepealHB1523 https://t.co/nvZnrVvP6m pic.twitter.com/ppHJHqWgjR

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

Robert McDuff, one of the attorneys working against the bill, summed it up quite nicely:

The federal court’s decision recognizes that religious freedom can be preserved along with equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Being hateful and discriminatory toward others is not a right guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, no matter what their race, sexual orientation, gender, or religion is. Judge Reeves putting the kibosh on the Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act recognizes that fact and moves the state one step forward in the fight for equality.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act Struck Down appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

President Obama Schools Us On The Term “Populism”

At a press conference last night involving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Enrique Pena Nieto, and our president, Obama went on quite the tangent. He was barely able to contain his frustration with the common perception that Trump is a populist.

Get ready to get schooled with a little lesson in populism, courtesy of Obama:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

Orlando gunman Omar Mateen’s wife feared he would do something drastic and violent when he left their home on Saturday night, but he assured her he was just going to meet his friends. Authorities are now investigating how much 30-year old Noor Zahi Salman actually knew about her husband’s plans to attack the gay nightclub Pulse. Whether she will face any criminal charges is still unclear.

Both “Scoped Out” Orlando Locations

According to recent reports, Mateen had his wife drive him to Pulse nightclub in Orlando earlier in June to “scope it out.” They lived two hours away, in Port St. Lucie. They also looked into other locations, such as Disney World and the shopping complex Disney Springs. Salman was also with Mateen when he bought ammunition and a holster. Investigators said it’s unclear whether she knew of his eventual intentions at the time, though an anonymous law enforcement source told Reuters that she did. She could face criminal charges as early as Wednesday.

Gay Pride, Ramadan, and Solidarity After Orlando… https://t.co/VX4UwUW2m1 pic.twitter.com/w9Bk3heK2H

— LGBT NYC (@lgbtnyc015) June 15, 2016

Responding to speculation over whether or not Mateen was secretly gay, his father Seddique Mateen said that his son’s marriage was good and that if he were gay his wife of three and a half years would have known about it. He also said that Mateen was really upset when he once saw two men kissing. However, regulars at Pulse nightclub said Mateen came there frequently to meet men.

Mateen was married twice, and his ex-wife described their five-month marriage in 2009 as violent and abusive, calling him bipolar and emotionally disturbed. He would beat her, pull her hair, and keep her from seeing her family. She also told TIME that he had some behaviors that “most straight men don’t”, such as spending a long time in front of the mirror and “little movements with his body.”

ISIS Twitter accounts hacked to show support for gay pride message https://t.co/m42lYrURSK pic.twitter.com/rig116zlHt

— Dennis Jansen (@dennisjansen) June 15, 2016

A Complicated Picture

The motive for the shootings is still unclear. Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS when he called 911 during the attack at Pulse, but according to authorities he was self-radicalized over the Internet and there are no signs of a connection to the organization. Opinions about his personal life differ, with his father calling him homophobic, and his ex-wife thought he wasn’t “totally straight.” Neighbors described him as a completely normal man, while gay men he met at Pulse said he was “strange.”

The mass shooting in Orlando is the largest in US history and killed 49 people and leaving 53 injured. Even though FBI investigated the shooter in 2013 and 2014, he was legally able to buy weapons and ammunition. He was killed after a three-hour standoff with police.

Read Law Street’s original post about the Pulse attack here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orlando Shooter’s Wife Knew About Attack, Could Face Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Gay Blood Donors Barred From Giving To Orlando Shooting Victims

Today hundreds lined up at blood banks all over Orlando in support of the injured victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting. Many do-gooders, however, will be turned away due to a ban the FDA has enforced on the gay community. Gay and bisexual men who have had sex with another man in the past 12 months are not permitted to give blood. This has outraged some in the community who simply want to support their LGBT “brothers and sisters” who were injured in the massacre. Sunday’s attack is said to be the worst mass shooting in American history, leaving forty-nine people dead and many grieving.

Blood banks in Orlando are overwhelmed by people queuing for hours. – but many gay man cannot donate blood.https://t.co/C1AA8BI61R

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 13, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of a tragic shooting in Orlando, Florida early June 12, President Barack Obama addressed the nation in a televised press conference, while presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took to Twitter to comment. Here’s a tweet-by-tweet look at how each candidate responded to the national tragedy.

Trump sent out the first tweet, about two hours after Orlando police tweeted that the shooter was dead.

Pulse Shooting: The shooter inside the club is dead.

— Orlando Police (@OrlandoPolice) June 12, 2016

Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton followed, expressing her concern as she awaited new information.

Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump did not tweet exclusively about the event, but tweeted more frequently than Clinton throughout the day.

Clinton made a false ad about me where I was imitating a reporter GROVELING after he changed his story. I would NEVER mock disabled. Shame!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton posted Spanish translations of select tweets.

Desperté con la devastadora noticia de FL. Mientras esperamos más información,mis pensamientos están con los afectados de este horrible acto

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Trump tweeted in anticipation of Obama’s address to the nation.

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Reporting that Orlando killer shouted “Allah hu Akbar!” as he slaughtered clubgoers. 2nd man arrested in LA with rifles near Gay parade.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton’s account quoted her throughout her public statement.

“I join Americans in praying for the victims of the attack in Orlando.”

Hillary’s statement: https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“This was an act of terror. … This was also an act of hate.” —Hillary on the attack in Orlando https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump brought the election into the conversation.

“@WandaWalls20: @realDonaldTrump Please make us safe. We cannot have Hillary as president. We will be in so much trouble.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton addressed the LGBT community and expressed her thoughts about gun control.

“To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them.” —Hillary https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals.” —Hillary on the FL attack

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.” —Hillary on the attack in FL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Declaraciones de Hillary Clinton sobre el ataque en Orlando. https://t.co/onc4230GUH

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump ended the day’s tweets by commenting on what he felt the nation needed from its leadership.

What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Even though each candidate chose to address the tragedy differently, they both were united in sharing their condolences for the victims and their families.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orlando Shooting: How did Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Respond? appeared first on Law Street.

The cacophony of disapproving mutterings and boos gave way to a sharp chant: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

No, this was not an NBA Finals game or even the response to a bad film. It was the House floor on Thursday when a handful of Republicans switched positions after time expired on a vote. The vote was on an amendment that Democrats say would have furthered protections for the LGBT community. What initially looked like a 217-206 “yea” vote for the measure–which was drafted by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)–became a 212-213 “nay” vote.

In an unusual move, GOP members were allowed to switch their votes after the clock expired, and without walking up to the front–where each member whose mind had changed would be identified. Instead, they were able to privately change their vote through electronic vote counters.

Maloney was irate about the “craven” and “ugly” episode, “It tells me talk is cheap, and all this happy nonsense about letting the House do its will is just that: nonsense,” he told The Hill.

His amendment would have essentially prevented federal funding from going to companies that claim religious freedom in the name of discriminating against LGBT workers, nullifying a provision in a defense bill passed by the House on Wednesday that critics say would have taxpayers funding discrimination against the LGBT community.

The National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year would effectively increase the salary of U.S. military personnel. But it also contained an amendment drafted by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma) that would ensure federal funding was not discriminatory toward companies with strong religious views. Critics contend that, if passed, the bill’s language would allow those companies to receive taxpayer money regardless of whether they discriminate against LGBT workers on the basis of their religious views.

The scene on the House floor was a he-said-she-said game involving leaders and rank and file members from both parties. Kevin McCarthy (R-California), the House Majority Leader, was the one who Democrats suspect led the vote change. Maloney’s account of an exchange with McCarthy exhibits the combative nature of a divided House, where each side is steadfast in its viewpoint while some members have reelection in their sights:

“I said, ‘What are you doing? You can let this go; your own members are supporting it,’ and he said, ‘Get back on your own side of the aisle.’ And I said to him, ‘What side of the aisle am I supposed to stand on to support equality?'”

Four of the Republicans who changed their vote will be up for re-election this year.

What does Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), Speaker of the House, think about this schoolyard kerfuffle? “I don’t know the answer. I don’t even know,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Democrats ‘Shame’ Republicans After Vote Change appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

US Government Issues Guidance on Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms

Because we all need a little hand-holding on how not to be jerks, the Obama administration is releasing guidelines on how to deal with transgender bathroom use. The letter tells public schools how to make sure none of their students are discriminated against. Any state or school that does not abide by the administration’s “interpretation of the law” could face major consequences, like loss of federal aid, as seen in the current battle with North Carolina.

The federal policy on use of bathrooms by transgender students triggered a swift reaction https://t.co/NV7ldBZS0I pic.twitter.com/8hJLjecQd4

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 13, 2016

Flint Lets It Rain for the Month of Pay To Clear Out Pipes

The State of Michigan is encouraging Flint residents to use up all the water their hearts desire this month because it will be footing the bill. As with most things that are free, the scenario will play out as a win-win–Flint residents get 100 percent free water and the city’s pipes will be flushed out after remaining sedentary for months. And who knows, maybe Flint will get to clear its name as well? 

President Obama drinks filtered city water in Flint, Michigan, to show it’s safe https://t.co/s3RKh6Savu pic.twitter.com/1avslXmJgR

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) May 4, 2016

Twitter Suspends Azealia Banks’ Account After Her Rampage on Zayn Malik

The 23-year-old rapper has seen better days. We all fondly remember the inappropriate but fun “212,” right? But today Banks seems to have lost her damn mind. Her recent kerfuffle with singer Zayn Malik comes as no surprise as she’s been involved in several Twitter feuds, like a bizarre one with Sarah Palin. Azealia Banks’ hate finally caught the attention of Twitter admins for ‘abusive tweets and behavior” and she has since been suspended.

The World’s Oldest Person Died Today

At 116 years old, Susannah Mushatt Jones passed away. Born in 1899, the Alabama native had seen a whole century pass and then some. The internet is in awe of what this woman must have seen and endured in her great lifetime. Another centenarian,  Emma Morano-Martinuzzi is now the world’s oldest person, also 116 years old. So what IS the secret to a long life?

A Story of three smugglers and their $3M drug stash

This week three women touched down in O’Hare International Airport from a trip Japan. No one would ever guess they were carrying a buttload of opium and heroin worth over $3 million dollars in street prices. These cute little old ladies almost got away with it too, if it weren’t for those darned customs agents. They are each being held on $50,000 bond.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As the war over North Carolina’s restrictive HB 2 wages on, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Governor Pat McCrory go head to head, the Obama Administration is officially weighing in. The administration issued a guidance to public schools today, stating that schools must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The letter, sent by the DOJ and the Department of Education, is intended as “significant guidance.” That means that it doesn’t create any new laws, but “provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.” The letter defines often mis-used terms such as transgender, gender identity, and transition. The letter clearly states its expectations for the nations’ public schools when it comes to dealing with students who are transgender:

The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.

As it pertains particularly to restrooms and other facilities like locker rooms, the letter states:

A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity.14 A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy.

However, unsurprisingly, some states are viewing the letter as fighting words. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has said that he will be working with North Carolina to fight the directive, and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick stated:

This is truly a modern-day Come and Take It moment. Texans will not stand for this…This will create chaos in America and in its schools, and it’s now going to be one of the key issues in the presidential election. Because she supports this policy, this may have cost Hillary Clinton the election.

It’s clear that the fight over bathroom use isn’t going to go away any time soon, and that transgender students in many states will continue to struggle with discrimination, hate, and fear. As we hurtle toward the 2016 election, we should expect to hear a lot more about the use of public bathrooms.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration Issues Guidance on Transgender Treatment in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that President Barack Obama is planning on declaring Stonewall Inn and the immediately surrounding area in New York City as a national monument. The monument would commemorate the struggles of the gay rights movement, and recognize the 1969 arrests and protests at the Stonewall Inn as an early flashpoint for the movement.

Details are still being ironed out, but the official announcement from Obama could come as soon as next month. Officials, including Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis and Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., are going to be holding a hearing on the proposal to gain feedback, and the federal government is working out details with the city.

The Stonewall Inn was a bar in Greenwich Village (while the structure still stands, the bar has moved into a separate building next door.) In the late 1960s it was a well known hotspot for LGBT individuals, particularly gay men, and on June 28, 1969, it was raided by the police. Keep in mind this was a totally different era–for example, the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas that struck down sodomy laws didn’t happen for almost 35 years. Patrons could be arrested for wearing full drag, or lacking identification. Women at the bar had to wear “three items of feminine clothing” or they could be arrested as well.

The night of June 28, the raid didn’t go according to plan and riots and protests broke out. The protests continued for the rest of the week, making city-wide and national news. Stonewall is now viewed by many as the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. It already has New York City landmark status, and according to Salon was the first “site in the city designated as a landmark for its role in LGBT history.”

The dedication of Stonewall as a monument has had significant support from both of New York’s Senators–Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand have introduced legislation to that effect. Schumer stated:

It’s time for the Stonewall Inn to take its place in the panoply of sites and events that were sparks in the march to the kind of freedom and equality that is the very wellspring of the American Dream. Making the Stonewall Inn site a unit of the National Park system is the right thing to do.

Gillibrand’s sentiments were similar; in a statement released by her office she opined:

Whether it’s the right to marry the person you love, or the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ we’ve come so far in the push for equal rights. It’s past due for a national monument honoring the legacy and events that took place at Stonewall and the L.G.B.T. rights movement in our country.

Unless something comes up, it looks likely that Obama could name Stonewall as a national monument next month–a fitting month given Stonewall’s history.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Stonewall Inn Become an Official National Monument? It Looks Very Likely appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

A pastor who accused Whole Foods of anti-LGBTQ discrimination is now facing accusations and a lawsuit against him alleging that he made up the entire incident.

Jordan Brown, an openly gay pastor at the Church of Open Doors in Austin, Texas, filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods after he allegedly received a cake at the chain’s flagship Austin location on April 14 with an anti-gay slur written on it. While he requested that the bakery write “Love Wins” on top of the cake, he claims that the bakery associate decided to add homophobic language to it:

LOVE WINS FAG. That’s not the cake I ordered, @WholeFoods and I am offended for myself & the entire #LGBT community pic.twitter.com/cuxuv6mL3G

— Jordan D Brown (@PasJordanBrown) April 18, 2016

Brown’s suit alleges that he didn’t notice the writing until he was on his way home, and proceeded to pull the car over and call the corporate office to report what had happened. After he didn’t receive a response, he then called the store itself and received an apology from a Team Leader who promised to investigate the matter. However, a few hours later, he received a call back from the same employee who said that there appeared to be no wrongdoing on the part of the store or the bakery associate.

Brown proceeded to post a now-deleted video that same day in which he tearfully recounted the incident. He also pointed out that the seal on the box hadn’t been broken, as evidence that he hadn’t tampered with the cake.

On Tuesday, Whole Foods responded in a statement that shot down Brown’s accusations as “fraudulent.” The company also released security footage that pointed to the fact that Brown would have easily been able to see the writing through the clear portion of the packaging before he left the store. The company also stated that the bakery associate in question was a member of the LGBTQ community. As of publication, Brown hadn’t yet responded to the latest statements by Whole Foods.

If it turns out that Brown was faking the incident after all, he made a strange choice in choosing which company to go after. Whole Foods has a history of upholding LGBTQ rights as a company, offering benefits to same-sex partners since its founding and participating in pride parades. The company also reinforced its support for LGBTQ rights in its latest statement, posting a photo of its Austin staff with the caption #LoveWins.

The jury’s still out on whether or not Brown was making this up, but this response by Whole Foods is just the icing on the cake for anyone doubting his story. Stay tuned for updates.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whole Foods Shoots Down Claims of Homophobia Against Openly Gay Pastor appeared first on Law Street.

North Carolina has received a lot of ire over the passage of its anti-LGBT law; if you’re interested, check out fellow Law Streeter (and native North Carolinian) Alex Simone’s masterful takedown of the law. As a result of the new policies, multiple businesses are pulling out of North Carolina, performers are canceling their scheduled shows, and late night hosts are lampooning the state. The latest company to push back against North Carolina’s law? Porn site XHamster, which is blocking computers in North Carolina from accessing it.

XHamster is one of the largest porn sites in the world. According to the spokesperson for XHamster, Mike Kulich:

We have spent the last 50 years fighting for equality for everyone and these laws are discriminatory which XHamster.com does not tolerate. Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one. We will not standby and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage. We respect all sexualities and embrace them.

Kulich’s statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek–he pointed out that the search terms “gay” and “transsexual” had received tens of thousands queries in the state. Kulich also pointed out: “I think that porn has the power to do what Bruce Springsteen can’t”–a reference to the fact that Springsteen has cancelled a show in North Carolina.

According to Alexander D. Hawkins, Chief Marketing Officer at XHamster:

Some politicians won’t walk the walk they talk. All the fuss about moral values being destroyed by porn is ridiculous when checking the statistics on the porn consumption state-on-state, including North Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee.

There are hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach. Respecting others (sic) sexuality may not come easy, but this is something we must all work together to address.

Users based in North Carolina who attempt to access the site will receive a pop up that lists the amount of searches for the terms “gay” and “shemale” in 2016, to date, as well as visits to those respective categories. The pop up is entitled “The Incredibly Hypocrisy of North Carolina: The Land Where Homophobia is Law.”

Ironically, some of the residents of North Carolina are totally fine with the porn site blockage, arguing that the “moral majority” supports Governor Pat McCrory.

North Carolina has been receiving plenty of criticism, and now some citizens are being punished by not being allowed to access their favorite porn site as well. So, what’s next for North Carolina? At this point, who knows. Maybe a great mock tourism video like this “Funny or Die” one for Mississippi:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Porn Site XHamster Blocks North Carolina in Light of H.B. 2 appeared first on Law Street.

At a news conference on Monday, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) announced his intention to veto a controversial bill that would provide certain protections to opponents of same-sex marriage. House Bill 757 would allow religious leaders, faith-based organizations, and businesses to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to provide services to the LGBT community, as well as deny employment to LGBT individuals.

The bill was passed by Georgia Legislature earlier this month, but was rejected by the Governor, who stated Monday:

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

This decision comes after pressures from the business community to veto the bill, including many film and television studios who threatened to boycott the state for filming if the law was passed. Among the companies that threatened to withdraw were Walt Disney Co., Marvel Studios, CBS, AMC, and many others. Additionally, the NFL stated that it would pull Atlanta out of consideration to host Super Bowl LIII in 2019, an event that would surely bring revenue to the state.

Despite this, Deal stated that he did “not respond well to insults and threats,”and cited Constitutional and moral principles for his decision to veto.

If this legislation sounds familiar, it may be because many similar “religious liberty” bills have been popping up recently in states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indiana. It also comes in the wake of the passing of a contentious new law in North Carolina that has been widely criticized for being “anti-LGBT.” The next state to keep an eye on is Mississippi, whose House just passed a bill that supposedly protects religious liberty by prohibiting discrimination against anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Governor Deal’s veto shows a break away from the positions of many of the other conservative governors faced with similar legislation. Whether or not this was a decision based on economic interests or if it was truly about the “character of Georgia,” as the Governor claimed, can be debated;  it was, however, ultimately a win for LGBT rights in the state.

This fight isn’t over yet, however; while the case in Georgia has ben settled, those who believe that their “religious liberties” are in conflict with same-sex marriage will continue to wage their battles in state capitals all over the country.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Georgia Governor Strikes Down Religious Liberty Bill appeared first on Law Street.

North Carolina just passed a ridiculous new law that makes it impossible for cities and towns in the state to pass their own anti-discrimination laws. North Carolina legislators called a special session this week just to pass this law, after the city council of Charlotte dared to vote for a local ordinance that would ban discrimination against LGBT individuals this February.

Of course, fear-mongering played a big role in why the North Carolina House and Senate were so desperate to pass this bill. One big sticking point was that Charlotte’s ordinance would allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they identify with. The popular and untrue reaction to relatively innocuous provisions like this around the country has been to raise the alarm that it will be used by “sexual predators” to prey on women and girls in bathrooms and locker rooms.

That claim is essentially an outright lie, as there’s no evidence to suggest that passing non-discrimination laws that allow transgender people to use the restroom that conforms to their gender identity leads to more sexual assaults. States and cities that have passed such provisions have not reported increased instances of sexual assault–police departments from various locales in Iowa, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas have all gone on the record to say so. According to Vincent Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, the organization:

Has not heard of a single instance of a transgender person harassing a non-transgender person in a public restroom. Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that this is true and use this notion to prey on the public’s stereotypes and fears about transgender people.

However, the legislators in North Carolina fell for the panic and decided to pass a law that not only ignores what the people of Charlotte want, but could actually cause issues for its schools and public buildings. As David A. Graham of the Atlantic put it:

The student-restroom laws raise other questions, such as how schools might seek to enforce then, and whether enforcement would make schools fall afoul of federal Title IX regulation and thus endanger federal funding. (It would be somewhat ironic if the state’s attempt to preempt cities was itself preempted by federal law.)

So, North Carolina’s reactionary new law accomplishes little besides making it harder to protect people from discrimination. That’s not really a legacy to be proud of.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s Reactionary New Anti-LGBT Law appeared first on Law Street.

Lawmakers in many states still seem to be having a hard time coping with the idea of not only same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples should receive equal rights.

Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia are not the only states to seemingly reject the principle of the SCOTUS decision last year, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, but they are the three most recent examples. If we tried to actually discuss all of the different states’ provisions following the Supreme Court ruling, it would take hours to read this. According to the Human Rights Campaign, last year more than 100 anti-LGBT bills were filed in 29 states.

Kentucky and Georgia are two states that have recently passed religious liberty legislation through one or both of their houses. Kentucky’s bill, SB 180, passed through the senate with a 22-16 vote and is now awaiting its fate in the house. Georgia’s HB 757 passed through both the senate and the house and has been sent to the governor’s desk. The governor, Nathan Deal, has expressed that he will not sign the bill into law in its current form. Meanwhile Alabama is changing around marriage laws following the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Religious liberty laws prohibit the local or state government from infringing on businesses’ rights to deny services to people who violate their religious beliefs. Such legislation is usually written in a way that does not explicitly mention the LGBT community, but this aim is implied by the swift wave of new legislation following same-sex marriage’s effective nationwide legalization and recent cases of businesses refusing service to same-sex customers based on their religious beliefs.

Many cases about businesses and state officials refusing services to same-sex couples have been brought to court recently, including: in May 2014, a Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage citing religious beliefs, and the infamous Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s recent legislation was created to enhance the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new legislation clarifies that businesses cannot be punished in certain cases for violating pre-existing local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said the legislation is designed to protect everyone’s religious liberties…but critics worry it doesn’t extend to civil liberties.

Robinson spoke on the senate floor and said that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service if they are required to “use their skills to provide a customized service celebrating something that violated one of the tenets of their faith.”

But religious liberty legislation has a history of causing economic problems for the states that enact it. Last year following the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the state saw a loss of  a dozen conventions resulting in a $60 million loss in revenue, according to a document prepared by Visit Indy obtained by the Associated Press.

Georgia

In Georgia, where a similar bill has passed through both houses in the state legislature, the effects of its possible passage are causing some businesses to plan on relocation.

Telecommunications firm 373K, which was founded by Kelvin Williams and is located in Atlanta, is one of the outspoken businesses against the bill. Williams, who is gay, said he and his employees supported the decision to relocate to possibly Delaware or Nevada if the bill passes.

“For the past year we’ve been building a global carrier network. We have to start hiring more,” Williams said to CBS News. “I can’t always find the perfect person in Georgia. I might have to reach out across the world. Would I want to move to Georgia if someone else offered me a job after this? The answer was no.”

Alabama

Alabama is a bit of a different situation, but still relevant for the discussion of anti-LGBT proposals. Recently, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would do away with marriage licenses and change to contracts that are filed with the state. Alabama (like many other states) was previously having the issue of some county probate judges who had stopped giving marriage licenses altogether in order to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

Openly gay Representative Patricia Todd, who opposed the bill, deemed it unnecessary and said that the judges should just do their jobs, according to the Associated Press.

There is no way to tell how this will affect other aspects of the law, especially when it comes to divorce. If one aspect of the marriage system is altered in the eyes of the state, other things will likely need to change as well. For example, will divorce procedure need to be changed? How is that going to work? There is really no way to tell how this is going to change the system, all to alleviate the pain and burden on a few officials who refuse to do one of their explicitly stated jobs. If any of these bills are enacted into law, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the potential economic and social consequences that could arise.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2016 and Some State Lawmakers are Still Trying to Fight LGBT Equality appeared first on Law Street.

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday to grant protections for private businesses holding religious views that refuse service to gay and transgender individuals, along with individuals who have sex outside of marriage.

But House Bill 773, titled the Government Non-Discrimination Act, does exactly the opposite of its intended purpose, at least depending on who you are talking to. 

The bill states,

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a government entity shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, in whole or in part, on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (i) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, (ii) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage, or (iii) the male sex and the term “man” and the female sex and the term “woman” refer to an individual’s biological sex as determined at birth.

Under this act, state agencies are denied the ability to reduce or cancel funding, contracts, and entitlements; alter tax treatment, or deny other benefits based on beliefs held by private entities such as believing marriage is solely between a man and a woman, sex is only for marriage, and that the terms man and woman are only based on biological sex.

If a company holds these views but doesn’t act on them, then it is not seen as as much of an issue. Saying, “I don’t agree with your lifestyle but we are still going to give you our services” is not as bad as “We are not going to serve you because you are X,Y, or Z.” The problem lies in that this act enables companies to openly discriminate and refuse service to specific groups of people and be completely protected from punishment from the government. Therefore, it seems that something aimed to be nondiscriminatory to one group is completely discriminatory to another.

The bill’s patron–Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said that this bill is another way to protect businesses from the movement to push religion out of the public life, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Nondiscrimination Bill Discriminates, Passes House of Delegates appeared first on Law Street.

Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School is under investigation by the American Bar Association (ABA) for possible discriminatory practices. There are concerns that the law school discriminates against students who are LGBTQ, or who begin their career at the school as Mormons, and then change their faith. A student group called FreeBYU has brought these concerns to the ABA, officials from the organization are now reviewing the complaint.

BYU Law requires its students to sign a strict honor code, which forbids homosexual relationships. Additionally, it bars students from leaving the Mormon faith before graduation, although non-Mormons are allowed to admitted to the school from the get-go as long as they pay a higher tuition rate. If students break the honor code, they could be kept from completing their degrees. The members of FreeBYU are claiming that these actions violate the ABA’s nondiscrimination guidelines.

A petition asking to “Restore Religious Freedom at BYU” that focuses particularly on the treatment of students who have left the Mormon church has garnered almost 3000 signatures, and points out that students who left the Mormon faith while enrolled used to be allowed to continue on as students, as long as they paid the higher tuition rate levied on non-Mormons. According to FreeBYU, that law was changed in 1993.

Exactly what rules a private law school–particularly one that is religiously affiliated–has to follow are difficult to untangle. But as Annie Knox, of the Salt Lake Tribune explains:

Religious institutions such as BYU have some leeway in tailoring their admissions and hiring processes to indicate a ‘preference’ for people with a certain religious affiliation, according to the most recent ABA guidelines, so long as the preferences are clear before students and faculty come to campus. But the standards may not be used to limit academic freedom or to discriminate when it comes to admission or retention of students. The professional organization of attorneys and law students forbids schools from ‘taking action’ based on race, religion, gender, nationality, sexuality, age or disability.

Spokespeople from BYU have acknowledged that the school was asked to provide information to the ABA after a request was made a few months ago, and that the school is confident it will retain its accreditation. But at this point, that decision will be left in the ABA’s hands–if the organization believes that BYU Law has indeed acted incorrectly, an investigator may be sent to the school and the question could end up in front of an accrediting committee.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Claims of Discrimination at BYU Law May Spark ABA Involvement appeared first on Law Street.

A Maryland family is defending themselves against One Million Moms after the conservative parenting group launched a boycott against American Girl, alleging they “promoted sin” by featuring the family.

The controversy began after 11-year-old Amaya Scheer and her family were featured in last month’s edition of the magazine in an article titled “Forever Family.” In the article Scheer, who is adopted, talks about the charity her family started, which provides foster children with “comfort cases” filled with clothes and toiletries. The cause is deeply personal because before Scheer and her three siblings were adopted by their gay dads, they were all in foster care.

American Girl features a same-sex family article, One Million Moms attack it: https://t.co/iFTrEvTAzI via @RawStory pic.twitter.com/qMAFWaMX8Z

— Slant (@SlantNews) November 9, 2015

The story was meant to showcase the amazing work that this unique family is doing for their community, but One Million Moms claimed American Girl “could have chosen another child to write about and remained neutral in the culture war.” The organization justified the boycott on its website writing:

American Girl is attempting to desensitize our youth by featuring a family with two dads. If your child has not seen this yet, then be careful she is not exposed and can avoid a premature conversation she is far too young to understand.

First of all it is ridiculous that this organization believes the magazine should have passed over Scheer’s stellar accomplishments to instead feature a more “neutral” family (presumably one less gay and less ethnic). American Girl’s positive representation of an LGBT-parented family in its pages isn’t an attempt to brainwash conservative youth. Instead it’s an example of charity, compassion, and family–plain and simple.

I fully understand that every parent is entitled to raise their children with their personal set of morals and values, but trying to keep children in a homosexual-free bubble is futile. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 of the United States, and more and more families will begin looking like the Scheers. So these conversations are going to happen one way or another, and I would hope parents would use it as an opportunity to teach about love and respect, rather than hate and fear.

Rob Scheer told Good Day DC on Monday that he expected a certain amount of criticism, but was shocked that the attack came from a group of “moms.” Scheer said,

These were moms! These were moms that were saying that my family was wrong, that the love that my husband and I are giving our four kids and what we’re doing was wrong.

He then pointed out,

I would expect moms not to say these type of things about our family. But at the same time, these are a ‘million moms,’ they could really be helping the 364,000 kids in foster care.

[…]

This is our family and it works for us. And you know what? We have four amazing kids that we adopted out of foster care. These are four kids that have fulfilled our life more than we ever thought.

But luckily Amaya Scheer didn’t need the help of her fathers or my liberal rant in order to fire back at her motherly haters. Instead she articulated the perfect response ever when a news host asked her what she would say to those people who don’t understand her family. She stated:

“I would say ‘This is none of your business.'”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 11-Year-Old Girl Shames Conservative Moms’ “Anti-Gay” American Girl Doll Boycott appeared first on Law Street.

I say at least once a week that I want something on a t-shirt. Some quote or another that just rolls out of my mouth, out of a friend’s mouth, or out of the mouth of a Shonda Rhimes character. Some are life philosophies and would actually fit on a t-shirt (Shut Up. Dance It Out.) and some are way too long to put on a t-shirt unless it’s quite creatively done (“They share food, and they say things, and they move, and they breathe. Ugh. They’re like, happy.” “Kick them out.”).

I always want to emblazon these little puppies a tee or tank to (a) make myself squee and (b) irritate and confuse the cishets when I cruise down the street. I want an entire line of these snarky wonders for the gym: sample, “Lesbians love to eat their own.”

"Lesbians Love to eat their own." -Alice #TheLWordQuotes

— L Word Quotes (@TheLWordQuotes) May 27, 2011

I never actually make any of these t-shirts or tank tops.

But this week, Autostraddle did.

From crop tops to crew shirts, the online lesbian media hub has created a line of “Gal Pal” wear, just in time for summer’s last hoorah. And the cishets won’t know it–y’all might think, “oh, isn’t that cute, girls make such great friends to each other, adorable”–we actually mean it to spite you.

Because Autostraddle released–during their Gal Pal Week–a celebratory list of women characters having genuine friendships with other women characters in the media. And the kicker–a lot of these women are queer.

And this is important, because “gal pals” is typically a phrase used by mainstream or cishet (which, in case you don’t know, equals cisgender + heterosexual) media to erase queer women’s identities, desires, and relationships. Our romantic relationships on television are so often dismissed, denied, and washed away (is straightwashing a word?). When two women characters have phenomenal sexual and personal chemistry, they are so often dismissed as “gal pals,” not people who could be/are lovers (or would for sure be lovers if one were written as a man).

As is often necessary, I go to tumblr to provide further explanation:

So when Autostraddle wants to sell me a “gal pals” shirt, I want to buy it. Because yes, we do have gal pals (Meredith and Cristina, anyone?), and we should celebrate each other.

But we also have lovers and desires and chemistries that are erased by mainstream media under the label of “gal pals.”

So when the cishets might think my shirt (which, if my track record proves anything, I won’t actually buy) is cute, I’ll be snickering in my mind (like the wonderful tumblr user above)–“hehe, gal pals. It’s cute how you think you know what you’re talking about.”

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbian Humor is Amazing appeared first on Law Street.

Even though only 19 percent of Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute said they would oppose a lesbian or gay athlete signing onto a professional sports team, there are still many obstacles that exist to LGBTQ players being out in pro sports.

Women have been coming out publicly in professional sports for years, but men in the big leagues have faced a great deal of obstacles keeping their positions on teams.

As more and more professional athletes are coming out, what are the legal rights and difficulties of LGBTQ athletes in professional sports?

Out Athletes in Pro Sports

Not only have queer women been coming out publicly in professional sports for quite some time, several have been actively outspoken against homophobic laws. Speaking out against Minnesota’s 2012 attempt to ban gay marriage in the state, WNBA star and Olympic gold medalist Seimone Augustus told the Associated Press:

I felt like it was the perfect time for me, being on a platform where I can make a change with my voice and my situation… Maybe inspire someone else to come out and be comfortable with themselves. Or maybe someone else’s parents will see my parents saying that it’s OK to be with your child and love your child unconditionally regardless of your sexual preference.

This outspokenness accompanies the activism of fellow out WNBA star Brittney Griner against the constraints placed on her at Baptist school Baylor University.  Griner has commented candidly on the hypocrisy of homophobia in sports:

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the people who run the school want it both ways: they want to keep the policy, so they can keep selling themselves as a Christian university, but they are more than happy to benefit from the success of their gay athletes. That is, as long as those gay athletes don’t talk about being gay.

We’ve got a culture that is OK with casual homophobia and sexist language… What Jason Collins’ presence does–now people have to be held accountable. Because what people said before was, ‘Well, he said that, but he wasn’t talking to anyone, and no one’s gay here, so no one’s offended by it.’ Now that Collins is in existence, people realize there are more Jasons out there, more Michael Sams out there, that when you say something homophobic, you’re actually affecting someone who you truly believe exists now.

Rights and Responsibilities

Advocates of LGBT rights in professional sports have argued that it is the responsibility of professional sports leagues to proactively protect players–and coaches and staff–from discrimination.

In Sam’s case, however, Dr. John Fitzgerald Gates, National Diversity Expert, Principal, and Chief Strategist of Criticality Management Consulting and Former Associate Dean of Harvard College, wrote the following about NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell:

(He) did nothing to assure that Sam would be treated with the respect and fairness accorded other players, or to protect him against being fired because he is gay. According to Goodell, in the NFL: ‘We do things the right way. We will give them that education and training. I hope that will solve the problem.’ But Goodell’s deduction is flawed, for if education and training solved discrimination we surely would have educated and trained our way beyond it by now. As with racial and gender bias, laws must be constructed and enforced to ensure equal protection to LGBT professional athletes. Goodell welcomed Sam onto the field of play without providing him the protection from discrimination that other players have, thereby leaving him uniquely and unfairly vulnerable. Goodell codified the NFL’s right to discriminate when he should have had the courage, like President Obama, to ban it.

It is worth noting that the NFL does, in fact, have provisions in place to protect players from discrimination and harassment based on their sexual orientation. Indeed, when the MLB spoke out against homophobia in the major leagues, it was following the precedent of the NFL, stating that:

Public Religion Research Institute: Ahead of Super Bowl, Nearly Three-in-Ten Americans Support Lifetime Ban for Football Players Who Commit Domestic Violence

OutSports: Trans Athletes

Sports Illustrated: Why NBA Center Jason Collins is Coming Out Now

Huffington Post: The Moment is NOW for Professional Sports to Ban LGBT Discrimination

Huffington Post: Michael Sam: The Practical and Legal Implications of a Gay Professional Athlete

CBS News: NFL Agrees to Do More to Protect Gay Players

Daily Mail: Basketball Star Brittney Griner Opens up About Being a Lesbian at Baylor University and How She was Told to Keep ‘Her Business’ to Herself

Jurist: How Four Major Sports Leagues Influence LGBT Rights

Think Progress: The Benchwarming Journeymen Who Changed American Sports Forever

Think Progress: Dallas Cowboys Cut Michael Sam from Practice Squad

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Pro Sports: Obstacles and Victories appeared first on Law Street.

Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and a majority of Americans are thrilled with the landmark Supreme Court decision. Millions of people used Facebook’s rainbow flag photo-editing tool to shade their profile pictures in “celebration of pride.” On Twitter, #LoveWins became the victory cry of marriage equality proponents. On Instagram, prominent celebrities such as Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga posted pictures of themselves to show support. A nation that was overwhelmingly against gay marriage just 15 years ago is suddenly in agreement that this is a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

On one hand, I support gay marriage and the notion that gay people should have the legal right to marry and start a family. At the same time, there is a difference between promoting tolerance and forcing acceptance. The Supreme Court decided to force acceptance when it declared laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional, refusing to wait for the gay marriage discussion to reach its natural conclusion in each state. After reading hundreds of social media posts about gay marriage, a vast majority of which mock gay marriage opponents with a “you are ignorant if you don’t agree with me” attitude, it appears most Americans are following suit. This is sad because American society was so close to achieving the wholesale attitude change necessary for true tolerance. Now, in an ironic twist of fate, gay marriage opponents are victims of the condescension of another “majority.”

The gay marriage debate is really a matter of semantics that revolves around one question: What is the definition of marriage? The most intriguing argument against gay marriage is that of the “slippery slope,” or the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage may lead toward legalizing all sorts of “unconventional” marriages. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued, “much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” The same can be said for incest.

Nearly all arguments against gay marriage apply to incest and polygamy. It’s unnatural, they say–marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Think about the social problems. Children should be raised in traditional households. What about people taking advantage of the tax incentives? Drawing the line at incest and polygamy is fine. Justifying that line with the notion that incest and polygamy offend modern sensibilities is not. This is a justification that gay marriage supporters, now the majority of Americans, should be disgusted by.

When I brought up this issue to a gay friend, he had an interesting point. Polygamists and people who enjoy incestuous relations still have the right to marry a member of the gender they are attracted to despite being barred from marrying a family member or having multiple spouses. For gays, a ban on gay marriage eliminates the possibility to marry the entire population segment they are attracted to, he reasoned.

I don’t buy this argument.

In LSAT circles, they call this Begging the Question fallacy, or assuming the conclusion of an argument. My friend set out to find an argument that validates gay marriage in a way that doesn’t also validate polygamy or incest, and this is the situation-specific justification he arrived at. It is entirely possible that a person is only attracted to people within his own family, or is only capable of expressing love when he has multiple partners. I have yet to find a reasonable justification for allowing gay marriage while banning polygamous and incestuous marriages.

So, I have mixed feelings about all of this. I have mixed feelings about the role of government in the institution of marriage. I have mixed feelings about the new “celebrate pride” majority and their pompous definitions of ignorance and love. I have mixed feelings about my own sensibilities and the hypocrisy of supporting gay marriage while opposing polygamy and incest.

I have mixed feelings about marriage equality, and what it really means.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Have Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

I know, I know. I shouldn’t be so gleeful that so many lesbians were OUT and about (see what I did there?) at the World Cup this year.

No, you don’t need to be super masculine to be amazing at sports. And no, you don’t need to be super masculine to be a lesbian (and yes, you can be super masculine and also somehow not be a lesbian). So no, I don’t want to celebrate just how much lesbiosity there was at this year’s World Cup because I don’t want to perpetuate this idea that masculinity = sports and masculinity = male, so male = sports, and if women are amazing at sports, then women must be masculine and must be lesbians (follow all that?!).

None of that is true. I know.

BUT I AM STILL SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS.

By this, of course, I mean the international platform that the World Cup has become for out lesbian players to advocate for genuine queer inclusion in professional sports.

I also mean–and I giggle gleefully each time I think about it or watch the video (now you can, too: scroll down!!)–Abby Wambach jogging over to the sidelines after winning the World Cup Sunday night and kissing her wife, Sarah Huffman.

But I’m still sad about it. I’m sad that it’s such a big deal.

To describe what I mean, I–the English PhD student and aspiring novelist–am going to have to turn to Tumblr (at least I don’t take myself too seriously, right?). Because really, carmillastakesmyheart hashtagged this post perfectly: When “Just Straight Things # 18” was deemed by the delightful and sadly accurate JustStraightThings blog to be “donating blood” (because we queers aren’t allowed to due to queerphobic and medically meaningless FDA regulations), carmillastakesmyheart reblogged the post with the hashtags #thismademelaugh and #thenmademereallysad (see below).

Which is exactly how I feel about the sensation that has become of Wambach and Huffman’s “Kiss Seen ‘Round the World.” Because it is not (just) an emblem of queer “progress”–the overwhelmingly supportive media response to it is an indication of how far we still need to go.

Because some media couldn’t even be bothered to acknowledge that Sarah is her wife.

The homophobia via erasing queerness doesn’t surprise me.

So yes, the kiss makes me laugh with happiness.

But then it makes me sad. Because it’s a big deal. It’s a huge, sensational, enormous deal.

And it really shouldn’t be at all.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bittersweet Lesbian Kisses at the World Cup appeared first on Law Street.

This week the Supreme Court began its historic consideration into the federal legality of gay marriage. The nine justices are attempting to decide whether or not the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses give same-sex couples marriage rights. Currently 37 states have laws permitting same-sex marriage, but a ruling from the court in favor of the challengers would make gay marriage legal in rest of the states.

The legality of #gaymarriage on a federal level is being decided right now: https://t.co/1XiJaJyG3G

— AJ+ (@ajplus) April 29, 2015

Even though the court’s decision won’t be announced until June, people have already begun to categorize the justices in order to decide who could be the deciding factor in the case. The court’s four liberal judges appear to be ready to approve gay marriage, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy being declared the one to watch. Many are speculating that he’ll be the swing vote, like he’s been in the past. However people shouldn’t count conservative Chief Justice John Roberts out as a deciding factor. He was quoted yesterday in the court transcripts as saying,

I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t.  And the difference is based upon their different sex.  Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?

Framing the legality of gay marriage in such a way may be convincing enough to move Roberts to vote with the liberal side of the court. 

The delay in a decision didn’t stop demonstrators from both sides of the argument from flooding the steps of the Supreme Court to share both support and opposition for a change in the way our country defines marriage.

Overflow crowd awaits entry to historic #SCOTUS hearing on gay marriage #WTOP pic.twitter.com/acHOOLCVIB

— Kristi King (@kingWTOP) April 28, 2015

People wait before SCOTUS ahead oral arguments on gay marriage cases Tuesday. (@pmmichalski) http://t.co/tMx9gxrxnu pic.twitter.com/jFChRMv2yo

— Your Take (@yourtake) April 28, 2015

Today KY couples will be part of history. Covering #SCOTUS case on #gaymarriage,protesters by the hundreds outside pic.twitter.com/beoBLcPWae

— Lindsay Allen (@LindAllenWDRB)

Lots of people in front of #SCOTUS ahead of gay marriage oral argument #AFP covers pic.twitter.com/SMCzVWcYBW

— Chantal Valéry (@chantalvalery) April 28, 2015

href=”https://twitter.com/LindAllenWDRB/status/593033167667392512″>April 28, 2015

Early crowds are to be expected in a landmark case of this magnitude. We can be sure to see even more people show up in June when the decision will be announced. As for now things are looking good for marriage equality supporters, but you never know which way the case could turn.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Historic Gay Marriage Case appeared first on Law Street.

Just a cursory glance at recent social movement-esque trends on Twitter reveals a disturbing tendency of national conversations.

I am currently arching one eyebrow–judging hard–at the fondness we seem to have for localizing national problems in Midwestern states. Observe: homophobia, we locate in Indiana with #BoycottIndiana, almost as though it is the only place with queerphobic laws. Racism and police violence, we locate in Ferguson, as though this city in Missouri itself embodies racism across the country. Even Colorlines.com, an excellent source for intersectional news about structural racism in the U.S., has a separate tab for “Ferguson” on its site. Many tweets hashtag the names of several Black men who were brutalized by cops (or cop stand-ins, in the case of Trayvon Martin), but the only location identified is #Ferguson. No #StatenIsland or #NewYorkCity (where Eric Garner was strangled to death) or #LosAngeles (where Rodney King was savagely beaten by cops in 1991).

Focusing on individuals rather than identifying larger trends (like city-wide implementation of racist stop-and-frisk policies, or nationwide and international waging of a racist “war on drugs”), this place-based use of hashtags allows us to displace racist violence into conveniently “conservative,” Midwestern states like Missouri and Indiana.

This is similar to the trend in films such as “Boys Don’t Cry” and “Brokeback Mountain,” which portray violent homophobia and transphobia as individual acts of hatred rather than structural realities. They also position these acts as being located primarily in rural locations like Falls City, Nebraska and the mountains of Wyoming.

While I was born and raised a city girl, I know (because I have friends, I’ve dated different folks, and I read things like this and this) that vibrant queer cultures exist in rural spaces, and, though I navigate the streets of New York City with the privileges of being white, I know that racist, queerphobic violence is inflicted vis a vis laws and police batons in city centers every day.

As writer Lauren Anderson notes,

[R]ural gay youth teach [urbanites]:
1. Identities are a process of collective action, not a condition waiting for discovery
2. Multiple visibility strategies in play
3. We need to stop moralizing about who does queerness right.

When we erase these kinds of perspectives by asserting that coastal urbanity is the only site of vibrant queer cultures, all it does is romanticize queerness in cities and propagates violence to fellow queers who are from rural areas and/or from Midwestern and southern cities.

And speaking of violence…

Using Ferguson to represent racism and Indiana to represent homophobia risk erasing the massive violences inflicted on queer people of color (as well as white queers and non-queer people of color) that occur in everyday life in cities. Frighteningly, it may well be precisely this erasure that makes #BoycottIndiana and #Ferguson so popular: if we blame individual conservatism and “backward” rural cultures, then we do not have to do the hard labor of dismantling the structural white supremacy and anti-queerness upon which this country–including its cities–operates.

(Looking for more than what I can explain with my limited perspective? Try renting Scott Herring’s Another Country: Queer’s Anti-Urbanism from the library, or read the introduction online here.)

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Boycott Indiana, #Ferguson, and Romanticizing Coastal Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Amid sustained calls to “fix this now” and the trending Twitter hashtag #boycottindiana, Indiana’s Republican leadership has quietly been maneuvering to maintain the increased discrimination against LGBT residents that Governor Mike Pence‘s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) enabled. The Indiana legislature voted this week to deny protective provisions that would have ensured that religious protections cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. According to Think Progress editor Zack Ford, due to recent legal developments, “outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state.”

And although #boycottindiana is trending hard on Twitter, the RFRA is hardly the only devastating bill to come out of Indiana recently.

But it’s the only one causing majors trends.

Why? One of the big reasons: mainstream (read: overwhelmingly white) LGBT advocates, organizations, and issues have largely gained the support of big businesses and corporations. (Yes, I know that the pizzeria that supported the RFRA made an absurd amount of money from the controversy. But that’s not the systemic trend, which favors corporations making profit off of and cooperating with upper- and middle-class, white LGB people and organizations.)

Whiteness must be decentralized from the LGBT movement. I’m sick of hearing about Leelah Alcorn and not Blake Brockington #HisNameWasBlake

— Ryan Mishler (@storyofryguy) April 9, 2015

So what could be trending under the hashtag #boycottindiana, but is not?

An incredibly scary amendment to Senate Bill 465, which addresses the operations of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, was passed in the Indiana House this week. Though much ire and rage have been focused on the Indiana Republican leadership that was responsible for the RFRA, it was Democratic Representative Terry Goodin who proposed adding the drug testing requirement to the bill.

Drug testing requirements in order to receive welfare fundamentally introduce even greater racism into welfare programs: even though white people tend to use illegal drugs at comparable or even higher rates than people of color, people of color are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates for drug related “crimes” than white people. This means that people of color who are welfare recipients are going to be disproportionately targeted by the new provision’s requirement that recipients with histories of drug-related “crimes” be required to undergo testing. These folks will be stripped of their welfare benefits if they fail two tests.

So… Why is the #boycottindiana hashtag not blowing up with rage over this new twist to already-racist policies? Do my fellow white queers think racist laws are alright while homophobic laws are not?

Racial justice is LGBT justice.

So… Where are the trending boycotts against all kinds of racist laws across the country, like the resurgence of Jim Crow-esque laws that suppress the votes of Black and Latina people by mandating ID requirements for voting?

Where is the #boycottwhitenessinLGBTorganizations hashtag? The #boycottmassincarceration hashtag, or the #boycottracism hashtag? The #boycottwhitesupremacy hashtag?

Oh, yes. We can’t boycott those things. They’re too integrated into what makes this country operate.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I wrote an article about gaming convention Gen Con threatening to take their expo elsewhere if Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law. Gov Pence appeared unphased by the threat of losing big business, quietly signing the controversial bill into law last Thursday. Now three states have joined a list of notable celebrities, politicians, and corporate execs speaking out against the governor’s decision by banning state-funded travel to the state. These actions have resulted in Pence’s announcement that he will work this week to clarify the law so that it does not legalize discrimination.

The bill, which becomes effective July 1, 2015, would prevent individuals in the state from being forced by government entities to violate their religious beliefs. Contention has spawned from critics saying the bill will extend protection to businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT patrons by refusing them service. In a press conference this morning the governor addressed critics, announcing that he will work to fix the law by asking the state assembly to clarify that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone; he has no plans to make the state legislation disappear.

When news surfaced that Pence had privately signed the bill, it didn’t take long for a slew of celebrities and public officials to begin voicing their outrage via social media.

Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015

Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA — Larry King (@kingsthings) March 27, 2015

When will conservatives like Mike Pence figure out discriminating against #lgbt under the guise of faith is REALLY bad politics?

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) March 26, 2015

Yesterday, states began taking action against the “anti-gay” bill by banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut became the first state to boycott Indiana over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when Governor Dan Malloy signed an executive order barring state-funded travel to the state. Malloy announced his decision with the following tweets:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated. -DM

— Governor Dan Malloy (@GovMalloyOffice) March 30, 2015

Two other cities, San Francisco and Seattle, joined Connecticut by imposing similar travel bans in response to the bill. A list of businesses, following in the steps of Gen Con, have also begun to reconsider doing business with the state. Some notable opposition includes Angie’s List, which decided to halt a campus-expansion project in Indianapolis, and $4 billion software corporation Salesforce, whose CEO announced plans to “dramatically reduce our investment” in the state. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who also opposes the law, sent a message to his corporate peers telling CNN:

I’m asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they’re thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that’s getting signed into law.

Indiana is hardly the first state to introduce RFRA laws; there are currently 20 states that have done so. However, Indiana’s law is “substantially different” according to the Huffington Post, which writes:

While other state RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

The publicity from the bill has cast a negative light on the state, but a coalition of independent merchants in Indiana have joined a new campaign showing support for the LGBT community called Open For Service. Participating companies want customers to know that the bill won’t change the way they do business. The campaign celebrates businesses that oppose discrimination of any type, allowing companies to register with them and order stickers to be displayed in shop windows that read “this business serves everyone.”

The combination of this campaign with the current efforts of celebrities, politicians, and big CEOs are what most likely caused Pence to announce that his office will finally take action. No word yet on what will happen to the religious freedom law if the assembly fails to produce Pence’s requested joint anti-discrimination law this week, but at least the governor is finally attempting, albeit very poorly, to assure citizens that Indiana will be welcome to all.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Backlash Over Discriminatory Indiana Law Forces Governor to Clarify appeared first on Law Street.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) are staples of American society that have each been around for more than 100 years. Although they are separate organizations, as each has its own congressional charter and upholds its own membership rules, they both promote leadership and civic duty. It is inarguable that the two organizations instill many important values in their young troops; however, they have had radically different approaches to modernization, particularly when it comes to LGBT acceptance. While the Girl Scouts accept girls and women of all different backgrounds, the Boy Scouts still discriminate against gay adult leadership. Read on to learn how and why the BSA and GSUSA have gone down such divergent paths.

 Who are the Boy Scouts of America?

The BSA was established in 1910 and it has four fundamental groups: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouting, and Venturing. There are more than 2.6 million youth members and over one million volunteers involved in BSA. Boy Scouts aim to earn merit badges, awards given by demonstrating mastery of a skill or field of study, including camping, citizenship in the community, and first aid.

• Mission Statement: “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”
• Scout Oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
• Scout Law: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA Stance on Homosexuality

The BSA affirmed its position against admitting gay scouts and leadership in 1991. The release included the following statement:

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does.

In 2007, the BSA confirmed, “we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals,” although the organization claimed to not actively seek out a person’s sexual orientation.

Opposition to Those Policies

In 2012, Merck & Co pulled funding because of the BSA discrimination policy. The prior year, Merck had donated $30,000 to BSA. Other companies that followed suit included Intel, UPS, Ernst & Young, IBM, Levi Strauss & Co., J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores, and Carrier Corp.

Even President Obama advocated for the BSA to lift the ban.

In house, the BSA sent a survey to one million of its members regarding their position on gay members. The results said “overwhelming majorities of parents, teens and members of the Scouting community felt it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation.”

Policy Change

At a meeting in Grapevine, Texas in 2013, the BSA voted 61-38 to overturn the standing rule regarding BSA youth. The ruling officially came into effect January 1, 2014 stating “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” However, the ban was not lifted for scout volunteers and leaders over the age of 18. Lifting the ban for leadership was never under consideration.

Backlash From Both Sides

The ban lift resulted in a wave of criticism from both ends of the spectrum. In an interview with ABC, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee, Frank Page, stated, “I think I can say with pretty strong accuracy that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are very disappointed in the latest change in policy…deeply disappointed.”

The Southeast Christian Church, located in Louisville, Kentucky, publicized a move to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, forcing the BSA to lose approximately 300 families. The Assemblies of God, the world’s largest Pentecostal group, also withdrew support.

On the other hand, according to Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the gay-rights watchdog group GLAAD, “Until every parent and young person have the same opportunity to serve, the Boy Scouts will continue to see a decline in both membership and donations.”

In accordance, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the rule “incoherent,” claiming, “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.” He claims that it sends a message that gay adults are somehow inadequate to lead and mentor troops.

Disney also announced it would pull all funding from the BSA starting in 2015 because of the ban on gay leadership.

How is BSA not breaking anti-discrimination laws?

As a private, religious organization, the BSA is shielded from federal and state discrimination laws based on the freedoms of speech and association. They can legally exclude atheists, agnostics, and people in the LGBT community.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one organization that has ceaselessly attacked the BSA for this policy. For example, it was present in the 2000 Supreme Court case of The Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale. Dale, a former Assistant Scout Master, was kicked out of the BSA for his sexuality. In New Jersey, there is a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Dale’s favor, but the opinion was overturned a year later by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion:

The Boy Scouts’ right to express their views against lesbians and gay men would be hampered if the organization was forced to admit openly gay people as leaders…lesbians and gay people, if they are honest about their sexual orientation, make a statement in their very existence, and groups like the Boy Scouts therefore have a right to exclude them.”

The ACLU called it a “damaging but limited” defeat as the “ruling is limited to groups that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.” So, any nondiscriminatory progress the BSA has made or will make in the future will be made from within. Legally, its hand cannot be forced.

Leaders Kicked Out

Jennifer Tyrrell was a former den mother of her son’s Cub Scout chapter. In April 2012, she was told she could no longer hold her position due to sexual orientation. She had served in the position for over a year. When she was kicked out, she started her advocacy against the BSA to end its discrimination of the LGBT community and launched a petition, stating, “the Boy Scouts are once again forcing me to look my children in the eyes and tell them that our family isn’t good enough.”

In the following video, Tyrell talks about the BSA’s policy change and her petition.

Geoff McGrath, a former Scout leader from Seattle, Washington, is often considered one of the first leaders removed after the policy change. BSA stated they did not know about his sexual orientation when his chapter was approved, although McGrath reported that he never hid his gay identity or support of gay rights. In an interview with NBC News he stated, “They are complaining that the problem is a distraction to Scouting and they don’t seem to understand that the distraction is self-inflicted.” McGrath’s brother and nephew rode their bikes from the Northwest to Boy Scout headquarters in Texas in order to raise awareness of the policy.

Who are The Girl Scouts of the USA?

Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah, Georgia in March 1912. Currently, there are approximately 2.8 million Girl Scouts and volunteers affiliated with the organization. GSUSA aims to encourage healthy living opportunities, promote economic opportunities, foster global citizenship and a global voice, and support a strong nonprofit community and girl scout experience for girls. A core value and key component in GSUSA is diversity. It strives to reach girls from all different backgrounds.

GSUSA’s Position on Sexual Orientation

A GSUA document entitled Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, explains its policy.

Regarding sexual orientation, Girl Scouts of the USA holds fast to a commitment to embrace diversity and has in place a policy that prohibits discriminatory treatment of any kind, including on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy which applied to interactions with girls and adults, must be honored by every person working in the Girl Scout movement. Keep in mind that it is not appropriate to ask or assume what a girl’s sexual orientation is.

How has GSUSA supported the LGBT community?

GSUSA’s inclusion policy allows transgender children to be Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts of Colorado stated, “We accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

In 2007, GSUSA honored 18-year-old Girl Scout Madeline as a National Young Woman of Distinction for her project promoting awareness to the intolerance shown to the LGBT community. This is the highest award given by GSUSA.

GSUSA has featured additional resources on its website for Girl Scouts to research, such as the Global Fund for Women and Tolerance.org. Each of these sites provides information and supports LGBT initiatives.

At a 2011 Convention, GSUSA held a seminar called “Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion,” which discussed some LGBT issues. At this same convention, GSUSA honored Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, as a guest speaker.

LGBT Activists/Leaders of GSUSA

Unlike the BSA, GSUSA welcomes leaders who are members of the LGBT community. Debra Nakatomi, GSUSA Board Member, is an LGBT activist who provides training in advancing LGBT rights. Lynn Cothren, former GSUSA Director of Administration from 2005-12, is a gay-rights advocate, speaker, and former board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Timothy Higdon, former GSUSA Chief of External Affairs from 2010-12, is an LGBT activist, employee of Amnesty International, and a leader in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Conclusion

Whether the BSA’s lifted ban on gay membership will ultimately extend to adults is up in the air. Hopefully, its first step toward tolerance will not be its last as there are more hurdles to overcome. There are ramifications for the BSA only lifting its ban on youth members, as many worry that the message sent is that gay leaders are somehow inadequate. The policy also tells Scout youth that being an openly gay adult is unacceptable. Critics of the policy are concerned that a gay scout who has upheld the Boy Scout code during his entire career is stripped of his titles when he reaches 18, and condemn the policy as unfair. However, many see  the Girl Scouts of the USA as trailblazers who exemplify the civil freedoms America represents. Two similar organizations have ended up on significantly different paths–while modernization is always a slow process, it seems as though GSUSA will end up on the right side of history.

Resources

Primary

Boy Scouts of America: About the BSA

Boy Scouts of America: Current Policy

Girl Scouts: Who We Are

Girl Scouts: America’s Top Girl Scouts Named 2007 National Young Women of Distinction

Additional

100 Question for Girl Scouts: The Girl Scouts and the LGBT Agenda

ABCNews: Some Churches Say They’ll Cut Ties to Boy Scouts Following Its Lifting Ban on Gay Scouts

ACLU: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling That Boy Scouts Can Discriminate is Damaging but Limited

CNN: Disney to Pull Boy Scouts Funding by 2015 Over Policy Banning Gay Leaders

DiversityInc: Merck Condemns Boy Scout Gay Ban, Halts Funding

FoxNews: Transgender Girl Scout Controversy Sheds Light on Organization’s ‘Inclusive’ Policies

GLAAD: Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout Leader Who Was Removed For Being Gay

Huffington Post: Geoff McGrath, Gay Boy Scout Troop Leader, Allegedly Kicked Out of Organization

Scout and Pride: BSA and Homosexuality

WNDMoney: Look Which Companies Dumping Boy Scouts

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Take Different Paths to LGBT Inclusion appeared first on Law Street.

One of the world’s largest gaming conventions, Gen Con, is taking a stand against anti-gay legislation by threatening to take the expo elsewhere if Indiana’s governor signs a controversial religious freedom bill into law. Gen Con CEO and owner Adrian Swartout recently sent an open letter to Indiana Governor Mike Pence asking him to reconsider his support for Senate Bill 101.

The bill, which passed in the House of Representatives Monday with a 63-31 vote and the Senate on Tuesday with a 40-10 vote, will prohibit state and local governments from “substantially burdening someone’s religious beliefs.” In the letter Swartout writes:

Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds…

Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.

Supporters of the bill claim it is a safeguard against unnecessary government intrusion on individuals’ religious beliefs, while critics see the bill as sanctioning discrimination against LBGT people. That concern stems from the bill’s ability to protect business owners who don’t want to service same sex couples. House minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, who voted no to the bill, shared his opinion with the Indianapolis Star:

It basically says to a group of people you’re second rate, you don’t matter, and if you walk into my store, I don’t have to serve you.

Gen Con, which boasts of being the “original, longest-running and best-attended gaming convention” in the world, provides a substantial economic benefit to the city of Indianapolis, bringing more than $50 million dollars worth of revenue to the city each year. Despite being under contract to host the event in Indianapolis through 2020, the organization hopes to sway the governor by leveraging its economic importance and future business.

As of now Gen Con’s disapproval appears to not have weakened Governor Pence’s resolve to sign the bill. His spokeswoman Kara Brooks responded to the letter telling the Indianapolis Star that “the governor has been clear on where he stands on this issue and we don’t have anything to add at this time.”

If Governor Pence follows through with the bill amidst public outrage and big business disapproval, he will be making a statement that both the city’s economy and the rights of his LGBT constituents bear no importance when it comes protecting so-called “religious freedom.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gaming Convention Gen Con May Relocate if Indiana Signs Anti-Gay Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Conversion therapy is a discredited practice that has been used on those who identify as LGBT. California has banned conversion therapy–even though challenges to the ban made it all the way to the Supreme Court. New Jersey has also outlawed the practice. Now, conversion therapy has hit a bump in another court, albeit a very interesting one. Conversion therapy practices are going to have a very hard time operating in New Jersey after a ruling by the consumer fraud court.

Conversion therapy is based on the idea that homosexuality, or basically anything that is not heterosexuality, is a “disorder” that can be cured. That’s, of course, an antiquated, unscientific, and horrifying view. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (the guide to classifying psychological disorders) in 1973, but that just means that people can’t be diagnosed with any sort of disorder related to homosexuality.

What the DSM removal didn’t do was prevent anyone from calling homosexuality a disorder–there was no law against that. So conversion therapy practice capitalized on that discrepancy and advertised that they could “cure” anyone who identified as LGBT. In a lawsuit that was decided this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a suit against the New Jersey-based Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH). SPLC brought the suit on behalf of four men who claim that they were subjected to awful treatment by JONAH. They report details incidents of abuse, or reenacting past abuse, and role-playing abuse.

The suit was brought under the contention that JONAH advertising classified homosexuality as a disorder, which violates the Consumer Fraud Act. Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. ruled that it did violate the CFA. This is a groundbreaking ruling in an interesting context because it is the first time that an American court of any kind has ruled that homosexuality isn’t a mental disease. Bariso also ruled that in addition to incorrectly characterizing homosexuality as a mental illness, JONAH also defrauded consumers by advertising that they had “success” statistics. He had earlier ruled that JONAH could not bring forward expert witnesses who would argue in favor of conversion therapy, because their theories would be outdated and refuted.

The SPLC applauded Bariso’s decision; David Dinielli, the SPLC’s legal director stated:

For the first time, a court has ruled that it is fraudulent as a matter of law for conversion therapists to tell clients that they have a mental disorder that can be cured. This is the principal lie the conversion therapy industry uses throughout the country to peddle its quackery to vulnerable clients. Gay people don’t need to be cured, and we are thrilled that the court has recognized this.

This judgment was made as part of an ongoing lawsuit in which the plaintiffs are seeking damages for the abuse levied against them. The trial will be this summer; this ruling is just part of preliminary matters. Eventually it will be up to a jury to decide. That being said, these preliminary matters are a great step in the right direction. Hopefully the men wronged by JONAH will get the ruling they deserve.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Landmark Ruling Against Gay Conversion Therapy in NJ Court appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Valentine’s Day, my lovelies!

How many of you are planning to spend this Saturday with your wonderful, Cupid-bestowed, significant others?

Awesome. All of the single people want to punch you lovebirds in the face.

But, despite the wave of existential dread this holiday brings to single people everywhere (#foreveralone, am I right?), SCOTUS seems to be in a weirdly lovey mood. In what can only be interpreted as an early Valentine’s Day gift to coupled-up gay people nationwide, SCOTUS dropped a solid hint on Monday that it’ll be making gay marriage a nationwide reality soon.

Early Monday morning, SCOTUS refused to extend the stay on a lower court’s decision that declared Alabama’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional. Basically, that means that SCOTUS is allowing gay marriages to happen in Alabama right now, despite the fact that the constitutionality of state-level gay marriage bans isn’t on deck to be decided upon until later this summer.

Folks, this is a big fucking deal for gay marriage.

The validity of state-level gay marriage bans are currently under SCOTUS’ consideration, and it’s uncertain which way the court will rule. Will SCOTUS decide that individual states totally have the right to ban gay marriage? Will it decide that that’s bullshit, and all of the states have to allow marriages of all people, regardless of the couple’s gender pairing?

Basically, until this summer, the answer on that is TBD.

With that understanding, SCOTUS could do well to allow states that currently have gay marriage bans to continue on with their marriage banning. If these states were forced to allow gay marriages during this current limbo period—and if SCOTUS ultimately decided that state level marriage bans were A-OK—then a whole mess of married couples would suddenly find themselves in a legal quagmire.

So, why create all that mess? It would make more sense to wait until the decision is final, and then marriages can proceed or not, depending on the official decree.

But that’s the opposite of what SCOTUS did on Monday morning!

The justices ruled, without further comment, that the federal district court in Alabama’s ruling could go forth, allowing thousands of gay couples in the state to get married.

Why would SCOTUS do that if it was planning to uphold the constitutionality of gay marriage bans this summer?

Monday’s decision strongly suggests that, come summertime, SCOTUS will rule that state-level gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, and unfettered gay marriage will reign throughout the land.

I’m really hoping that decision comes through in time for Gay Pride. Can you imagine the parties? GOOD LORD. I’m already excited.

For marriage equality advocates across the nation, SCOTUS’ decision Monday morning comes as a welcome victory. Gays in Alabama are happily marrying, and most likely, all of the gays in all of the states will be able to follow suit very soon.

Hurray for all the gay couples who want to get married, for lots of totally valid reasons! Tax benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, health insurance sharing, co-parenting and custody benefits, and citizen sponsorship are just a few of the myriad benefits that legal marriage affords to couples. Signing your name on that dotted line is a huge deal for a lot of people, and it’s a right that tons of people—many of whom I personally know and love—are fighting really hard to secure.

However.

Let’s not forget that marriage is a discriminatory and problematic institution. It’s not the magical cure-all for the LGBT community’s marginalization and disenfranchisement. It’s not even the most pressing issue on our list of things to fix, despite what organizations like the HRC and Lambda Legal might have you believe.

Violence, poverty, unemployment, criminalization, and homelessness are all issues that are—or should be—more highly prioritized on the docket of LGBT issues than gay marriage. Because let’s face it—while well-to-do gay couples are busy planning their weddings, queer youth of color are dying in the streets.

Literally. I’m not exaggerating. Nearly half of the homeless population is comprised of LGBT kids. Trans women of color are getting murdered left and right. This shit is real.

So, while I’m totally enthused about SCOTUS’ hat tip this week in favor of the gay marriage fight, I’m not waving the rainbow flag of victory just yet. No matter which way their final decision goes this summer, we’ll still have a lot more work to do before the queer community can live safely and equitably in American society.

So Happy Valentine’s Day, lovelies! You might be able to get married soon. And then, after your wedding bells have died down, we’ll all have to keep working towards real justice.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy Valentine’s Day! Gay Weddings May Soon Be Sanctioned by SCOTUS appeared first on Law Street.

This summer, fellow Law Streeter Brittany Alzfan wrote about the National Gay Blood Drive, which was the second event of its kind and served as an attempt to draw awareness to the fact that gay men are prevented from donating blood by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA recently acted to change those restrictions, but activists worry that the change doesn’t really do much to alleviate the discrimination against gay men who want to donate blood.

The new policy allows gay men to donate blood, but only if they haven’t had sex with another man in the last 12 months. So essentially, only celibate gay men are allowed to donate–for the vast majority of adults, this changes nothing. It does the exact same thing as the lifetime ban–prevents gay men from donating–but without saying so in the same words. The FDA is basically pretending to change its policy and hoping no one notices that it’s still essentially the same discriminatory policy.

There really are numerous problems with the FDA’s policy. First of all, it reflects outdated science. Donated blood is tested for HIV regardless of who donates it. That’s smart, pragmatic science, given that HIV can be transmitted through any sort of sexual activity, regardless of the participants’ genders or sexual identities. It can also be transmitted through needle-sharing, or other manners that have absolutely nothing to do with sex. As Scott Schoettes of Lambda Legal explains:

Within 45 days of exposure, currently required blood donation testing detects all known serious blood-borne pathogens, including HIV.  Therefore, a deferral of more than two months—for anyone—is not necessary and does not noticeably enhance the safety of the blood supply.

Given that HIV tests are pretty quick and reliable–some tests can detect HIV as early as nine days after infection–this 12 month timeline seems arbitrary at best.

Moreover, the ban is insulting. When donating blood, participants are required to be honest about their medical and personal issues. Questions asked at donation locations include inquiries about travel history, whether or not the donors have gotten tattoos, and about HIV, AIDS, Malaria, and a whole host of other diseases. These are questions for everyone–regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality. So why does the FDA believe that absolutely everyone who goes in to give blood can be trusted except for gay men? There’s only one word for that: demeaning.

Finally, the FDA ban–even the new, almost equally bad ban–might be dangerous on a larger scale. By not allowing gay men to donate, the agency is turning away potentially life-saving donations. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that if the ban were lifted, donations would increase dramatically. As the institute put it:

If the current MSM [men who have had sex with men] ban were completely lifted, we estimate that an additional 360,600 men would likely donate 615,300 additional pints of blood each year.

Instead of a ban, activists argue that the United States should adopt a model like the one that Italy and Spain have. Those two countries screen each person as an individual based on his or her personal risk factors. Since instituting that policy change, there has been no evidence of blood supply contamination.

It does make sense that the FDA would want to keep any HIV-infected blood samples from getting into the donation supply; however, broad discrimination based on nonsensical science and old prejudices is most certainly not the way to do so.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FDA’s New Blood Donation Policy Still Discriminates Against Gay Men appeared first on Law Street.

There’s good news coming out of California right now — the “gay panic” defense is no longer legal justification for murder.

The “gay panic” defense usually has been used for defendants in murder and assault cases. When using it, a defendant explains that he or she was overtaken by temporary insanity that led him or her to kill the victim. Usually the temporary insanity was sparked by an LGBT person supposedly making a pass at the defendant.

The “gay panic” (sometimes “trans panic”) defense usually isn’t used with the hope of getting a not-guilty verdict, but rather to get a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Many states characterize a killing that occurs in a quarrel or heat of passion as manslaughter rather than murder because of the lack of premeditation. For a long time it was believed that people with repressed homosexual leanings may be susceptible to “gay panic,” so this is essentially a version of the “temporary insanity” defense — a horribly homophobic one with no scientific basis.

This week, California became the first state to actually ban use of the “gay panic” defense in court. Governor Jerry Brown just signed the bill after it passed the state legislature with convincing majorities.

It’s important to note that the “gay panic” defense hasn’t really been that effective in court, at least not in recent attempts. Some famous cases have included the 2002 killing of Matthew Shepard, a college student in Wyoming. Shepard, a gay man, was brutally beaten and killed by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. The defense attorney attempted to use the “gay panic” defense for McKinney, but the judge barred it.

But still, despite the fact that it’s not often used or believed, California did a great thing by outlawing it. The fact that it existed, even at the periphery, is offensive. First of all, there’s been absolutely no scientific basis to show that “gay panic” is an actual possibility. It’s offensive pseudo-science.

The “gay panic” defense also puts some responsibility on the victim. It implies that the victim did something — coming on to his killer — that led to his death. Using it to protect a murderer is really not that different than saying that a woman deserved to get raped because she was wearing a short skirt. It puts responsibility on the victim, when really, all responsibility should be on the killer. Executive Director of the National LGBT Bar Association, D’Arcy Kemnitz, made an equally apt comparison, saying:

Every time a woman walks past a construction site and a bunch of guys make propositions to her, should she be able to respond in an assault in maybe even a murderous fashion?

Another problem with the “gay panic” defense is that it also legitimizes homophobia — it says that being gay or trans in cases of the “trans-panic” defense is so abhorrent that it could throw someone into a state of insanity.

Even though the “gay-panic” defense has been mostly debunked, California should be applauded for formally delegitimizing it. It’s an important statement, and one that other states would do well to follow.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Danny Howard via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California appeared first on Law Street.

Good news for those who are both gay and have Irish pride: next year, New York City will allow LGBT groups to march in the St. Patricks Day parade with their own banners. Previously, there had been a ban on allowing gay groups to join in the famous event, which is the biggest in the world. The ban wasn’t specifically on LGBT people — they were allowed to march as long they were with other groups and weren’t carrying any sort of banners marking them as gay — but this was still clearly discriminatory.

The ban on gay groups marching in the parade was causing a lot of problems for the organizers — liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio did not want to march as long as the ban was in place, and Guinness refused to sponsor. Heineken withdrew its support as well. Other businesses have also threatened to take away their support if action was not taken.

Somewhat surprisingly, the decision was actually met without protest from many Catholics. In recent years, the Catholic Church has begun embracing LGBT people as individuals, while still standing against the possibility of gay marriage on an institutional level. The allowance of gay groups at the parade is another example of that shift. As the always delightful Stephen Colbert points out, everyone’s pretty much on board with the new rule:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan will actually be the grand marshal for next year’s parade, and he’s given his full support to the change in policy, stating:

My predecessors and I have always left decisions on who would march to the organizers of the individual parades. As I do each year, I look forward to celebrating Mass in honor of Saint Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland, and the Patron Saint of this Archdiocese, to begin the feast, and pray that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us.

The decision was mostly welcomed by the gay community. It was called a good small step by the Staten Island LGBT Community Center, whose communications manager Emilie Tippens said she hoped for a ripple effect to emerge in other circumstances where LGBT people face discrimination. However, the move did receive some ire from members of the LGBT community. Gay leaders claim that the parade rules were changed not because the organizers actually realized the error of their ways, but because they were forced to by financial and publicity concerns. As a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, Fed Sainz, explained:

In one of the world’s most diverse and inclusive cities, not to allow gay people to march was becoming an anachronistic decision that they could no longer reasonably justify.

While that may be true, it is still a good thing that gay groups will be allowed to march in the parade. The parade is a big draw, and a massive celebration, and for anyone to be restricted is truly a disservice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade to Finally Include LGBT Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Movies are supposed to be an escape–a medium of entertainment where the viewer can suspend their own reality and delve into another. However, recently complaints have arisen that movie executives have stretched audiences’ imaginations too far. Instead of problems with the content however, these critics take issue with the actors who are delivering the performances. The silver screen continues to be inundated with white, heterosexual, male actors despite the diverse population of the United States and the world. Read on for an analysis of the racist, sexist, and discriminatory tendencies of the modern entertainment industry.

Race

When 44 percent of movie tickets are purchased by non-white customers, it would be plausible to think the ethnicity of actors on screen would reflect the diversity of the viewers. That is simply not the case.

American movies have a history of being dominated by caucasian actors and actresses. As a study by University of Southern California discovered:

• Out of the 565 directors of the 500 top-grossing movies from 2007 to 2012, 33 of them were black–and only two were black women.
• In 2012, the speaking characters of the top 100 grossing films were 76.3 percent white, 10.8 percent black, 4.2 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian, and 2.6 percent other ethnicities or mixed race.
• Hispanic actors and actresses are the most underrepresented group on screen.
• From 2007-2012 the ratio of non-black directors to black directors was 16:1.

Halle Berry became the first African-American to win an Academy Award for Best Actress in 2002. During her acceptance speech she reflected on her achievement and what it will mean for other minority women. She opined, “this moment is so much bigger than men…it’s for ever nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.”

However since this momentous achievement, every other recipient of the award has been white.

Unfortunately, that is not the only acting category lacking diversity. In 2001, Marcia Gay Harden and Benicio del Toro won Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor respectively, and there has not been a Latino, Asian, or Native American winner in any acting category since.

Juliet Lapidos of The New York Times pointedly stated,

“Hollywood’s great at congratulating itself for diversity; it’s just not great at actual diversity.”

Whitewashing

Although blackface is no longer deemed as acceptable, the entertainment industry continues to inaccurately depict minorities in films. In part this is done by whitewashing–casting white actors as characters in roles that were written for minorities.

There’s a very long history of white-washing in Hollywood–West Side Story, winner of 10 Academy Awards and one of the most beloved musicals of all time, is a famous example. Natalie Wood (who is of Russian decent) played the leading female character Maria, who is supposed to be Puerto Rican. Disney has also received some criticism for similar portrayals–Aladdin is a good example. The voice of the film’s protagonist is provided by Scott Weinger who, unlike the title character, is not of Arab decent.

More recently, Jake Gyllenhaal as Dastan in Prince of Persia, Ben Affleck as Tony Menendez in Argo, Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in a new Peter Pan project, and rumors of Angelina Jolie being cast Cleopatra are all examples of roles being white-washed.

In addition to being offensive, white-washing diminishes roles–leading to non-Caucasian performers being cast as minor characters that serve to supplement a white lead.

Gender

Women make up slightly more than 50 percent of the population in the United States, yet they continue to be sidelined by the entertainment industry.

Some findings surrounding the inequalities are:

• Women in the top 100 films of 2012 only made up 28.4 percent of roles with speaking parts.
• In 2013, 30.2 percent of women were dressed in sexualized clothing compared to 9.7 percent of men.
• A recent study of films from the past six years showed that 29.5 percent women and 11.7 percent men were shown partially or fully nude.
• In 2013, 16 percent of films had a balanced cast; an increase from 2010 when it was just 4 percent.

The amount of women represented behind the camera faired even worse in 2013:

• Only 1.9 percent of directors were female
• Just 7.4 percent were women
• Women made up 19.6 percent of producers

While accepting her award for Best Actress during the 2014 Oscars, Cate Blanchett remarked:

For those of us in the industry who are still foolishly clinging to the idea that female films with women at the center are niche, they are not! Audiences want to see them and in fact they earn money. The world is round, people!

Actress Olivia Wilde is known for being a feminist and has spoken out multiple times about the quality of roles available to actresses in Hollywood. In the video below, she further explains the differences between roles normally crafted for male and female roles.

Bechdel Test

In 1985, Alison Bechdel created the cartoon Dykes to Watch Out For. From the comic strip the Bechdel test was created, which is a list of standards that determines gender bias in entertainment. Many feminists use it to analyze various forms of media.

The basic principal of the Bechdel Test it that the women depicted in Hollywood should not be clichés, but character who express genuine feelings about diverse areas of their lives.

The rules for the Bechdel Test are that the film:

1. Has at least two women
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

Magazine editor Nikki Baughan offered insight as to the importance of the test:

The Bechdel test acts as a magnifying glass; by breaking down a film in these simple terms, it draws attention to the shocking gender disparity that exists in the majority of cinematic narratives.

LGBT

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is incredibly underrepresented–and oftentimes misrepresented–in Hollywood. When an LGBT actor or character is written into a movie, they often serve as a token member of the ensemble. Their purpose is to represent the stereotypical trait habitually accompanied with their identity in the media.  

Depiction of race in LGBT characters does not differentiate greatly from heterosexual characters. In a study conducted by GLAAD, it was found that the races of LGBT characters were 76 percent white, 12 percent black, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent Latino.

Derived from the Bechdel Test, GLAAD created the Vito Russo Test to examine the presence of LGBT characters in movies.

In order for the film to pass the Vito Russo Test, these qualifications must be met:

• The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
• That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.

Out of the films GLAAD assessed using the Vito Russo Test, less than half passed.

Rayon

Although hailed by mainstream critics, the recent movie Dallas Buyers Club received a combination of praise and condemnation from the LGBT community. The focus of criticism fell upon Jared Leto for his Oscar-winning portrayal of Rayon, a transgender woman.

Steve Friess of Time accused Leto of pandering to the transgender stereotype, stating, “she’s a sad-sack, clothes-obsessed, constantly flirting transgender drug addict prostitute…There are no stereotypes about transgender women that Leto’s concoction does not tap.”

Advocates were also dismayed that an actual transgender actor was not cast in the role. Since Rayon is a fictional character, the casting directors had a wide breath of opportunity and freedom in choosing an actor for the role, yet they chose not to include a transgender actor.

However, Mara Keisling, executive director at the National Center for Transgender Equality, had a contrasting view, saying, “to the film’s credit, I think it accurately showed what the life of this brave person [Rayon] must have been and how she was treated.”

In his Oscar acceptance speech, Leto took a moment to recognize the LGBT community, stating, “to those of you out there who have ever felt injustice because of who you are, or who you love, tonight I stand here in front of the world with you and for you.” Despite his accepting comments, reception to the portrayal remains mixed.

Oscars 2014

The 2014 Academy Awards appeared to be a step in the right direction. The year before, Cheryl Boone Isaacs became the first African American and third woman to ever be elected president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Not only did the Academy itself get a shake up, but the recipients of the awards did as well.

The movie “12 Years a Slave” won Best Picture, one of the most coveted awards. This was a significant victory, because before this film, a movie featuring a black leading man had not won Best Picture since 1967. Steve McQueen–the director, and co-producer–is the first director of African descent to have a movie win in the Best Picture category. The 2014 Best Director award went to Alfonso Cuaron, the first Mexican director to win the category.

Conclusion

In an industry that has such a drastic impact on our culture, it is disheartening to see Hollywood fail in diversity both in front of and behind the camera. Hopefully, future films will be created that cast individuals who accurately represent the audience viewing the films.

Resources

Primary

University of Southern California: Race/Ethnicity in 500 Popular Films: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content Held in the Hand of the Black Director? 

University of Southern California: Gender Inequality in Popular Films: Examining On Screen Portrayals and Behind-the-Scenes Employment Patterns in Motion Pictures Released between 2007-2013

Additional 

New Yorker: Lessons From Late Night

Mic: 6 Disney Films That Are Undeniably Racist and Sexist

The World Bank: Population, Female (% of Total)

Metro: The Bechdel Test and Why Hollywood is a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World

GLAAD: 2014 Studio Responsibility Index

GLAAD: The Vito Russo Test

KPCC: Oscars 2014: 8 Ways They Made Diversity History

TIME: Don’t Applaud Jared Leto’s Transgender ‘Mammy’

IndieWire: 10 Trans Actors Who Could Have Played Jared Leto’s Role in ‘Dallas Buyers Club’

Huffington Post: Jared Leto’s Oscar Win For ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ Criticized by Transgender Community

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Diversity in Hollywood: A History of Failure appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the uproar about some of the Supreme Court’s latest rulings, there was also recently a lesser-known progressive SCOTUS decision that deserves applause. The court decided to not hear two related challenges–Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown–to California’s ban on LGBT conversion therapy. The Pickup suit was brought by David Pickup, a therapist and spokesperson for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); the plaintiff in the Welch case was Donald Welch, a San Diego pastor. The two suits were backed by religious and anti-LGBT groups in California, but because of SCOTUS’s dismissal, the ban on conversion therapy will go into effect.

In both Pickup and Welch, the plaintiffs claimed that developing adolescents have the choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality. They not only see LGBT orientation as a choice, but also as one that can be corrected and changed with treatment. These suits attested that the minors this ban applies to can reject their unwanted urges. They argue that counselors can help these children in the same way that fitness trainers and nutritionists help people who struggle with their weight. From this point of view, the plaintiffs argued that the ban violated the “constitutional rights of the counselors or parents.“

But what about the rights of the minors? Why weren’t they the ones being discussed in the appeal? Overall, the cases seemed to bypass the minors, who would actually be receiving this conversion therapy, and discussed mostly the rights of their narrow-minded parents or “counselors.” The appeal did claim that the minors firmly believed their same-sex attractions were wrong, unwanted, and correctable. But that being said, those minors could have also been heavily influenced by their families, conversion therapists, and others. It’s easy to agree that your sexual attractions are wrong when the adults you look up to–parents, societal leaders, and religious authorities–are telling you that you’re wrong.

There are also many scientific flaws in conversion therapy. Dr. Jack Drescher MD, a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychological Association, states, “not only is homosexuality ‘not a choice,’ as most efforts to try and change a person’s sexual orientation fail, but some attempts to change can cause harm or damage to an individual’s well-being.” Studies have found that there are no “methodologically sound” studies to support the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy, thus discounting any scientific proof to support these practices.

Furthermore, science has proven that, besides being completely ineffective at converting someone’s sexuality, these therapy techniques can result in permanent psychological and emotional damage to LGBT youth. Instances of societal prejudice and familial rejection have resulted in LGBT youth being nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression, and more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide. The pressure that closeted LGBT kids face from family to reject their feelings can be confusing and traumatic. Openly gay youths, or those that have admitted their urges and sought advice from parents, can be met with furious disgust, and even disowned. These reactions, especially from the people that are supposed to provide unconditional love, can be heartbreaking and life-threatening. Conversion therapy only prolongs and falsely validates these reactions.

This issue is tied to the Hobby Lobby case in a way, because some critics were worried that the precedent set in Hobby Lobby would “open the floodgates” to suits from companies asking for religious exceptions to laws. Fortunately, the judges explicitly stated in their decision that their ruling was unique to the specific contraceptive case. The decisions in Pickup and Welch serve as some indication that that will hold true. The Court’s decision not to hear those cases was handed down just moments before the Hobby Lobby decision, possibly proving that religious challenges are not going to end up a SCOTUS free-for-all. While Hobby Lobby certainly made more headlines, Pickup and Welch are incredibly important as well.

The decision on behalf of the Supreme Court not to hear the religious appeal to the ban on LGBT conversion therapy was not only a victory for gay, lesbian and transgender rights advocates, but also set an important legal precedent. In refusing the appeal, the court allowed the official prohibition to finally be enforced in California after being held up by these law suits. This law was the first of its kind, signed back in 2012, and was followed by similar legislation in New Jersey about a year later. In my opinion, no one can use guilt and anxiety to induce change, and call it therapy or counseling. In my book, and fortunately the Supreme Court’s as well, they’re just plain wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [@mjb via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good Call, SCOTUS: Conversion Therapy Banned in California appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, gay and bisexual men participated in the second annual National Gay Blood Drive. The drive’s goal was to call attention to the FDA’s lifetime blood donor deferral for all men who have had sex with another man, in place since 1977. Despite the national attention that it received, the first gay blood drive last summer did little to sway the FDA and the ban remained. Organizations such as the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks have all spoken out in support of easing blood donor restrictions. They say that they all, “believe the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men should be modified and that donor deferral criteria should be made comparable with criteria for other behaviors that pose an increased risk for transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections.”

But let’s back up a bit here–why is there a restriction preventing gay men from donating blood in the first place? About three decades ago, when the AIDS crisis was in full swing, there was panic about how the HIV virus was transmitted. The restriction was put in place to prevent gay men from transmitting HIV through blood donations. But the times, and our scientific knowledge, have changed. We have had the ability to perform blood tests for nearly 30 years now, and it’s been nearly that long since we’ve had a single case of HIV via blood transfusion. The laws are also a relic of a time when it was thought that HIV was an exclusively homosexual disease–it’s since been proven that it can be passed on to anyone of any sexual orientation. That’s exactly why every sample is tested for many things, including HIV, after it is donated.

Ryan James Yezak, the drive’s organizer, wrote a passionate plea for lifting the ban this week on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign. He explained how three years ago, he wanted to go with his boss to give blood after a natural disaster. In his plea, he explained:

While I was healthy as could be, I could not donate due to the fact that I was gay. I had to explain the situation to everyone in my department. For the first time in my life, I felt like I was being treated differently solely on the basis of my sexual orientation – it felt alienating, it felt wrong, but above all – it felt unnecessary.

Yezak could not be more correct–it is unnecessary. A simple blood test and waiting period eliminates the need to categorize individual donors as a risk. The exclusion of gay and bisexual men from donating blood only propagates a stigma against which gay rights activists have spent the past 30 years fighting.

In fact, the only thing that this ban really does is cut down the number of potential blood donors, which is not something we should be doing. Blood shortages have been a major issue in the United States over the past several years.  According to the American Red Cross, more than 41,000 blood donations are needed every single day. In times of catastrophes and in the summer months when schools are no longer holding blood drives, there are major shortages of blood due to the lack of donors. ABC News reported that last year that the United States faced one of the worst shortages the Red Cross has ever seen. As Yezak explained, “to continue to exclude people despite the entirely reasonable arguments of the organizations that supply blood themselves is both discriminatory to them and harmful to everybody.” He said, “someone needs a blood donation every two seconds in the U.S., and you never know when that someone is going to be you.”

The bottom line is, we should not be turning away anyone’s blood. So long as it has been tested, there is no reason that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should be banned from donating. Hopefully the second annual National Gay Blood drive will prompt the FDA to lift this outdated and discriminatory ban.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Buck via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Gay Blood Drive: A Call for Change appeared first on Law Street.

Several LGBT rights groups have withdrawn their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would ban employers from refusing to hire or discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. A coalition of groups that support LGBT rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is leading the charge away from the ENDA. This comes as a surprise, given that ENDA previously had strong support from these same groups. They are pulling support from a bill they have long worked to pass for only one reason–the recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. The problem is that they may be overreacting.

Since the ruling was handed down in the Hobby Lobby case, there have been misinterpretations of the case from both sides of the aisle. The liberal side of the debate has rallied behind Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, saying that the “floodgates” have been opened for religious freedom suits. That argument is the reason why so many LGBT groups have removed their support for the ENDA. They fear that corporations who wish to discriminate will be able to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the same way that Hobby Lobby did. They are scared that the Supreme Court could rule that a religious corporation not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality is a violation of RFRA. I understand this fear, excellently articulated here by our blogger Chris Copeland, but I think that they are simply overreacting to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. The ruling itself was very narrow and will likely never serve as a precedent for sexual discrimination.

How am I so sure of this? Let’s put it this way, these suits will almost definitely not happen as long as Justice Anthony Kennedy remains the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Kennedy did vote with the majority on Hobby Lobby, but it is clear from his concurring opinion that his vote came with some serious strings attached. Kennedy implied that he only voted the way he did because of the narrowness of the case. He believed in this specific instance that the least-restrictive means test was not met, and pointed out that the government already allowed exceptions for non-profit corporations. The court’s ruling made it clear that the decision only applies to a religious exception for the contraceptive mandate, and that all other potential religious exceptions must be evaluated individually. Simply put, Hobby Lobby is not an invitation to use the RFRA to allow sexual discrimination.

If a case arguing that job discrimination should be allowed under the RFRA ever made it to the Supreme Court, there is no way Kennedy would vote to allow it. There are several reasons for this. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that ruled any law prohibiting sexual acts between members of the same sex in private was unconstitutional. He also authored the opinion in United States v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy has long defended the rights of the LGBT community and I do not think he would change his mind if a corporation sued to use RFRA as a basis for legal sexual discrimination. The government banning sexual discrimination would meet the least-restrictive means test, while the contraceptive mandate did not, a distinction that would surely be important to Kennedy.

It’s sad to see these LGBT groups end their support for the ENDA. It is still a law that could do a lot of good. Any challenge to the ENDA under the guise of religious freedom would almost certainly turn out differently than the Hobby Lobby case, but with support being pulled from the law, it will probably never become an issue.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Rights Groups Pulling Support for ENDA in Light of Hobby Lobby Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding appeared first on Law Street.

The British Columbia Law Society just voted 3,210 to 968 to reverse its  April decision accrediting the new Trinity Western University Law School. The original accreditation decision came under fire because Trinity has a Christian covenant that serves as a mandatory contract students and staff are required to sign. The problem with this covenant? It blatantly discriminates against the LGBT community.

Under the covenant, all school affiliates are prohibited from a sexual relationship “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” If they are found to have violated this covenant, or even fail to report violations by fellow students or staff, they may be expelled or terminated. The school has used a freedom of religion argument to defend its offensive and harsh rule.

In the most recent vote, 77 percent of the BC Law Society voted against TWU Law receiving accreditation, and although this vote is non-binding, it definitely affects the final decision. The BC Law Society is not alone in protesting the school’s covenant. The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario also voted against the accreditation. The Nova Scotia Barristers Society only granted conditional acceptance; the terms of that acceptance were that TWU either changes the covenant or gives students the option to not sign it.

TWU contends that its freedom of religion allows it to enact this covenant, and even launched court actions in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario to defend it. Statements made by the institution have gone so far as to say that the provincial law societies rejecting the school’s accreditation are denying the concept that lawyers can participate in society while holding any religious beliefs. They also argue that the rulings are based solely ony public opinion, making them inherently unfair. But three different provincial law societies amount to thousands of votes, which seems like a very popular opinion, so the school’s argument seems a bit far fetched to me.

A similar case came before the Canadian Supreme Court in 2001 concerning the accreditation of TWU’s graduates and the court ruled in the school’s favor. Bob Kunn, Trinity’s president, even used this fact as a defense for the school’s covenant, saying, “the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the country, comprised of the best legal minds, and their decisions should be respected.” I find this point especially laughable given that the school’s covenant is discriminating against an entire community that has been protected by that same court for eleven years. How can Trinity preach about freedom of religion when it forces students and staff to sign a contract that specifies their personal beliefs and punish students for violating the beliefs it deems correct?

Even more alarming is what this covenant could mean for Trinity’s future law graduates. In my eyes, this anti-gay covenant promotes further discrimination beyond just school enrollment. It has the potential to subliminally teach graduates that the LGBT community is somehow not worth their time as lawyers. Even worse, these future lawyers may have an extra barrier to employment in British Columbia, where gay marriage is now commonplace.

It is important to note that Trinity Western is not alone in its initiative to exclude the LGBT community from enrollment. In the United States, the supremely Christian Liberty University earned fifth place on a list of the top five most conservative schools in the United States. In addition to teaching youth earth creationism, the school also bans the admission of openly gay students. Many other universities with anti-gay policies, such as Patrick Henry College, are home to a silent underground LGBT community. Queerphc is a blog specifically dedicated to gay Patrick Henry students that states, “Patrick Henry College maintains a requirement of non-advocacy for enrolled students in regards to LGBTQ issues.”

Although this discriminatory spirit against homosexual and transgender students exists all over North America, the tides seem to be changing for the better in America. President Obama just announced that he will sign an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. Many people, myself include, haven’t paid much attention to this announcement because frankly, we thought it was already established. Although there’s plenty of progress that needs to be made, both the US and Canada are on the right track in most respects. Hopefully Canada can take a lesson from its southern neighbor, use its constitutional history of LGBT acceptance as a basis, and show Trinity Western that discrimination in any form is both illegal and wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Syowoe via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Law Societies Reject Trinity Western’s Anti-Gay Policies appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, citizens in both Washington, DC and Salt Lake City, Utah, poured out to celebrate gay pride at annual parades in their respective cities. In DC the mood was good. Jake Hudson, a DC local and 27-time parade attendee, actually sat it out this year, claiming this was because he was more than happy with the District’s stance on gay rights. But in Salt Lake City, the exact opposite happened. This year’s participants faced resistance from an unexpected and shameful source — the police department. An unnamed police officer refused his assignment to protect parade supporters and ensure safety. Although the Salt Lake City Police Department condemned his choice, the officer still serves as a prime example of Utah’s history of anti-gay rights legislation.

Gay Rights in Utah

Utah’s predominantly Mormon constituency tends to argue against same-sex marriage. Although some progressive groups in the community now openly support LGBT initiatives, the more conservative majority remains dominant. For this reason, gay rights legislation in Utah has had little success and far too many failures. Utah’s gay community has seen no substantial legislative victories, with the exception of a 17-day lift on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last December. LGBT couples in Utah are even prohibited from adopting children.

Gay Rights in DC

On the other side of the country, DC’s LGBT community has won countless political gains. Gay and lesbian couples have had the right to marry since 2009, and they won the right to adopt, use IVF, and hire surrogates in March 2013. In addition to these major legislative wins, the community is protected from hate crimes and sexual orientation discrimination. DC is the poster-child for gay and lesbian rights in the U.S. “I hate to say it, but we have just about everything we could want,” said Hudson.

The mayoral race in DC pretty much proves the fact that choosing a candidate based solely on shallow prejudices is no longer acceptable. There is both an openly gay candidate, Independent David A. Catania, and a candidate with a history of strong support for LGBT causes, Democrat Muriel Bowser. Based on their platforms, it is clear that both candidates would be more than willing to pass pretty much any LGBT legislation that comes their way. For example, Bowser vowed to vote against Mayor Grey’s DC United soccer stadium proposal that would have displaced the DC LGBT Center. She also hired Bo Shuff, an openly gay campaign manager who has worked in the past for the LGBT rights groups Equality Ohio and the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, DC’s LGBT community is focusing more on the more day-to-day policies of each candidate, rather than choosing the one candidate who might be in favor of extending gay rights. Nonetheless, all the advancements inside the District mean much more when you pair them with the lack thereof  in Utah. DC’s equality-driven environment is a prime example for the rest of the country  to emulate.

In a dichotomy such as this, where two sides of the country differ so drastically on such a prominent issue as gay rights, the only solution can be found in education and dialogue. There may still be a chance to encourage Utah’s youth to join the cause, while it may prove harder to change the minds of the state’s older constituents. Perhaps those who made the DC movement so successful could shift their efforts toward the country’s less progressive states.

Although it is undeniably frustrating to see two sides of a single country be so out of sync with each other, it is important to remember that social change across independent states never happens simultaneously. The horribly slow civil rights process in the South in the fifties and sixties is often blamed on tradition and prejudice. It’s fair to say the same thing is happening with gay rights in conservative areas of the country.

But there is hope in the region. Both Colorado, Utah’s neighbor, and Washington, are very progressive on many issues, ranging from the legalization of marijuana to voting for President Obama in 2012. Washington, Oregon, California, and New Mexico have already established legal gay marriage, sparking a dialogue in Utah’s western region. Like dominos, the spread of liberal causes is influenced by neighboring states. Hopefully the Utah domino is soon to follow.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Guillaume Paumier via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC and Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parades Reveal National Split on LGBT Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, how many of you are John Green fans? I hope every single one of you raised your hand. He’s basically perfection.

Not only does he write awesome books, but he also posts weekly vlogs on YouTube with his brother, Hank. The two of them cover everything from goofy details about their daily lives to politics and religion. And they do it HYSTERICALLY. Seriously, I never knew I could be so entertained while watching a video about the American healthcare system.

Anyway! One of John Green’s wonderful books, The Fault in Our Stars, has been made into a feature film. It’s hitting theaters next month and stars Shailene Woodley.

So much gorgeousness is happening here, you guys.

Shailene is pretty awesome, making some queer-ish, feminist-y comments about love being independent from gender, doubting our society’s obsession with marriage and monogamy, coming down on Twilight for promoting an unhealthy and abusive relationship dynamic, and advocating for more nuanced, kickass roles for women in movies.

She’s pretty rad.

But! Shailene was recently asked if she identifies as a feminist. And she said no. Cue collective exasperated sigh of disappointment.

Why is this apparently feminist star eschewing the feminist label? Because, it seems, she doesn’t actually understand what being a feminist means.

“No,” said Woodley, when asked if she considered herself a feminist, “because I love men.” She went on to say that feminism means giving undue power to women at the expense of men, an arrangement that wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone.

But, see, that’s not what feminism is. That’s not what it means. Not even a little bit. Feminists aren’t power hungry man-haters looking to depose men from their porcelain thrones of fragile masculinity. We’re not looking to climb over the men, flip the oppression coin, and unfairly win some sort of gender pissing contest where vagina-bearers come out on top.

Feminists are people who come in all shapes, sizes, and genders — some of them are men, go figure! — who believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Just ask Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the TEDx talker who came up with this perfectly coined definition of feminism. This isn’t power grabbing. This isn’t renewed, rearranged sexism.

Feminism is a commitment to ending gender-based oppression. And that’s something that both men and women will benefit from.

Because, let’s be real. We live in a world where gender-based oppression is a huge fucking deal. There’s so much of it, in fact, that every week I’m swamped with potential stories to cover here on The F Word. My email inbox is consistently flooded with article recommendations from friends, family members, and coworkers, all alerting me to the latest crazy incident of racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit to hit the airwaves. There’s always too much to cover on any given day.

This week, for example, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky. Vanity Fair has debuted an exclusive essay by Lewinsky, breaking her decade-long silence regarding her past as the White House whore. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she writes, going on to express her deep regret and remorse for her affair with former President Bill Clinton — which, she insists, was totally consensual.

But does consent really exist between an intern in her early 20s and her boss — a man who’s not only twice her age, but who’s also the President of the United States? The leader of the motherfucking free world asks you for a blow job, and what do you do? Report him to human resources?

I feel like the U.S. military’s Commander in Chief probably pulls rank on that one, no?

Yes, yes he does.

We live in a world where the man who abused his position of power to score sex from a hot, 20-something staffer, is now getting paid millions of dollars in speaking engagements. Meanwhile, his well-educated, exceptionally capable whore has been unable to land a full-time job ever, AT ALL, because of her “history,” a media sensation that’s transformed her from a person into a joke.

This is a world that needs feminism.

Then, we’ve got Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey who filmed her surgical abortion and posted it online, to show other women that “there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

The short video, featured below, is not graphic or violent, shows only the top half of Letts’ body, and focuses on her emotional and physical experience during the procedure. As a counselor, Letts wanted to share her experience to diffuse some of the frightening misinformation surrounding abortions, modeling one possible solution to a very personal, complicated situation.

Letts’ video and her accompanying essay for Cosmopolitan are helping women across the country come to safe, informed decisions about how to handle an unexpected pregnancy. They’re also helping to chip away at the deeply ingrained stigma our country holds against women who take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

We live in a world where those are two goals that cause a huge chunk of the United States to respond with anger and vitriol, calling Letts a Godless Baby Slaughterer Witch from Hell. I give it about five minutes before death threats start rolling in.

This is a world that needs feminism.

And then, we’ve got 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

These girls, who range in age from 9 to 15 years old, haven’t been found, which is SHOCKING considering how little media or political attention their abductions have warranted. (Please re-read that sentence and multiply the sarcasm factor by infinity.) And why were they abducted? Because Boko Haram is opposed to women in Nigeria receiving Western educations.

That’s right, folks. We live in a world where girls are violently denied educations and sold into slavery — all while making fewer headlines than Kimye.

This world needs feminism so badly that I have to come up with creative ways to squeeze multiple stories into a single blog post — and I never manage to cover them all. It needs feminism so badly that I had an entire post written about this racist, sexist,  douchebag extraordinaire from Princeton who’s not apologizing for his white privilege, and I SCRAPPED it, because there were too many other stories that were even more important to cover this week.

So, to Shailene Woodley, and to all the other people in the world who are hesitant or unwilling to adopt the feminist identity, please listen.

Feminism is not man-hating. Feminism is not power-grabbing. Feminism is not dangerous, destructive, or harmful.

Feminism is empathy. Feminism is self-love, and love for your fellow human beings. Feminism is working to end the oppression of all people — men, women, queers, people of color, poor people, disabled people — so that all of us can live happier, healthier lives.

Being a feminist means that you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. Being a feminist means you believe in ending oppression.

And sadly, this column is proof that there aren’t enough of us.

So, please, get next to feminism. Feminists are changing the world for the better. And we need you.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mingle MediaTV via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear appeared first on Law Street.

NFL prospect Michael Sam revealed to the public this week that he is gay. Sam’s decision is undoubtedly brave; if drafted (and he probably will be), he will be the first openly gay male professional athlete in a sport that manufactures traditional male stereotypes. But Sam is no stranger to bravery or to breaking stereotypes. Michael Sam was the first member of his family to attend college, and one of the few children of JoAnn Sam not to clash with law enforcement. Since Sam is used to breaking molds, he may not have needed legal protections to come out. But if we want to enable his choice in more workplaces, two laws could prompt similar behavior.

1. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): ENDA is a federal bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees. If enacted, ENDA would prohibit employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity for decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation (read the Human Rights Campaign’s breakdown of the law here). Despite the growing support for ENDA, Govtrack.us gives the bill only a 14 percent chance of becoming law.  Without it, many LGBT employees could face the painful dilemma of lying to co-workers about their identities or risk losing their employment (although it’s worth noting that 21 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws). ENDA does have friends in Washington however, and is rumored to become law for federal contractors through executive order.

2. Workplace Bullying Legislation: This type of legislation is another means to combat discrimination at work and thus possibly encourage LGBT employees to be comfortable at their own jobs. Unlike ENDA, workplace bullying laws may provide private claims for employees against other employees who bully or create toxic working environments through bullying. Some state legislatures have proposed insulating employers who act responsibly to thwart workplace bullying. Despite the growing trend of anti-bullying laws being passed on behalf of public schools, workplace bullying legislation has not been enacted in any U.S. State or at the Federal level. The lack of seriousness regarding workplace bullying laws may soon be a thing of the past, however. Sixteen states have proposed workplace bullying laws since 2009, and the high profile case involving the alleged harassment in the Miami Dolphins locker room may push this issue to the forefront.

Michael Sam’s revelation fortunately lacked the backlash that many expected. Sam’s former teammates on the Missouri Tigers supported him when he privately came out, and several prominent athletes showed support for Sam when he  revealed the news publicly. But tolerance can be fleeting, and Sam’s journey is just beginning.  With laws in place to protect LGBT individuals from workplace discrimination or harassment, his journey is more likely to have a happy ending, and more likely to prompt others to follow in his cleat prints.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia/Marcus Qwertyus]

Andrew Blancato

The post 2 Laws That Could Encourage More Michael Sams to Come Out appeared first on Law Street.

This afternoon, publisher Elsevier Science won the R.R. Hawkins Award at the American Association of Publishers’ PROSE Awards, winning the top prize in the professional and scholarly publishing industry. Elsevier was honored for its work publishing the recent book, Alan Turing: His Work and Impact.

Folks, how many of you even know who Alan Turing is? Probably not a lot of you, unless you were serious math and science nerds during college.

So! I’ll catch you up. Born in 1912, Turing grew up in London and was one of those kids who’s just crazy smart. The kind of smart that makes you never want to read again, because OMG you could never measure up. He was such a talented math student that he skipped elementary calculus, and went straight to coming up with Einstein’s same ideas on his own by age 16.

Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? Alan Turing is basically Matt Damon. Yes. That guy.

But, since Turing didn’t endure childhood abuse and neglect like Will Hunting, he didn’t go on to become an under-achiever with anger problems. Instead, he turned out fabulously — he went on to become one of the most important mathematicians in history.

He came up with the idea to feed machines algorithms. He broke the German Enigma codes in World War II. He invented the CAPTCHA test. So, basically — that scene in The Social Network where the Facebook algorithm finds itself on the window of Zuck’s dorm room? That would be thanks to Turing. The Allied Powers defeating Hitler’s Nazi Germany in World War II? You can thank Turing for that, too. The computer you’re reading this post on right now? Also courtesy of Turing.

Considering none of us can remember how to survive without computers and the Internet, Alan Turing pretty much made our whole lives. So, it’s pretty weird that a guy this important isn’t actually way more famous than he is, right?

Right. But he’s not. Because he was gay.

Back when Turing was alive, homosexuality was a criminal offense in England. So, in 1952, when his home was burgled by an acquaintance of his lover, Turing found himself in some deep shit. During the investigation, he admitted to having a romantic and sexual relationship with his lover, and wound up being charged with a crime himself. Crap like this is why queer folks don’t trust the cops, you guys.

Anyway! Turing wound up being convicted of gross indecency, and in lieu of prison time, he was sentenced to chemical castration. For one year, Turing received injections of oestrogen, a synthetic female hormone. As a result, he became impotent and developed gynaecomastia — a fancy doctor word that means he started growing breasts. Not surprisingly, Turing lost his security access and his job.

Also unsurprisingly, Turing was not a happy guy during this whole ordeal. He was so unhappy, in fact, that he committed suicide just two years later. In 1954, Turing was found dead in his apartment, a half-eaten apple lying beside him. It’s suspected that he laced the apple with cyanide in a dark reenactment of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. He was only 41.

Courtesy of Duncan Hill via Flickr.

In the years since his death, Turing’s legacy has been complicated. While his work lives on forever — providing the basis of all modern-day computer science — his name has been shrouded in shame-induced obscurity. His fame was revived in the early 2000s, when England batted around the idea of granting him a posthumous pardon for his “crimes,” something that didn’t officially happen until 2013.

So, when Elsevier published this book, celebrating Turing’s work and solidifying his place in history, it was a pretty big deal. They sent a message to the world that Alan Turing won’t be forgotten, despite his sexuality.

Courtesy of Bernt Rostad via Flickr.

Before now, Turing was something of a tragic figure. He was a ridiculously great thinker, an indispensable historical figure, a scientific visionary with one tragic flaw. He liked other men. And in this heteronormative, patriarchal, Puritanical, fucked up world, that was reason enough to banish him from the history books. To banish him from life, really. His final years on this planet were tortured ones, and his gross mistreatment at the hands of the law ultimately led to his suicide.

Turing wasn’t alone. Countless queers have been persecuted over the course of history, and we continue to face social and legal adversity today. In the United States, homosexuality was a criminal offense until 2003. That’s insane.

So, here’s the bottom line. It’s awesome that Elsevier published this book, and it’s super fabulous that the company was honored for it. You heard it here first.

But Turing’s not the only gay man who suffered at the hands of the law. He’s not the only queer person whose legacy was forced into obscurity. And he’s not the only queer whose life was cut tragically short.

So, let’s remember Alan Turing. But let’s not forget about the rest of our community—especially those of us who aren’t white, male, able-bodied, middle-class, and cisgender. We’re suffering too.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Ellis via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Alan Turing Honored at the PROSE Awards appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you got a snow day today? Lucky bitches.

Anyway! Guess what we’re commemorating this month? Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, yes—but something else. Something a bit less, serious.

The premier of The L Word! Who here remembers that show? Please tell me some of you.

Well, for those of you who live under a rock, The L Word was a Showtime series that followed the lives and loves of a group of lesbian friends living in Los Angeles. It was the first TV show to feature more than one significant lesbian character, and to this day it’s the only show that ever depicted semi-realistic, super-hot lesbian sex.

Who were you 10 years ago? I was an angsty, almost-teenager who dated dumb boys while secretly crushing on older girls. I was goth, or punk, or something, and I was eschewing my dreams of being a writer to halfheartedly pursue my dreams of being a rock star.

It was a weird time.

But 10 years ago, I didn’t have Showtime. I had never heard of The L Word. Netflix was barely a thing. And had my parents walked in on me watching the queer, soft-core porn that is The L Word’s claim to fame, they probably would have sent me away to an all-girls Catholic boarding school. (Kind of a weird disciplinary solution for a Jewish, budding dyke — but that was their go-to threat, nonetheless.)

I didn’t meet the cast of The L Word for another few years, when my first serious girlfriend and I binge-watched most of the series while she was recovering from surgery. Despite the show’s obvious problems — it was depressingly white-washed, hopelessly femme, and wildly unrealistic — I was totally hooked. It was the first time I’d ever seen anything remotely similar to my life up on the screen. And it was hot.

So here we are, a decade later, and everything’s different. I’m a grown-ass woman, with a job and an apartment and a life that’s complicated as fuck. The L Word’s long gone, and it’s been semi-replaced with Orange is the New Black — which is way queerer and more diverse, if slightly less X-rated. Queer characters are gracing the small screen left and right, from Modern Family to The Fosters. Things are good.

But are they really? Because life imitates art. And things are still pretty rough out here.

Poverty and homelessness are still a major problem for queer folks. We’re still met with devastating violence on the streets, and rejection from our families. We’re still faced with higher rates of unemployment, depression, and addiction. We’re still getting deported. We still don’t have health insurance.

Seriously. It’s rough out here.

And we’re not the only ones who feel it. Inequality is at an all-time high, leaving more people out in the cold than ever before. Things are difficult for most of us, regardless of sexuality. But for many, queerness makes it worse.

So, when I look back at The L Word and the world it premiered into 10 years ago, I like to think about how far we’ve come. It’s awesome that dykes on screen aren’t groundbreaking anymore. It’s fabulous that somewhere, someone, somehow, got the funding to represent us — even if it was a limited and problematic representation.

But it’s important to remember how far we have left to go. Just six months before The L Word hit Showtime, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the case Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing homosexuality in the United States.

That’s right.

Just six months before the gayest of gay girl shows premiered, queerness was criminal.

And today, a decade later, queers are still grossly underrepresented in the media, while we’re grossly over-represented in the prison population.

How much has really changed? It’s debatable, for sure.

So this month, head on over to Netflix and binge watch The L Word. Get hooked on the melodramatic awfulness and the inhumanly hot sex scenes.

But also remember that queerness is more than a glammed out TV show. And we still have a long-ass way to go.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [kyle rw via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The First Time Lesbians Were Legal (on TV) appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year’s Eve, lovelies!

Folks, I can’t wrap my head around this 2014 business. I literally feel like 2013 didn’t happen. A year has never passed so quickly in my entire life. (Don’t I say that every year? Whatever.) Anyway! In honor of this super awesome day — a day that marks fresh starts, new beginnings, and exciting adventures — I thought we should talk about resolutions.

That’s right. New Year’s Resolutions. And not those bullshit ones about losing weight and juicing half your food and spending more time on Skype with your long distance friends. No one ever sticks to those. I’m talking about some resolutions we can really believe in, à la Miranda Hobbes.

Buzzfeed did a fabulous post last week about how the red-headed attorney  was the most empowering of the four Sex and the City characters, and I’d have to agree. If she was a real person, I’m pretty sure she’d be a fan of The F Word, am I right?

So! Without further ado, let’s be more like Miranda this year, mmkay?

Resolution #1: Don’t be afraid to tell someone to fuck off. Ever. Embrace that power gladly.

HBO / Via loveforlabels.eu

Miranda may have been the queen of no-fuss breakups, but this resolution doesn’t just apply to romantic relationships. Republican douchebags preventing you from accessing a safe abortion? Tell ’em to go fuck themselves. Obamacare failing to provide you with real health insurance? Tell ’em to fuck that. Say it loud and say it proud, folks. Because that’s the only way we’re going to make anything better.

Resolution #2: Fuck up the patriarchy and its traditional gender roles.

Thanks HBO!

Loves, Miranda may have been a totally femme straight lady, but she rocked a suit and tie like nobody’s business. She also earned more money than any of her boyfriends, failed to romanticize marriage and motherhood, and even embraced a lesbian identity (albeit, a fake one) in order to make partner at her law firm.

Remember when Miranda bought that ginormous apartment all by herself? Or when she told all of her friends to STFU about their man problems and focus the conversation on something more substantive?

Miranda subverted all the patriarchal expectations surrounding gender — namely, that women should be quiet, submissive, and dependent on a man. And you know what? She was fucking awesome at it.

Let’s resolve to be equally awesome at toppling the patriarchy.

Resolution #3: Don’t apologize for your sexuality.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

Anybody remember the scene we’re referencing here? It’s epic.

Miranda’s been going through a dry spell, and one day, as she’s walking down the street, a group of rowdy construction workers starts catcalling her. Like any good feminist, Miranda got pissed about the street harassment that follows women fucking everywhere. But, she took a unique and super badass approach to handling it. She walked right up to her catcallers and asked them if they were actually interested in fucking her. Because she was horny, and had no time for silly games. Be prepared to make good on your offer — or STFU.

Not surprisingly, her harassers were totally intimidated and basically tried to curl up into little balls and disappear right there in the middle of the street. What can we learn from Miranda here? Don’t be ashamed of your sexuality. Know your needs and seek to have them met, unapologetically. Get it, grrrl.

Resolution #4: Don’t second guess yourself. Call bullshit when you see it — and stand up for yourself.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

While the three other ladies of SATC bitched about how to keep a man, Miranda told them how it is, plain and simple. As a feminine presenting person, you’re often expected to metaphorically — and sometimes, literally — bow down to your partner if you want your relationship to stay intact.

Well, loves, Miranda says fuck that. And I do too.

Let’s all resolve to stay empowered as individuals this year. Let’s be the best people we can be, independently. And if somebody doesn’t like that — whether it’s your partner, your boss, your professor, or the entire Republican party — fuck ’em. Life’s too short.

See folks? Isn’t Miranda awesome? I told you.

Are you with me on these resolutions for 2014? What would you add to the list? Blow it up in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [John Gilbert Leavitt via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolution: Fuck Shit Up with Miranda Hobbes appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, lovelies. Did you all survive Thanksgiving? How many of you are still battling tryptophan-induced comas?

I know I am!

But all the Thanksgiving gluttony in the world couldn’t hold me back from you all. Nope. And I’ve got some worrying news to open your re-entrance into the world of normal portion sizes and stuffing withdrawal.

2016 is going to be a bitch.

Why? Well, because of a little “nuclear” reactor that was detonated just in time for my turkey to come out of the oven.

It did not look like this.

One week before Thanksgiving, Senator Harry Reid rallied together enough votes in the Senate to eliminate the minority party’s ability to filibuster executive branch nominees and any judgeship below the Supreme Court. What does that mean? Sen. Reid and the majority of his fellow Senators told the GOP to shut the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums already. Who can get anything done with these filibuster-happy, crazy people running around, making medically inadvisable speeches for gazillions of hours?

But actually. Filibustering hinders productivity. FACT.

Also fact: filibustering is sometimes necessary. If the majority party is set on passing some super fucked up legislation, the opposing side has to have some way to stand up and call bullshit. But here’s the problem with these two indisputable facts. Since President Obama was first elected in 2008, the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.

Literally abusing it. Like, if the filibuster were a person, the GOP would be collectively doing time for assault and battery right now. So, Sen. Reid took the initiative. He got his fellow Senators together, and they stood up to the obnoxious, filibuster-abusing Republicans. And now they can’t filibuster anymore. Yay!

Except that the filibuster ban goes both ways. So, if the Republicans regain control of the Senate in the upcoming 2016 elections, we are in for a SHIT TON of trouble. Now, when I say we, who am I referring to exactly?

Women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, scientists, people who believe in the separation of Church and State, people who believe in reality. A lot of us, shall we say.

How come? Well that’s not hard to figure out. The Christian Right has made it abundantly clear that they’re out for blood. In a perfect world, they’d like to slash women’s access to safe abortions, slash access to healthcare for everyone but the obscenely wealthy, while turning a blind eye to racism, sexism, classism, global warming, and everything else that they’d like to pretend doesn’t exist. They’re also down for warmongering, merging Church and State, and basically turning the U.S. into an even bigger shit show than it already is.

We’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy.

As a lesbian, feminist writer who earns a portion of her living criticizing the government, I would really appreciate this not happening. I don’t want to live in a tyrannical theocracy. No thank you! But, with the demise of the ability to filibuster, come 2016, we could potentially go there.

Now, before we get too crazy, let’s look at the facts for a second. Sen. Reid’s “nuclear” decision didn’t ban all filibusters, everywhere, all the time. Only the ones that revolve around presidential nominees for executive or non-Supreme Court judicial positions. There’s still plenty of room to filibuster on both sides. For example, Ted Cruz’s filibuster of the Affordable Care Act would still be admissible. However, without the ability to filibuster presidential nominees, Congress’s majority party can potentially stack the courts with judges that align with their platform.

If 2016 brings a Republican majority, that means court-stacking à la Justice Antonin Scalia. This is the same guy who claimed that the separation of Church and State is a myth. That’s not a happy prospect. Justices like Hon. Scalia would strip women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, and non-Christians of their rights in a hot second, given the opportunity. And most of the folks on that list don’t have a ton of legal rights to begin with. As my immigrant, Polish, Jewish grandmother would say, oy vey.

But, since we have checks and balances, this is not the end of the world, right? The courts don’t rule the land with an iron fist. The judicial branch is just one arm in a complex tree of government. We’ve still got the legislative branch and the executive branch to even everything out.

Well, sort of. If the legislative and judicial branches are in each other’s pockets, there won’t be much checking or balancing going on there. The same can be said of the executive branch, which will also be up for grabs come 2016. Imagine a Christian Right president, elected alongside a conservative congressional majority, who will both work together to nominate conservative judiciaries.

It’s one possible outcome of 2016 elections, and it’s one where the whole checks and balances thing kind of becomes moot. Not to mention, even in a less-extreme situation, a highly conservative court hinders the legislative and executive branches’ abilities to make lasting reforms.

So, what have we learned about 2016?

Basically, that Sen. Reid’s decision to go nuclear prior to Turkey Day this year could have some serious consequences if the next election swings Right. So let’s jump on that Lefty-loosey bandwagon, mmkay? Keep those neocons at bay!

Featured image courtesy of [Center for American Progress Action Fund via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will We Live in a Tyrannical Theocracy by 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy November, folks! Has everyone ditched their spooky, jack-o-lantern-themed front door decorations for some good, old-fashioned hand turkeys? Yes? AWESOME.

Feels good to start fresh, am I right? Post-Halloween, fall takes on a whole new aura.

And the Senate seems to agree! They’re not swapping out their seasonal front door decorations (or are they?), but they are introducing a new piece of legislation! Yay!

Well, sort of, at least. The Senate’s about to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, affectionately termed ENDA by those of us who talk about this shit all day. It’s not actually a new piece of legislation, since it was first introduced in 1994, and passed in 1998, under President Clinton. But after this vote, it might have some important new provisions.

Specifically, this week’s vote is about adding protections that would benefit the LGBT community, so that all of us non-breeders don’t have to worry about getting unceremoniously fired. That would be good, right?

Absolutely! Except here’s the problem—this new and improved version of ENDA doesn’t have great prospects in the House. A bunch of Congress-people down there are planning to vote against it.

We’re looking at you, Boehner. You are just not a likeable guy these days, my man.

He’s publicly opposed the bill, sending one of his henchmen (I mean, spokespeople! Freudian slip, my bad), Michael Steel, to tell the press, “The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.”

So, passing a bill that will prevent people from getting fired will magically make jobs disappear? Oh, Boehner, you silly goose. You’ve got it backwards! When people don’t get fired, they get to keep their jobs, meaning less unemployment and a better economy for everyone. But you knew that, right?

Right.

Also, frivolous litigation? So, when people sue their employers for wrongful termination, you would consider that to be frivolous? Interesting.

I think what Speaker Boehner is getting at here, is the idea that adding the LGBT community to ENDA is unnecessary. According to him, us queers don’t have a problem with employment discrimination, and if we do, there’s other legislation that can handle it for us.

By that line of reasoning, if we get more laws protecting our employment prospects, queers would pretty much be unfire-able. Every time one of us faces termination—no matter how warranted—we’ll threaten our employer with a discrimination lawsuit, and wind up either suing people left and right, or never being unemployed again.

Ah, if only life were that simple, Boehner. Here’s the reality for queers in the workforce.

Thanks Upworthy!

In the 29 red states on this map, it’s completely legal to fire someone from their job because of their sexual orientation.

Literally. No exaggerations, no equivocations. For real.

In the 29 red states, if your boss does not approve of who you like to fuck in your spare time, he or she can fire your ass, no questions asked.

That is a major problem.

And it’s worse for trans or gender-non-conforming people. There are 33 states where it’s totally legal to fire someone based on their gender identity.

Seriously. And, up to 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their sexual orientation. Ninety percent of trans folks have had these experiences.

Is it just me, or are those some extremely depressing numbers?

For starters, it sucks being harassed or discriminated against at work. And that’s putting it lightly. We all spend the majority of our lives at work—imagine spending that time getting treated like shit by your boss and/or coworkers, just because of who you are? That shit’s soul crushing.

And that’s if you’re lucky enough to have a job at all. At least in this bummer-town scenario, you’re earning a paycheck.

But what happens when the abuse gets to be so bad that you’re forced to quit? Or when your boss decides that having a fabulous, queermo, rainbow butterfly on his payroll isn’t acceptable, and fires your ass?

Then you’ve got no way to pay your rent. No wonder queers face higher rates of poverty and unemployment.

So, Speaker Boehner, here’s the thing.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to ENDA, as two reasons that are NOT legal grounds for firing someone, is a good thing. At the end of the day, it translates to less unemployment, less poverty, and generally, less douche-iness.

So let’s get it done, Congress! Add us queers to your list of legally protected citizens who can’t be discriminated against in the workplace.

Then, maybe next week I won’t write a follow-up piece about how you’re all assholes.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Philippa Willitts via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress, Make it Stop: You Can Still Get Fired for Being Gay appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday night, the Republican Party was given an interesting task.

Stop being so judgmental.

That’s what former GOP politician Tom Ridge told the Log Cabin Republicans when he spoke at their Spirit of Lincoln dinner this week.

Folks, this is a pretty interesting development, so let’s delve into this story a little bit, mmkay?

Let’s start with the characters. First, we’ve got the sensible, yet colorful, Log Cabin Republicans. Picture an entire room filled with variations of Will and Grace’s two leading men. Jack McFarland and Will Truman ALL THE WAY. Get it, girl.

Then, we’ve got the esteemed Tom Ridge—a former Congressman, Pennsylvania Governor, and Secretary of Homeland Security. He’s a pretty stand-up guy, and back in the ’90s he signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in Pennsylvania.

He arrived at the Spirit of Lincoln dinner a bit apprehensively—he doesn’t have a great track record with the LGBT community. Now is his time to prove himself. Now is his time to shine. As he prepares for the big moment, he wonders if he should open his speech with a musical number? Maybe sprinkle his speech with some Bette Midler or Cher references?

Nah, he decides. Let’s keep it professional. He goes in for the kill, rocking a nice suit and a well-prepared speech. Let’s revamp this disgraced party, he thinks to himself, determined to cobble together a conservatism that doesn’t reek of Ted Cruz and Boehner/boner jokes.

So Ridge gets up there, and delivers a message that could redefine conservatism.

He tells the Republican Party to stop being so judgmental. Stop ignoring the separation of church and state and attempting to govern based on your church’s teachings. Stop discriminating against the gays. Stop being a bunch of unreasonable, out-of-touch assholes who throw tantrums and shut down governments.

Basically, Ridge told the GOP to cut the Tea Party crap and get it together.

But, that’s actually not as revolutionary as it sounds.

See, Ridge is no progressive. And he doesn’t think the American people are either. (He’s probably right about that one.)

In a statement to Buzzfeed prior to the address, he said, “I truly believe Americans are more conservative than liberal, but I also think they may be conservative, but they are far more practical than ideological and I know, particularly among young people, they are far more tolerant than judgmental.”

What does that mean? It means that Ridge sees LGBT discrimination as a simple issue of tolerance. For him, queer folks’ marginalization isn’t the product of systemic oppression, but rather, of ideological bullies. If we’d all just be nice to each other, he urges, we could fold the LGBT community into the conservative movement, instead of shutting them out.

And really, nothing could be better—or more practical—for the GOP than adding a new chunk of the population to its camp. Not only would welcoming queermos into the fold increase their voting block, but it would also give them some diversity street cred. And that counts for a lot these days, when the Democratic Party is credited as being the political home for everyone who’s not a straight, white, grey-haired man.

It’s important to note that Ridge’s urging to focus on practicality and tolerance, so as to include gays in the conservative platform, doesn’t seek to fundamentally change conservatism itself. That’s a big deal.

It’s also not surprising. I’ve written before about how the Republican agenda is all about conserving privilege for a particular group of people—specifically, straight, white, middle-to-upper class folks. And Ridge is one of them. He’s a straight, white, man, who earns boatloads of money serving as a board member for a few Fortune 500 companies.

So, it makes sense that Ridge isn’t interested in fundamentally changing the conservative platform. It works for him. Conservatism has done nothing but bolster his privilege, and consequently, his earning power. Really, he’s just interested in making that platform more palatable to a greater number of people. In this case, it’s the gays.

And that’s why his speech didn’t say anything about making sure women, queers, and people of color are able to earn a living wage. He didn’t mention making access to quality, affordable healthcare for all people a priority. He didn’t talk about ameliorating the United States’ ridiculous wealth disparity.

These are all problems that disproportionately affect women, people of color, and members of the LGBT community. These are also problems that are exacerbated by conservative policies. And as Ridge stood in front of an LGBT political group, he made no mention of any of them.

And this is exactly why his speech is so fascinating.

It’s relatively revolutionary, because, finally, a high profile Republican is trying to make the party more open and inclusive. Finally, someone on the Right is agitating for a less divided, and more effective, government.

And in the age of the Tea Party, that’s a really big, exciting development.

But at the same time, Ridge’s speech is also sorely disappointing. It’s another example of a conservative politician who’s out of touch, who can’t see past his privilege, who’s only interested in surface level changes. Most queers have nothing to gain by being welcomed into the GOP’s fold, and everything to lose from conservative economic policies that increase the wealth disparity.

So the bottom line? Ridge’s speech was pretty complex–it simultaneously invites positive, political change, while continuing to bolster policies that create inequality.

Ultimately, it’s refreshing to hear a Republican tell his party to stop being a bunch of assholes. But unfortunately, this particular call-to-action is too superficial to get excited about.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Hubert K via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Ridge Tells GOP: Tolerate the Gays, Don’t Make Their Lives Better appeared first on Law Street.

This Wednesday, October 11, will be the 25^th Annual National Coming Out Day. Yay! A day devoted to all of us queers coming out of the closet and running around with reckless, rainbow abandon is super awesome, right?

I remember the first time I was actually out on National Coming Out Day. I was 17, and it was my senior year in high school. I had been coming out, bit by bit, for the last three years, and I was finally at a point in my life where literally everyone who knew me, knew that I was gay. I was also the president of my high school’s Gay Straight Alliance, which made it pretty much impossible to deny that I wasn’t a huge lezzer. So there was that.

Anyway! To honor the special occasion, me and all of my lovely, wonderful fellow GSA members wore purple that day—a sign of queer solidarity—and organized a bake sale. All of the proceeds went to the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Now, there are tons of LGBT nonprofits we could have donated to. But we chose this particular one because, in October of 1998, Matthew Shepard was brutally attacked in Laramie, Wyoming. He died just in time for National Coming Out Day, making his organization an especially fitting one to benefit from our bake sale that year.

But what exactly is Matthew Shepard’s story, and how has he affected the LGBT community today? That’s a pretty complicated subject, so let’s settle into our rainbow-pride Snuggies and dive right in, mmkay?

In case you don’t already know the story, Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old college student in Laramie, Wyoming. One night in October, two men abducted him from a local bar and drove him out into the rural, Wyoming night. They beat, robbed, and tortured him, leaving him tied to a fence to die. The next morning, a cyclist rode by, initially mistaking him for a scarecrow. Matthew was rushed to the hospital, but his injuries were too severe and he never woke up. He died on October 12, 1998.

The Matthew Shepard Foundation, which does lots of great work, was a direct result of Matt’s death. His mom, Judy Shepard, founded it with the goal of making the world a better and more accepting place, where people like Matthew won’t be harmed.

On that front, Matt’s legacy has affected us queers in a good way. He’s given us an organization that travels the country, spreading the noble message that it’s OK to be gay. He’s given us a poster child—unequivocal proof that it’s hard, and sometimes dangerous, to be queer. Perhaps most importantly, he’s given this country a vocabulary to talk about sexuality and violence. Those are all great things.

But. There have also been some not-so-great ramifications.

In 2009, the federal government passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It was meant to expand upon already existent hate-crime laws to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It was (and still is) a pretty big deal. Judy Shepard campaigned fiercely for its passage.

Now, at first glance, this little piece of legislation sounds awesome. It means that members of the LGBT community deserve to be valued and protected under the law. It sends a message to homophobic douchebags who want to hurt us—you won’t get off easy.

But, that’s just at first glance. Looking beneath the surface, the Shepard Byrd Act does more than just make prison sentences lengthier for gay bashers. It also funnels a whole lot more money towards state and local law enforcement agencies, and expands the policing power of the federal government.

In short, it makes the U.S.’ police state more powerful.

And you know who gets hurt the most by the U.S. police state? Queer people of color.

Since the 1980s, surveillance and policing in the U.S. have grown exponentially, with incarceration becoming the preferred method of dealing with economically and socially marginalized communities. Over these last 30 years, the U.S.’s federal prison population has risen by 790 percent, while crime rates have remained relatively stable. No other country in the world incarcerates more of its citizens than the U.S., and a disproportionate amount of those inmates are poor, queer, and/or of color.

But how can that happen? Surely, heterosexism, racism, and transphobia can’t possibly be an institutional part of our justice system. This is AMURRICA, the land of the free!

If only. While we’re prancing about in our rainbow, edible underwear for National Coming Out Day, let’s take a second to reflect on the origins of the annual Gay Pride Parade.

Gay Pride wasn’t a thing until 1969, when police raided New York’s Stonewall Inn. Back then, cross dressing was illegal, and if anyone was caught wearing fewer than three pieces of gender-conforming clothing, he or she (or ze!) would get arrested. That meant a ton of trouble for butch lezzies–identifiable by their dapper menswear–trans folks, and drag queens. And what happened if you got arrested for your gender-non-conforming attire? Likely, you’d get beaten and raped. Just ask Leslie Feinberg. This shit used to happen ALL THE TIME. (And it actually still does.)

Then, in 2003, Lambda Legal won the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality. That’s right, folks. It was ILLEGAL to be gay (or at least, to have super hot gay sex between two consenting adults) up until 2003.

I kid you not.

So basically, up until a measly 10 years ago, the cops were trained to arrest us. They were taught to see queer folks as criminals. They were encouraged to treat us with violence and contempt, because we were nothing but perverted delinquents. Historically, queers have had a really terrible relationship with law enforcement as a whole.

Nowadays, even though it’s no longer explicitly illegal to be queer, we’re still targeted. After all, old habits die hard, am I right? Cops routinely troll cruising spots, targeting gay men, they still raid our bars, beat and humiliate us, and they still rape us, all the goddamn time. And that’s just what happens to gay people. Imagine adding all of that targeted bias to issues of race and criminalization, or poverty, or gender variance. It gets so much worse.

Trans women of color know better than any of us what happens when you take all of that intersectional oppression into account–they’re routinely stopped by cops and arrested for solicitation or prostitution, based solely on racist, sexist, transphobic assumptions of criminality. Have you ever been accused of solicitation while you’re walking your dog? Probably not. This is a case of literal fashion police, except there’s no Joan Rivers and it’s not funny at all.

Not to mention, racism, sexism, and transphobia aren’t exclusive to the cops. Lots of people have less than warm and fuzzy feelings towards queers, and that makes it exponentially harder for us to get jobs. I’ve written about how difficult it can be for butch women to score employment, and that goes quadruple for trans people of color. With little or no opportunities for traditional employment, queers are often left with no other options besides sex work to support themselves. And of course, sex work is illegal.

So, to recap, poor queers of color are funneled into the prison industrial complex in two key ways: they’re unfairly targeted for arrest, and they’re forced into criminalized activities because of a lack of other viable options. Both of these realities are a result of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.

So you can see how it’s problematic that a piece of legislation, which is supposed to protect queer folks, actually strengthens an institution that specifically targets and harms us.

Because, ultimately, the cops aren’t using all that new money to find and punish white supremacists or gay bashers. More likely, they’re using it to harass, criminalize, and incarcerate poor people, queer people, and people of color.

Now, that’s not to say that all cops are bad, racist, homophobic pigs. Absolutely not. I’ve got an old friend whose father serves as a local Chief of Police, and I respect the hell out of him.

It is to say, however, that statistically, poor people, queer people, and people of color are targeted and harmed by the criminal justice system. As a result of that reality, funneling more money into that system is not a great strategy for protecting us.

But these facts often get ignored when we talk about Matthew Shepard. As a middle-class, gender-conforming, white man, his chances for having a run-in with the police were relatively small. No one would have stopped him while he was walking down the street and accused him of solicitation. Incarceration was not something Judy Shepard feared for her son.

And it’s no coincidence that Matthew became the gay hate-crime poster child. Many, many queer people have been violently murdered in the years before and after his death, and the majority of them were transgender women of color. Ever heard of Gwen Araujo? Probably not. And there’s a reason for that.

Reifying a white, cis-gender, middle-class gay man as the face of the LGBT community allows us to ignore the complex issue of intersectional, multifaceted oppression—where race, gender, sexuality, and class status are all inextricably linked.

So this National Coming Out Day, remember Matthew Shepard, but question the piece of hate crime legislation with his name attached to it. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Ludovic Bertron via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Come Out, Come Out — and Go to Jail? appeared first on Law Street.