U.S.Customs Issues Pro-Gay Border Crossing Policy

Finally! One of the more annoying aspects of international travel as a U.S. same-sex couple is returning home after a hellishly long flight from a foreign country (Spain, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands, Portugal etc) where one is treated like a marital unit is the welcome from the United States Border agent completely denying the legitimacy of your relationship by refusing to allow same-sex couples to fill a single customs declaration form like other families travelling together.

On Monday came word from the Obama Administration that they are going to make an administrative rule change that will eliminate that homophobic nuisance at the border for good.

CBP Announces Proposal to Expand Filing of Joint Customs Declarations WASHINGTON— U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will publish tomorrow a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to revise its regulations concerning when members of a family residing in one household and traveling together on their return to the United States may make a joint declaration for all members of the family.
 CBP is proposing to expand the definition of the term “members of a family residing in one household” to include domestic relationships, which would allow more U.S. returning residents to file a joint customs declaration for articles acquired abroad. “Domestic relationship” would be defined to include foster children, stepchildren, half-siblings, legal wards, other dependents, and individuals with an in loco parentis or guardianship relationship.  CBP would also include within the definition two adults who are in a committed relationship including, but not limited to, long-term companions and couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships where the partners share financial assets and obligations, and are not married to, or a partner of, anyone else. “Members of a family residing in one household” would continue to encompass relationships of blood, adoption, and marriage.  By expanding the definition of “members of a family residing in one household,” CBP anticipates a reduction in the number of declarations (CBP Form 6059-Bs), which would streamline passenger processing by CBP officers and reduce costs. CBP believes that this proposed change would more accurately reflect relationships between members of the public who are traveling together as a family.  Written comments must be received on or before May 26, include the agency name and docket number by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to: Trade and Commercial Regulations BranchRegulations and RulingsU.S. Customs and Border Protection799 9^th Street, N.W. (Mint Annex)Washington, D.C. 20229-1179-CBP- U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of our nation's borders at and between official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws.

Anyone think a Romney Administration would be making a similar rule change? "Jus' sayin'"!

Slovenia Votes To Reject Same-Sex Adoption Rights

Slovenia held a national referendum on whether the new Family Code should go into effect and rejected the measure after a campaign that focused on whether same-sex couples should gain the right to adopt children jointly as a couple.

Raw Story reports:

With over 99 percent of ballots counted, the results showed that 54.77 percent of voters rejected a proposed new family code while 44.23 percent backed it, the electoral commission of the eurozone member state announced. 

“It remains to be seen what impact such a delay will have on children, families and the rest,” said Majda Potrata, deputy head of the opposition Social Democrats which led the previous government that drafted the bill.

Pre-referendum opinion polls had predicted an outcome of about 60 percent in favour of the proposed measure, with warnings that a low voter turnout would favour conservatives in the country of some two million people.

The commission said turnout was about 29.95 percent, lower than predicted by pollsters.

Under Slovenian law, if a bill is rejected in a referendum it cannot go back to parliament for another 12 months.

Conservative civil groupings backed by the Catholic Church had challenged the new Family Code passed by parliament in June 2011 and gathered the 40,000 signatures needed to force a referendum on its implementation.

Yet another example of heterosexual majority lying to pollsters and implementing their homophobia and protecting heterosexual privilege in the confines of the ballot box.

Denmark PM Sets Date Marriage Equality Legalized

Excellent news! As I blogged about last October, the Government of Denmark has announced that it will be enacting marriage equality in the near future, and today comes word that the date will be June 15th, 2012.

At her weekly press conference, Tuesday, Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said the government is putting the finishing touches to a bill that will come into force on June 15th, allowing homosexuals and lesbians to walk down the aisle in the church of their choice – if they can find a priest who’s willing to conduct the ceremony.

“It will always be up to the individual priest as to whether he or she is prepared to bless gay couples but this legislation provides homosexuals with the same rights as heterosexuals,” said the PM.

Way back in 1989, Denmark was the very first country in the world to have state-sponsored recognition of same-sex couples when they enacted registered partnerships, which was essentially what we would now call civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships. Now, there are well over a half-dozen countries which have full marriage equality, led by the Netherlands in 2000 and followed by Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden and Norway.

Denmark is a European country of 5.5 million people, about the size of Minnesota or Wisconsin. When Maryland and Washington defend their marriage equality laws at the ballot box later this year, even more people (5.8 million and 6.8 million, respectively) will gain access to marriage equality.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Utah Legislature Kills Gay Rights Bill For 5th Year In A Row

Bad news from Utah. For the fifth year in a row a bill which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment anywhere in the state of Utah has been killed by the Mormon (and Republican) dominated Legislature. SB 51, authored by Democratic State Senator Ben McAdams, would have

prohibited discriminationincludes sexual orientation and gender identity as a prohibited basis for discrimination in employment; prohibits political speech or activity as a basis for discrimination in employment; modifies exemptions to the Utah Fair Housing Act; includes sexual orientation and gender identity as a prohibited basis for discriminatory housing practices;

Interestingly, in the last few years the Mormon Church has dropped its opposition to statewide LGBT protections in employment and housing and several municipalities in the state have passed local ordinances which do just that.

Just to demonstrate the extreme level of ignorance about civil rights in Utah check out this quote published by the Salt Lake Tribune:

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, spoke against the bill, saying that exemptions for religious organizations should be expanded to include religious people. Although existing anti-discrimination laws exempt owners of four or fewer units, Ruzicka questioned how she would be affected if she owned a 100-unit apartment complex.

"What if I was renting to singles and wanted I certain standard. I couldn’t say, ‘You’re living a homosexual lifestyle. You cant live here,’" Ruzicka said. "I think I should have the right to do so." 

McAdams said allowing bias because of a person’s religious beliefs would undermine state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination. 

"If I want to rent only to people of a certain ethnicity [because of my religious beliefs], I can’t do that. That’s discrimination," McAdams said.

It is because of religious extremists like Ruzicka that we need federal prohibitions on discrimination in housing that include sexual orientation and gender identity. McAdams makes the immediate connection that if you can allow discrimination based on religious beliefs it will soon lead to what is clearly unacceptable discrimination based on other categories.

Progressive and LGBT activists are not taking this repressive action by the Utah legislature denying equal rights to the LGBT community quietly.

AFER Head Chad Griffin Named HRC Head

Chad Griffin, 38, is board president and founder of the American Foundation
 for Equal Rights, the group that organized the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit

The Advocate is reporting that 38-year-old political consultant Chad Griffin, the force behind the Los Angeles-based group which is shepherding the original Perry v Schwarzenegger federal legal challenge to Proposition 8 (American Foundation for Equal Rights or AFER) has been named the new head of the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent LGBT advocacy position in the United States:

A major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who began his career in the early days of the Clinton White House, Griffin will replace current president Joe Solmonese at the helm of the $40 million organization on June 11, HRC announced Friday following a board of directors vote. Solmonese, who joined HRC as president in 2005 and said in August that he would leave after his contract expires at the end of this month, will continue in his role until June. Solmonese was named a national co-chair for the Obama campaign last month. 

In its pick of Griffin as president, HRC has chosen someone who was shaped from an early age by Washington political culture yet who is not defined by it, having spent the vast majority of his career outside the Beltway. Griffin, 38, is a fervent supporter of President Obama with personal ties to White House officials, but has pushed the bipartisan case for marriage equality, notably hiring former George W. Bush solicitor general Theodore Olson to co-lead the Prop. 8 suit and aligning with conservatives including gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, who has raised money for the legal effort. Griffin has been openly critical of the president’s evolving position on marriage equality, calling Obama’s indicated support for states' rights on deciding who can marry “a step backwards.” And, central to the job, Griffin has a proven ability to be a formidable fundraiser.

“While there’s no doubt that we’ve made tremendous progress on the road to equality, we must not forget that millions of LGBT Americans still lack basic legal protections and suffer the consequences of discrimination every day,” Griffin said in a statement. “Today's generation of young people, and each generation hereafter, must grow up with the full and equal protection of our laws, and finally be free to participate in the American dream. As HRC president, I’ll approach our work with a great sense of urgency because there are real life consequences to inaction.”

This is very big news and should raise the profile of marriage equality even higher in the nexus of LGBT issues that enter into the mainstream political consciousness of the 2012 political campaigns.

It will be interesting to see what impact Griffin's selection will have on the other issues which America's largest LGBT advocacy organization is also responsible for advancing, such as trans-inclusive national employment non-discrimination legislation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Uniting All Families Act, and the multiple statewide pro-gay and anti-gay ballot measures around the country (just to name a few).

In larger terms, the question of how the movement for LGBT equality will interface with other progressive movements like comprehensive immigration reform, the pro-choice movement, the labor movement and people of color civil rights organizations when the players involved are becoming more bipartisan in nature will be important to watch. Griffin is known for defying "Gay, Inc." orthodoxy in the past and is clearly comfortable working across party lines, having personally recruited David Boies and Ted Olson to be the superlawyers leading the Perry lawsuit to strike down California's same-sex marriage ban.

India Gov't Accepts Sodomy Legalization Ruling

The long strange story of India's sodomy law appears to be coming to a close with the demise of the colonial-era prohibition on gay male sexual acts appearing to be nigh. Today the Government of India clarified that it supports the previous decision by the Delhi High Court to decriminalize sodomy, despite a declaration before the Supreme Court last week that the Government felt that gay sex is "highly immoral" which was quickly officially denied.

The Associated Press has the story:

NEW DELHI (AP) — The Indian government Tuesday clarified to the Supreme Court that it accepts a recent ruling legalizing gay sex in the country.

A lawyer told the Supreme Court that the government would not challenge a 2009 order by the Delhi High Court striking down a colonial-era law that made gay sex a crime.

The order was appealed by conservative groups and the Supreme Court is now hearing opinions from those groups as well as gay rights activists.

The latest statement comes days after another government lawyer told the court that gay sex was "highly immoral" and should be banned. The government quickly denied that lawyer's statement, prompting confusion about its stance on the law.

On Tuesday, a Supreme Court justice asked the government's lawyers to file an affidavit to reconcile the two divergent positions heard in court. Neither lawyer explained Thursday's confusion.

The 2009 high court order had said that treating consensual gay sex between adults as a crime was a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's constitution.

If this decision gets confirmed it will be the single most significant advance in LGBT rights that will positively impact the most number of homosexuals in the world. India has a population which is estimated at 1.2 billion people.

New Mexico DOMA Dead

New Mexico is like the Goldilocks of marriage equality. It's statewide public policy is neither "too hot" nor "too cold" on this issue. It is one of the rare states in the Union which not does not have a law or constitutional amendment banning (or allowing) same-sex couples from entering into marriage.

However, recently a Republican legislator named David Chavez had proposed an amendment to the state constitution which would have restricted marriages in New Mexico to opposite sex couples only. Happily, the New Mexico legislature adjourned last week without taking action on the measure, effectively killing it.

Interestingly, on January 4, 2011 State Attorney General Garry King issued an advisory opinion that same-sex couples who marry in jurisdictions where it is legal should have those marriages recognized in New Mexico.

ACLU Sues Michigan Over Anti-Gay DP Benefits Law

Previously MadProfessah had blogged about a new discriminatory law signed into effect by Republican Governor Rick Snyder which would ban public employees (at the state, county, or city level) from receiving benefits based on domestic partner status. Now comes word that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Governor and the state of Michigan to strike down the law in court.

The case is known as Bassett v. Snyder:

The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.

“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”

Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.

As Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowleRoad comments, this case is really about more than just domestic partnership benefits, it's about whether the state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a legitimate governmental purpose or compelling justification.

The answer is, of course, "heck no!"

The Flyer Mitt Romney Doesn't Want SC Voters To See

This flyer is from Mitt Romney's 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts. Back in those days, Romney was portraying himself as a typical Northeastern liberal Republican, i.e. pro-choice and pro-gay.

Now that Romney has won Iowa* and New Hampshire it should be interesting to see how South Carolina voters react to Romney when they learn more about his past positions.

(*The Iowa results were essentially a tie.)

Civil Unions Go Into Effect In Hawaii and Delaware

Today is January 1st, 2012, the first day of the year. Typically, legislation enacted during the previous years often goes into effect on January 1st of the next year. Today, civil unions become legal in Hawaii and Delaware.

Marriage equality is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York and the District of Columbia.

POLL: Huge Majority Supports LGBT Workplace Equality

A new poll commissioned by Human Rights Campaign confirms that the vast majority of Americans believes that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should be illegal.

The poll found a vast majority (77 percent) of voters support protecting LGBT people from discrimination in employment.  The support for employment protections defies conventional political wisdom, reaching across party and ideological lines.  Seventy percent of self-identified Republicans and 67 percent of conservatives support anti-discrimination laws.  Support is strong even among groups who tend to be less supportive of LGBT issues, such as seniors (69 percent among voters over age 65), those with a high school degree or less (68 percent), observant Christians (77 percent), born-again Christians (74 percent), and residents of the Deep South (72 percent). 

In a finding showing a need for more public outreach and education for employment non-discrimination laws, most voters believe anti-discrimination laws already exist.  Eighty-seven percent of voters believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay and 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.  Even in states without anti-discrimination laws, 75 percent of voters think it is illegal under state law to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. 

Of course there is pending federal legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would actually make the law comport with what most people believe the law is already: illegal to fire workers because they are LGBT.

But it is absolutely unlikely to pass Congress while the Republicans control the majority of the U.S. House.

POLL: NC Anti-gay relationship amendment ahead 61-34

After years of being stopped by a Democratic majority in one House of the North Carolina legislature, a constitutional amendment to ban the recognition of "[any] domestic legal union between members of the same sex (i.e. same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships) was passed by the new Republican majority September 12th.

This week comes the bad news that despite a majority of North Carolinians either supporting marriage equality or domestic partnerships almost two-thirds support this virulently anti-gay constitutional amendment:

PPP's first look at the proposed marriage amendment in North Carolina since the legislature placed it on the ballot finds it leading 61-34. Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of it (80/17) and independents (52/43) and Democrats (49/44) support it as well, although by more narrow margins.

The interesting thing is that 51% of this same set of voters supports legal recognition for gay couples. 22% favor gay marriage and another 29% civil unions, with only 46% completely opposed to granting same sex couples legal recognition.  The problem for those trying to defeat the amendment is that 37% of voters who support gay marriage or civil unions are still planning to vote for it.  That suggests a lot of folks aren't familiar with how wide reaching the proposed amendment would be and it gives those fighting it a chance- they just have to get their message out effectively to the majority of North Carolinians who do support legal recognition for gay couples that the proposal goes too far.

This is really a classic example of how small differences in poll question wording can lead to huge differences in how people respond. Last month we asked the following question "State legislators have proposed an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. If the election was held today,would you vote for or against this amendment?" When you ask it that way only 30% of voters are supportive and 55% are opposed. Voters are against 'prohibiting' recognition for gay couples. But if you word it in such a way that all you're doing is defining marriage as between one man and one woman, voters are ok with that.  You're asking about the same thing in both cases, but the semantics make a huge difference and Republicans clearly know what they're doing with the language that's on the ballot.

One key group of voters those fighting the amendment will really have to reach out to is black Democrats. 70% of them support it to 25% opposed. White Democrats on the other hand oppose it by a 57/37 margin.

The only anti-gay marriage amendment to have been defeated was in Arizona, and it similarly attempted to ban both marriages and domestic partnerships. That measure failed in 2006 when senior citizen groups came out against the measure. But in that state the measure was actually stripping people of exstant domestic partnership benefits. I don't believe North Carolina has any state recognition of same-sex couples (or opposite-sex couples) outside of marriage, so the amendment is banning a "theoretical" problem which will be easy to demonize in  Bible Belt state.

LGBT Icon Frank Kameny Dead At 86

Wow... Just days after my friend (and longtime lesbian activist) Paula Ettelbrick died, the LGBT community has lost one of it's wise elders: Frank Kameny, who was a gay rights pioneer, starting his activism in the 1950s.

The Washington Post covers Kameny's death thusly:

Mr. Kameny, a Harvard PhD whose homosexuality led to his discharge from a federal government job more than half a century ago, lived to see his years of determined advocacy rewarded by the success of many of his campaigns and by his ultimate welcome from a political establishment that had rejected him.

His death, apparently on National Coming Out Day, occurred in a year in which gay men and lesbians were accorded the right toserve openly in the armed forces, as David A. Catania (I-At Large), the D.C. Council’s first openly gay member, noted Tuesday night.

[...]

In what appeared to be one of the great triumphs of Mr. Kameny’s often lonely, uphill struggle, the protest signs that he once carried in front of the White House were put on display in the Smithsonian Institution four years ago, to be viewed along with the museum’s other reminders of the course of U.S. history. 

Mr. Kameny said he created the slogan “Gay Is Good.” In their pungent succinctness, the words both suggested his rhetorical skills and embodied the beliefs that he championed.

Years before the gay rights movement existed in any widely recognized form and in an era in which open assertion of homosexuality could invite physical harm, Mr. Kameny worked to increase the acceptance of gay men and lesbians in mainstream American society and to win recognition of their equality under the law.

Among the many advances Kameny is credited with working for and seeing come to fruition include: a public apology from the federal government in 2009 for firing him 50 years before; the repeal of the District of Columbia sodomy law; an executive order signed by President Clinton eliminating sexual orientation as a category for denying security clearances; an openly gay man appointed by President Obama as head of the Office of Personnel Management; and the founding of the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights organizations in the 1950s.

WATCH: EQCA Responds To FRC Lies About FAIR Education Act

There is an attempt being made to have California voters vote on a referendum to overturn this year's FAIR Education Act in a June 2012 election. The FAIR Education Act (SB 48) is a law passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown which insures that LGBT, people of color and people with disabilities are included in educational social studies curricula. The Family Research Council joined the fight on the side of the heterosexual supremacists who think that any inclusion of homosexuality in schools must be indoctrination. Equality California, the state's largest LGBT political advocacy organization struck back with a video response of their own within days. In the video response, EQCA rolls Tony Perkins video and then stops it when he lies (which is often) or uses scare tactics (also often) to attempt to persuade viewers that the FAIR Education Act is something it is not.
Watch it!
Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Compare All The Candidates On LGBT Issues

Think Progress LGBT has this useful chart detailing the positions of all the current Presidential candidates on LGBT issues.

Chilean President Offers Civil Unions Bill

Great news from South America. The President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, has introduced legislation to legalize same-sex civil unions.

AFP reports:

"All forms of marriage deserve respect, dignity and the support of the state," said President Sebastian Pinera, who signed the proposal and sent it to Congress.

"This puts opposite-sex and same-sex couples on the same footing, because in both cases it is possible to develop love, affection and respect."

Pinera, who brought conservatives to power after 20 years of center-left rule in the country, grated on his own election campaign when he announced his intention to legalize civil unions for gay couples. He said two million people in Chile live together without marrying.

But the president has repeatedly stressed his opposition to gay marriage.

"I deeply believe that marriage is by nature between a man and a woman, but that conviction does not prevent me from recognizing that other forms of affective relationships exist," he said.

The law would permit gay couples who join into a civil union to have access to inheritance and other social benefits.

Chile is reportedly 80% Catholic and did not legalize divorce until 2004(!). However, Argentina is next door and legalized marriage equality for same-sex coupes in July 2010.

More Analysis Of Zombie Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws

Sodomy laws, or state statutes which criminalized sexual contact between people of the same sex were some of the most pernicious aspects of anti-LGBT discriminatory practices that negatively impacted the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

The 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas basically ended the era of legal gay apartheid but there are 18 states which, today, 8 years later, still have sodomy laws on their books.

MadProfessah noted that Mother Jones discussed this curiosity last April and now Equality Matters and other LGBT media outlets are starting to take notice.