Monthly Archives: December 2012

Limits on Understanding

by Bobbie Zenker
An attempt at a discrimination graphic.

An attempt at a discrimination graphic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

It was 9:30 at the Helena City Council meeting when the mayor slightly rolled his eyes as he tapped his gavel, signaling the close of the public hearing portion on final passage of the LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance.

 

“What’s your pleasure,” he said to the council members.

 

The council took up four amendments proposed by the sponsor in a vain attempt to rescue her two years of campaigning and soulful work on this ordinance to make it as fair and inclusive as possible.  The other members of the commission were simply not having it, as she tried to persuade them to drop the trans phobic “locker room” amendment.

 

“It’s beyond the limits of my understanding,” the mayor proclaimed with exasperation, and a council member said the same a few minutes later.

 

And, then again, “This is beyond the limits of my understanding,” the mayor repeated, seemingly liking the sound of the phrase he had coined even more the second time around.

 

He just as well have said, “I don’t understand, and I don’t want to understand!” for that is what I heard with a sinking feeling that remains with me, now rooted in my psyche just as firmly as the amendment is now part of the ordinance, which to some now codifies the vilification of trans people, and legalizes a certain form of discrimination against them.

 

I had not considered these thoughts prior to the hearing, and I apologize to the trans community for failing you.  I had taken the amendment lightly, as if any self respecting pre-op trans woman would be caught dead showing off the wrong genitalia in the women’s locker room.  (I focus on trans women only because that was the sum and substance of the hysteria at the hearing, though I do not wish to belittle the safety risk to trans men in the men’s locker room.)  I know that I would not have dared reveal my pre-op attachment – I was way too afraid of being read.  I’m thinking a penis would have been a dead give away.  But, more than that, I am far too modest and respecting of the women around me to compromise them in such a way, for I take my solidarity with women as a sacred trust.  For it is to this sisterhood that I belong, and losing that sense of belonging, as a woman among women, would be a fate worse than death.  Indeed, it would be as akin to death or more, while yet breathing, as were the last years of living as a man, drunk, dispirited and demoralized.

 

Could I have made a difference by continuing to urge a more specific understanding, as I had in general terms in my testimony?   Some have suggested that the council member who proposed the amendment relied on his belief that I “was okay with it” in so doing.  Well, I wasn’t okay with it.  In fact, I had posted just last week (and sent the post to the council) a suggested compromise to the  amendment whereby a public accommodation would not be discriminating if they asked a person who displayed socially inconsistent genitalia in the locker room to leave.  Some would have trouble with even this compromise, although, given my statements above about fear, modesty and solidarity, I think it is entirely reasonable.  I stand by it.

 

Nonetheless, I did not talk about bathrooms in my testimony, so, council members evidently did not feel that the trans community objected.  I am just one person who testified, I realize, however, many have looked to me to represent their interest and I did not.  I let you down and I regret that.

 

As I ponder these matters, in the quiet half light of dusk, with a growing philosophical sense, I realize that I am not to blame.  No one is that powerful – to enlighten the minds of those with limits upon their own understanding.

 

Related articles

 

Bittersweet Win In Helena

by Guest Blogger
Tonight, Helena took another step toward equality.
 
An LGBTQ anti-discrimination ordinance was passed by Helena’s City Commission unanimously with five votes. The citywide ordinance prohibits discriminatory acts in employment and housing based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. However, it only provides some protections in public accommodations.

Bill sponsor Katherine Haque-Hausrath was unable to convince her colleagues to eliminate an amendment requiring transgender people to use the bathroom or locker room that matches their “anatomical sex regardless of their gender identity.”

Jamee Greer, Montana Human Rights Network’s LGBT organizer, called the amendment “cowardly.”

“The capital city in Montana has become the second city in the state to pass an ordinance, which is historic,” Greer said. “I’m incredibly proud of all the hundreds of hours of volunteer work; people came to hearings starting in March 2012 and continued to come over and over. It’s a bittersweet victory for me knowing that many transgender people in our community are excluded from part of this ordinance. It feels like I can’t own it.”

While we are aware of the hard work ahead, we are grateful to all the community members who attended and/or testified at the hearings and to the staff at theMontana Human Rights Network for their leadership on this ordinance.

Together, we will continue to move our community forward.
With Pride,
Caitlin Copple
Regional Development Organizer in Montana
Related articles

 

Racing in the Wrong Direction on Gun Issues

by MontanaRiverRat
The most common type of gun confiscated by pol...

The most common type of gun confiscated by police and traced by the ATF are .38 special revolvers, such as this Smith and Wesson Model 60 .38 Special revolver with a 3-inch barrel. LaPierre, Wayne (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom . Regnery Publishing. p. 58. ISBN 0895264773. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The terrible events in Newtown sent my mind racing this weekend. I kept coming back to where we in Montana stand on preventing gun violence in our state. It was clear that we’re not just moving in the wrong direction on preventing gun violence in Montana we’re racing in the wrong direction.

The best way to illustrate this point is by looking at the work of Sen. Dave Lewis (R-Helena). Last session, Sen. Lewis chaired the Senate Finance & Claims Committee (the primary Senate budget committee), and, as chair, he slashed funding for crucial services- including mental health services. He and his Republican colleagues maintained that the state didn’t have enough money to pay for treating and providing support for those with mental illness (and some other issues as well).

While Lewis was busy slashing services for Montanans, he sponsored a bill that would have given tax cuts to gun ammunition manufacturers to “ensure availability.”

So in Sen. Dave Lewis’ world, we have enough money to give ammunition manufacturers tax cuts, but we don’t have the money to provide mental health counselling for Montana’s most vulnerable people.

While I do find Lewis to be one of the most detestable political figures in Montana history, this post isn’t about him. It’s about the fact that through their decisions, Montana’s elected officials are making our communities more vulnerable to the types of gun violence we’ve seen throughout the country over the past few years.

In the 2011 legislative session, there were 13 bills introduced related to guns and firearms. Only 2 of these bills could be construed as gun control measures. The rest would have done things to allow guns in banks, bars and other buildings. These bills would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons (simply by telling themselves they were allowed to), and would have even allowed students in public schools to bring guns on campus.

We as a state, much like the country, have to get beyond partisan dogfights over guns and gun violence, and have an honest effort to pass policies that will keep our communities safer. These policies must deal with not only rules about who, when, and where you can carry guns, but they must also deal with ensuring adequate mental health services for all Montanans.

I’ll be honest, I don’t expect our elected officials to display the courage to push responsible gun control laws. But I do think we have an opportunity to tackle the mental health aspect of the puzzle.

The Medicaid expansion that is part of the Affordable Care Act is our best chance to expand mental health coverage to tens of thousands of currently uninsured Montanans. This expansion is the part of the Affordable Care Act(ACA) that the US Supreme Court ruled states had the option of whether or no to implement.

Unfortunately, this expansion is sure to get marred by political games by Republicans who refuse to vote in support of anything related to the ACA. While Republicans may hold majorities in the legislature, Democrat Steve Bullock will hold the Governor’s office, and its bully pulpit and veto pen. He should use this bully pulpit and veto pen to ensure the Medicaid expansion is implemented in our state.

Governor Schweitzer accounted for the expansion in his final budget proposal, but thus far Bullock hasn’t said whether or not he’ll push for the expansion.

I hope that the horrible events of Friday will provide Bullock with a little more incentive to champion the expansion of Medicaid as a means of preventing gun violence in our state, without taking on a battle over gun control laws that he almost certainly cannot win with the legislature. If Bullock does this, we’ll begin to finally take small steps towards preventing gun violence in Montana.

Related articles

Montana Supreme Court Allows Domestic Partnership Case for Same-Sex Couples To Move Forward

by D Gregory Smith

 

 

 

Justices reverse dismissal of case by the district court and allow litigation to proceed

 

 

 

011: Card-Carrying

 (Photo credit: vociferous.)

 

HELENA, MT — The ACLU and plaintiffs, six loving, committed same-sex couples, will move forward with efforts to secure domestic partnership protections in light of a Montana Supreme Court decision, which in part granted their appeal in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana from a dismissal of the case by the district court.

 

Though the court denied the plaintiffs’ initial appeal as too broad, the justices said the ACLU could move forward with more narrowly tailored efforts to secure equal treatment for same-sex couples in the state.

 

“Three of the justices said they would have granted same-sex couples recognition as domestic partners now. The majority also made clear that the decision to remand the case for additional proceedings in the lower court was based on technical issues, not on the substance of our argument that the Montana Constitution mandates equal treatment of all people,” said ACLU of Montana Legal Director Jon Ellingson. “They said that while we could not challenge the omission of same-sex couples from all of the statutes involving the rights of married couples in one case, we can challenge those statutes individually. We plan to do just that.”

 

The opinion states: “It is this Court’s opinion that Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered.”

 

“We’re encouraged by the decision because the justices said that we could pursue the protections we are seeking,” said Mary Leslie, who lives with her partner, Stacey Haugland in Bozeman. “Legal protection is essential, not just for our families, but for all same-sex couples. We won’t stop until every loving couple is treated fairly.”  Leslie lost her home because she was ineligible for worker’s compensation death benefits when her partner was killed in an accident. Another plaintiff, Denise Boettcher of Laurel, was denied bereavement leave when her partner Kellie Gibson’s father died.

 

In his dissent from the majority, Justice James Nelson wrote that same-sex couples should be given full protection now, saying the case, “concerns the right of committed intimate same-sex couples to receive the same civil protections which the State makes available to committed intimate different-sex couples. Plaintiffs assert, and rightly so, that their government may not single out unpopular groups for disfavored treatment, as the State of Montana has done here… I have never disagreed more strongly with the Court as I do in this case. With due respect, I believe today’s decision… wrongly deprives an abused minority their civil rights.”

 

Nearly 1,500 Montanans and more than 100 Montana-owned businesses have signed on in support of domestic partnerships, and more are signing on each day. Sixty-six Montana religious leaders signed onto an amicus brief supporting the ACLU’s appeal. Even more clergy signed a statement supporting the rights of same-sex couples.

 

“Montanans believe all their neighbors deserve dignity and respect,” said Rev. Marc Stewart, a Montana/Northern Wyoming United Church of Christ Conference Minister. “We believe that loving, committed couples should be able to fully live their own lives and have the protection of the state.”

 

Plaintiffs in the case are Mary Anne Guggenheim and Jan Donaldson of Helena, Stacey Haugland and Mary Leslie of Bozeman, Mike Long and Rich Parker of Bozeman, MJ Williams and Nancy Owens of Basin, Rick Wagner and Gary Stallings of Butte and Denise Boettcher and Kellie Gibson of Laurel. All say they will continue working with the ACLU to pursue legal recognition of their lifelong commitments to each other.

 

In addition to Ellingson, the couples are represented by Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project; James Goetz and Ben Alke of Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin P.C.; Betsy Griffing; and Ruth Borenstein and Neil Perry of the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.

 

Additional information about the case can be found at http://www.aclumontana.org and http://www.aclu.org/mtpartnerships.

 

 

 

Related articles

 

 

Look of love

by growlingmutt

IMG_1002Greg is at a wedding today – in Seattle! Congrats to the happy couple, John Carroll and Jason Ohlberg. Many blessings and much love to you both!

Violence, Tragedy, Loss and Fear

by Timber

In the wake of the most recent events (we’re talking hours, here) ride a few very dubious entities. Tragedy, Loss and Fear. They are having a heyday skiing on the tears of a community ripped apart by Violence.

In Newton, CT, this morning, a shooting happened at a school. The numbers are still coming in as to the staggering amount of loss, but suffice to say that the number is near 30, with the majority being children.

My heart breaks with this news. For those of us that will probably never have children (and certainly most who have), we are outraged by the fact that people could have such a cavalier attitude toward our innocents. Why did this happen?

We may never know. And this tragedy will spark many arguments: gun control, mental health, blah blah blah. This is not what we need to be talking about right now. There are more important issues at stake here.

Namely, how do we combat Fear and Loss now that Violence and Tragedy have already made their appearance and done their damage? What we SHOULD be concerned with, is how are we going to help put this community and this nation back together after this Columbine-like incident?

There are parents, families, friends and teachers that will never be the same. The will be very afraid. They will be devastated. They will be hurting. They will be VERY angry!

Let the experts figure out what happened. What we need to do, in our communities, families and schools, is to educate, love and respect. We need to insure this DOESN’T happen. Now, regardless of your argument about guns, that is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is how we treat each other and recognizing the warning signs.

What is this world coming to that we can’t even have a simple disagreement without coming to blows? What is teaching people that it’s okay to walk into a school and open fire? Where has our compassion gone? Is it video games? Is it violence on television? Is it guns?

No. And people are going to throw a fit over what I believe the answer is. . .but I’m going to tell you anyway. I believe it’s because we have become latch-key parents and guardians. It’s because we are no longer actively involved in what our children are watching, or playing. It’s because WE ARE THE ONES WHO TEACH OUR CHILDREN THAT VIOLENCE IS OKAY!!!!!

Shut off your technology. Shut off the violent TV programs and don’t buy the violent games. If your child sees something that you think is disturbing, then TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT! Get the hell outside and hug and play with your children. Invite your neighbors over for a barbecue. Go visit an elderly family member. CONNECT (not via internet or phone) with the flesh and blood people in your lives! Touch them, don’t text them!

Truly be involved in what goes on in people’s lives. Know your children’s teachers by name. Know their grades. Know how much and what kind of homework they have. Know who your kids’ friends are. Know their parents. Know what your children are watching on TV and reading (on the internet, or in print). Monitor their phones and read their text messages. It’s okay! You are their parent, not their friend.

Incidents like this ARE NOT okay. It is time for us to stand up and fight what’s wrong. It is time to get involved. It’s time for us to actually teach our children and not leave them to electronic babysitters. If you’re going to be a parent, then by God, BE ONE!!

THIS is how we will fight Violence, Tragedy, Fear and Loss.

THE ORDINANCE, II

by Bobbie Zenker
Official seal of Helena, Montana

Official seal of Helena, Montana (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The recitals of the proposed Helena, Montana LGBT non-discrimination ordinance state that “it is the intent of the City of Helena that no person shall be denied his or her civil rights or be discriminated against based upon his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”  It is a wonderful statement, really, one that even a few years ago would have been unimaginable, coming from any Montana governmental subdivision, state or local.  Yet, here it is.

And I have been dubious for so long, even though I know in my soul that equality is a social inevitability, rather than a mere possibility.  It is here, and it is now.  But, do we have the will, collectively, as a community to make it happen.  The Helena City Commission is out there, and though we have not always appreciated some of their steps or the way in which they took them, passing this ordinance will be a bold step forward.  I for one appreciate the resolve and energy it has taken to come even this far.  They have done their part.

The advocates too, the Montana Human Rights Network, the ACLU, other organizations, and many individuals who work, live, play and pray here have done their part too.  They have stepped up and spoken out on behalf of a marginalized group that for too long has lived in fear and been denied equality.  They are not asking for something more, or something special, but just the opportunity to live as the majority do – without fear or denial of security in employment, to participate in social and  recreational activities with their friends, family and neighbors, schoolmates and fellow churchgoers, etc., and to be able to access all accommodations for basic needs including food, health, shelter, etc..  We owe these dedicated, courageous volunteers a great debt of gratitude for their willingness to fight the good fight, regardless of the outcome.

There have been the nay sayers too.  They have stood up and said what they believe.  And though we may disagree, we do not judge or condemn.  In fact, we very much support their right to hold their beliefs and to practice them and voice them as they do.  These rights are fundamental and vital to the life of this democracy.  We propose.  We discuss and dissent.  We resolve and we move on – together.

Then, there are the rest of us, the citizens of the Helena valley, the community and the people.

We too have a stake in this.  We have the opportunity to shape a community which truly reflects our values, one that can shine as a beacon of humanity for all of Montana, as the capital city should.  We enjoy diversity, for otherwise life would be boring.  We embrace the idea of a free society, for it is our heritage.  We love justice, as even the prophets proclaimed that we should.  Most of all, we thrive on patience, tolerance, kindness and love.  And the greatest of these is love.  The great ones proclaimed it, as even the wise and the holy ones have lived it.  The singers sing about it, as the preachers preach about it.  And it is all true, in the end.  We must love one another even as we have been loved – not some frothy and emotional, sappy appeal, but the kind of action that elevates others need and dignity above our own.  It is the kind of action which tolerates differences in deference to commonality and our shared struggle.

And so I ask – do we have it?  We talk, preach and pray about notions like peace, justice, and fairness, and I believe that we intend them and desire them.  But, do we do them?  If I have evoked even a moment of pause to consider this question, we need not be too hard on ourselves.  For in this action now before us we have the opportunity to redeem our lack of fidelity to our best of intentions.  I am asking you, the people of this community to come out and join me in supporting the Helena Non-discrimination ordinance which will be coming on for final hearing and approval by the Helena City Commission at 6:00 on Monday, December 17th, not just because it is of vital importance to so many, or because it is the right thing to do, but because it says so much fundamentally about who we are as a community, as a society, about being the change we wish to see in the world.  It is not enough to have good intentions, to talk, preach and pray about the world that we want to live in, that we want for our children.  We have to get out and build it.

Related articles

Donors For Marriage Equality Dwarfed Those Who Opposed It

by D Gregory Smith

 

 

Human Rights Campaign 2791

Human Rights Campaign 2791 (Photo credit: tedeytan)

From HRC Blog:
The number of contributors who gave in support of marriage for gay and lesbian couples was thirteen times greater – about 133,000 compared to an estimated 10,500 – than those giving financial resources to oppose marriage equality. That’s according to a new analysis HRC released today.

 

Polls consistently show – USA Today/Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post being the latest examples – that a majority of Americans support committed gay and lesbian couples getting a marriage license.

 

HRC obtained financial contribution data in each of the four states through the Maine Ethics Commission, Maryland Board of Elections, Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board and Washington Public Disclosure Commission. Supplemental data was obtained from each of the pro-marriage equality ballot committees to account for small donors not required to be itemized by law.  Anti-marriage equality donor information was aggregated from currently available public reports and estimates of non-itemized contributions.

 

Pro-equality groups raised more than $34 million in the four states, mostly from small donors. Anti-marriage equality campaigns raised $12 million, of which nearly two-thirds ($8 million) came from just three sources: the National Organization for Marriage, the Catholic Church and its affiliate the Knights of Columbus.

 

NOM, the largest funder in all four states to defeat marriage equality, saw a one-third decline in contributions for 2011, with two donors providing 75 percent of its funding, according to tax returns obtained last month by HRC.

 

Related articles

 

 

Sandy Welch’s Bizarre Campaigns Ends Bizarrely

by MontanaRiverRat

Image

Today, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Candidate, Sandy Welch, finally admitted to what every other Montanan has known for over a month: Welch lost. She finally conceded the race after she was unable to raise the bond to pay for a manual recount of the vote.

Now I know some will say that once a candidate concedes, especially in a lower-level race like this, that candidates deserve to return to private life without too much scrutiny. However, because of the way Welch ran her campaign, it deserves a postmortem.

The first question that came to mind upon hearing Welch was giving up her recount crusade was, “How much did this recount fiasco cost Montana taxpayers?” Welch held on to the hope that somehow she’d be able to win this election- right up until it was time to put her money where her mouth was. She sought an unnecessary court ruling saying she had the right to a recount, despite the fact that state law makes it pretty clear that she has this right, provided she pays for the recount. This lawsuit cost Montana taxpayers thousands of dollars. (Cowgirl has already covered her theory on Welch’s goals with her recount crusade.)

By asserting right up to the last minute that she was going to pay for the recount, she also cost all Montana counties time and money to prepare for the recount, as well as the Secretary of State’s office.

While the most timely questions is about the cost of the recount charade, the more important questions remains, “Why was Welch running in the first place?” Throughout her campaign Welch wasn’t able to give a coherent plan to improve the education and educational opportunities for Montana children. Instead, she focused on improving a few administrative issues in the OPI office–issues that Superintendent Juneau has already been working to solve.

While Welch hadn’t told Montanans why she wanted to be the top educator in the state, the current Superintendent, Denise Juneau, was receiving national attention for her work and programs such as the Schools of Promise and Graduation Matters Montana programs, while standing up to a dysfunctional US Congress and their Bush-era “No Child Left Behind” program.

I wish I had more answers about what the purpose of Welch’s campaign and recount crusade are. Unfortunately, I don’t.

Hopefully though, this is the last we’ll hear from Welch in Montana politics.

Related articles

 

Identification of LGBT Needs in the Exam Room

by The Mind Alive
A physician performs a routine checkup on a pa...

A physician performs a routine checkup on a patient at the medical clinic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last time you were in an exam room, did you feel that the attending physician received all the information needed to gain an accurate perspective of your plight? Did you share everything you felt you should, no matter how personal? Did said physician even ask about anything, aside from the usual short list of inquiries we are all too familiar with in that particular setting?

If you are a physician, do you really get the answers you need from your patients? Or perhaps it is just too uncomfortable when talking about sexual health and behaviors. More likely, they do not disclose the details out of discomfort, or even fear.

LGBT persons have shown to have some unique healthcare needs, sometimes experiencing disparities in care. LGBT patients are often uncomfortable or inhibited from talking openly with healthcare providers about sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual behaviors. Certain sexual behaviors do not automatically define that patient as LGBT, and not all LGBT patients are going to have similar sexual behaviors. Truthfully, it’s not about whether a person is a member of the LGBT community or not. It’s about the individuals choices and behaviors that could be putting their health at risk, as well as the health of others. In order to cover everyone’s needs, patients must speak openly with providers. Providers must delve into the patients behaviors and understand where the risk behavior is at for each patient. I am going to lay out a few examples, ideas, and suggestions for physicians, as well as patients.

In any healthcare position, you will find people from diverse backgrounds and lifestyles. Different interests, tastes, and mindset. The right approach will reassure patients that the provider is knowledgeable, genuine, concerned, confidential and accepting. This enables the patient to open up and discuss the very private matters of sexual behavior, often in this society a ‘taboo’ subject.

Ask the patient to tell a bit about themselves. As the patient, make sure you indulge your sexual partner(s), safe sex practices, and concerns. Some behaviors have an amount of risk attached to them that is often unknown to the patient.  A physician might ask “Do you have any questions or concerns about your sexuality, sexual orientation or sexual desires?”. Use gender-neutral terms and mirror the patient’s terminology to better understand how they identify. For example, asking “do you have a partner or spouse?” “Are you currently in a relationship?” “What do you call your partner?” are all good ways to decide how the patient will identify without offending them with clinical terms which may sound cold and ‘labeled’. From here the in-depth sexual questions begin: “Are you sexually active?” “When you have sex, do you have sex with men, women or both?” “Are you and your partner monogamous?” “How many sexual partners have you had in the past year?” “Do you have vaginal sex, anal sex, or both?”. These and many more are the key to finding out just what unique needs your particular patient might have.

It is important to differentiate between sexual identity and sexual behavior. Providers need to discuss sexual behavior with patients regardless of sexual identity in order to define risk-assessment, ascertaining what activities they engage in and to learn what they are doing to prevent the transmission of disease.

And for the majority of readers, as  patients we have a personal responsibility to find the courage to openly discuss in confidence all of our behaviors and desires with our doctors, nurses, therapists and counselors, etc. This is extremely important. We cannot rely on someone to read our thoughts and know the truth.

Stand up and be proud of yourself. I can almost guarantee that the person treating you has heard it all. And if they haven’t, they will soon enough.