Regional Development Organizer in Montana
- The Ordinance, Ii (dgsmith.org)
- Boise Approves Transgender-inclusive Non-Discrimination Ordinance (dgsmith.org)
Regional Development Organizer in Montana
A poll in this week’s Helena Independent Record asks the question “Does Helena need a non-discrimination ordinance?” This is seemingly in response to the order of business currently before the Helena City Commission – an ordinance of non-discrimination [pdf].
“State and/or federal law prohibit the denial of civil rights or discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, creed, sex, pregnancy, marital status, familial status (solely for housing), and physical or mental disability. In addition to these protections, 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.”
Yeah, kind of a big deal for Montana.
At first, the numbers were fairly even on both sides – then those in favor of the ordinance outnumbered those opposed.
Typically the IR polls receive about 500 respondents total, but it appears that some conservative blogs, websites and facebookers have called in their forces to vote (in this very unscientific poll) against this ordinance currently being considered by the Helena City Council.
While I’m not sure that this is a huge issue (the poll, not the ordinance), it irks me that those opposed are marshaling the forces of discrimination across the country to weigh in.
Well, turnabout’s fair play. Vote here – and show Helena that the nation is watching.
By Bil Browning
As the holidays approach, the Salvation Army bell ringers are out in front of stores dunning shoppers for donations. If you care about gay rights, you’ll skip their bucket in favor of a charity that doesn’t actively discriminate against the LGBT community.
The Salvation Army has a history of active discrimination against gays and lesbians. While you might think you’re helping the hungry and homeless by dropping a few dollars in the bright red buckets, not everyone can share in the donations. Many LGBT people are rejected by the evangelical church charity because they’re “sexually impure.”
The church claims it holds “a positive view of human sexuality,” but then clarifies that “sexual intimacy is understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed within the context of heterosexual marriage.” The Salvation Army doesn’t believe that gays and lesbians should ever know the intimacy of any loving relationship, instead teaching that “Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.”
On its webpage, the group claims that “the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation.” While the words are nice, their actions speak volumes. They blatantly ignore the position statement and deny LGBT people services unless they renounce their sexuality, end same-sex relationships, or, in some cases, attend services “open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline.” In other words, if you’re gay or lesbian, you don’t qualify.
The organization also has a record of actively lobbying governments worldwide for anti-gay policies – including an attempt to make consensual gay sex illegal. (Yes, you’re paying lobbyists with those donations.)
After the break are some highlights from the evangelical Christian charity’s recent anti-gay political lobbying, a handy video with more information, and a list of charities who don’t discriminate against their clients and employees.
“With liberty and justice for all,” the people said, with their hands upon their hearts. They shuffled as they took their seats or remained standing in the crowded council chambers at city hall in Helena. I wondered how many in attendance actually believed in those concepts they had just pledged their allegiance to. Many seemed to believe that liberty and justice should be applied only to those they alone deemed worthy.
The opponents had arrived early and assured that their ranks would take all the seats, leaving standing room only for the gays and lesbians, the Bi-s and transgender, and all their allies (friends, family and supporters). Though seemingly greater in number they were mostly relegated to the hallway outside the chambers, or an overflow room set up for viewing the proceedings on a large screen. It was filled to overflowing as well.
I had arrived early enough to take one of the last places for standing inside the chambers – in the aisle next to the last row of high-backed seats. I thought of the pews in the Catholic church of my youth as I stood firmly, almost defiantly, and prayed for grace and tolerance. Though transgender, I remain just old fashioned enough to have wondered if any of the good seated gentlemen would offer me their seat. None did.
At that very moment I wondered if I had not begun to understand just a glimpse of what Rosa Parks felt as she resolved to take her seat at the front of the bus. While the opponents wore stickers which implied that LGBT rights are “special rights,” they graphically displayed exactly why they are necessary. The inequality of the seating arrangement was readily apparent and not lost on many of those standing outside, craning their necks to hear and see the proceedings inside. Were they not marginalized by the very people who proclaim it is not so?
As the council progressed through its agenda the tension mounted to a palpable level no matter which side of the LGBT rights issue you stood on. It could be felt collectively. The mayor came to the matter he correctly surmised we had all come to hear. The council made and discussed amendments to the pending LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance that proposed to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation.
The first was the “locker room” amendment proposed with ambivalence and stated with reluctance by one commissioner due to an email he received about a pre-op transwoman in Evergreen, CO who had apparently, yet inadvertently, dropped the towel which covered her genital area while in the sauna, offending another woman. The amendment would not extend protections to such transwomen in bathrooms, locker rooms or public facilities in which people customarily are nude.
The second amendment was of greater consequence, though not immediately apparent. It provided that persons who felt they were discriminated against due to their LGBT status would have to first file their claim with the state Human Rights Bureau, and could only file with the city if the state rejected their claim.
Both amendments were adopted, and now came the time for public comment. As a proponent, I got to speak first. Here is some of what I said:
I am a civil rights attorney here in Helena. I am also Transgender, as many of you know. I am anatomically consistent with my appearance in all respects for whatever that is worth to others – I know and am very grateful for what it is worth to me.
I support the ordinance without the “swimming pool”amendment because I have experienced discrimination here in Helena on more than one occasion, although never in the locker room, or bathroom, or anywhere else of that nature – even during the year prior to surgery when I presented full time as a woman, though anatomically still male.
The irony of the position that I find myself in is not lost on me. Other than undergoing a procedure to correct something that was wrong my entire life,- a procedure that some think is a bit radical, I am a pretty conservative woman – in presentation, dress, style and activities. I go to church, work here in Helena, shop here, and pay taxes. I do not drink, smoke or gamble and don’t go with the boys who do. In fact, I don’t go with boys, but that is another matter.
I am also rather modest & find it difficult in public to talk about, of all places, the bath room, and I wonder what kind of mind conceives of the threat a person such as myself presents in the rest room. What kind of mind conceives of prurient activities in bath room stalls? The thought repulses me. Nonetheless, I can assure you that I (and others I know in this area) have only one interest in the rest room or locker room – relieving myself or changing my clothes
Now I wonder if there is anyone in this room whom I offended when I went to the woman’s rest room or locker room. No one has ever said a single word about it, nor even cast a cross glance at me. In fact, in the beginning, I was more afraid of everyone else than they could ever be of me. For a trans person, the greatest single fear we live with our entire life is being found out – getting “read” in trans parlance. That fear is so strong, that some people kill themselves or hide in a self constructed box for decades because they are afraid that if people knew they were transsexuals they would be reviled, rejected, scorned and perhaps worse. Trans people are assaulted every day, and in some cases murdered for trying to overcome their fears and be true to themselves. That fear is based on actual events – it is real, it is rational and it is pervasive.
On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a man expose himself in a woman’s rest room? When was the last time you saw an anatomically incorrect person in the locker room in all their glory? I have not had that experience in the five+ years I have lived and worked in Helena. I wonder if the sheriff and police chief could enlighten us with the number of calls they have fielded of this nature in the last ten years?
So, I ask you. Is the fear of males in the woman’s locker room real? Is it rational? The reality is that trans people are so afraid of being read, that they are not “passing” in the gender of identity, that they would not dream of exposing themselves until they are anatomically consistent, and would sooner forfeit their life than take that chance. There may be some men who would do that, but, I assure that their issues are not gender identification dysphoria and the laws are already in place to prosecute them.
I say it again – trans people have by far more to fear from society than any part of society has to fear from them. It is a public safety issue – and it is the trans people would need protecting.People in Helena are already using the bathrooms and locker rooms where they feel safest and most comfortable. If a transman or transwoman were to expose him or herself for some prurient interest, the circumstances are amenable to prosecution under the criminal code. This ordinance does not change any criminal codes (like sexual assault or indecent exposure, i.e. exposure for sexual gratification). If a crime were to take place, it should be investigated the same way that crimes are investigated currently, and similarly prosecuted. We can work together as a community to prevent and address crimes, make our city safer, and more just. We can do the education necessary to make sure that all members of our community feel safe and are able to fully participate. This ordinance is one step in making our community safer and stronger, and reflecting our values of liberty and justice for all.
I believe that still. However, the amendments now threaten to swallow the rule and dissolve any gains we might have made in the effort to end discrimination. The “locker room” question is a tough issue, and as a former elected official, I have great empathy for the council. No one should be forced into a position not of their own choosing where they are threatened and afraid; and this cuts both ways. Imagine the shock a genetic woman might feel as she turns a corner, naked, only to see a pre-op transwoman in all her beautiful glory. On the other hand, imagine the ridicule and risk to safety for a naked transman in the woman’s locker room, or the risk to safety for the transwoman, both pre and post op in the men’s locker room. Thus, we have a dilemma.
It seems to me that when faced with such a dilemma that compromise is the only solution. The compromise I propose is that the “locker room” amendment should be revised to preclude only those with socially inconsistent genitalia from revealing as much, from exposing such inconsistent genitalia. To be clear, a pre-op transwoman cold be excluded from the female locker room if she exposes her penis, and similarly a transman if he reveals the lack thereof in the male locker room. I make this suggestion knowing that many trans people will feel deprived from full participation in activities like showering at the gym, or sitting naked in the sauna in their true gender. While true, I cannot see that it can be helped. It is a comprise after all, and like any settlement, no one is completely happy.
The second amendment, which I refer to as the HRB amendment, is in fact of greater consequence and should be stricken. First, the HRB operates under the auspices of the Montana Human Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. The MHRA affords no LGBT protection and could not be relied upon in pursuing an HRB claim. The Civil Rights Act provides only speculative relief for the LGBT folks, and a merely persuasive argument for trans folk in employment only in accord with Macy v. Holder, an administrative law opinion rendered by the EEOC which recognized, as a number of federal courts have, a “gender stereotyping” claim under Title VII of the act as a means of sex discrimination for trans people. Moreover, if the HRB, the defacto discrimination expert accepts an LGBT claim under Title VII, than the city claim will not be necessary. On the other hand, if the HRB rejects a claim it will not likely be possible because good lawyers would use it as evidence in a motion to dismiss the city claim. When the HRB says that it could not find reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred, it is both compelling and persuasive. I believe it would be dispositive in this circumstance, rendering the city ordinance a nullity. Thus, this amendment must be defeated.
If Helena, as a community can iron out these difficulties and pass this ordinance than we will take one step closer to liberty and justice for all. And I hope that we do because Everybody Matters.
Boise just did something Helena was terrified to do – made discrimination against anyone because of sexuality and gender identity illegal.
The Boise City Council unanimously approved a nondiscrimination ordinance for the city of Boise Tuesday evening.
“… Big win for equality in Boise,” the city tweeted Tuesday.
The ordinance, proposed by Council President Maryanne Jordan and Council member Lauren McLean, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in employment, housing and places of public accommodation in the city.
There are exceptions for religious corporations, associations, education institutions and societies. The U.S. Government and state of Idaho and any of their departments or agencies except the city of Boise are also exempt.
During a packed public hearing on the ordinance in November, the Council heard from 60 people (who) supported it and 12 opposed.
The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.
Read the full ordinance here.
It includes perceived sexuality and gender identity. Which is amazing for any city.
I just can’t believe Boise beat Helena to the punch…. Or maybe I can.
From The St Louis Post-Dispatch:
In one of the longest and most emotional meetings in the St. Louis County Council’s history, an ordinance was narrowly passed Tuesday night that adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the county’s anti-discrimination regulations and hate crimes law.
An overflow crowd of more than 250 people spilled out of the council chambers in Clayton; 92 of them signed up to address the council, and most took advantage of that opportunity in a public comments segment that lasted more than two hours.
And as could be expected on an issue that involved religion and civil rights, most of them spoke fervently.
The ordinance adds protections for people in employment, housing and public accommodations in unincorporated areas, regardless of their sexual orientation. It also expands protections on the basis of gender and disability.
Are you watching Helena? It can be done.
Did you know gay, lesbian, bi and transgender Montanans are not protected under state law in the workplace, or in buying and renting a home?
The City of Helena is moving forward with a non-discrimination ordinance that would protect LGBT people who live, work and visit within the city limits.
You can sign the petition with just a couple clicks!
Visit http://www.mhrn.org/helena/ today.
Correction: Fox will speak tomorrow (Friday)- my source incorrectly reported that he spoke today. Other than that, the story still stands. Unless Fox mentions the below. Then, of course, I’ll happily retract.
Today, Republican Attorney General Candidate Tim Fox spoke before the Montana Nonprofit Association.
And he spoke about work he’s done with nonprofit entities throughout the state.
Pretty normal, right?
Unfortunately though, he forgot to mention work he’s done for a few of his favorite non-profits. Discriminatory ones.
So, as a service to my readers I thought I’d elaborate a little bit on Fox’s non-profit experience.
First, and perhaps most notable is his work with the Montana Family Foundation. This is the group that recently hosted “Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day 2.0,” where they charged $20 for chicken sandwiches to support their anti-gay, anti-women and anti-choice mission. When they’re not serving chicken to show their hatred of gay people, they’re fighting to make sure LGBT people don’t get treated with dignity in the state. This is why Fox jumped at the opportunity to write an Amicus Brief for the organization in the Donaldson case that is currently before the Montana Supreme Court.
This case states that gays and lesbians are being discriminated against by the state because the state doesn’t provide any form of relationship recognition to these couples, despite the constitution’s equal protections clause. And yes- I’m clearly in support of the state losing this one….
In his Amicus Brief for the Family Foundation, Fox states that there can’t possibly be discrimination again against gays, because the President and the Congress have helped increase protections for LGBT people by repealing DADT and refusing to support the “Defense of Marriage Act.”
Somehow Fox forgot to mention that many of his supporters and sitting Republican legislators have maintained that in the state of Montana it is legal to imprison people simply for being gay.
An Attorney General ought to know these things, dontcha think?
Fox also forgot to mention that he defended the Canyon Ferry Baptist Church’s right to collect signatures to help ban marriage rights for LGBT people, despite the fact that they’re a tax-exempt organization.
One thing Fox did make clear at the forum today is that he feels so strongly about the missions of non-profit organizations like the Montana Family Foundation and the Canyon Ferry Baptist Church- and that he does all of his work for them for free.
LGBT Montanans and their allies have too much at stake right now to allow Tim Fox to become our next Attorney General. We’ve got momentum on our side, but if Fox is elected he’ll almost certainly attempt to stop any movement towards equality that we’ve been seeing.
LGBT people work everywhere. But we’re not always welcome to be ourselves at work. In fact, it’s sometimes downright discouraged and even could be grounds for termination in some states. Well here’s something for intolerant employers: A new study suggests that coming out at work could enhance job performance for co-workers of the uncloseted- and therefore the company.
Supporters of policies that force gay and lesbian individuals to conceal their sexual orientation in the workplace argue that working with openly gay individuals undermines performance. We examine this claim in two studies and find the opposite effect. Specifically, participants working with openly gay partners performed better on a cognitive task (i.e., a math test) and a sensory-motor task (i.e., a Wii shooting game) than individuals left to wonder about the sexual orientation of their partners. These results suggest that policies, such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” that introduce uncertainty into social interactions harm rather than protect performance. (emphasis mine)
A kick-ass event, that is.
The Havre Daily News had a great write-up about today’s event with Jamee Greer of the Montana Human Rights Network and the Pride Foundation’s Montana Organizer, Caitlin Copple. The meeting will be held in the Crowley Room, on the second floor of MSU Northern’s Student Union tonight from 6-8pm. It’s purpose is
“to hear the inside scoop on the 2011 Legislature and its implications” for civil rights of Montana’s gay and lesbian community, according to an email from Pride Foundation Organizer Caitlin Copple.
Copple and MHRN lobbyist Jamee Greer are bringing their organizations together for this meeting, which Greer said made this event unique from others he has already held in Missoula, Bozeman and Whitefish.
Part of the reason that Havre will be receiving special treatment is because it is Hansen’s home district, after she sponsored House Bill 516, a bill that was intended to overturn a Missoula ordinance protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
We all remember Kris Hansen, don’t we? If not, try going here.
Good things being done by good people. Support them if you can.