Rod 2.0:Beta #gay #news #lgbt #gaynews

Congress Passes LGBT-Inclusive Violence Against Women Act

After a prolonged political battle, the House has finally approved an LGBT-inclusive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The Washington Post notes that the vote indicated that opposition to VAWA was "damaging the [Republican] Party’s image."

The measure, which was already approved by the Senate, passed the House on a 286 to 138 vote, as 199 Democrats joined 87 Republicans to push the bill over opposition from a bloc of 138 conservatives, who opposed the bill for a number of reasons, including the new protections for gays and lesbians.

The outcome stemmed from a broad desire from GOP leaders to get past the Violence Against Women Act issue. It was an acknowledgment that their continued opposition to a measure that had passed with broad bipartisan support in the Senate and has strong appeal with women voters was damaging the party’s image.

The Anti-Violence Project notes that VAWA "includes LGBT people in three significant ways:

It names LGBT people as underserved populations in need of specific attention to address the unique issues they face as survivors of intimate partner or sexual violence. It prohibits VAWA grantee from discriminating against survivors of violence based on sexual orientation or gender identity when providing services. It establishes a specific purpose area to address LGBT violence at the state level.

The legislation also increases protections for Native Americans, immigrants, communities of color and students. 

This historic legislation came shortly after the Centers for Disease Control released a national prevalence survey showing that lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience violence at the same or higher rates as heterosexual people.  It comes a year after the New York City Anti-Violence Project's National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) found that transgender people experience sexual violence at twice the rate of non-transgender people.

Numerous studies have shown that Black and Latina trans women are at the greatest risk of violence and the murders of Black transgender women are often unsolved. Black trans women face "extreme discrimination and poverty", and are more than likely to suffer from violence, physical or sexual abuse, police brutality, HIV/AIDS and bullying, according to a first of its kind survey conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Black Justice Coalition.

"With VAWA and beyond, the National Black Justice Coalition is committed to taking a systematic approach to end the serial killings of Black trans women and violence against women in general," Sharon Lettman-Hicks, NBJC Executive Director and CEO, said in a statement to R20. "We will continue to raise awareness and visibility as well as work closely with agencies like the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and national organizations such as the NCAVP to track, report, and expose the prevalence of violence against and within the Black LGBT community."

"I am encouraged that our Members of Congress were able to come together despite the polarized political climate we live in," stated Sharon Lettman-Hicks, NBJC Executive Director and CEO. "Protecting women, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, is bigger than political agendas and party line divides. It's about fairness."

See our report for EBONY: "GOP FAMILY VALUES: Domestic Violence Act Goes, Anti-Gay Legislation Stays"

GOP Officials Convene at Former Plantation to Plan Minority Outreach

Our latest for EBONY: Plantation politics? The House Republican Conference decided to hold their annual retreat on the grounds of a former slave plantation.

The room is named after the Burwell Family, a wealthy family that owned many slaves in 18th century Southern Virginia.

But an “issue in optics”—that’s Beltway speak for “poor visuals” or being tone deaf— around race relations have always being a problem for the contemporary GOP. Actually … you could say it’s their specialty. The vilification of Latinos and undocumented workers. The voter ID campaign aimed at suppressing minority votes. Fraudulent claims around Black voters breaking election laws. And the hundreds of incidents of racist rhetoric, signs and protests (un)officially sanctioned by the GOP. So many more to choose from.

Read the op-ed HERE.

LISTEN: Voice of Russia on House GOP, Violence Against Women Act

I'm wearing a new hat this week: Analyst for the Voice of Russia, the Russian government's international radio broadcasting service. Recorded a segment Tuesday for the American Edition on the House Republican leadership's failure to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. LISTEN HERE.

Read my  op-ed from earlier this week at EBONY.com: "GOP FAMILY VALUES: Domestic Violence Act Goes, Anti-Gay Legislation Stays."

This makes my third or fourth appearance on VoR. Look for me again in the weeks ahead.

EBONY: Domestic Violence Act Goes, Anti-Gay Legislation Stays

PHOTO: GETTY

Combating violence against women is not a "family value" of the House Republican leadership. My op-ed on the front page of EBONY.com: "GOP FAMILY VALUES: Domestic Violence Act Goes, Anti-Gay Legislation Stays."

Speaker of the House John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and their Republican colleagues have decided to ring in the New Year with a new round of virtual assaults on women, minorities and immigrants.

After subjecting the nation to its latest obstructionism masked as political theater in the waning days of 2012 and the early hours of 2013—otherwise known as the short-term solutions to scale the "fiscal cliff”—the House Republican leadership quickly adjourned without reauthorizing the Violence against Women Act. VAWA has been “reauthorized without fanfare since then-Senator Joe Biden spearheaded its passage in 1994,” notes The Atlantic.

The Senate version would “have extended domestic violence protections to 30 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, undocumented immigrants and Native American women. No surprise that the all-male and all-White House Republican leadership are opposed to expanding protections for victims of domestic violence

On the other hand, the GOP found the time and money to continue defending the Defense of Marriage Act—a losing battle to preserve a retrograde, 1950s version of what marriage and relationships should look like.

Read the op-ed HERE.

GOP Funds DOMA Defense, Blocks Sandy Relief, Violence Agst Women

Priorities, priorities, priorities ...

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said today that it was "disgusting" that the House adjourned without voting on a $60 billion relief package for the victims of superstorm Sandy and put the blame squarely on a fellow Republican -- House Speaker John Boehner.

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential candidate four years from now, said there was "only one group to blame, the Republican Party and Speaker Boehner." ... Christie in an angry news conference decried the "selfishness and duplicity," the "palace intrigue," "the callous indifference to the people of our state."

The governor said his four calls to Boehner Tuesday night went unanswered, but he said he spoke to the House speaker today. Christie would not disclose any details of the conversation, but clearly his anger over the no-vote was not mollified. Following Christie's press conference Republican representatives from New York and New Jersey announced that the speaker promised a vote on the bill on Jan. 15.

Violence against women is NOT a priority of the House Republican leadership ...

Despite a late-stage intervention by Vice President Joe Biden, House Republican leaders failed to advance the Senate's 2012 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, an embattled bill that would have extended domestic violence protections to 30 million LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants and Native American women.

"The House leadership would not bring it up, just like they wouldn't bring up funding for Sandy [hurricane damage] last night," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a key backer of the Senate version of the bill, in an interview with HuffPost. "I think they are still so kowtowing to the extreme on the right that they're not even listening to the moderates, and particularly the women, in their caucus who are saying they support this."

Additional funding to defend anti-gay discrimination and legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act is a priority, though ...

A GOP source told The Huffington Post that, during a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference, lawmakers gave a green light to including language in the 113th Congress rules package that authorizes the House legal team, known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), to keep paying outside counsel to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The proposed House rules package also states that BLAG continues to "speak for" the House in its defense of DOMA ...

A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday slammed Republicans for taking "the extraordinary measure" of using the opening day rules package of the new Congress to authorize themselves to keep defending DOMA. "Today, House Republicans will send a clear message to LGBT families: Their fiscal responsibility mantra does not extend to their efforts to stand firmly on the wrong side of the future," said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

Hammill also noted that the rules package "for the first time" explicitly states that BLAG speaks for the full House on DOMA matters -- something he said is definitely not the case.

Your tax dollars at work!

Boehner Claims "Ample Laws" Protect LGBT Workers from Bias

House Speaker John Boehner hasn't "thought much about" the proposed Employment Nondiscrimination Act and claims that "ample laws" protect gay and transgender employees from discrimination, reports Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade.

Although the administration insists it will work with Congress to pass legislation in lieu of an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers, Boehner seemed unaware of ENDA in response to a question from the Washington Blade, saying, “I haven’t seen the bill. I haven’t thought much about it.”

Asked whether passage of ENDA might alleviate the 8.2 percent unemployment rate if employers were barred from firing LGBT workers, Boehner said “ample laws” are in place and deferred further comment to the House Committee on Education & the Workforce. The committee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

"No one should face discrimination in the workforce," Boehner said. "There are ample laws already in place to deal with this. Having been the chairman of the Education & Workforce Committee, I’m quite familiar with employment law. But if there are further changes that are necessary, I’m sure the committee will look at it."

Even if Boehner were to bring the bill to a vote, it is unlikely to pass the House where Republican lawmakers hold the majority. ENDA has 161 co-sponsors in the House, far short of the 218 votes that would be needed for passage.

Currently there are no federal laws or regulations that bar employers from firing workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is perfectly legal to fire or discriminate against someone because they are gay in 29 states. It is also legal to fire or discriminate against someone because they are transgender is legal in 34 states.

"If the speaker is so familiar with employment law he should know it’s perfectly legal to fire LGBT people in most states," Human Rights Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz said. "This attitude is precisely why we need congressional hearings on an inclusive ENDA so the costs of employment discrimination are put on full display."

Last week, the Obama Administration announced that it would not sign off on a proposed executive order that would ban anti-LGBT discrimination among federal contractors.

Federal Appeals Court Hears Historic DOMA Challenge in Boston

A federal appeals court in Boston heard oral arguments Wednesday on the landmark rulings that found a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The hearings were also the first time that DOMA has been argued in a federal appeals court.

The historic hearings in the First Circuit were followed two July 2010 rulings by a federal judge in Boston that struck down Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act. Section Three prohibits federal recognition of same-sex couples and denies all federal benefits, such as Social Security and health care. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, a Nixon appointee, ruled in two separate cases brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

Initial arguments focused on the "rational basis" standard of scrutiny, reports Washington Blade's Chris Johnson.

Stuart Delery, who’s gay and the Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, surprised many when he said the Obama administration wouldn’t defend DOMA on any basis, including under rational basis review.

Last year, the Obama administration said it would no longer defend DOMA in court, on the basis that President Obama had determined that the anti-gay law fails heightened scrutiny because it discriminates against gay couples. Asked by Judge Juan Torruella whether the administration has a position on the rational basis test for the law, Delery replied, “We don’t.”

Delery’s position is significant because U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in 2010 ruled in favor of plaintiffs on the basis that DOMA didn’t pass the rational basis standard review, or a rational means to a legitimate governmental end. Judges on the First Circuit will have to decide whether to affirm or overrule this decision.

Delery maintained that the name “DOMA” itself indicates that the anti-gay law was intended to discriminate against LGBT families. "It was a defense against something, and that something was same-sex couples," Delery said.

The two cases are Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.

Defending the anti-gay law in federal appeals court was Paul Clement, the former solicitor general in the George W. Bush Administration. House Speaker John Boehner hired Clement last year to advocate for DOMA on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which voted along party lines to take up defense of the law.

Some Background:
Amended Judgment, Stay Entered in Mass. DOMA Ruling
Obama Admin "Reviewing" Decision; GLAD Expects Appeal
Federal Judge: Section 3 DOMA Unconstitutional

Boehner, House GOP Appeal Latest Defense of Marriage Act Ruling

House of Representative Republican leadership are appealing the Wednesday federal court ruling that found a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, reports The Hill.

The action by the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which moved on behalf of GOP leaders, will send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which earlier this month ruled against a ban on gay marriage in California.

George W. Bush appointee Judge Jeffrey White found the DOMA unconstitutional in the Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management decision. He wrote that it was unconstitutional to offer healthcare benefits to heterosexual couples while denying the same benefits to same-sex couples.

When the suit was originally filed, the Department of Justice was set to challenge Golinski in court, but that changed last year when the Obama administration said it would no longer defend DOMA. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) then took up the fight by hiring a private law firm to represent the House Bipartisan Legal Adviser Group.

Judge White's ruling came in a case brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of Karen Golinski, a federal court employee denied spousal health coverage for her wife. The battle dates to 2008 when Golinski, a 20-year employee of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sought to enroll her wife in the employee health plan.

The statute's provision denying same-sex spousal benefits was also declared unconstitutional in a July 2012 Massachusetts case. That ruling is on appeal before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

And only last week: Attorney General Eric Holder informed congressional leadership that the Justice Department would not defend a similar section of DOMA that bars same-sex couples from receiving military benefits.

You May Have Missed:
Federal Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional
DOJ Will No Longer Defend Laws Blocking Benefits

Federal Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

A major win for equality. A federal judge has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and ordered the federal government to extend health benefits to the same-sex spouse of a San Francisco lawyer employed by the federal courts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who was appointed by George W. Bush, ruled the 1996 law defies the guarantee of equal protection.

AP's Lisa Leff:

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said that because DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples, the government's refusal to furnish health insurance to Karen Golinski's wife is unjustified.

"The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse," White wrote in a 43-page decision that marks the third time in less than two years a federal court has declared the act unconstitutional.

Golinski, a staff lawyer for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been trying to secure spousal benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis, since shortly after the couple got married during the brief window in 2008 when same-sex marriages were legal in California.  ... When White heard the case in December, the head of the department's civil division, Tony West, appeared on Golinski's behalf, leaving the job of arguing for DOMA to a lawyer hired by a House of Representatives group. The lawyers representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group convened by House Speaker John Boehner did not immediately respond to an email to their offices sent after business hours Wednesday.

Golinski sued the Office of Personnel Management and its openly gay director, John Berry, over its refusal to authorize the coverage. More background from Lamda Legal:

Judge White's ruling is the latest victory in a battle that began in 2008, when Golinski, a 20-year employee of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sought to enroll her wife, Amy Cunninghis, in the employee health plan.  It is the first DOMA-related ruling since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice had determined DOMA was unconstitutional and would no longer defend it, and the majority leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives hired outside counsel to defend the discriminatory statute.  A similar ruling holding DOMA unconstitutional in a separate case is on appeal in the 1st Circuit.

Golinski's struggle to enroll her spouse in the family health plan, a benefit routinely granted to her married heterosexual co-workers, travelled a torturous path, including two separate orders by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski directing that Golinski be allowed to enroll Cunninghis in the health plan, orders ignored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), citing DOMA.  In April 2011, Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster filed an amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  Judge White heard arguments on this amended complaint on December 16.

White found that animus and hostility towards gays "is clearly present" in the history of the law. That's because the federal government has traditionally "refrained" from intervening in spousal relations. "The Court finds that the passage of DOMA, rather than maintaining the status quo in the arena of domestic relations, stands in stark contrast to it," White wrote.

White also issued a permanent injunction "preventing the government from further interfering with Golinski's ability to enroll her wife in the insurance program," adds Reuters.

The Republican-led House of Representatives could appeal White's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently declared California's Prop 8 as  unconstitutional.

Golinski v OPM is one of a number of federal challenges to the Defense of Mariage Act. Section One defines a marriage as the union between a man and woman only. Section Two allows states the option of not recognizing valid same-sex marriages. Section Three prevents same-sex couples who are legally married from enjoying more than 1,000 federal benefits awarded to heterosexual married couples.

The statute's provision denying same-sex spousal benefits was also declared unconstitutional in a July 2012 Massachusetts case. That ruling is on appeal before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Six states currently mandate marriage equality—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York—as does the District of Columbia. Last week, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed legislation to make Washington the seventh state. That legislation is expected is to head to the ballot in a voter referendum.

The case was heard in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Karen Golinski vs. United States Office of Personnel Management and John Berry 10-257 can be read HERE.

DOJ Will No Longer Defend Laws Blocking Benefits from Gay Troops

This excellent news may have been buried over the weekend. Attorney General Eric Holder has notified congressional leadership that the Justice Department will no longer defend laws that prevent gay and lesbian couples from receiving the same military and veterans benefits afforded to their heterosexual counterparts, reported Talking Points Memo.

The Defense of Marriage Act and other laws ban federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The Obama Administration announced last February that it will NOT defend recent lawsuits challenging DOMA.

"The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans,” Holder wrote. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA."

Holder said DOJ would no longer defend the provisions in Title 38 which prevent same-sex couples who are legally married from obtaining benefits. He said that Congress would be provided a “full and fair opportunity” to defend the statues in the McLaughlin v. Panetta case if they wished to do so.

As Holder writes, the benefits in question "include medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military identification cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefits, and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries."

The full letter can be read HERE.

The action taken by Attorney General Holder comes after the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit in McLaughlin v. Panetta. The lawsuit announced in October was the second federal lawsuit in as many weeks that targeted the military over DOMA.  Only the week before, an 18-year lesbian Navy veteran announced a lawsuit over disability benefits. The decision could also impact more recent litigation, reports the Washington Blade.

Holder’s decision is likely to have a bearing on another lawsuit challenging Title 38 and DOMA, Cooper Harris v. United States. The lawsuit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center earlier this month on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who’s seeking disability benefits for her spouse.

Christine Sun, SPLC’s deputy legal director, said she believes the Holder letter applies to her organization’s lawsuit in addition to the SLDN litigation.

"There’s absolutely no reason why it wouldn’t apply to our case," Sun said. "I believe that it was sent in connection to the McLaughlin case because there was the recent stipulation between SLDN and DOJ to extend the deadline for the government to respond to SLDN’s summary judgment case, but we’re certainly interpreting the letter to say that the Department of Justice won’t be defending Title 38 in our case either."

The Obama Administration will no longer defend these cases ... but it's very likely that counsel hired by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will intervene to defend the litigation.