ACT On Principles

Hello everyone,

Below please find a very important Report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on SO&GI based discrimination around the world, as called for in this June 2011 Resolution by the U.N. Human Rights Council. I’ve not read it yet, but its very existence is a great boost to our cause, here at home and internationally.

We now need to make the case domestically that non-discrimination protections based on status (SO or GI) violates our human rights (which we also call “civil rights” here), and that our gov’t has a duty under international law to prevent, punish and eradicate homo/transphobia and discrimination based on it. It’s no longer only about education, bullying, marriage, or military – individually – but the wholesale obligation to outlaw discrimination regardless of the specific narrow context or specific type of abuse.

It’s the equality vs. crumbs moment, and we need to pivot to seize it.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the Obama Administration deserves huge credit for this, and for appointing a lesbian to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which also issued a report covering the psychological harm caused by LGBT discrimination as part of a nationwide bullying assessment, and a very strong similar Resolution among the Organization of American States, also in June 2011.

This is strategic leadership at work. He is boxing our own country in on this front, which is a great place to have the opposition. They will have to decide if they support human rights for all, and the international law and realm, or if they reject that entire system just to hate us. Tough choice, good maneuver.

And it may be that we have a Democrat-controlled House and Senate for the 113th Congress (2013-2014) – so there will be no excuse to delay this justice any longer, provided we push like crazy this coming year to make sure we’re at the top of the list of priorities.

Now we need our own movement to become as clever, and shift our demands from piecemeal bills (which themselves fail to call for basic human rights protections), to the entitlement we have as a persecuted minority to full and immediate protection of our country.

Our moment is at hand, if we rise to the occasion, put individual egos and group identities in check, and find the common intention to manifest our full equality now.

Our time has come.

Tif

REPOST from UNGLOBE:

First ever UN study finds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals face discrimination in every region of the world Posted: Wednesday, 21 December 2011, New York | Authors: iSeek, OHCHR, UN-GLOBE

High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay (Photo Credit: UN Photo)Last week, the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued the first ever official United Nations report on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The report, which was requested by the Human Rights Council in a resolution adopted in June 2011, will be considered by the Council in a special three-hour debate in March.

The report focuses on acts of violence, discriminatory laws, and discriminatory practices in every region of the world.

Charles Radcliffe, Chief of the Global Issues Section of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the report identifies “a pattern of violence and discrimination directed at individuals because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The kinds of human rights violations involved range from hate-motivated killings and violence, to laws that criminalize people on the basis of their sexuality, through to discrimination affecting people in their everyday lives, including at work, at schools and in healthcare.”

In 76 States, criminal laws are used to punish individuals for engaging in consensual sexual relations with an adult of the same sex. In at least five of those countries, the death penalty may be applied for homosexuality-related offenses. In some cases, the laws concerned explicitly prohibit homosexual conduct; in others, the wording is more vague but the provisions are applied in a discriminatory manner to prosecute gay and lesbian people. “Discriminatory laws legitimize discriminatory attitudes in society at large. If a State treats certain people as second class, second rate, or, worse, as criminals, because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, then it invites people to do the same,” Mr. Radcliffe said.

The study also highlights discrimination within families and communities, including cases of individuals being expelled from family homes, disinherited, forced into marriage or pregnancy. Underlying gender inequalities often make lesbian and transgender women especially vulnerable, with reported cases of honour killings and so-called “corrective” rape. In another first, the report focuses attention on human rights concerns specific to people who are transgender or intersex, including issues relating to the health needs of transgender persons, official recognition of a change of gender, and pediatric surgery performed on intersex children without the informed consent of those concerned.

The report includes a comprehensive list of recommendations. “Those countries that criminalize homosexuality must take immediate action to change their laws in order to comply with the requirements of international human rights law”, said Mr. Radcliffe. States are encouraged to take steps to prevent hate-motivated violence and investigate reported incidents of violence, and to enact new laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Training and public information efforts are also recommended, including sensitization of law enforcement officials, anti-homophobia campaigns in schools, and concerted efforts to counter homophobic attitudes in society at large.

United Nations Policies

The report also focuses on discriminatory practices in the workplace. Here at the UN, the UN-GLOBE staff group has been working closely with the United Nations administration to ensure equality of entitlements for LGBT staff members, and to address mobility issues.

Although two important Secretary-General Bulletins (ST/SGB/2004/13 and ST/SGB/2008/5) have been issued in the last decade, entitlements and survivor benefits are still not applied equally because they depend on the recognition of same-sex partners by staff members’ country of nationality. Mobility is also a major concern because of the consequences of being gay in certain countries.

The group is also working to address discriminatory behaviour in the workplace. “Many of us have experienced disparaging remarks by people who might not know we are gay”, said the president of UN-GLOBE. “We need to feel comfortable having pictures of our partners on our desk, or talking about our families.”

ST/SGB/2008/5 prohibits discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority in the workplace.

On December 6, 2011, Secretary Clinton delivered an unbelievably poignant, instructional and visionary speech on LGBT Human Rights to the United Nations in Geneva, a speech that will no doubt go down in history.

This video is available here:  http://bcove.me/qs3211sh

Opening with a description of the creation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the story unfolds the years of debate and drafting, culminating in the first ever expression of the idea that all people are born with rights which governments must protect.

The speech then makes the inevitable case.

Raising the most poignant objections cultural and religious, these are honestly subjugated to “human rights for all” with references to slavery and female genital mutilation, long similarly justified.

Demonstrating humility, the speech acknowledges the limitations of human rights protections for LGBT people in the United States, while also teaching mantras of leadership and urging respect for opinions on both sides as critical to the conversation required for the inevitable evolution of understanding on this front, consistent with history on religious, women, and children’s human rights.

From “being on the right side of history” to “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights,” this monumental speech makes each point both profound and complete addressing every imaginable point of conflict and the human rights solution and rationale.  No summary could capture it.

It would be so powerful if every LGBT and supportive civil rights organization in the United States and the world sent this to their lists, to educate and empower with the awareness of our entitlement to the protection of our human rights by our governments. This is the knowledge that will empower and fuel our liberation, without which we remain trapped in a vision limited by oppression, and old opposition arguments.

By our creating this expectation and demand to match President Obama’s, when he is President anew, he will be empowered to fulfill the inescapable obligation made repeatedly explicit by his international work, explained proudly in Secretary Clinton’s historic speech, including Resolutions in the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Organization of American States.

So rather amazingly, we are clearly living at a pivotal time in the history of understanding, compassion and possibility for our liberation.   Constantly set before us, it is now ours for the grasping if only we have the courage to expect it all, and the wisdom to listen, follow and lead the way.

Civil Rights Now. Full Federal Equality Now. Human Rights Now. Go Hillary!!! Obama 2012!!!!

Hello everyone,

Below is an outline of what “Full Federal Equality” entails for crafting an omnibus LGBT equality bill that would outlaw discrimination based on SO&GI in America on an equal basis to that long afforded other groups/statuses. It sets forth all the existing laws, the language where SO&GI is needed, and proposed new provisions where none exists.

Currently, Rep. Jared Polis from Bolder, CO (openly gay) is engaged in an effort to craft an omnibus LGBT equality bill to be filed this year, or by January. He issued an outline covering much of what’s needed, but not all by far. So this was prepared to inform that work, and it has been shared with the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus co-chairs.

The hope is that Rep. Polis and the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus will add the missing provisions, which are major, including (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination in all federally-funded programs, (b) Federal Marriage Equality to end marriage discrimination across the country, and (c) non-discrimination in Armed Services employment, which was not accomplished by DADT repeal.

Unfortunately, so far it does not appear that the LGBT Caucus is actively coordinating around strategy, or on the omnibus, but rather that individual issues are being addressed by certain Representatives as their own pet-legislative projects. The hope, however, is that this will change in response to growing demand for a coordinated, comprehensive equality strategy.

For a few years now, the mantra of Full Federal Equality has resonated with the grassroots, as evidenced by the National Equality March which brought 250,000 people to D.C., and the The American Equality Bill, which has ever growing support as seen in bold direct actions, City Council Resolutions and Proclamations. So now, as we approach 2012, we hope to see a bill that reflects this growing sentiment and our entitlement, as a matter of international human rights law, to full non-discrimination protections.

Of course, inclusion in the laws themselves will not immediately change the homo/transphobia we suffer as objects of abuse in our own society. But the debate for our inclusion and equality under the law, and the subsequent enforcement of those laws once we’re in, can go a long way toward changing the oppressive culture impeding our human rights, safety and happiness.

Please study this so we can be well informed and hold the key advocates accountable to the pursuit of our full equality. Knowledge is power in politics, and “we the people” need to harness that power today in order to manifest our equality tomorrow.

Fortunately public opinion is growing steadily on our side, so the main task before the grassroots is to shift the “movement agenda” controlled and limited by HRC, NGLTF, and the LGBT Congressional Caucus, from pieces of the pie to the whole enchilada.

This is still a tough challenge of course. But it is doable by a determined few if we work together in common cause and with shared intention, which grows simply by reading and sharing this information.

Let’s make 2012 the year Full Federal Equality hits the national stage, so that our equality is an unavoidable priority in 2013. We’ve waited long enough, and our time has come.

LANGUAGE OF EXISTING

NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS & JUDICIAL DECISIONS

AND PROPOSED SO&GI INCLUSION

FOR FULL FEDERAL EQUALITY

(includes overview of existing filed bills)

This is intended to present the scope of “full federal equality” for SO&GI, setting forth the existing language and laws, and the needed additions.

With this coverage in an omnibus bill, the LGBT community would have an organizing beacon, a statement of our dignity, and a clear expression of our human right to full and equal non-discrimination protections.

This list encompasses all the provisions of The American Equality Bill, which already covered existing civil rights laws, as well as Federal Marriage Equality, the Uniting American Families Act (Immigration), and Armed Services employment.

(UPDATE NOTE:  The AEB, as of Feb 2012, now covers all of these provisions, and has been retitled the AEB II).

CONTENT:

1.  Public Accommodations (Title II, 1964 Civil Rights Act)(e.g., restaurants, hotels, theaters)
2.  Public Facilities (Title III, 1964 Civil Rights Act)(e.g., courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks)
3.  Federally-Funded Programs (Title VI, 1964 Civil Rights Act)(e.g., adoption, police, schools, homeless youth, heath care, contractors, etc.)
4.  Employment: Private Sector, Civilian & Military Government (Title VII, 1964 Civil Rights Act; 1978 Civil Service Reform Act; 1991 Government Employee Rights Act; 1995 Congressional Accountability Act; Armed Services, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 37).
5.  Housing (Title VIII, 1968 Civil Rights Act a/k/a Fair Housing Act) (e.g., rental, purchase, financing)
6.  Education (Title IX, 1972 Educational Amendments) (e.g., equal access, bullying)
7.  Credit (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) (e.g., credit cards)
8.  Federal Marriage Equality (1967 Supreme Court Decision, Loving v. Virginia) & DOMA Repeal (Respect for Marriage Act).
9.  Immigration, Disability, Family Leave (Uniting American Families Act (proposed); The Americans With Disabilities Act; and Family and Medical Leave Act).
10.  Definitions (of SO&GI, Harassment, Other Provisions).

1. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

This covers hotels, restaurants, and entertainment facilities opened to the public, but privately owned and operated.

’64 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (CRA), TITLE II.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. (42 U.S.C. 2000a) (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_civil_rights_act_2.htm)

No Existing Filed Bills: Proposed in the American Equality Bill (AEB) & Polis Omnibus Outline.

2. PUBLIC FACILITIES.

This covers state (and subsidiary) owned and operated facilities affording public services (other than schools).
’64 CRA, TITLE III
SEC. 301. (a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing signed by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the laws, on account of his race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, by being denied equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of title IV hereof, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation and equal access in public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section. The Attorney General may implead as defendants such additional parties as are or become necessary to the grant of effective relief hereunder. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000b) (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/42usc2000b.php)

No Existing Filed Bills: Proposed in the AEB & Polis Omnibus Outline.

3. FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS.
The scope of this provision can not be overstated. It reaches to every program and contract that receives federal funding. The Department of Justice coordinates government-wide compliance processes, and has vast enforcement jurisdiction, and states replicate these enforcement activities, as recipient themselves of federal funds. This is the provision via which non-discrimination, as the federal policy of this country, is enforced using the power of the multi-trillion dollar gov’t budget. It reaches into almost every imaginable gov’t service from adoption agencies, to schools, to state and municipal governments, to police departments, hospitals and health care, homeless youth programs, social services, and so on.

TEXT: ’64 CRA, TITLE VI–NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS
SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. (42 U.S.C §§ 2000d). (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevistat.php).

No Existing Filed Bills. Proposed in the AEB. Not in Polis Omnibus Outline (major omission).

Existing Bills in Certain Areas using “Federal Funds” hook:
-Adoption: Every Child Deserves A Family (“An entity that receives Federal assistance or contracts with an entity that receives Federal assistance, and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may not–” discriminate.)
AOP Whip Count: http://www.actonprinciples.org/ECDF-house-112/

-Students in Public Schools: Student Non-discrimination Act (school programs receiving federal funds; covers SO&GI discrimination & bullying “harassment”).
AOP Whip Count: http://www.actonprinciples.org/SNDA-house-112/

-Health Care: Ending LGBT Health Disparities Act (not currently refiled) (This is not at all the same scope as Title VI even as to health programs receiving federal funds, but includes lots of provisions tailored to certain areas: medicaid, culturally appropriate care, child insurance, studies, previously filed by Baldwin, not yet refiled but planned; sent to 10 committees last time).

4. EMPLOYMENT: PRIVATE, CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT, ARMED SERVICES.
4.A. PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.

’64 CRA, TITLE VII–EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
(42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 (a) (1) & (2)). (http://www.introlaw.com/ed/laws/titlevii/42usc2000e-02.html)

NOTE: DOJ and Courts have already used: “sex stereotyping” as covered under “sex”, to reach issues of sexual orientation/gender protection. 42 U.S.C. 2000e.

Existing Filed Bill: Employment Non-Discrimination Act (It is debated whether ENDA effectuates the same impact as adding SO&GI directly to the existing laws as indicated above. But ENDA is clearly intended to be the substantial equivalent, crafted by creating a parallel system that incorporates by direct reference the same definitions, and other enforcement aspects of Title VII, and the Gov’t provisions below, including language providing that the “procedures and remedies” are the same as for those claiming a violation under Title VII, and the laws below.)
AOP Whip Count: http://www.actonprinciples.org/ENDA-house-112/

Related Bills: Direct Addition of Terms Proposed in the AEB.

ENDA proposed in Polis Omnibus Outline.

4.B. CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.

’78 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
5 U.S.C.2302 (b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority – (1) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment – (A) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, as prohibited under section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16); … (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/5/III/A/23/2302)

5 U.S.C. 2302 (d) This section shall not be construed to extinguish or lessen any effort to achieve equal employment opportunity through affirmative action or any right or remedy available to any employee or applicant for employment in the civil service under – (1) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin;  (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/5/III/A/23/2302)

’91 GOV’T EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a (b) Purpose
The purpose of sections 2000e-16a to 2000e-16c of this title is
to provide procedures to protect the rights of certain government
employees, with respect to their public employment, to be free of
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability. (http://www.introlaw.com/ed/laws/titlevii/42usc2000e-16a.html)

42 U.S.C. 2000e-16b. Discriminatory practices prohibited
(a) Practices
All personnel actions affecting the Presidential appointees
described in section 1219 of title 2 or the State employees
described in section 2000e-16c of this title shall be made free
from any discrimination based on -
(1) race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, within the meaning of section 2000e-16 of this title; …
( http://www.introlaw.com/ed/laws/titlevii/42usc2000e-16a.html)

’95 CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
42 U.S.C. 1311

(a) Discriminatory practices prohibited
All personnel actions affecting covered employees shall be made free from any discrimination based on—
(1) race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, within the meaning of section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–2); …
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00001311—-000-.html)

3 U.S.C. 411 (a) Discriminatory Practices Prohibited. – All personnel actions affecting covered employees shall be made free from any discrimination based on – (1) race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, within the meaning of section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/3/5/II/A/411)

Existing Filed Bill: Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (ENDA appears to provide substantially equivalent coverage to that which would be effected by direct inclusion in these provisions, but does not directly insert these terms into the existing laws, as explained above under Private Employment).
AOP Whip Count: http://www.actonprinciples.org/ENDA-house-112/

Related Bills: Direct Addition of Terms Proposed in the AEB. ENDA Proposed in Polis Omnibus Outline.

4. C. ARMED FORCES EMPLOYMENT.
10 U.S.C. Chapter 37 (As needed to cover SO&GI non-discrimination).

DADT repeal did not outlaw discrimination based on SO or GI in the Armed Services. (See Public Law: 111-321 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Act” in reference to 10 U.S.C. Chapter 37, Sec. 654, http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C37.txt).

Previously Filed Existing Bills: The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, (which creates a new section: 10 U.S.C. 656) was filed previously to end SO discrimination in the military, but did not include GI. (Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3065:).

Something similar is need that covers both SO&GI.
AOP Whip Count: Not yet refiled.

Proposed in AEB II, Not in Polis Omnibus Outline.

5. FAIR HOUSING.
Title VIII of THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1968 (not 1964)

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).

TEXT: Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, [...]

There is an important report out on VIOLENCE & BULLYING by the United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) that contains an entire section on LGBT suffering due to societal discrimination.

Peer-To-Peer. VIOLENCE & BULLYING: Examining The Federal Response. September 2011.

YAHOO!!!!

The USCCR is like the Discrimination Ombudsman of the U.S. Government, responsible for Civil Rights issues, ranging from studying and collecting information to making recommendations to the President and Congress.

They are independent and bipartisan, and their mandate extends to “matters of discrimination or equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.”

Since “sexual orientation and gender identity” are not included, it is all the more remarkable that this latest report address clearly LGBT suffering, though activists have called for the USCCR to address this issue.

The Report also examines the critical laws: Title IV (school discrimination based on “sex”) and Title VI (all federally funded programs) of the Civil Rights Act, which do not yet include SO&GI (though hopefully the Omnibus will do this).

The report is obviously the product of the sweet velvet glove of President Obama who is steadily making the legal and evidentiary case that will require our government to step up to its duty to protect us from harm.

For this one, he appointed Ms. Roberta Achtenburg, a lesbian human rights expert to the USCCR, back in Feburary 2011. She and three other colleagues approved the Report, while 3 others opposed it and one, who was new, abstained. The names are in the report.

Between this, the DOJ brief in DOMA, the Resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council and the Organization of American States, the legal foundation for our liberation is seriously growing.

The footnotes are particularly interesting because they start to chronicle – probably for the first time ever by a U.S. Governmental entity to Congress (?) – that we suffer “psychological distress,” “distorted sense of justice and order,” and an array of mental health, behavioral disorders, and other harm, caused by societal anti-LGBT discrimination.

Here’s a nice example: “Research indicates that experiencing stigma and discrimination is associated with heightened psychological distress—both among gay and lesbian adults and adolescents.”

It’s increasingly clear all around that ending discrimination is a matter of public welfare, and it seems our brilliant President is building the case.

On related fronts, The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) also just released a report on the harm caused LGBT Families by discrimination called:  ALL CHILDREN MATTER.

And here is an overview of a variety of Reports on the broad array of injury and suffering we experience.  What we need now, is a nice composite Report by MAP or Williams on the over all picture, as we gear up for the Omnibus LGBT Equality Bill.

Among the Occupiers, the cry is often: Whose Streets? Our Streets! It’s also heard in LGBT activism, like the night the police tried to clear the street party for marriage equality in front of The Stonewall, but were stopped by this chant.

It’s a statement that puts the issue of ownership over this society and our government in its appropriate perspective. It says that social policy should reflect the interest of the people, because the ownership resides with the people.

It is this understanding that we need more of from both this movement generally, and Representative Polis’ approach to the Omnibus, which does not have a public process, or even a committee of community stakeholders empowered in the process.

As a result, we are at the final stages, and no one can explain clearly why Title VI is not in the Outline, what process there is for community input, and why the community call for Full Federal Equality & Equal Civil Rights is being ignored.

Via this platform, I am trying to open that dialogue and bring the conversations to light, so that all can be informed and participate. But already the problems with insider, behind-the-scenes, one-on-one conversations are appearing.

One result was the last post I wrote – “Gay Inc Blocks Title VI,” which was based on the story I was clearly told by Rep. Polis’ staff, but is now denied. I shared that with HRC Board members directly via FB messages, and it resulted in a flurry of exchanges.

Here is what I learned in separate calls from Representative Polis’ Chief of Staff, Brian Branton; Legislative Director, Eve Lieberman; and, from Fred Sainz, HRC’s Spokesman who was on the line with David Smith. I invite their corrections.

I have no idea what the next steps are, but there are conference calls in various groups in the works. And I did made it clear that we were in this for our human rights, and not inclined to give up.

REASONS OFFERED BY POLIS’ TEAM ON WHY TITLE VI IS NOT INCLUDED
(Note: this summary was shared with HRC/Polis team, and no corrections have been offered).

1. Different visions of an “Omnibus”. Rep. Polis’ team said they see the omnibus as only a collection of previously filed bills. REPLY: The Outline they produced already includes new components – “public accommodations and public facilities” which are Titles 2 & 3 of the CRA, which are not in any previously filed bills. And if this new bill were only a collection of our past bills, it would be obviously incomplete, and there would be no value added. It would not be “omnibus”. Moreover, all previous draft “omnibus” bills, which prompted this effort, include Title VI, and various Resolutions and Proclamations from elected officials, and community centers, call for Equal Civil Rights, some Title VI specifically.

2. The Polis Outline Coverage & Title VI. Rep. Polis’ team stated that the other provisions included in the Outline, together, are the equivalent of adding SO&GI to Title VI. REPLY: This is not accurate as a matter of law or fact. We referred them to the DOJ’s office that deals with Title VI enforcement and Internal DOJ memorandum.

3. The Omnibus is a bad strategic idea. Rep. Polis’ team stated the piecemeal approach is more pragmatic. REPLY: We maintain that the reason for an omnibus is to make a statement about our equality, as a beacon for our cause, and an organizing impetus for our movement. We need a bill we believe in.

4. Opposition from LGBT Groups.    Polis’ team’s explanation that Title VI was omitted due to opposition from HRC, NGLTF,NCLR, operating as a coalition, based on “pragmatism,” is no longer being offered (see below).

5. Pragmatism. This argument seems to have disappeared as well, as the focus is now on 1. Our vision of the Omnibus includes only previously filed bills; 2. Our Outline pieces covers Title VI, both of which are not accurate factually.

PROCESS ISSUES

1. Process & Public Participation. We have urged that Rep. Polis’ team create a more transparent process for a public debate on the scope of the Outline, and then on any draft bill. Polis’ team is opposed to a more public process. REPLY: This keeps all the people being consulted individually one-on-one in the dark as to who else is in the conversation, and precludes open grassroots participation, or a community-wide dialogue. Our intention is to bring as much transparency to this process as possible and to advocate for a legitimate process on this matter of clear community-wide concern.

2. Timeline. Repeatedly, Polis’ Team has said that they are waiting for Rep. Baldwin to file her health care bill, before they can file, and evidently, before they are able to offer a draft for comment. REPLY: Rep. Baldwin is running for Senate so may be pre-occupied. But we maintain we should not have to wait to begin a community conversation on the Outline, which is already available, and that the Baldwin bill should not preclude a conversation about Title VI. Overall timeline as I understand it is still January.

3. “Agree to Disagree.” Rep. Polis’ team repeatedly used this phrase when there was disagreement, even as to factual, legal matters, like the scope of Title VI as compared to the Outline. REPLY: It reflects a problem power dynamic, whereby the Chief of Staff becomes the authority figure for our entire movement, empowered to make unilateral decisions on matters of general concern to our entire community, with no public dialogue, or even committee conversation.

COMMUNITY POLITICS

1. Blog: “Gay Inc Stops Title VI.”   Rep. Polis’ team is now saying that they were misunderstood on this point. HRC says they are not working in coalition on the Omnibus, and have not offered input against Title VI. REPLY: I stand by my earlier reporting, which accurately reflected the information I was given by Rep. Polis’ staff, and am deeply troubled by this turn of events, which suggests to me the run around.

2. HRC’s Position on Title VI. HRC’s Spokesperson said that HRC would not make a public statement on the issue of Title VI’s inclusion until they had a draft bill to comment on. They have the Outline, but say they have not commented on that, and did not oppose Title VI. REPLY: We requested a statement from HRC supporting the inclusion of Title VI in the Omnibus, but so far have not received one. There is no reason HRC should have to wait to join this vital conversation in earnest and openly.

3. LGBT CAUCUS (Congress). Concern was raised about being sensitive to the feelings of other Representatives, and the individual work on individual bills. REPLY: We reiterated that the LGBT Caucus should be coordinating on a strategy, and holding a public process engagement with the community on an omnibus bill. This reflects a general problem whereby our agenda is treated as the private purview of individual Congress people, instead of belonging to the people.

WHOSE OMNIBUS?   OUR OMNIBUS!

PROCLAMATION OF THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE
IN SUPPORT OF TWO-SPIRIT DIGNITY & HUMAN RIGHTS

WHEREAS, the unity of cultures across time have embraced the concept of inalienable human rights that derive from our relationship to nature; and, on this 24th day of October 2011 the Oglala Sioux Tribe acknowledges Richard Noble and the grassroots LGBT Civil Rights Movement; and

WHEREAS, a central tenant of United States law is the principle of non-discrimination and equal protection under the law as human rights; and

WHEREAS, members of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered – and the two-spirits of this world – face historical and ongoing community rejection, political stigmatization and institutional discrimination based on their innate nature, causing untallied human tragedy, emotional detachment and suffering so extreme that many commit suicide; and

WHEREAS, members of the grassroots LGBT community seek, via the American Equality Bill, to add “sexual orientation and gender identity” equally to all of America’s non-discrimination laws, both to advance this urgent cause for justice, and to protect the inherent right of each person to develop consistent with their natural sexuality and gender as their authentic self, safely and with appropriate cultural dignity and respect; and

WHEREAS, the American Equality Bill reflects the Government’s duty to provide protection from discrimination for all people as a matter of public welfare, and the human rights duty to ensure legal equality for LGBT people under federal law in order to rebuke homophobia and transphobia with the full force of official United States governmental policy, including via the expenditure of all federal funds under Title VI; and

WHEREAS, it is time to ignite the civil rights movement of the 21st Century to liberate the LGBT community in America, in order to reach every community, leaving no child anywhere alone suffering with discrimination or social rejection; and

WHEREAS, from March to October, 2011, Richard “Rainbow” Noble will traverse the country from West Hollywood to Washington D.C. on the Civil Rights March Across America with a sacred Rainbow flag and staff to raise the collective call for freedom, showing remarkable bravery and dedication to his people; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the President John Yellow Bird Steele of the Oglala Sioux Tribe here by calls upon all of humanity to rise in support of the liberation of our two-spirit brothers and sisters from social and legal discrimination, and to urge all official representatives to take urgent action to protect their human rights with the full inclusion of “sexual orientation and gender identity” under all of America’s Civil Rights laws.

THEREFORE, I, John Yellow Bird Steele, hereby declar on this 24th day of October to honor and continue a collaborative effort with Congress for full federal equality and Civil Rights LGBT Omnibus Bill.

JOHN YELLOW BIRD STEELE
President
Oglala Sioux Tribe

The Occupy movement gets to the real root of why our governments are not protecting our social, political and economic human rights.   To help dismantle this set up, here are some structural recommendations that seek to shift the balance of power between the people and their representatives, their governments, and their worlds’ institutions.   They also recognize the value of natural resources belonging to the people, and start to return corporations to their appropriate place.   While perhaps not radical, they are offered as achievable goals, that together could really alter the power structure, paving the way for more refined objectives.

10 PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR OCCUPY WALL STREET

U.S. Constitutional Amendments:
1. Term Limits for Congress: 3 Senate terms (18 years), 5 terms Representatives (10 years). This changes all sorts of financial incentives, career, lobbying, campaign finance, etc.

2. Reverse Citizens United. Make clear Corporations are not people in the Constitution.

3. Separately Elect the U.S. Attorney General, in non-partisan race: i.e., not appointed by the President. This will make sure the people have a lawyer protecting their interests vis-a-vis the Gov’t (most state-level AGs are separately elected from the Gov).

4. Conscript Presidential Military Power to instigate wars and military actions abroad, without Congressional authorization.

5. International Human Rights Treaties Enforcement: Create a Private Right of Action to enforce International Treaties domestically, or alternatively, providing that the Gov’t must abide by them, enforceable by the U.S. AG perhaps.

U.S. Domestic Policy:
6. Natural Resource Usage Tax & Energy Policy: Tax the use of natural resources where ever they come from, and use this to create a zero-oil/coal energy policy (along with huge investment in solar, which is already at market readiness, and on-grid in Nevada).

7.  Corporate Responsibility Law & Wealth Tax: Create legal code of ethics and transparency for corporations, and tax standing wealth of Corporations (to get them moving assets, not hording them, close all foreign holding loop holes).

8. Lobbyist Prohibition: Have a prohibition on former Congress people (and perhaps Gov’t employees) becoming Lobbyist for 20 years (eliminate influence peddling).

Internationally:
9. WTO Accountability: Make the WTO have a public process component, transparency, and accountability.

10. Create Standing for Private Citizens/NGOs at World Court: International treaties (except WTO treaties) are not enforceable, except by gov’t against gov’t, and they don’t do that. We need a real Int’l legal & enforcement mechanism to enforce International Human Rights treaties.

Posted on Occupy Wall Street comment here.

Why not?

Last night leaders of Log Cabin, Marriage Equality New York, HRC, Freedom to Marry, Empire State Pride Agenda, and others came together to evaluate the Marriage Equality Victory in New York.

It was a great meeting of the minds, and three main themes emerged:
1. Coalition, Coalition, Coalition.
2. Strategic Leadership (like the Governor provided).
3. Two Party Game, with language and motivation for both tastes.

There were more precise factors mentioned as well:
-Mutually hiring shared political advisers respected by all, and working for all.
-Legislation that you care about.
-How coalition work eliminates the redundancy among groups.
-Straight allies and unexpected messengers (“changed minds”).
-Do Re Me, $$$ (and bi-partisan bucks no less).
-Direct Action & Civil Disobedience.
-The prior lost vote headcount, and political electoral actions taken after for pro & anti electeds (consequences).
-The fact that the culmination was the result of having the message constantly in play for years.
- And a key recommendation going forward: protect the R votes.

But the main message was Coalition, Coalition, Coalition.

One person typed in a question on the live feed provided by the New Organizing Institute, which organized the event: “What are the plans for a national coalition?”

NGLTF also talks about the value of Coalitions. Everyone does.

So where is our National Coalition? Where is the Strategic Leadership it could secure? Why not Madeleine Albright? Or even James Carvell co-chairing with Mary Matalin?

So as we pick a new head of the Human Rights Campaign, we need someone with experience in these key elements: coalition building (among peers, not top down), strategic campaigns (not organization building), and a commitment to a serious two party campaign.

If straight allies and unexpected messengers were as helpful as Brian Ellner said last night, then it would be great for this to start at the top.

Let’s break our own employment-discrimination history, and hire a straight person to head up HRC. But let’s hire someone based on the way they THINK, not how much money they have raised, or how long they’ve been among us. And above all, let’s hire someone with vision and a sense of urgency.

National Coalition. National Coalition. National Coalition.

Click your heels three times. Bind it in a prayer. Make it happen.