- www.sdgln.com Jessica Marx, Staff Writer | Wed, 12/16/2009

(WASHINGTON D.C.) The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee today marked up the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO). Held by Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), the 8-1 vote moves the bill out of committee and readies it for future consideration by the Senate. Similar legislation cleared the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on November 18.

“Today’s markup in the Senate is an important step toward guaranteeing equal compensation for lesbian and gay workers serving our government at home and abroad,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “DPBO recognizes that equal pay for equal work is a value fundamental to American opportunity.”

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) was introduced in the 111th Congress by Chairman Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate and by Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in the House. DPBO would provide the same family benefits to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees as are already provided to employees with different-sex spouses. To receive benefits, employees would have to submit an affidavit of eligibility for benefits with the Office of Personnel Management, certifying that the employee and domestic partner meet necessary criteria, as provided in the Act.

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and over 150 local governments make benefits available to public employees and their same-sex partners. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

“We are extremely pleased by the Senate committee’s vote on this important legislation. It is long past time for the federal government — the country’s largest civilian employer — to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. In addition to being fundamentally fair, extending these benefits is a sound business decision because it will help the federal government recruit and retain the best people,” Said Rea Carey, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

“Businesses already understand this. This bill will simply bring the federal government up to the standard already supported by businesses and people across the country.”

“The federal government should be the standard bearer for fair workplace practices, but has lagged behind the top employers for too long,” said Solmonese. “By passing DPBO, Congress can bring the federal workforce into the 21st century, ensuring that all of its workers are treated fairly and that the best and brightest are attracted to federal service.”

- By 365gay Newswire
12.16.2009

(Albany, NY) New York Governor David A. Paterson issued an executive order extending anti-discrimination policies to gender identity for state employees Wednesday.

“Governor Paterson has taken significant action to advance equality for all New York state employees,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “The ability to provide for our families is non-negotiable. We applaud Governor Paterson for his commitment to the LGBT community and look forward to working with fair-minded New York legislators to pass the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act which will protect private employees.”

An executive order prohibiting discrimination in state employment is the furthest extent to which any governor is able to exercise his or her executive power. Extending protections to private employees must be accomplished by the state legislature. New York joins eight other states in which an executive order, administrative order, or personnel regulation prohibits discrimination against public employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

In addition, twelve states and the District of Columbia prohibit full employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity: California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Nine more states, including New York, prohibit employment discrimination based only on sexual orientation. For an electronic map showing where employment non-discrimination stands in the states, please visit: www.HRC.org/State_Laws.

This year, a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act was introduced into both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Federal legislation would provide employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in all 50 states.

New Williams Institute Study Estimates that Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in New Jersey Would Boost State Economy by $200 Million; Create over 1,400 Jobs

Media Contacts:
Chris Ramos, (310) 206-0883, Williams Institute Public Policy Fellow
Brad Sears, (310) 794-5279, Williams Institute Executive Director

LOS ANGELES – This week the Williams Institute released a new study estimating the impact of New Jersey extending marriage to same-sex couples. The report estimates that extending marriage to same-sex couples would boost the New Jersey economy by almost $200 million during the next three years, creating approximately 1,400 jobs and generating over $15 million in revenues for the state budget.
The estimate is based on Census Bureau data, data from states that have extended marriage to same-sex couples, and a recent survey of Massachusetts gay couples asking them to report how much they spent on their weddings.
This is the fourth analysis of the fiscal impact of extending the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples conducted by the Williams Institute for New Jersey. Prior studies analyzed the impact of New Jersey’s domestic partnership and civil union laws. In the summer of 2008, the Institute presented an analysis of the fiscal impact of marriage to the New Jersey Civil Union Commission.
“The new report takes into account the changing legal landscape and the recession,” says study co-author Brad Sears, Executive Director of the Williams Institute. “When we conducted our last analysis in 2008, New Jersey would have only competed with one other state in attracting out-of-state same-sex couples seeking to marry. Now same-sex couples can marry in five other states.”
The recession has also reduced the amount that couples in the United States and New Jersey spend, on average, on their weddings.
Sears testified about the new analysis before the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, December 7. The marriage legislation was passed by a 7-6 vote.
The new report also takes into account that New York same-sex couples now have a greater incentive to come to New Jersey to marry. “While the legislature did not extend marriage to same-sex couples this month, the New York Court of Appeals recently upheld the decision of state agencies to recognize the relationships of New York same-sex couples who marry in other
states” says study co-author Christopher Ramos. “This makes it likely that many New York couples will make the short trip to New Jersey to marry.”
This new estimate only includes direct spending by same-sex couples on their weddings, and tourism spending by out-of-state couples who travel to marry in New Jersey and the guests of in-state couples who marry. It does not include spending by family members and friends on gifts or by those traveling within New Jersey to attend weddings. The estimate also does not include the standard multiplier for tourism spending, that each $1 spent in the state generates over $2 in additional spending.
“If these factors are taken into account,” says Sears, “the total impact on the New Jersey could be close to half a billion dollars.
The full reports are available at http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/home.html.
# # #
The Williams Institute advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public. A national think tank at UCLA Law, the Williams Institute produces high quality research with real-world relevance.

- SDGLN.com Staff | Tue, 12/15/2009

(WASHINGTON D.C.) – The Human Rights Campaign today applauded the Washington, D.C. Council’s overwhelming vote today for final passage of legislation recognizing same-sex marriage.

The Council voted 11 to 2 to give final approval to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The vote recognizing same-sex marriage was the second in two weeks for the Council, which approved the bill in an initial vote on December 1, 2009 by the same margin. Since last July, D.C. law has recognized marriages by same-sex couples from other jurisdictions, including foreign countries. The new legislation would permit same-sex couples to marry in D.C. itself while ensuring that clergy and religious organizations would not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods for the solemnization of a same-sex marriage.

“Today’s vote is a victory for all D.C. residents, whose relationships will soon be treated equally and fairly in the eyes of the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This legislation is an important and historic step towards equal dignity, equal respect and equal rights for same-sex couples here in our nation’s capital, which also preserves the right of clergy and congregations to adhere to their faiths. The legislation the Council passed today reinforces the legal equality and religious freedoms to which all D.C. residents are entitled.”

The legislation now goes to the desk of Mayor Fenty, who has said he will sign it. The law would take effect at the conclusion of the Congressional review period, which lasts for 30 legislative days following the Mayor’s signature.

Opponents of marriage equality have attempted to overturn the legislation by proposing a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled last month that the proposed initiative would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act and therefore was not a proper subject matter for the referendum process under D.C. law. Opponents have sued in D.C. Superior Court despite the fact that last June, a Superior Court judge ruled that a similar proposed referendum prohibiting recognition of marriages by same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act and therefore was ineligible for the ballot.

At this time, five states recognize marriage for same-sex couples under state law: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire (effective January 1, 2010). New York recognizes marriages by same-sex couples legally entered into in another jurisdiction. Five states—California, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada—plus D.C. provide same-sex couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Hawaii, Colorado, Maine, Maryland and Wisconsin provide same-sex couples with limited rights and benefits. California recognized marriage by same-sex couples between June and November of 2008, before a slim majority of voters approved Proposition 8, which purports to amend the state constitution to prohibit marriage equality. Couples married during that window remain married under California law, but all other same-sex couples can only receive a domestic partnership within the state. The state will recognize out of state same-sex marriages that occurred before November 5, 2008 as marriages and those that occurred on or after November 5, 2008 as domestic partnerships. The Prop. 8 vote has been challenged in federal court; a decision is not expected any time soon.

Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and responsibilities anywhere in the United States.

- www.queerty.com December 15th, 2009

Despite a public policy denouncing gay marriage, The Salvation Army insists it doesn’t hate the gays. It doesn’t even blame them for being gay! So is this organization — responsible for serving a reported 33 million Americans — getting a bum rap when it’s doing so much good?

Nope.

But the San Francisco Chronicle’s Phil Bronstein makes a decent, albeit brief case to say otherwise. Pointing out Sal’s contributions to bettering America — raising some $2 billion a year, and spending a whopping 89 percent of that on actual services — there’s a case to be made for putting the Army up there with laudable non-profits, given all its HIV and disaster relief work.

Defending the Salvation Army — as much of a Christmas tradition as lighting the tree — is sort of like defending the Catholic Church: They do a helluva lot of good things for society’s invisibles, sure, but they do so at the expense of actively endorsing discrimination. That’s why we’ve got little sympathy for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C., which says passage of marriage equality in the city (which is happening today!) will force it to abandon its social services programs, which help feed thousands of D.C.’s homeless and destitute. (As America struggles to survive a recession, it’s not just individuals hurting for cash these days: the Salvation Army is also seeing dwindling donations — though there are still some surprises.)

But if not the Catholic Church or the Salvation Army, who will pick up the slack? Great question. And while there are dozens and dozens of organizations deserving of similar grand funding, the situation remains: Sal’s still helps feed and cloth millions of Americans in desperate need of help.

For which they should be commended. But to excuse Sal’s faith-based homophobia, or to make the argument that they are somehow morally permitted to do wrong because they do so much right, is both a failed logic exercise and a failed moral one.

- By Matthew Willy www.gather.com December 14, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama spoke out against a proposed anti-homosexual bill in Uganda. The bill would sentence all homosexuals to life in prison as well as impose a death penalty to HIV positive homosexual men for having sex. In addition, all Ugandan citizens, regardless of sexual orientation are obligated to report any known homosexuals to the authorities or suffer up to 7 years in prison.

In a speech on human rights today, Hillary Clinton said “law should not become an instrument of oppression” in an attempt to pressure Ugandan politicians to withdraw the bill. President Obama later commented that the proposed law “moves against the tide of history.”

While the majority of African countries have anti-gay sentiment, Uganda is by far the most extreme in the persecution of homosexuals. Currently, South Africa is the only country in Africa with gay rights legislation.

- www.tbo.com Tampa Bay Online, Dec 14th 2009

NEW PORT RICHEY – A self-professed neo-Nazi will be tried again for murder next year.

A retrial was scheduled for March 22 during a court hearing this morning to determine whether to move forward with the case against John Ditullio Jr., who is accused of killing a homosexual man, Kristofer King, and trying to kill a woman, Patricia Wells, who associated with a black man.

Circuit Judge Michael Andrews declared a mistrial late Friday after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict after nearly 10 hours of deliberations.

The vote was 10-2 in favor of not guilty.

At the time of the March 23, 2006, slaying, Ditullio was a recruit of the American Nazis, a neo-Nazi group that congregated at a compound in Griffin Park.

Wells lived next door to the compound with her son, Brandon Wininger. Wininger wasn’t home during the attacks, but his friend, King, had gone to the home to use a computer.

Prosecutors argued that Ditullio donned a gas mask and entered Wells’ mobile home after midnight. He slashed Wells’ face and turned the knife on King, who was trying to escape, authorities said. King, 17, died of knife wounds to the head. Wells escaped and ran for help.

Prosecutors said Wells was attacked because she associated with a black man and King was stabbed because he was gay. They said Ditullio was trying to impress the American Nazis enough to gain admission into the group.

A former group member testified for the prosecution that Ditullio was responsible for the crimes.

The defense acknowledged Ditullio’s association with the group, but Ditullio testified that he didn’t commit the crimes and was set up by other members.

The defense advanced the theory that Shawn Plott, another American Nazi now listed as a fugitive, was the attacker.

A last-minute witness for the defense may have had an impact on the jury’s vote. On Friday morning, Samantha Troupe testified that she lived in the compound before the group scattered after the stabbings. She said Plott told her a year later that he was responsible for the crimes.

If convicted, Ditullio could face the death penalty.

- By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: December 14, 2009

City leaders in the District of Columbia are expected to approve a gay marriage bill when they meet on Tuesday.

Tuesday’s vote is the last stop on a long journey to legal gay marriage in the District that began last spring with passage of a gay-marriage recognition law. The bill’s long incubation period has thoroughly aired out detractors’ grievances, leaving little room for surprises.

Still, backers are preparing a large rally on Monday.

The show of support is being organized by the Campaign for All DC Families, DC Clergy United and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest advocate for gay rights. Supporters are expected to gather at 7PM for two hours at the Kennedy Recreation Center.

Whether city leaders approve Council member David Catania’s gay marriage bill is not up for debate; it will. At a December 1 first reading of the bill, only 2 councilors opposed the legislation: Yvette Alexander and Marion Barry, the District’s former mayor. The remaining 11 members voted in favor of the bill.

Yet, obstacles remain. The most immediate is whether Congress – which has final say on laws approved in the District – will move against the bill. Lawmakers have 30 days to respond.

Longtime community activist Bob King believes Congress should act against the bill. He told media sources last week that at least 6 members of Congress have agreed to speak with him on the issue. King appears to be targeting pro-gay rights lawmakers, including Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and New Mexico Representative Martin Heinrich. Both men have publicly announced their support for gay marriage.

King is also a member of Stand4Marriage.com, the conservative Christian group founded in the spring by Bishop Harry Jackson, minister at the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland.

Jackson has become the face of the anti-gay marriage movement in the District. His group is suing to get a question prohibiting gay marriage on the ballot after the city’s Ethics Board ruled such a measure would violate the city’s Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The gay marriage bill is also opposed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. While the bill would not require religious organizations to perform gay weddings, the church has threatened to shut off programs serving the poor and homeless if the city does not include an exclusion that would allow individuals, including private business owners, to refuse to provide goods and services related to the nuptials of gay couples. Gay activists accused the church of trying to “blackmail the city.” Lawmakers, however, say they are open to a compromise that would keep the archdiocese’s Catholic Charities as a city contractor.

Should Congress decide to ignore the issue, gay couples in the District might be reserving wedding chapels as early as January 15.

- Dec 14, 2009 The Baltimore Sun

Here’s a preview of an editorial we’re working on.

On Saturday, Houston Comptroller Annise Parker soundly defeated attorney Gene Locke in that city’s mayoral election in a campaign that centered on the budget, public safety and other perennial issues of municipal governance. As far as Houstonians are concerned, the election marked a milestone in that Ms. Parker managed to defeat the candidate favored by the business establishment. Now she’s at work finding ways to solidify city finances and looking for a new police chief.

You may have heard about this election for another reason: Ms. Parker is gay. Much is being made of that now, of the odd juxtaposition of the election of an openly gay candidate in a city that has rejected giving benefits to the same-sex partners of city workers, in a state that has outlawed gay marriage, at a time when gay rights measures appear to be falling left and right in liberal states like Maine, New York and New Jersey.

Ms. Parker’s election probably doesn’t mean that Texas is about to change its ways as far as gay rights go anytime soon. Voters interviewed by the Houston Chronicle said it was her experience that put her over the top and that sexual orientation had nothing to do with it. Voter turnout was extremely low in the race — under 20 percent — a sign that people didn’t really care whether their mayor was gay.

In the end, that may be a more important development than any of the recent high-profile defeats for gay marriage at the ballot box and in state legislatures. People may get riled up about the hot-button political issues like gay marriage, but the more their actual experience with gay people is humdrum, the harder that kind of passionate opposition is going to be to maintain. Houston voters decided that having a gay mayor is no big deal; perhaps one day they — and the rest of the nation — will think the same about gay marriage.

By 365gay Newswire
12.09.2009

Earlier this week, Zikerria Bellamy filed a complaint against McDonald’s for refusing to hire her because she is transgender.

One of the managers left a detailed voice mail message on Bellamy’s phone in July, saying “It doesn’t matter how many times you go down there, you will not get hired. We do not hire faggots. You lied to me.”

That manager has been fired.

A spokeswoman for McDonald’s told the Orlando Sentinel that the person who left the voice message for Bellamy with antigay slurs was let go. She said that the employee “acted outside the scope of his authority and was not responsible,” adding “[McDonald’s] has a zero tolerance policy prohibiting discrimination or harassment in the restaurant.”

Bellamy, 17, who has been living as a woman for six years, said that on two separate occasions in July, she tried to get an interview at the Orlando McDonald’s. Two separate managers refused to hire her.

The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) then filed the complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on Bellamy’s behalf.

Although one of the managers has been fired as a result of the derogatory statements made in the recording, McDonald’s did not indicate what happened to the second manager.