via PR Newswire.
Original story at the Memphis Business Journal

Feb 26, 2010

The largest gay wedding in history is scheduled for Saturday, March 20th in Washington, DC. Up to 400 couples will exchange vows breaking the current Guinness World Record. The celebration is part of an all-day series of events called Our Time Has Come, a title chosen to signify the long road that many couples have traveled to marriage. Events slated for March 20 include a large group ceremony, individual private ceremonies and a gala-style reception. All portions are scheduled at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, an ornately gilded historic venue on Constitution Avenue, the event is being hosted by GLBT Wedding Services.

Mike Wilkinson, Director of Wedding Services for Event Emissary, is one of the planners producing the mega-event. “The LGBT community has always found strength in numbers when it comes to advocating for equality,” Wilkinson said. “Now we can finally stand together to affirm our love and have it recognized legally by the District of Columbia.”

Even though the event is big, the concept is being carefully designed so that the experience is special for every couple involved. The reception is open to friends and family to celebrate alongside the newlyweds. “Every aspect is being planned with sensitivity to the LGBT audience that will be attending,” Wilkinson said.

Drew Parker and his partner Dalin Holyoak are one of the many couples getting married at the event. “Our relationship and our lives could not wait for our marriage to be ‘legal’ in DC, but we are both excited and relieved that our marriage will finally be recognized in the city we call home. We signed up to be part of the mass ceremony as soon as we could.”

The centerpiece of the festivities will be the group ceremony titled Standing Proud Together. The non-denominational, contemporary service will be led in a manner that will solidify the unions of long-term partners as well as to commemorate the marriages of those who are more recently engaged. A limited number of smaller private ceremonies are also available.

A reception will follow in the evening after the ceremonies. Newlyweds are encouraged to invite friends and family to take part in celebration with music, a buffet, premium open bar and various types of wedding cakes.

“We celebrated our personal vows nearly two years ago, but we know the importance of this day to our status as fully equal citizens of the District of Columbia,” Parker said. “We are so thankful for the people that sacrificed to make this day a reality, and can only hope that one day the entire nation will follow.”

The entire event is contingent on the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is expected early next week . The organizers are working with Destination DC, the official convention and tourism corporation for the District, to help out-of-town couples with travel arrangements.

Once the law is official, couples can then apply for their marriage licenses. There is usually a three-day waiting period, but due to high volume, it may take longer. Wilkinson said that his team will work with couples to make sure they receive their licenses on time. “We’re not going to do anything if it’s not official. We’ve waited too long for that.”

- Empowering Spirits Foundation Feb 26th, 2010

Gays and lesbians should be allowed to adopt, but not marry. Illegal immigration is a huge problem, but immigrant children shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their parents. And California is a mess, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to fail.

In her first major interview since kicking her campaign into high gear, Meg Whitman, the front-runner for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, revealed her views on issues ranging from the “right to carry” movement to offshore oil drilling, Sarah Palin, the state budget and education reform.

Whitman, the former eBay chief, has been under attack by Democrats and her Republican rival, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, for avoiding debates and California political reporters and for not being specific enough on issues.

But in a fast-paced, 40-minute interview with the Mercury News, Whitman said she’s trying to “be as accessible as I can be” while giving political stump speeches around the state.

And she was far more polished than she appeared in a February 2009 interview with the Los Angeles Times, during which the political novice often seemed unschooled in the issues of the day — such as school vouchers, a key Republican issue.

In Wednesday night’s interview, conducted after a speech to a Republican group in Walnut Creek, Whitman came across as a quick study — politically savvy and surprisingly comfortable in her own political skin. After months of speculation about just where she falls on the ideological spectrum, she described herself as an “extraordinary fiscal conservative” who is “moderate to conservative” on social issues.

Much of her opponents’ criticism against her has focused on how she would close the state’s $20 billion budget deficit — a gap so huge that Intelligence Squared, a British organization that holds debates around the world, recently declared California America’s “first failed state.”

Whitman has called for the elimination of 40,000 state jobs, which would bring the number of jobs in California government to the same level as five years ago. She says the reduction could be done through attrition over her first four-year term.

But skeptics have pointed out that axing those jobs would save only $3.3 billion, leaving more than $16 billion to go.

Pressed for details on where else she would cut, Whitman said the state could also save enormous sums by reducing the pensions of new employees; cutting fraud in social programs such as Medi- Cal, welfare and In-Home Supportive Services; and updating computer systems to reduce fraud and increase efficiency.

“I want to go after the bureaucracy,” she said, adding that she will do a top-down review of the growth of programs and their effectiveness. “We have to do more with less,” she said. “And the only way to do that is through technology.”

No doubt, her political opponents — and voters — will demand more detailed answers and harder numbers during the campaign. Many fiscal experts say politicians shouldn’t be allowed to get away with saying they’ll solve enormous budget problems simply by reducing “waste, fraud and abuse.”

Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a left-leaning think tank, said Thursday that Whitman is in for a few surprises if she becomes the next governor.

“Been there, done that,” she said. “Generalities don’t balance the budget.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, she said, made many of the same suggestions when he was running in the 2003 election that recalled Gov. Gray Davis. Most of the “low-hanging fruit” has already been cut, Ross said.

Whitman, however, insisted she’ll do better.

“I have a lot of respect for Arnold Schwarzenegger,” she said. “He’s done a number of very good things,” such as reforming workers’ compensation and the way legislative districts are drawn.

“But I think he has not done as much as he had hoped,” she said, in part because he had never run a large organization before taking office.

If elected, Whitman said, she would move to Sacramento — unlike Schwarzenegger —and get to know every senator and assembly member by name, letting them know what she “will and will not put up with.”

Whitman also said she would set a goal of adding 2 million private sector jobs in California during her first term, largely by creating a business-friendly atmosphere in which unnecessary regulations are jettisoned.

Asked to reconcile her stance against same-sex marriage with her willingness to allow gays and lesbians to adopt children, Whitman said she believes the term “marriage” should apply only to the union of a man and a woman. Still, she’s in favor of granting equal rights to gay people through civil unions and domestic partnerships.

And she approves letting gays adopt because “many kids need a great home.”

On illegal immigration, Whitman said she disagreed with her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson, over Proposition 187, the 1994 initiative that was ruled unconstitutional.

She said it was wrong to write an initiative aimed “mostly at children” by denying them health services and an education. “The children did not come here on their own,” she said.

But she said the state has to draw the line when it comes to many other services. For example, she doesn’t believe illegal immigrants should — as is currently the law — be entitled to in-state tuition at California’s public colleges and universities.

Despite media reports that have painted the Golden State as a basket case, Whitman expressed confidence that California can be restored to fiscal health through Silicon Valley innovation and the state’s famed can-do spirit.

“Our destiny is more in our hands than most people believe,” she said.

- By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: February 26, 2010
www.ontopmag.com

New York Governor David Paterson will end his reelection bid Friday, the New York Times reported.

Paterson will drop out of the gubernatorial race amid allegation that he attempted to squash a domestic-abuse case involving a top aide, David Johnson.

Paterson was elected lieutenant governor in 2006 and took over the governor’s mansion two years later after Eliot Spitzer resigned amid a prostitution scandal.

Last year, the 55-year-old politician pressured Senators to debate a gay marriage bill waiting for their approval to become law. Eventually, Senators gave in to marriage equality supporters, but rejected the measure.

Without Paterson’s prodding, the bill most likely would have been shelved.

Senator Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat who opposes the legalization of gay marriage despite having two gay brothers, suggested that gay allies of the governor had left him in a lurch.

“The governor went out of a limb for the gay community in his efforts to support marriage equality and to bring that bill to the Senate floor, even though he knew it did not have sufficient votes to pass and that thousands of people in New York State did not want it and will not support him for election because of that issue,” Diaz said on his own website.

“Where is the gay community now that the governor needs them?” Diaz rhetorically asked.

In December, Paterson signed an executive order protecting transgender state employees from workplace discrimination. But a bill that would apply to employees working in the public sector (GENDA) remains stuck in the Legislature.

With the abuse charges simmering in the background and low poll numbers, the Paterson campaign was looking at a nearly insurmountable incline to overcome.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is considered the strongest candidate to be the Democratic nominee for governor this fall.

Associated Press
Original Story at Yahoo News
02/25/10

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF. — Less than a year after dethroned Miss California USA Carrie Prejean stirred up controversy with her remarks against gay marriage, a similar war of words is brewing in Beverly Hills.

Beverly Hills Mayor Nancy Krasne said Wednesday she is outraged over a Miss California USA contestant who is claiming to represent the city in the upcoming pageant and who spoke out against same-sex marriage in recent media interviews.

Krasne said in a statement that 23-year-old Lauren Ashley does not live in Beverly Hills or represent the city in any capacity. Krasne said she was shocked to see statements made by a beauty pageant contestant under the name of Beverly Hills, “which has a long history of tolerance and respect.”

Ashley recently told Fox News and other media outlets that same-sex marriage goes against God and the Bible.

Keith Lewis, a K2 Productions stage director for the Miss California USA pageant, told the Los Angeles Times that contestants choose the area they represent and Ashley chose to compete as Miss Beverly Hills in November 2010.

A phone listing for Ashley could not be found.

Krasne said the city has contacted Miss California USA pageant officials to determine ways to formally prevent any beauty contestants from claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills in the future.

Ashley’s comments came just months after Prejean, the former Miss California USA 2009, reached a confidential settlement with pageant organizers on dueling lawsuits over her outspoken stance against gay marriage.

Prejean sued Miss California USA organizers in August for libel, slander and religious discrimination. She accused them of telling her to stop mentioning God even before her controversial remarks against gay marriage.

Prejean was fired in June after pageant officials accused her of missing events, an allegation she denied. The pageant later countersued Prejean.

Prejean said she was dethroned because she said during the Miss USA pageant that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

By Julie Bolcer
www.advocate.com
Feb 25, 2010

The Australian senate rejected a marriage equality bill Thursday, just days before this weekend’s large Mardi Gras celebration in Sydney.

According to The Age, the bill was defeated 45 to five, with one third of the senators absent from the vote in conscientious objection.

“But some of the senators who were absent from the chamber are uncomfortable with their party’s official policies opposing a move to let gay couples marry,” reported The Age.

Marriage equality advocates interpreted the absenteeism as tacit support for their cause.

February 24, 2010
Michael Cole
Link to original story (via hrcbackstory.org)

Today Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler issued a sound legal opinion [pdf] analyzing Maryland’s marriage comity laws and concluding that the state can recognize marriages between two people of the same sex performed outside of the state. More info from the Washington Post.

Although this opinion won’t erase many of the inequalities same-sex couples in Maryland face, it is certainly a positive development on the road to full equality. As states deal with the issue of treating all couples equally, today’s opinion continues to highlight the burdensome patchwork of unequal laws same-sex couples face across the country.

Maryland may join New York in providing marriage rights to same-sex couples married out of jurisdiction while not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples within the state. The Attorney General’s opinion explains that the state may recognize out of jurisdiction marriages either through legislation enacted by the Maryland General Assembly, through a decision of the Court of Appeals, or by state agencies. With Washington, D.C. poised to begin accepting marriage applications from same-sex couples on March 3, 2010, when the Congressional review period ends, recognition of same-sex marriages will have a significant practical meaning for many same-sex couples in Maryland.

UPDATE: At a press conference this afternoon, Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler announced that the state, effective immediately, recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and agencies should begin affording those couples rights.

- Empowering spirits Foundation Notes Feb 24th, 2010

Democrats in the House of Delegates on Tuesday swiftly shot down Republican attempts to advance a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

GOP delegates unsuccessfully tried to force a floor vote on a bipartisan resolution (HJR5) called the “Marriage Protection Amendment.” The proposal calls for a statewide referendum on whether to amend West Virginia’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

This week, Republicans launched a push to make the House vote on measures they say Democrats have allowed to die in the legislative process. They want to do that by “discharging” bills from committees, bringing them directly to the floor for a vote.

Except for Delegate Tom Louisos, D-Fayette, the House’s Democratic majority on Tuesday voted to postpone consideration of the Republican motion to discharge the marriage amendment.

Later, the committee that controls the flow of bills decided to keep that motion off the House’s agenda.

House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, said the discharge attempts are about open debate on issues he says constituents want the Legislature to take up.

“Once again, through a procedural motion, [debate] has been blocked,” Armstead said after the House postponed his motion Tuesday.

In the coming days, Republican delegates plan to try to force floor votes on more bills, including one to require drug-testing of welfare recipients, Armstead said.

Republicans are off to a rocky start with the plan. On Monday, Delegate Patrick Lane, R-Kanawha, unsuccessfully tried to discharge a measure that would increase tax breaks for elderly and disabled people.

Republicans also tried to force a vote on the marriage amendment last year, but Democrats blocked the move.

Half of the six of sponsors of this year’s “Marriage Protection Amendment” are Democrats, but many Democrats likely do not want to vote on the controversial issue.

Sponsors of the measure include House Majority Leader Brent Boggs, D-Braxton. Boggs said he “cares very deeply” about the marriage legislation, but “at this point, it’s just a time management issue.”

“We’ve got jobs bills. We’ve got a number of important pieces of legislation,” he said. “And committee time is really at a premium right now.”

The legislative session is set to end March 13. As deadlines approach, the Republican discharge motions are becoming “disruptive,” Boggs said.

“This is not the time to be doing this,” he said. “There couldn’t possibly be a worse time.”

Those seeking a constitutional amendment on marriage haven’t give up hopes. The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is focusing on a Senate version of the resolution (SJR14). The group is planning a “Let Us Vote!” rally at the Capitol, set for noon on Thursday.

Stephen Skinner of the group Fairness West Virginia said he is hopeful the Senate won’t advance its version of a constitutional ban.

“The Senate leadership has been clear in the past that the marriage amendment would be redundant,” he said, referring to an existing law that bars West Virginia from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. “I have every reason to expect the same results this year.”

Skinner said his group is “extremely pleased that [the House] avoided what is a divisive and distracting issue.”

- Empowering Spirits Foundation Feb 24th, 2010

Married couples would have preference in state-arranged adoptions under a bill approved Tuesday by the Arizona House.

The state’s adoption statute now declares that any adult resident, whether married or unmarried, is eligible to adopt. The bill would add a directive that state officials give “primary consideration” to adoption placement with married couples and may not consider placement with a single person except under specific circumstances.

Social conservatives championed the bill, saying a preference for married couples would help create an optimal home environment for children.

“All things being equal … if the state can place them with a mom and dad, that’s the best situation for them,” said Rep. Warde Nichols, a Gilbert Republican who is the bill’s’ chief sponsor.

Opponents, including adoption activists, said the preference could result in fewer adoptions, partly because some singles might not bother to go through the state’s lengthy adoptive process if they perceive they’ll be at the back of the line behind married couples.

Single people can be great adoptive parents and that should trump “personal preferences about the makeup of the nuclear family,” said Rep. Phil Lopes, D-Tucson.

The House’s 35-22 vote sends the bill to the Senate.

Under the bill, circumstances under which married couples would not have an adoption preference would include if a single person is a relative of the child or already has an established relationship with the child, if a child likely faces an extended placement in foster care or if a judge concludes the child’s “best interests” require placement with a single adoptive parent.

A judge invoking “best interests” would have to spell out specific findings.

The bill would not change the existing requirement for an investigation of would-be adoptive parents’ suitability, including financial condition, moral fitness, health and religious backgrounds and previous dealings with children.

Nichols sponsored a 2008 referendum against same-sex marriage, but he said Tuesday that the adoption measure was not related to that issue.

Concerns about the preference making it harder to arrange adoptions are just scare tactics, Nichols said.

There aren’t enough married couples seeking to adopt children and the circumstances to skirt the preference for married couples means single individual will still able to adopt, he said.

“It’s not going to freeze them out,” he said. “We don’t have enough singles in the system. We don’t have enough married (couples) in the system to adopt all these kids.”

About a fifth of the children in out-of-home care were classified as adoption candidates, according to a report by the Auditor General’s Office.

The state Department of Economic said there were 2,505 foster children awaiting adoption on Sept. 30. Of those, 2,142 were placed in prospective adoptive homes, the department said.

The department said it didn’t track how many adoptions involved married couples or singles.

- Empowering Spirits Foundation Notes Feb 24th, 2010

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Tuesday that he has “serious concerns” over the impact of a repeal of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay and lesbian service members.

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of the repeal of the law on … a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight and a half years,” he told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He agreed, however, that it would be fair to characterize his opinion as not being “strongly” for or against a repeal.

The general objected to a proposed moratorium on discharging people under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy before a repeal is formally enacted.

“I would recommend against it,” he said. “We would be put in a position of actually implementing [a repeal] while we were studying implementation. And I don’t think that would be prudent.”

The policy, enacted under President Clinton in 1993, bars openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving in the U.S. military but prevents the military from asking a service member’s sexual orientation.

President Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen support a repeal of the policy. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, has said he plans to introduce legislation next week that would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. A separate repeal bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

Army Secretary John McHugh, also testifying before the committee Tuesday, declined to offer a personal opinion on a possible repeal of the controversial policy. He joined Casey in pointing out potential problems associated with a moratorium on discharges.

“We have any number of cases under way pursuant to the current law that would be greatly complicated were there a moratorium,” he said. “But if it were passed, obviously … we would follow through with that.”

This month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon had taken the first steps to prepare for a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Laying the groundwork will take more than a year, Gates said. In the interim, however, the Defense Department will start enforcing the policy “in a fairer manner,” he said.

Gates noted that he has appointed a high-level working group to start a review of the issues tied to a smooth implementation of a repeal.

The group is being led by Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe. It will produce its findings and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of 2010, Gates said.

The defense secretary told members of the Armed Services Committee that “a guiding principle of our efforts will be to minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks, with special attention paid to those serving on the front lines.”

Gates also noted that the Pentagon will ask the RAND Corp. to update a study it conducted in 1993 on the impact of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was implemented, more than 13,500 service members have been discharged because of it, according to Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia. In 2009, there were 428 discharges under the policy, the lowest rate of discharge since implementation, he said. The highest year was 2001, with 1,227 discharges.

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, indicated on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he supports the Pentagon review process. While refusing to state a clear personal opinion on a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Petraeus said he wasn’t sure whether most soldiers care anymore if they serve with individuals who have a different sexual orientation.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Monday that his opinion is that “everyone should be allowed to serve … as long as we’re still able to fight our wars,and we’re able to have forces that are capable of doing whatever they are asked to do.”

Retired Gens. Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, have expressed their support for a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Adm. Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday that having openly gay and lesbian service members is “working out quite well” in other NATO countries.

Questions about sexual orientation have not undermined unit cohesion or combat readiness, he said. “Sexual orientation is a personal matter, not a matter for state policy,” he said.

But at least one current member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff — Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps — has expressed reservations in the past about repealing the law.

“Our Marines are currently engaged in two fights, and our focus should not be drawn away from those priorities,” Conway said in November through a spokesman.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, according to a February 12-15 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. Twenty-seven percent are opposed to such a change.

In 1994, shortly after the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was implemented, 53 percent of Americans believed that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, while 41 percent were opposed.

- by Peter Cassels
EDGE Contributor
Tuesday Feb 23, 2010

The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a transgender woman who maintains two Newark police officers harassed her because of her gender identity and expression.

Diana Taylor of Newark said two officers steered their cruiser into her path as she walked down a street two blocks from her home on March 23, 2009. According to Taylor, the officers made fun of her wig and demanded she show them her identification. She didn’t have it with her, but she gave them her legal name, Christopher Moore.

The two officers had placed a bet on Taylor’s gender before they blocked her way, she said during a news conference after the ACLU-NJ filed the lawsuit in Essex County Superior Court on Wednesday, Feb. 17. One said to the other, “You’re right. I owe you $10. It is a man,” Taylor recalled.

She further alleged the officers began tormenting her by calling her a “chick with a dick,” “faggot” and other derogatory names. Taylor added they further embarrassed her by questioning her sexuality as witnesses gathered.

She said the officers handcuffed her and took her to a police station where they searched crime databases looking for a reason to arrest her. Although they found she had no record, Taylor contends police continued to humiliate her by frisking her in a sexually intrusive manner.

A lieutenant told officers to release Taylor, but she said he discouraged her from filing a complaint because he thought they had meant no harm.

Taylor said the harassment didn’t end there. She said the officers insisted on driving her home, even though she told them she preferred to walk. During the ride, she said the officers threatened to have gang members in the neighborhood confront her if she reported the abuse.

After many phone calls, Taylor was eventually able to file a complaint with the department’s internal affairs division. About a month later, she was charged with littering and disorderly conduct, but a municipal court dismissed the case.

“The police did more than arrest me that day,” Taylor told the media. “They took away my rights and my dignity, and made me afraid to walk down the street. I’m fighting for something that’s easy to take for granted but impossible to live without–the freedom to be myself and to live my life in peace. I had always thought the police were here to protect me. I don’t want to feel like I need protection from them instead.”

Legal advocates with whom EDGE spoke said Taylor’s case is one of many examples of the type of police harassment trans people frequently endure. Such allegations have been made around the country, but reports of anti-trans harassment at the hands of law enforcement tend to occur most frequently in cities where trans populations are larger.

Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, and Dru Levasseur, transgender rights attorney at Lambda Legal, said a major problem is what they call “walking or driving while trans,” comparable to the discrimination people of color and under-represented groups sometimes experience.

“They fear simple things like driving because they are concerned about what would happen if they are pulled over,” Silverman explained. “For example, their driver’s license might not match how they look or the name and description don’t match who they are.”

Even using a public restroom can prove problematic.

Silverman’s organization filed a case on behalf of Helena Stone, a trans New Yorker who was arrested in Grand Central Terminal three times in six months for lewd conduct and other charges “just for going to the bathroom.” The New York Times reported one officer called Stone “a freak, a weirdo and the ugliest woman in the world.”

Silverman successfully litigated the case in 2006; the charges against Stone were dropped after he pointed out the New York City Commission on Human Rights requires restrooms must be available to trans people “consistent with their gender identity.”

Other examples of anti-trans harassment by law enforcement
can involve unnecessary searches of detainees, in many instances before a court has determined their guilt or innocence. Officers sometimes go beyond searching trans suspects for contraband and weapons–Levasseur said they “police someone’s gender.”

“Police have been known to grope parts of people’s bodies and do illegal and unnecessary strip searches just to view their genitals,” he said.

Above all, activists said trans people fear arrest because it might result in jail time.

Silverman explained law enforcement officers categorize and house suspects and convicted criminals in correction facilities based on their anatomy.

“If they have not undergone sex reassignment, they will be housed with the people of the sex with which they are born,” he said. “That can create a dangerous situation for people.”

Silverman added trans suspects often plea guilty to a lesser offense to avoid incarceration, even if they have done nothing illegal.

Both organizations receive hundreds of calls a year from trans people reporting police harassment and seeking assistance. Levasseur said the solution is better training of law enforcement officers. He has worked with other trans legal advocates to get the New York Police Department to revise its patrol guide.

“It has yet to happen,” Levasseur reported.

Peter Cassels is a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s Excellence in Journalism award. His e-mail address is pcas...@edgepublications.com.