Family Leave Act to extend to LGBT families

The Associated Press is reporting that The Labor Department intends to issue regulations requiring businesses to give gay employees equal treatment under a law permitting workers unpaid time off to care for newborns or loved ones.

According to AP:


Labor Secretary Hilda Solis planned to announce Wednesday that the government would require employers to extend the option that has been available to heterosexual workers for almost two decades, two officials briefed on the plan said Monday. Neither was authorized to speak publicly ahead of the announcement.


The move, coming less than five months before November's congressional elections, seemed likely to incite conservatives and Republicans who stood in lockstep against the Obama administration's earlier efforts to repeal a ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. It also appeared likely to be popular with loyal Democrats and organized labor.


The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves. The 1993 law, which also allows employees to take time off for adoptions, has previously only been applied to heterosexual couples.


The Labor Department planned to extend those rights based on a new interpretation of the law, the officials said. There was no plan to ask Congress to change the law, which means future presidents could reverse the decision.


President Barack Obama and his administration have slowly rolled out policies to help gays and lesbians, who supported his candidacy but have soured on what they consider his slow pace in making incremental instead of wholesale changes. He planned to meet with gay activists Tuesday at the White House, the second time such a reception has been held at the executive mansion.


Gay activists have been frustrated with Obama's approach to gay policies. The White House reluctantly backed a compromise on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy on gays in the military that would move ahead on repeal but still allow the Pentagon time to implement new policies.


Earlier this month, Obama issued orders for government agencies to extend child care services and expanded family leave to their workers. Obama's order for federal employees, though, covers only benefits that can be extended under existing law, without congressional action. Legislative action would be required for a full range of health care and other benefits.


Last year, Obama gave federal workers' same-sex partners a first round of benefits including visitation and dependent-care rights. He also authorized child-care services and subsidies; more flexibility to use family leave to attend to the needs of domestic partners and their children; relocation benefits; giving domestic partners the same status as family members when federal appointments are made; and access to credit union and other memberships when those are provided to federal workers.

The Fierce Urgency of Now

It's safe to say that many LGBT bloggers are unhappy with the Obama Administration over its lack of leadership on DADT.  Sure, we were promised repeal in the State of the Union Address, but that repeal seems less and less likely by the day.  Here's a post from Pam's House Blend that seems to be a decent example of what I've been reading lately.  (Photo: the wonderful Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend.)
 
With today's official confirmation that Democrat Ike Skelton refuses to include "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal language in the House's Defense Authorization bill, and reports are coming that Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson too has joined Democrat Sen. Jim Webb, and Republican Scott Brown in ruling out repeal in 2010. Their reason? They are listening to Bush-appointee and Obama holdover, Democratic Administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' recommendation to not to attach repeal to the Senate version of the Defense Authorization Bill. To anyone playing close attention, repeal seems hopelessly handicapped in 2010.

And mostly, by the White House's complete and total lack of leadership. Because of Gates' unprecedented presumption to set the legislative calendar for Congress, and Obama's total silence and disengagement on the issue, it is undeniably the Democrats who are destroying hope for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for 2010.

They are telling our community as they always have: to wait.

Not acceptable.

This is not the bargain we made. This is not the "fierce urgency of now." I say to President Obama, we voted for you. Not George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense. We were expecting Change. And we expect you to keep the promises you made to our community. And we expect you to lead the Democrats, as the leader of the party.

Your complete and total lack of leadership on this issue is more than a disappointment, it is a betrayal.

It's time for the gay community-for the leaders of our national organizations-to come together, in total unity, and say with one voice: "We'll vote for you later."

Later. As in Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010.

In other words, you're on your own for midterms.

It's clear the carrot is not working. We've been donating, volunteering, and voting Democratic since time immemorial. We stood by the party in the hard times. We help them regain control of the House and the Senate in 2006. They've controlled both houses for over four years. But when did they get around to introducing a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal bill into the Senate? Oh that's right, March 2010, just two months ago. Wouldn't it have been good to have planned a little more in advanced? Wouldn't it have been smart to have introduced it earlier and built support internally before the clock started ticking down? Our civil rights are, apparently, the Democrat's afterthought.

Enough.

Until Democrats fear ticking off the LGBT community, they clearly will be feckless allies and fair weather friends who take us for granted and feel no inclination to reward us for our tireless devotion to keeping them in power.

Well, let them look at the prospect of midterms 2010, without our resources. No LGBT votes. None of our feet on the ground knocking on doors. Our pocketbooks sealed tight.

To be clear, I don't want the Republicans in charge of the Senate or the House anymore than anyone else. But it is the only stick we have in our arsenal to discipline the Democrats into doing what they promised, what is right. As the Courage Campaign noted today, the relationship has become hopelessly dysfunctional. They clearly need a spanking. It is no longer enough they be better than the GOP, they must actually be good.

And, as completely incompetent as the Obama administration has been in getting anything resembling "bi-partisanship" out of the GOP in the last 15 months, I wish them luck in 2010, contending with even an stronger GOP minorities or, god forbid, majorities.

Maybe when President Obama really contemplates that, he'll call off his dog, Secretary Gates. Maybe he'll be moved to pick up the phone and have a chat with Jim Webb and Ben Nelson and get them to do what's good for the party in November 2010. Maybe he'll do one of his famous bi-partisan reach arounds to Scott Brown?

Or maybe not. Maybe it's time for Democrats to feel a little hurt from the LGBT community. Maybe our little kiss-and-make-up sessions after the Democrats passed and signed DADT, and DOMA, have left the impression the LGBT community are a bunch of pushover pansies that will never fight back, no matter how many times the party betrays us.

It's time (way past time, really) for Human Rights Campaign, and every major LGBT organization to let a message be known, Obama and the Democrats have a proposal on the table:

    "President Obama and Secretary Gates must come out and endorse repeal this year. The leader of the party must bring Democrats in line to deliver on the promises he and the party have made to our community for years. Or every major LGBT organization will recommend LGBT Americans stay home during the midterm elections.

Yeah, we'll get around to helping you guys out again someday. On the same time frame you've been giving us for years: Later.

I find this divide between the LGBT community and President Obama very sad.  Yet I understand where it's coming from.  Many of the overtures to the LGBT community have been window dressing: cocktail parties, Easter Egg Hunts, a movie night for LGBT leaders.  These gestures are meant to placate while LGBT soldiers are being fired for who they are, LGBT couples find themselves unable to bury their loved ones, and the federal government continues its institutional discrimination.  Yes, the community is getting loud, angry and impatient.  But as we know, the Black Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed because of cocktail parties.  Please, Mr. Obama.  Remember the fierce urgency of now.

What if the Obamas behaved like the Palins?

Imagine the following:

Barack Obama stands before a predominately African-American audience. “America is ready for another revolution!” he shouts to the crowd.  The entire auditorium stands, applauds, and shouts.

Now imagine that Michelle Obama has been part of a movement to get her home state of Illinois to secede from the union.  She is a mover and a shaker in this movement, convincing her husband to speak at  a convention designed to further this cause for succession.  When asked about his attendance, Barack Obama lies about it, saying he never attended.

Now consider this:

Sarah Palin stands before a predominately white audience. “America is ready for another revolution!” she shouts to the crowd.  The entire auditorium stands, applauds, and shouts.

Husband Todd Palin has been part of a movement to get his home state of Alaska to secede from the union.  He is a mover and a shaker in this movement, convincing his wife to speak at  a convention designed to further this succession movement.  When asked about her attendance, Sarah Palin lies about it, saying she never attended. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/the-alaska-divi.html)


Of course, if the first two scenarios had occurred, there would endless fear mongering among right wing pundits.  Can you imagine what Glenn Beck -- who has accused President Obama of being racist -- would say about this?  Can you imagine Barack Obama ever in a million years becoming Senator, let alone President, if Michelle were a member of a succession movement? And if Barack Obama had addressed the group supporting Illinois leaving the United States?

The Sarah and Todd Palin scenarios have actually happened.  Todd Palin's membership in a party whose purpose is to get his state to leave the union was barely an issue in the campaign.  And while Sarah Palin's speech at the recent Tea Party Convention was been widely covered, I haven't read much about her use of the word revolution in her speech.  Does anyone actually believe this would be the case if Barack Obama used this language in front of an African-American audience?  Remember when he was "palling around with terrorists" because he attended a grassroots meeting with William Ayers?

I know the myth is that the media is liberal.  I think we should question this assumption whenever we can.

Is " Don't Ask, Don't Tell" finally on its way out? The State of the Union Address may have the answer

According to Roxana Tiron of The Hill a hearing this week that was to address the Clinton-era "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy was put on hold when White House officials asked for a postponement until after President Obama's State of the Union Address on Wednesday night. 

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and opponent of DADT, was expected to have Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs Mike Mullen testify before his committee this week.  The date of the hearing is now February 11.

According to a senate aide, Levin was told to hold off on announcing the hearing until President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27.

"Somebody representing the Pentagon said that the White House, that the president was expected, they thought, to state that policy at the State of the Union," Levin said.

If indeed DADT is on its way out, it is not only an ethically sound move, but a politically wise move as well.  Polls show solid support for overturning the policy.  President Obama could show decisive leadership with a move that may seem more controversial than it actually is.  He could help shore up his base, which was on the low end of the "enthusiasm gap" in the Mass senate race.  And in case White House officials get cold feet, they should remember that the first George Bush temporarily suspended the law barring gays from the military service during the Gulf War with little controversy.

Whatever is said during the State of the Union address, I hope Joe "You Lie" Wilson will act like a member of Congress this evening and not a spectator at a hockey game.

The Night After in Massachusetts

For those of us who are proud progressives, the last few days have been hard.  Very hard.  There is no silver lining.  (I joked to a friend that there is only a Brown lining.)  But we also shouldn't wildly project into the future a disaster for progressives that isn't based in reality.  A few things:

1. Nothing is permanent in politics.  After the last presidential election, I remember listening to pundit after pundit talking about the demise of the Republican party.  One of my favorite progressives, Rachel Maddow, had a recurring piece on her show called "Republicans in Exile."  I didn't buy it.  A month is a lifetime in politics.  The Massachusetts race went from sure thing to upset in a matter of two weeks.  It is just as silly to predict that the Obama presidency and the Democratic rule in Congress is over.  The one thing we can bank on in politics is change.

2. The Democrats ran a lousy campaign in Massachusetts. We took voters for granted.  We assumed that the Democratic nominee was the de facto winner of the election.  The media did as well, and not just liberal sources.  Lesson here: never, ever do that again.  Voters want to be courted. They want to be asked for their vote.  And they want to know why they should vote for you. Quite simply, we did none of the above.

3. Scott Brown's victory is not at odds with Massachusetts history.  Every once in a while -- about once a decade -- a conservative candidate taps into voter anger.  Ed King, a conservative Democrat, defeated Michael Dukakis in his bid for reelection for governor in the primary in the late 1970's, then won the election. The state went for Reagan in the 1980's, in part because of anger.  In the 1990's, John Silber -- certainly one of the angriest candidates I've ever seen -- beat the popular Democratic Atty General, Frank Belotti, for the nomination for Governor.  What do these conservatives who tapped into voter anger have in common?  Their victories were short-lived. Dukakis came back and beat King four years later.  After Reagan, Massachusetts never voted for a  Republican president again.  The races weren't even close. John Silber lost the election for governor to an arguably more liberal Bill Weld, the Republican.

4. Independent voters won the election for Brown.  These are the same voters who not long ago supported Obama and Deval Patrick, two very fine campaigners, like Scott Brown, although these two campaigners have next to nothing in common with Brown.  The lesson?  Many independents are swayed by the personal narrative and the clarity of message of the candidate.  Scott Brown, like President Obama and Governor Patrick, provided both superbly.  Massachusetts independents have always been open to a progressive message.  We just have to provide one that is clear.

5. On the same day Scott Brown was celebrating his victory, Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife, announced her support of same-sex marriage.  Scott Brown may be anti-marriage equality (and anti- gay pretty much everything else) but the strident anti-gay voices in the Republican party are becoming fewer, or, at the very least, they are being balanced by important folks in the party. Rudy Giuliani recently told The New York Times that as far as same-sex marriage goes, it did not make much sense "to be harping on the issue if the party had any serious interest in returning to power."  Even Dick Cheney has recently come out in support of states that allow same-sex marriage.  The momentum is in our direction.


6. Scott Brown still represents a progressive state.  If Texas elected one progressive senator in a special election with an angry electorate, would we actually believe the state had permanently become left-wing?  One special election does not change the psyche of a state.  If Scott Brown wants to be reelected, he can only tow the conservative line so far.  I simply refuse to believe that voters will reelect a senator who significantly restricts a woman's right to choose, treats LGBT people as second-class citizens, and does nothing about health care but maintain the status quo.

7. The Democrats are neglecting their base.  I listened to interview after interview of reluctant progressives coming out to vote for Martha Coakley.  Who knows how many stayed home?  The Obama administration will have to do something to shore us up before the midterms if it wants to avoid disaster.

All for now. I know there are more issues than same-sex marriage, but this is the focus of this blog.  I'll get to those soon. Sure, I've been extremely blue about the red state behavior of Massachusetts.  But I'm coming out of my funk.  And it's not silver lining thinking.  There's some reality here to keep us on a steady course.

More Pressure on Obama Administration during Prop 8 Trial

Geoff Kors (left), Executive Director of Equality California, released a statement urging the Justice Department to issue an amicus brief supporting the elimination of Prop 8:

"The time has come for elected leaders to empower all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Once again, we call on the Obama administration to join Equality California and others in urging the federal courts to strike down this grossly unjust law. In doing so, we will bring our nation one step closer to realizing its promise of equality for all. Our country’s bedrock principles of  democracy and freedom are at stake."

The Administration's stance has become especially tricky since President Obama's words are being used  to support Proposition 8.  Unless the Justice Department comes out against Prop 8, the opponents of same-sex marriage will continue to use Candidate Obama's words opposing same-sex marriage to uphold discrimination in the California Constitution.

Now is the time, President Obama.   We need your help.

The passing of a remarkable woman: Ann Louise Nixon Cooper

When President-elect Obama addressed the nation on Election Night, he talked about a woman named Ann Louise Nixon Cooper.
He said, “She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing—Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons: because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.”

Ann Louise Nixon Cooper died last week. She was 107 years old.

Karen Bigsby Bates met Mrs. Cooper this summer to help her write her life story.  On the website The Root, the journalist tells us that Mrs. Cooper  “was born outside Nashville when there weren’t many cars on the road, when the memory of the Civil War was still fresh, when a black local official was unthinkable, let alone a black president. She came to Atlanta as the young bride of a freshly minted dentist from Meharry Medical College, and together they built a life of community service and social involvement.”

And engage in service she did.  One of her many projects was to start a Boy Scouts Troop for African American boys in the 1930’s.  She saw that none existed, so she  created one.

“We just did those things back then,” Mrs. Cooper explained. “We didn’t wait around for anyone to tell us whether or not we could. We did it because it was needed.”


James Withers, a contributing editor to the  blog 365gay, makes an important point about the LGBT rights movement and Mrs. Cooper’s attitude: “a decent movement can handle severe criticism; however, in all of the gloom and doom we forget the community, such as it is, has people and organizations who are not waiting around and doing good work because it is needed.”

We need more Ann Louise Nixon Coopers in this world.

Top LGBT events of 2009

Because everyone seems to love top ten lists, whether they be about movies or books or world events, I've done some thinking about the top LGBT events of 2009.  For years I've compiled lists like these in my mind.  Now that I have the chance to actually write one of these lists out, here it is!

It was a big year for LGBT rights.  It wasn't necessarily the best of times and the worst of times, but it most definitely was a mixed bag.  But a mixed bag is certainly better than a bag filled with coal.  Here, then, are what I consider the events that most affected the LGBT community in no particular order.  I'll do five today and five tomorrow.

1. Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States.  Nothing seemed to epitomize the state of LGBT rights better than the inauguration.  We finally had a gay friendly president in the White House.  But opening the ceremony was Rick Warren, a minister who did not allow LGBT people into his church and who compared LGBT relationships with incest.  Then again, openly gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson gave the invocation to the inaugural week.  But his prayer wasn't televised.

2. Marriage equality comes to New Hampshire, Vermont,  and Iowa. Both New Hampshire and Vermont had civil union laws on the book and both states expanded LGBT rights to marriages with a modicum of opposition.   These two victories should serve as a reminder that there are many ways to get to same-sex marriage rights, and civil unions may be oneof them. Same-sex marriage in Iowa was legalized through the Supreme Court.  And let's not forget Washington, DC, which will offer same-sex marriage in 2010 unless the US Congress steps in, something they are unlikely to do.  Remember this when we are lamenting about Maine, New York, and California. And let's no forget international progress, including the passage of a same-sex marriage bill in Mexico City.


3. Ted Kennedy dies.  It would be hard to find a politician who understood the nature of oppression and the difficulty in acquiring one's civil rights than Ted Kennedy.  He will be sorely missed.

4. Sean Penn wins the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Harvey Milk.  Not only was his characterization of Harvey Milk brilliant, in his speech at the Oscars in February he explained to millions of people why proposition 8 was deeply immoral.


5. Annise Parker is elected Mayor of Houston.  When the fourth largest city in th country -- and a Southern City at that -- elects an openly gay mayor, despite vicious attacks against her because of she is a lesbian, then it is time to celebrate.


  
Tomorrow: five more to add to the list.  Most likely written on the New York Thruway on our trip to Toronto.  I received a mobile modum for Christmas. Will it lead to convenience or obsession?  I'm afraid I already know the answer.

A blog entry I didn't want to write

It really saddens me to write this entry.  In October, I argued that we should be patient with the Democrats and President Obama about LGBT issues.  I'm still willing to be patient in repealing Don't Ask, Don't tell as well as the Defense of Marriage Act. I know President Obama has lots on his plate.  I'm willing to be patient, but my patience is wearing thin.  Recent news reports say that Democratic leaders will not address ANY LGBT concerns next year, for fear of losing seats in the Congressional elections.  Newsflash: after the health reform mess, Afghanistan, the lack of support for LGBT issues, the Democratic base might very well stay home next November.  We can actually learn from Republicans.  George Bush always rallied his base when things got tough.  The base responded.

Again, I'm patient about legislation.

But I'm not patient about obstructionist tactics that remind me far too much of the Bush Administration.  Case in  point: the recent resistance from the Obama Administration to follow a court order and allow health benefits for the partner of a lesbian federal employee.   Here are the facts:


1.  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (left) of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that one of its employees, Karen Golinski, (photo right; in pink) was eligible for spousal benefits for her partner.

2. The Obama Administration intervened, citing a potential violation of the "Defense of Marriage Act" -- a law Candidate Obama called "abhorent" during the election and promised to repeal.

3. Chief Judge Kozinski  -- a Reagan appointee! -- further concluded in a court order that, as described by Lambda Legal, "the Ninth Circuit MUST not discriminate against Karen Golinski with respect to the health insurance benefits portion of her compensation, and that the Separation of Powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the court to take appropriate steps to treat its workers fairly, and prevents employees of the Executive Branch from interfering with the functioning of the Judicial Branch in these circumstances."

4. The Obama Administration has ignored the court order and refuses to provide health care benefits to the lesbian couple.

I can be patient about laws.  I can even be patient about marriage.  It's one thing not to advance the agenda.  It's quite another to obstruct progress.  As of today, the Obama Administration has refused to even engage in legal arguments about the case.  Instead, it has stated -- on Friday afternoons, the dead time in the media -- that it will not comply with the court order.  If this were an issue that was more publicized, it could be considered a constitutional crisis. 

This attitude saddens me beyond belief.  When I voted for Candidate Obama, I knew he would disappoint many of us because expectations were just too high.  I understood that.  I knew that he would try to govern from the middle.  Still, my vote for him was the most enthusiastic vote of my life.  What I didn't expect -- and what shocks me -- is that his administration would actually be a roadblock to equality.


I hope the administration comes to its senses and realizes that it is acting in complete contradiction to the the "hope" message that propelled Barack Obama to victory.  If the Democrats regain their footing and realize what they should be about, I'll gladly be with them.  Until then, the "Proud to be a Democrat" bumper sticker comes off my car.

Is Hillary Clinton the "fierce advocate" we've been looking for?

Quietly yet deliberately, a major supporter of LGBT issues has emerged in the Obama administration. Her name is Hillary Clinton, and some blog and websites such as change.org have begun to make the case that she is the "fierce advocate" for LGBT people we've been looking for. In less than a year of becoming the US Secretary of State, Clinton has been a leader in promoting gay causes. Here are a few of the steps she has taken:

1. She pushed for the recognition of same-sex spouses for federal employees. And she won.

2. Shortly after she took office, the United States signed onto a UN statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

3. She was the first person in the Obama administration to speak out against the Anti-homosexuality law in Uganda.

4.On World AIDS Day, she emphasized how criminalization of homosexuality has only exacerbated the HIV pandemic

5.She declared that LGBT rights was the global human rights issue of today.

With the a number of pending laws throughout the world that could criminalize homosexuality, we need Secretary Clinton to be as forceful as ever.

A little exageration?

The other day I was driving home listening to NPR.  A program about the "tea bagger" movement caught my attention.  The program focussed on Texas "tea baggers," a group of rebels who have initiated a movement that, in part, opposes the power of the federal government.  Some tea baggers have even articulated a desire to leave the union. 

Then the program dug a little deeper, interviewing other people who were part of this movement.  One woman was asked what she didn't like about President Obama.  She responded with this statement: I don't think I've ever heard him say anything positive about the United States.

I listen to or read news many hours a day.  I've heard the passionate arguments of either side on so many debates.  But this statement --  I don't think I've ever heard him say anything positive about the United States -- really frightened me. Why?  It was so divorced from reality as to make me realize that there was no possibility of having a logical conversation with people.  

Think about it: I don't think I've ever heard him say anything positive about the United States.  Is it even conceivable that a candidate could win the election without saying anything positive about the US?  Even an election for town council? Is it even possible that someone could hear Obama's inauguration speech and still believe this is true?  Is it even possibly sane to consider Obama's Nobel Prize Speech and still believe this?

Of course it isn't.  Which is what makes it so scary.  In order to be seen as being positive about this country, what tea baggers believe is that you must never question or never criticize it.  Ironic, isn't it, since the tea baggers prime motive seems to be to tear down the federal government.  And they are the ones who are telling us that to be fully patriotic means that you must never doubt whether or not your country is right.  Unless, of course, the leader of the opposing party is president. Then all bets are off: tea baggers can scream and shout down and threaten to leave the union -- the very definition of unpatriotic.