Tea Party Leads Effort to Rescind Benefits For Same-Sex Couples

Chattanooga - a city where ignorance and bigotry prevail

If one wants evidence that the Tea Party movement is really nothing more than a re-branded version of Christofascism look no farther than Chattanooga, Tennessee, where Tea Party elements led the effort to rescind  a city policy that granted benefits to domestic partners.  In addition to revealing the Christofascist/Tea Party fusion the reversal of the city's policy underscores why marriage is needed for same sex couples nationwide.   Meanwhile, Chattanooga has sent a clear message to modern, progressive businesses that it is not a place they should consider relocating to.  Here are excerpts from Think Progress:

Voters in Chattanooga, Tennessee overwhelmingly decided Thursday to undo a recently passed law that extended health benefits to the domestic partners of city employees. With a vote of 13,685-8,184, the town overturned the law originally passed 5-4 by the City Council.

Signatures to overturn the law had been collected by a local Tea Party group and a political action committee called Citizens for Government Accountability and Transparency (CGAT). According to CGAT, the law unfairly extended benefits to “unmarried girl friends” and “unmarried boy friends” and would hurt the city’s budget. “It sets a financial precedent that will be difficult for the city of Chattanooga taxpayers to sustain long term,” they claimed. “As healthcare cost increase, the creation of a new benefit class will jeopardize the long term future of married spouse benefits for all city employees.”

Despite this setback in Chattanooga, Tennessee’s elections did include some good news. State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) lost his primary election to challenger Richard Briggs. Campfield had fiercely advocated for what infamously became known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would have prevented teachers from discussing homosexuality — thereby enabling anti-LGBT bullying and harassment — and forced school officials to out students to their parents. Campfield had compared homosexuality to injecting heroin and believed that AIDS originated in the gay community after somebody had sex with a monkey.

What is striking is how these "real Americans" decry the waning of America's position in the world when it is their chauvinism, rejection of modernity and embrace of ignorance that are driving the nation's decline. 

Corporate America: The LGBT Community's Most Powerful Ally

Here in Virginia corporations were not so long ago barred from offering domestic partner insurance benefits unless the corporations were large and basically self-insured.  What changed this?  Large corporations, including Capital One, demanding that the Virginia General Assembly repeal the ban and allow corporations to be competitive in recruiting the best talent and employees.  Another example of corporate America's blow back against anti-gay bigotry is the reason debacle in Arizona where GOP governor Jan Brewer was forced to veto a GOP backed bill.  Sadly, the Virginia GOP still has not gotten the larger message.  A piece in Metro Weekly looks at how corporate America has become, whether for the right reasons or not, become one of the LGBT community's most powerful allies.  Here are highlights:

While the debate over LGBT equality may continue to take place among the general electorate, that debate has reached its conclusion among corporate America. To be anti-gay increasingly means to be anti-business. 

According to Deena Fidas, director of the Workplace Equality Program for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the game-changing moment came when New York lawmakers approved marriage-equality legislation in 2011.

"That was really the first time there was a breakthrough of this being a relative fringe area of corporate support," Fidas tells Metro Weekly, noting that during the fight against Proposition 8 in 2008 only a handful of businesses weighed in. However, thanks to a collaborate effort by a number of LGBT-rights organizations, about 40 businesses from Wall Street to upstate New York publicly voiced their support for the state's same-sex marriage bill.

The tidal shift is apparent with adoption of nondiscrimination policies as well. In 2002, when HRC launched its Corporate Equality Index, which has come to serve as the national benchmark tool on corporate LGBT policies, only 13 businesses achieved a perfect score. In 2014 that number stands at 304 businesses. Among Fortune 500 companies, 91 percent have nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation and 61 percent include gender identity. Sixty-seven percent offer equivalent medical benefits between spouses and partners and 28 percent offer transgender-inclusive health care benefits, including surgical procedures. 

While the adoption of such inclusive policies has been on the rise, major corporations have also now begun to take their views on LGBT-rights out of the boardroom and into the public square. A month before the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, in March 2013, nearly 300 businesses and city governments, including major businesses such as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Starbucks, Morgan Stanley, Google and cities from Baltimore to Los Angeles, filed a brief with the Supreme Court calling for DOMA be struck down as unconstitutional. The brief argued in part that DOMA hurts workplace efficiency and employee morale, and thus forces employers to participate in the injury of their own workforce morale.

[W]hile many of these businesses have expressed a desire to be on the right side of history, their decision to take action on issues of equality is just as much pragmatic.

"As they've learned, there are a lot of very practical implications for businesses when we have uneven laws. There were very material challenges they were having to reconcile with differing state and federal tax systems," Fidas says. "So while there's certainly a more social justice and equality case to be made, there were also these very real administrative costs that were going toward renovating these uneven laws and how they impact the implementation of things like domestic partner benefits." 

But perhaps the greatest example of how powerful an alliance the LGBT community has forged with corporate America came this past February when lawmakers in Arizona approved anti-LGBT legislation that would have effectively made it legal for businesses to turn away customers due to their religious beliefs.

Brewer isn't the first member of a party with deep ties to the business community to find herself siding with equality following pressure from the nation's most profitable companies. Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, has invested millions of dollars into forging GOP support for issues such as LGBT workplace protections and marriage equality. More than 120 leading U.S. employers have joined HRC's Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness supporting passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

"My interactions with business leaders have shown me that corporations want to attract the broadest pool of talent possible," says Angelo. "When there are exclusionary policies explicitly stated in state laws or constitutions, or the absence of inclusionary policies as part of company policy, they find less of a chance to attract talented workers who also happen to be LGBT."

Walmart Extends Domestic Partnership Benefits to Gay Couples

Walmart is frighteningly America's largest employer, albeit many employees receive less than poverty level wages.  Now, in a move that may be aimed at improving the company's miserly image, Walmart is extending domestic partner benefits to its employees, including same sex couples.  One can already hear the exploding heads amongst the Christofascist "family values" organizations and expect calls for a boycott from the loons at American Family Association.  Of course, this would leave many overweight, stretch pants garbed "godly Christian" women in a shopping quandary if they are told to boycott Walmart.  The Daily Beast looks at the development.  Here are excerpts:

Walmart, the nation’s largest private-sector employer, the largest company in the U.S. by revenues, the firm that is No. 1 on the Fortune 500, has generally been resistant to progressive causes. Based in Arkansas, the conservative company has battled unions, higher minimum-wage laws, and health-care mandates. But this week it quietly extended benefits to domestic partners of employees—gay or straight.

Walmart didn’t stand up and unfurl a giant rainbow flag. With open enrollment season coming up, it sent out a postcard, reproduced below, announcing new items available for 2014: a vision plan, new information about quitting tobacco. Oh, and “full-time associates can cover any spouse or domestic partner.” Starting next year, Walmart employees who work more than 34 hours per week can have their domestic partners—gay or straight—covered under company-offered health insurance and that new vision plan. 

“The company is continually looking at its benefits programs and seeing what new features can be added,” said Randy Hargrove, a spokesman at Walmart. “Enrolling domestic partners is just one of the things that is being added.” According to a memo, the “full suite” of benefits also includes access to a discount card and spouse/partner life insurance.

Walmart’s move is a sign of how normal it has become for companies to acknowledge, welcome, and seek to embrace their gay employees..
The Human Rights Campaign says 62 percent of Fortune 500 companies have domestic partner health care benefits, up from 34 percent in 2002 and 53 percent in 2006. (Its corporate equality index can be seen here.) According to Mercer Consulting’s national survey of employer-sponsored health plans, the percentage of companies with more than 10 employers making coverage available to same-sex domestic partners rose from 25 percent in 2009 to 52 percent in 2011, and bumped up to 54 percent in 2012.  

The trend started in high-end professional services industries such as law, accounting, and finance, said Joan Smyth, partner at Mercer Consulting. “It was a higher-end white collar phenomenon.” But it has spread to lower-paying industries. The motivation is the same at the lower end of the labor market as it is at the higher end: to keep up with competition and remain an attractive employer. Political correctness has little to do with it. “It’s really a decision on the part of employers that they want to attract and retain employees and have a productive work force,” said Piro. “The question becomes, given the industry that you’re in, how do you go about attracting and retaining them? What kind of benefits do you have to provide?”

In retail, apparently, benefits for domestic partners—same sex and opposite sex alike—are what you now have to provide.

Companies have other reasons for extending such benefits. It gives much greater flexibility in recruiting employees to other states or moving employees from operations in one state to another. Employers such as General Electric or Bank of America often want to move employees from, say, New York to North Carolina and then to Iowa, and then on to California. The differential treatment of marriage by states may make some employees think twice about moving.

Companies generally have found that offering benefits to same-sex partners doesn’t inspire a backlash and really doesn’t cost that much. “Anecdotally I can tell you that the take-up rate is fairly small,” said Smyth. Typically, between 1 and 2 percent of employees take companies up on their offers.

Willaim & Mary Rector Warns Virginia on Gay Marriage Ban

William & Mary is one of Virginia's academic jewels and is also the second oldest university in America with only Harvard being older.  As such, William & Mary competes on a high level for the best faculty and researchers.  And now, William & Mary's outgoing Rector is warning that Virginia's ban on gay marriage will harm William & Mary and by extension, Virginia's other top colleges and universities because top academics simply will not want to take positions that would require moving to a socially backward, anti-gay state.  Ken Cuccinelli and his equally insane GOP ticket mates may scoff, but bigotry does carry a price.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post: 

Jeff Trammell, a D.C. lobbyist and gay Democratic activist, was elated when the Supreme Court ruled in late June that the federal government must treat legally married gay couples the same as married heterosexual couples.

But as the outgoing leader of the College of William and Mary’s governing Board of Visitors, Trammell also worried that the ruling would make Virginia’s vaunted public universities less attractive for gay academics.

The high court decision adds “a substantial incentive for our gay and lesbian faculty and staff to leave the Commonwealth’s public universities and colleges,” Trammell wrote to other Virginia higher education leaders in a June 26 e-mail, hours after the ruling was issued.

Trammell had earlier noted — in a letter on June 11 — that the presidents of the University of Virginia, George Mason University and William and Mary had pushed for the state to allow public universities to offer domestic partner health benefits in late 2009. That effort stalled after Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) took office in January 2010.

We already have lost valued gay and lesbian faculty to our competitors who do not discriminate. With changes in federal benefits soon available to legally married gay couples, we will lose more. Two able individuals told me [recently] that they are leaving for another state — one a top professor [in a science-technology field] and another a university administrator just recruited to Virginia a few years ago.

At a minimum, the state should immediately allow our public colleges and universities to offer health insurance and other equal benefits to the same-sex partners of their faculty and staff. The commonwealth is undervaluing our universities and their attractiveness to businesses that prize education. Everyone, Democrats and Republicans, needs to come together to end this discrimination.

Some gay and lesbian faculty and staff — including at the University of Virginia, George Mason, Virginia Commonwealth, Virginia Tech and William and Mary — have sent me their stories: senior professors whose partners had cancer and no health insurance; researchers who left the commonwealth, taking major grants with them; faculty who, unlike their straight colleagues, are paying out of their pockets for costly individual policies for their partners and who resent the discrimination; young professors and administrators who are looking to leave the state; and so forth.

The Catholic Church Heirarchy Steps Up Its Anti-Gay Jihad

Speaking of liars and hate merchants, Pope Benedict XVI and his sycophants in the Catholic Church hierarchy speak out of one side of their mouths that LGBT individuals should be treated with respect and dignity.  But then we see what they really believe as they seek to defame gays and deprive us of civil legal rights.  What am I talking about?  On the issue of defaming gays, African Cardinal Peter Turkson (pictured above), one of the top contenders for the papacy, has issued statements that seek to blame gays for the Church's worldwide sex abuse crisis.  Never mind the hierarchy's sick obsession with all things sexual and the warped psycho-sexual development of far too many seminarians.  Gay Star News looks at Turkson's anti-gay batshitery.  Here are highlights:

The African cardinal widely tipped to be the next pope has blamed the Catholic Church’s pedophilia on gay priests.  Cardinal Peter Turkson, from Ghana, said the sex abuses would never happen in Africa because the culture is against homosexuality.

Speaking to CNN, the 64-year-old said: ‘African traditional systems kind of protect or have protected its population against the tendency. ‘Because in several communities, in several cultures in Africa homosexuality or for that matter any affair between two sexes of the same kind, are not countenanced in our society.’ ‘So that cultural taboo, that tradition has been there,’ Turkson said. ‘It has served to keep it out.’

Never mind the fact that many experts on the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal expect that  before long a scandal similar to what has been seen all around the world will explode in Africa.  Indeed, the only reason that it hasn't exploded yet is because of the general ignorance and lack of education of most of the victims and their families.  When the sex abuse scandal does explode, I'm sure that once again Tuckson will blame it on the gays.  The real problem as often noted is the Church's bizarre and obsessive approach to all things sexual as symbolized by the image below:

I was raised as a Catholic, so I know all too well the obsession with sex and the evil nature and temptations of women.

Meanwhile the Church hierarchy continues its attack on any form of gay rights in America.  With the recent announcement that the Department of Defense will be extending some spousal benefits to gay service members and their families, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, and the vitriolic anti-gay Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco are throwing hissy fits that would out do the most outrageous drag queen.  The Navy Times looks at their efforts to undermine the goal of affording equal treatment to same sex couple headed military families.  What exposes the actions of these men as disingenuous bullshit is their supposed concern for children.  This from men who are part of the organization that has orchestrated a world wide criminal conspiracy to protect child rapists and obstruct justice.  Excuse me while I go make use of a vomit bag.  Here are excepts from the Navy Times article:

Two Catholic archbishops — one of them the archbishop of the military archdiocese — have expressed concern about the potential effects of the Defense Department’s new policy extending more benefits to same-sex domestic partners, to include negative effects on religious freedom and on children.

Broglio said the new policy could have possible negative effects on religious liberty, and used the example of an attorney in the Judge Advocate General Corps. “Could a JAG officer choose, out of religious or moral convictions, not to give legal advice on marital and family issues to same-sex ‘partners’ without being subject to discipline? Forcing the officer to violate his conscience would not be fair,” he said in the statement.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the bishops’ subcommittee for the promotion and defense of marriage, also expressed concerns about the policy’s potential effects on children.

Cordileone focused on the potential effects on children. “There is no question that all service members should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat different things differently. Only a man and a woman can bring children into the world, and so marriage, as the foundation of the family, by its very nature can only be between a man and a woman,” he said.

Under Cordileone's bizarre manifestation of concern for children, the children of same sex military couples would be deprived of benefits and legal rights and resources.  Sadly, it is not surprising that "princes of the church" such as Broglio and Cordileone - who are part of a criminal conspiracy involving crimes against children - would seek to harm the children of same sex couples one or both of whom is/are in the U.S. military.   And believe me, I know a number of same sex couples locally where one of the spouses is in the military.  Real couples and real children are harmed by the agenda of Broglio and Cordileone - just as real children were and are being harmed by the Vatican orchestrated conspiracy to protect child rapists.

   

Paul Ryan's Hometown Adopts Same Sex Domestic Partner Benefits

The past election campaign underscored that the GOP's would be reverse Robin Hood, Paul Ryan was out of touch with the values of most Americans - he even received a rebuke from the generally morally bankrupt Catholic bishops for his proposal to gut services to the poor and disadvantaged.  Now, it seems Ryan's utterly clueless behavior extends to being out of touch with the values of his own hometown, Janesville, Wisconsin, which in a 6-1 vote approved domestic partnership benefits for city employees and their partners.  Ryan in contrast is a huge opponent of LGBT rights.  The Wisconsin Gazette looks at this development.  Here are highlights:

The Janesville City Council on Nov. 12 approved a measure extending domestic partnership benefits to city and library employees and their partners.  The vote, according to Fair Wisconsin, was 6-1.  Janesville is the hometown of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s vice presidential candidate on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Katie Belanger of Fair Wisconsin issued a statement shortly after the vote. She said, “This decision marks an important victory for fairness. Janesville’s vision for creating an inclusive and welcoming workplace makes them a leader in our efforts to build a more fair and just state for all Wisconsinites.”

Other governments providing partnership coverage to their employees include the State of Wisconsin, the cities of Appleton, Racine, Eau Claire and Manitowoc, city and county of Milwaukee, and Marquette University.

Private sector employers in the state offering such coverage include SC Johnson, Kimberly-Clark, Aurora Health Care and MillerCoors.

Frankly, Mr. Ryan needs to get his head out of his ass and get with the 21st century.  And, if he's honest (admittedly a big if with a Republican demagogue), he cannot cite religious belief for his anti-gay posturing since his take from the poor and give to the rich policies totally disregard the Gospel message. 

Department of Justice Will Not Defend Laws Discriminating Against Gay Servicemembers

In a move that is going to drive the Christofascists berserk and send gallons of spittle flying, the U. S. Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer defend laws that seek to deny legally married same sex couples benefits extended to heterosexual service members. Why? Because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. LGBT service members risk their lives, sacrifice their individual freedom and subject their families to the travails of having a member of the military in the family just as heterosexual services members do. And believe me, with a daughter engaged to a member of the U.S. Army and an office receptionist married to a member of the U.S. Navy (not to mention the LGBT servicemembers I know and their spouses), I see daily the sacrifices that these individuals make and the burdens it places on spouses. The ONLY rationale behind the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is a combination of anti-gay animus and religious based discrimination. Thank goodness that the Obama DOJ has finally opened its eyes to the reality of DOMA. Here are highlights from Talking Points Memo:

The Obama Justice Department has concluded that legislation banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment and will no longer defend the statute in court, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday.

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

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

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

Yes, indeed, the Christianists and their groveling political whores in the Republican Party are going to go berserk. Here's Attorney General Holder's letter (click the images to enlarge):

DADT Discharges May End, But Discrimination Might Not

The demise of DADT is a huge issue in this area of Virginia with its huge number of military service members in all branches of the U.S. military, but especially the Navy. While things seem to be on track - albeit far to slowly in my view - there are still numerous concerns as to (1) a lack of enforceable anti-discrimination protections and (2) questions as to how the partners (and in some cases, legally married spouses) of service members will be treated. Unfortunately, with DOMA in place and still being defended by or faux "fierce advocate" in the White House,LGBT service members may still remain second class citizens even if allowed to openly serve in the military. Of course, behind all of the continued bigotry is the - in my view - unconstitutional special rights given to conservative Christian religious beliefs in this nation. Equality Matters has a piece that looks at the likely continued problems that will face LGBT service members. Here are some highlights:
*
President Barack Obama and Defense Department officials are preparing to provide lesbian and gay service members the space to serve openly without risking expulsion while simultaneously affording them absolutely no legally enforceable anti-discrimination protections once they are visible.
*
Sure, they may not be at risk for being discharged after implementation, but they will have no means of sustainable legal recourse if they are discriminated against in any other way (or if the political environment shifts) on the basis of their sexual orientation
*
President Obama could make all this go away with an executive order that categorically prohibits discrimination against gay service members. When I asked a White House spokesperson why the president would not issue that mandate, he said on DOD had developed "clear policy guidance"the matter.

*

Somehow Obama's assurances that DOD has adopted "policy Guidance" gives me little comfort that LGBT service members will receive full equality. Yes, DADT repeal is a good step, but there's still much to be done.

DADT Repeal Implementation Plan To Be Released Friday

The Army Times is reporting that the Pentagon will release a plan Friday that is expected to give the U. S. military services about three months to train troops before DADT will be fully implemented. I can just hear the shrieks emanating from the delusional Elaine Donnelly and similar professional gay haters. With DADT gone, one has to wonder what Ms. Donnelly will do with herself. Imagine, she might even have to get a real job - the horror!! Frankly, given that thousands of gays are already serving in the military - the local troop ranks are full of them - the only training that would seem to be needed is making it plain to bigots and Christofascists that gays can serve in the military whether the haters like it or not and that either they get on board with repeal or they, not the gays, need to get out of the military. Here are some story highlights:
*
The plan, they said, will outline the personnel, recruiting and other regulations that must be changed. It will describe three levels of training for the troops, their commanders and the key administrators, recruiters and other leaders who will have to help implement the changes.
*
Under that training schedule, full implementation of the law could begin later this summer. Once the training is complete, the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ ability to fight. Sixty days after certification, the law would take effect.
*
The changes affect how troops are recruited, trained and discharged, as well as how same sex partners will be treated in terms of various health and other benefits. Some will be easy to implement. For example, recruits will no longer be turned down because they are gay.
*
But others involving benefits, housing and the execution of the training program will be more complex. According to officials, the training will be broken into three categories. One will be for administrators and other leaders who will have to be able to answer detailed questions about the new policy. The second will be for senior commanders who will have to enforce the policies and also be on the lookout for signs of unease or problems among service members.
*
The third group will be the general training for the troops. That is the one that is expected to be the most difficult to complete because service members are scattered around the world, and many are in various phases of deployment to war or heading home.
*
Advocates for gays have called for quick action. “For years, experts have said that a swift repeal process, accompanied by strong leadership, is the best way to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center, a California think tank, said Wednesday. “In promising ... to implement the repeal of the ban this year, President Obama has demonstrated leadership and committed to the path that has been proven to be best not only for gay service members, but for all of those who currently serve.”

After DADT's Demise, Will There Be Equal Rights for Gay Servicemembers?

With the demise of legalized discrimination against LGBT in the form of DADT, the Christianists next biggest fear is that - oh the horror - gay service members might come to have their relationships with their life partners recognized somehow, be it in the form of spousal benefits or other form. First and foremost in the Christianists agenda is to do everything possible to keep LGBT citizens - and service members - treated as second class citizens. Nothing helps them bootstrap their religious bigotry toward quasi-respectability more than to be able to point to laws and government policies that stigmatize and discriminate against LGBT citizens. With DADT now thankfully headed to the trash heap of history, the U. S. military has the opportunity to distinguish itself by how it treats gay service members henceforth. Will DOMA be used as an excuse for continued unequal treatment, or will better angels prevail? An op-ed in the Washington Post by a 20 year service member argues that the military should lead the nation by example. Here are some highlights:
*
Despite all of the controversy, repealing "don't ask, don't tell" was the easy part. Politics aside, it takes no courage to simply right a wrong. The president and members of Congress have been congratulating themselves for doing the right thing. But minds should be turning to the difficult questions that remain. These are the same questions that vex our society when it comes to equal rights for homosexuals. They cross over into the "gray areas" where some start to feel uncomfortable and where the legal options are ambiguous.
*
It is, for example, one thing to hand a gay junior sailor a paintbrush and point him toward a rusty bulkhead. But can that gay sailor, if he has a partner, collect the same housing allowance his married counterparts do? Can a lesbian sailor request to be stationed where her partner is? Will the military recognize a marriage between two service members that is legal in one state but not in another?
*
I hope that my brothers and sisters in the armed forces can help the Defense Department set standards for the rights of gay men and lesbians that far outpace the conflicted sentiment and resulting legal tangle in our society. This is an opportunity to show all Americans that homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law. This applies not just in some cases or with limitations but to the full rights all Americans should share when it comes to legal matters such as marriage, salary and tax benefits.
*
[T]he repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" means that there may be quiet instances of a lesbian sailor telling a shipmate that she is gay, or a gay sailor saying that his plans for the weekend include going on a trip with his partner. Such statements are likely to be met with shrugs, and everyone will go back to getting the mission done. But just because these moments no longer risk automatic discharge does not mean that gay and lesbian service members have equality.
*
The Pentagon must be clear about treating all members of the U.S. military equally, which means that it must recognize gay marriage as legal and a right of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine. These rights almost must extend to their spouses, just as they do to the spouses of straight servicemen and women, to include health care, retirement benefits, GI Bill eligibility and commissary privileges.
*
I fully agree with the column's author, Chris Patti. However, we can unfortunately be assured that the Christianists and self-enriching professional Christians will do everything possible to derail such equality. Once again, hate and bigotry will likely be the face of Christianity experienced by LGBT citizens.

Gay Marriage Bans Lead to Lack of Health Insurance

A week or so ago I mentioned that Optima Health, one of the large local health insurance carriers, doesn't allow domestic partners to be added to one's coverage under its small business group plans - a category that likely covers thousands of local business - even though Virginia law belatedly now allows such coverage. It's yet another example of this country's f*cked up health care system. It is also another example of the consequences of religious based bigotry against LGBT Americans both by the government and private corporations like Optima Health and its parent company Sentara Health Care Systems. If I had a sham marriage with a woman, I'd have not problem giving her coverage. In the case of a same sex couple, with Optima Health you're SOL. My experience is not unique as demonstrated by a new study of Californians by Lambda Legal and the Department of Health Services at UCLA. Here are highlights of the findings via 365gay.com and Health Affairs:
*
Central to the debate on benefit equality are factors affecting who has access to dependent employer-sponsored health insurance. Employees who are legally and heterosexually married have an advantage over those in registered or nonregistered domestic partnerships, in civil unions, or legally married to a same-sex spouse in obtaining insurance from employers that covers dependents. This happens in two ways.
*
Advantages For The Legally, Heterosexually Married First, many employers do not offer coverage for an employee’s unmarried domestic partner, civil-union spouse, or legal same-sex spouse, regardless of state laws calling for equal insurance treatment of same-sex partners. And when employers do offer same-sex partner/spousal coverage, there are often unequal eligibility rules, such as requiring cohabitation of varying duration and proof of financial entwinement. Heterosexual married couples do not face such scrutiny and are free to live in separate households should career or other needs require it.
*
Second, in contrast to benefits acquired through heterosexual marriage, the federal and most state governments treat dependent benefits for domestic partners, civil-union spouses, and same-sex spouses as taxable earned income. This means that dependent coverage for same-sex partners is not equivalent in price to insurance provided for heterosexual married partners. Even in states with equal marriage laws or civil union/domestic partner protection, the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) of 1996 keeps the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages. Thus, all same-sex couples face a federal income tax burden on dependent employer-sponsored health coverage, and sometimes a state income tax burden as well, regardless of their marital or partnership status under state law.
*
The research shows that the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriages and the lack of insurance equity in domestic partnerships “contribute to unequal access to health coverage, with the probable result that more health spending is pushed onto these individuals and onto the public.”
*
When an employer’s insurance plan does not cover the employee’s same-sex partner, that partner is often left uninsured. In these cases, the partners are dependent on public insurance options, shifting the cost of their insurance to taxpayers.
*
“The data from over 100,000 Californians is the first to quantify dependent coverage disparities by sexual orientation,” said Professor Ninez A. Ponce, the principal UCLA co-author. “By not allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry, and not respecting their status when they are married, government invites the private sector to pass the costs of discrimination onto families and communities.”
*
I guess the only silver lining is the fact that the Christianists who oppose same sex marriage are too stupid to figure out that they are unknowingly causing themselves to have to indirectly pay for health care costs of uninsured gays. Obviously, it serves the bastards right.

Mecklenburg County's Bill James Responds To "Homo" Comments

If one wanted to find a stellar example of the callous, mean spirited, and homophobic mindset of the typical Christianist who cares nothing for others and cares nothing for the religious beliefs of others, one would not need to look beyond Mecklenburg County, North Carolina County Commissioner Bill James (pictured at left). My former partner lives in the Charlotte area and sent me a link to a story about James' refusal to apologize for horrible comments he made to a fellow Commissioner, Vilma Leake, who lost her gay son to AIDS. James' comments were outrageously cruel and what's even more outrageous is that he will not apologize to a mother who has lost a child. Unfortunately, behavior like James' seems to be the norm rather than the exception among religious extremists of the far Christian Right. They are devoid of charity and devoid of even a minimal level of common decency, not to mention Christian love. Pam Spaulding has a good take down on James here. Meanwhile, here are highlights from Fox News Charlotte that show the vileness of James' comments:
*
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James has responded after referring to another commissioner's son as a 'homo' during Monday night's debate on domestic partner benefits. During the discussion, Commissioner Vilma Leake, a Democrat, spoke in support of providing benefits for the domestic partners of county workers in same-sex relationships.
*

Shortly after Leake's speech, James could be heard (on recorded audio) saying the following:
*
James: "Your son was a homo?"
*
Leake responded, "Don't make me hurt you. Don't do that to me. Don't talk to me about my son."
*
Following the incident, FOX Charlotte received a statement (via email) from Bill James, who says, "I can type but I can't talk." In the statement, James says:
*
"Vilma is a religious hypocrite."
*
"She was married to a Bishop in the AME Zion church. This church has historically opposed homosexuality."
*
"In justifying her position last night in public she used her son’s ‘lifestyle’ and his death from HIV-AIDS to justify voting for benefits to allow individuals to use tax dollars to engage in the same behavior that resulted in her son’s death."
*
"It is akin to someone whose son is an alcoholic and died from the disease, using his death from drinking as justification to have the taxpayers pay for more booze."
*
"Her position was that her ‘faith’ demanded that she do this to support her son and his ‘lifestyle’ which she acknowledges killed him."
*
"In doing so, it is legitimate to ask her what ‘lifestyle’ and in particular whether her son was a homosexual. Her response was to threaten me with physical violence (typical for her). Of course, this isn’t the first time she has threatened elected officials. On the School Board she had a long and checkered history threatening to harm those she disagrees with."
*
"Well, if she didn’t want to make her ‘son’ an issue – why did she use him, his lifestyle and his tragic self-inflicted death from AIDS as the reason for her vote?"
*

Pardon me, but if anyone is a religious hypocrite, it's James, not Ms. Leake. But then again, James is all too typical of the Christianists who wrap themselves in religion yet act in the most henious and insensitive ways towards others. WWJD?

Anti-Gay Inequality Bad for Business - Even in Alabama

Interestingly enough the University of Alabama Birmingham has figured out something ignored by states like Virginia and politicians like Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Ken "I'm a Kook" Cuccinelli - treating LGBT employees with equality and equal employment opportunities and benefits is good for business and makes for a more competitive position in attracting top talent. Alabama, like Virginia, is abysmal in the manner in which it treats its LGBT citizens. Nonetheless,the University of Alabama Birmingham - which includes the state's flagship medical school - wants to extend extend health insurance benefits to same-sex partners beginning on January 1, 2010. Why? Because the University is losing staff and finding itself uncompetitive in the recruiting market. Would be faculty don't like the inequality faced by LGBT faculty. I have argued time and time again that states and localities that treat their LGBT citizens like second, third or fourth class citizens are ultimately condemning themselves to economic mediocrity. Unfortunately, demagogues like Bob McDonnell refuse to see that reality. Here are some highlights from Al.com:

*

The University of Alabama at Birmingham will extend health insurance benefits to same-sex partners beginning Jan. 1 in a move officials said was designed in part to help it compete with top medical schools when recruiting faculty.

*
Faculty and staff were able to enroll same-sex partners and their children in medical, dental and vision plans for the first time earlier this month, for coverage beginning in the new year. The move makes UAB the first of the big three universities in Alabama to offer domestic partner benefits to staff and faculty. Neither the University of Alabama nor Auburn University offer such benefits, though UA is studying the issue, spokespersons for those schools said.

*

Dale Turnbough, a UAB spokeswoman, said the change was made "to create a positive, supportive and diverse work environment," and to help the school compete for new faculty with other National Institute of Health-funded medical schools. Most top medical schools, including Vanderbilt, Duke and Johns Hopkins offer such benefits, she said.

*

The expansion of benefits to domestic partners comes several months after the release of a UAB film student's documentary about the impact of the lack of benefits on the university. In the film "One Closed Door After Another" UAB faculty members and employees said the school was losing top talent, or not getting the opportunity to seriously recruit top talent, because competing schools offered same-sex partners health coverage. They also discussed how the lack of coverage for their partners affected their own lives.

*

Personally, I would never move back to Alabama since the state seems to have become increasingly homophobic - maybe all the rational liberals are leaving the state - and treats its LGBT residents worse than Virginia. Something that takes some real effort. Here's a clip from the documentary. Bob McDonnell, are you listening???*

"Protecting Marriage" Lies

The anti-gay Christianist and Mormon organizations have gone to great lengths to disseminate the message that they are not anti-gay and are merely motivated out of a desire to "protect marriage." Sadly, many in the media out of a combination of stupidity - remember, anchor are typically hired for looks, not intelligence - and laziness let these disingenuous statements go unchallenged and do not look at the true actions of the alleged "Christian" organizations and the professional Christian set. In reality - if one will bother to look - is that their actions and opposition to ANY rights for gay citizens tell the true story. Right Wing Watch has a story that looks at the intentional and totally disingenuous lengths these false Christians go to in order to blur the lines between civil rights and religious rights in their effort to deceive the voting public. Here are a few highlights:

*

There are many different definitions of marriage. For most Americans, marriage is a couple’s public commitment to love, care for and take responsibility for one another and for their families. As a legal matter, marriage is a civil institution regulated by state governments, an institution accorded recognition and protection in a variety of ways. Marriage is also a religious institution, defined differently by different faiths and congregations.

*

In America, the distinction can get blurry because states permit clergy to carry out both religious and civil marriage in a single ceremony. Religious Right leaders have exploited that confusion by claiming that granting same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage would somehow also redefine the religious institution of marriage. Like many other Religious Right political strategies, this is grounded in falsehood and deception.
*

It is important to note that there are denominations and congregations whose religious views embrace marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples. In the absence of civil marriage equality, clergy from those denominations and congregations are essentially made unwilling enforcers of inequality, because they cannot offer all the couples who come before them the same services.

*

This memo focuses on the Right’s persistent, purposeful blurring of the distinction between religious and civil marriage. This blurring serves several of the Right’s purposes: it falsely frames marriage equality as a threat to churches’ freedom, independence, and integrity, and it encourages voters to think they must choose between religious liberty and the constitutional principle of equality under the law.

*

Those who portray civil marriage equality for same-sex couples as a grave threat to churches’ religious liberty are not being truthful or consistent. There are no high-profile campaigns to make divorce or remarriage illegal, or claims by church leaders that legal recognition of second or third marriages -- or interfaith marriages, or civil marriages between people of no faith at all -- is somehow an assault on their own religious liberty.

*

Also telling as to the real agenda of the Christianist/Mormons are the remarks made recently in connection of extending partner benefits to employees, something that has zero involvement with marriage rights. As noted in a prior post weasel look alike Gary Bauer made the following remark recently which demonstrates that the reality is that our foes want us to have no legal right whatsoever or better yet be targeted as inferiors:

*

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative advocacy group, said that if Obama extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, he would "provoke a furious grass-roots reaction, reinvigorate the conservative coalition and undermine his efforts to portray himself as a moderate on social issues."

Colorado Bill Calls Gop/Christianist Bluff

Just as I described how gay rights activists in Utah are calling the bluff of the Mormon Church which has issued disingenuous statements that it is not against civil rights for LGBT citizens, so too are some politicians in the Colorado Legislature who have introduced a bill which would make it easier for unwed couples - including same sex couples - to plan their estates and share benefits in times of tragedy. The disingenuous GOP members of the legislature who claim to not be anti-gay and homophobic are now back peddling mightily from past statements alleging that they believed certain basic protections should be afforded LGBT couples? Why? Because (1) their Christianist masters are demanding it to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and (2) I suspect that they never thought that they'd be confronted with having to vote on the issue. Life's a bitch when your held to statements you did not really mean. Here are some highlights from the Denver Post:

*

A bill that would make it easier for unwed couples to plan their estates and share benefits in times of tragedy is certain to touch off a gay-rights debate at the Capitol. Unwed couples can already designate each other as emergency decision makers, ensure that property goes to their partners if they die and list each other as health insurance beneficiaries. But the process for sharing these and other benefits is a costly and complicated series of contracts, said bill sponsor Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver.

*
His bill, to be filed later this week, would give couples the option of dropping by their local county clerk's office and filling out a check-off form stating which rights they want their partners to have. It's a benefit to same-sex couples, and Ferrandino expects a fight, but he said others would benefit as well.

*

In 2006, socially conservative lawmakers like Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, proposed similar legislation allowing so-called "designated beneficiary agreements." At the time, a ballot battle loomed over Referendum I, an initiative to legalize domestic partnerships and confer spousal rights on committed, same-sex couples.

*
The bill was seen by critics as a way to undercut the initiative and by proponents as a common-sense way to grant atypical households some basic rights. The bill and the referendum failed. This time around, Mitchell says the fact that the agreements would be open to heterosexual couples amounts to "marriage light or shacking up heavy." Either way, he's opposed, he said. The intent of his 2006 bill was "not to compete with or dilute marriage," Mitchell said. "It's a step in the wrong direction."

U. S. Senate Considers Gay Partner Benefits for Federal Employees

A bill introduced in the United States Senate would equalize employment benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal employees. No doubt the Christianist wing nuts will go berserk as only they can. Maybe James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye and Tony Perkins at FRC will have aneurysms (one can hope, after all). As reported by PageOneQ, this bill has 19 co-sponsors in the Senate. It would be nice to see the bill pass, but given how other pro-gay rights bills are languishing in Congress, I will not be holding my breath. Here are some highlights:

S.2521, also known as the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, was introduced Wednesday by Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and 19 co-sponsors. The legislation seeks to grant health benefits, family medical leave, long-term care and retirement benefits, to match those of married couples, to the domestic partners of federal employees.

"The federal government should be leading the way rather than following when it comes to providing benefits," says Senator Smith. "Rights and benefits must be afforded to all employees equally. This bill corrects the current inequity." "It's time for the federal government to catch up to the private sector," adds Senator Lieberman, "not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment."

The bill's 19 co-sponsors are:
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]

Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]

Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]

Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]

Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]

Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]

Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]

Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]

Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]

Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]

Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]

Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]

Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]

Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]

Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

The full story on the proposed federal legislation can be found here: http://pageoneq.com/news/2007/Senate_considers_gay_partner_benefits_for_federal_emp_1220.html

Latest UPS Updated

Since posting previously about UPS's domestic partner benefits in New Jersey, Lynnette McIntire at UPS has kept me updated on developments. Here is her latest e-mail to me:

Several weeks ago, you expressed interest in UPS’s stance on same-sex benefits. There’s an update on the situation that I thought you might want to know about. After consulting with state officials and others, we have determined that we can now legally offer same-sex benefits to our Teamster union employees in N.J. This extends the benefits we already offer our management and administrative employees there. Attached is a press release announcing this development.

http://pressroom.ups.com/pressreleases/current/0,1088,4913,00.html

Lynnette McIntire

UPS Public Relations

Ruling Could Have Serious Impact On Partner Benefits

365gay.com is reporting a Massachusetts federal court ruling that could, if upheld on appeal, allow employers to circumvent stricter state law legislation:

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination had ruled that Jason Webster was the victim of bias based on his sexuality but U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled the commission had no authority to investigate the case. Tauro, in his written ruling, said that federal law trumps the tougher Massachusetts anti-bias statute. Sexuality is not covered under federal law.

Because Boston-based Partners pays employees’ medical bills itself instead of purchasing outside health insurance it falls under the federal employee benefits law known as ERISA Tauro ruled. He said that ERISA plans are governed by federal anti-bias law, not state statutes. States, he ruled, cannot "tell plans [under ERISA] who can and must be beneficiaries. If courts allowed such results, differing state laws could quickly make it difficult to administer a fair, uniform plan."

Webster had the support of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the law firm that won the 2004 Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage, in his lawsuit. "The present action could have profound repercussions for all lesbians and gay men who are employed and in committed relationships whether married or not," said GLAD attorney Nima Eshghi. "We don’t believe [the federal law] should give employers a free pass to avoid state anti-discrimination laws."

UPS denies gay partner benefits

I have been contemplating the service my firm uses for overnight delivery services. It appears that UPS just took itself off of the list of possible replacement carriers.

A company that provides health care coverage to married gay couples in Massachusetts has denied the same benefits to a couple who entered a civil union in New Jersey. United Parcel Service's decision to deny coverage to a Toms River couple boils down to a single word: New Jersey law does not call them "spouses."

"We were supposed to be treated equally. We should be treated equally," said Heather Aurand, who was denied health care coverage by UPS, which employs Aurand's civil union partner, Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier. In its letter denying coverage, UPS said it does provide health benefits to its employees' spouses, including spouses of the same sex who are married in Massachusetts. But it said New Jersey's decision to recognize same-sex relationships as civil unions rather than marriages tied its hands.

UPS's explanation is pretty lame inasmuch as even here in Virginia - hardly a gay friendly state, a number of corporations provided gays with domestic partnership benefits. Sounds to me like UPS is merely trying to save money. See the full story at: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/118386914994430.xml&coll=1&thispage=1

Homophobia Alive and Well in Hampton Roads

Some of the comments on the Virginia Pilot web site in respect to yesterday's article on the newly formed Hampton Roads Business Out Reach clearly show why this area continues to be a relative backwater notwithstanding its fairly large population (i.e., over 1.6 million people). Neither progressive businesses nor the so-called "creative class" that develops innovations and is accepting of differences are going to come to an area dominated by knuckle dragging Bible beaters. Here's a sampling of what the Neanderthals had to say:

National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Stop it before it starts. We already have enough damaging ethics going around now to damge our children growing up. We do not need to teach our kids that this kind of behavoir is normal!~(or right in any way) - James M. - Virginia Beach National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (view comment)

I Don't Think So. Only "simple" organisms are capable of asexual reproduction. God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and "Steve"!! So why promote this abomination in business? - Tracey E. - Chesapeake

Want to know. I'm happy to see that we will now be able to learn which businesses cater to homosexuals. Those places were "I" will not spend amy of my money! So go ahead , keep me advised. - zeno n. - chesapeake

I am sure that these homophobes would be shocked to know that even Wal-Mart now rates a 65% score on the Human Rights Campaign corporate score card and, among other things, offers the following gay-friendly programs and policies (I guess zeno will have nowhere to shop now):


1. includes “sexual orientation” in its equal employment opportunity policy.

2. provides diversity training on sexual orientation.

3. offers at least one transgender wellness benefit.

4. provides domestic partner dental, vision, dependent and COBRA coverage onpar with spousal benefits.

5. supports a GLBT employee resource group OR company has a GLBT-inclusivediversity council.

6. has directed appropriate marketing or philanthropy toward the GLBT community.

I wish I could send these jerks a copy of the photo posted above - perhaps they'd blow a gasket.