Friday, July 17, 2015
WASHINGTON – A Michigan congressman today proposed to do formally what the U.S. Supreme Court effectively accomplished last month: take the gender references out of the federal tax code.
U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak, introduced legislation intended to make clear that all married couples, regardless of gender, are equal under the tax code, removing gender references such as “husband and wife” and replacing them with nongender references like “married couple.”
Transgender people in Ireland have won legal recognition of their status after a law was passed allowing them to change their legal gender with no medical or state intervention.
The majority of countries in Europe require transgender people to undergo surgery and sterilisation, or be diagnosed with a mental disorder and get divorced if they are married, in order to have their desired gender legally recognised.
The gender recognition bill, passed late on Wednesday and set to be signed into law by the end of July, makes Ireland only the third European country, after Denmark and Malta, to allow transgender people aged over 18 to change their legal gender without intervention.
The bill was passed months after the people of Ireland backed same-sex marriageby a landslide in a referendum that marked a dramatic social shift in a country that decriminalised homosexuality just two decades ago.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
HONOLULU — Gov. David Ige signed a bill Monday that will allow transgender men and women in Hawaii to more easily change the gender on their birth certificate.
The new law eliminates the requirement that someone must undergo gender reassignment surgery before officially making the switch.
"I know that this has been a tough issue," Ige said. "As all of you know, the birth certificate is one of those foundation documents."
Many in the transgender community can't afford or don't want to undergo costly surgeries. But having a birth certificate that reflects their gender expression is critical for school transcripts, job applications, health insurance and many other aspects of life, advocates said.
"With this new law, it's life-changing," said Tia Thompson, 30, of Honolulu, who was denied a birth certificate that reflects her female gender identity. "Words cannot express what's going on."
Monday, July 13, 2015
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — It’summer wedding season, and as couples prepare to say “I do,” some lawmakers have been looking to change hundreds of laws on the books.
As CBS2’s Lou Young reported, a proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives would remove the terms “husband” and “wife.”
In White Plains, the sculpture “Contact” by J. Seward Johnson depicts a man and woman embracing. They are married – as the rings on their fingers demonstrate.
But are they “husband and wife?” Are they “two spouses?” Does it matter?
“I’m a husband. I’m married to a wife,” said James Kindro of Ardsley, “and if you want to say ‘married couple,’ I really don’t bother me one way or the other.”
The recent revolution in same-sex unions has prompted a proposal to gender-neutralize federal law, deleting references to “husband and wife” and opting for “spouse” or “married couple.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Casey Hoke would spend an average of two minutes out of his seven-hour school day in the restroom. “That’s it. Business as usual. No one bats an eye,” Hokewrote in January, back when he was a high-school senior in Louisville, Kentucky. “How we go about our business is none of yours.”
By “we,” Hoke was referring to transgender students. He was primarily addressing Kentucky’s legislature, which at the time was considering a bill that would’ve cracked down on transgender students’ use of K-12 bathrooms. The legislation would’ve legally required schools to ensure that children follow anatomical conventions when using gender-segregated school facilities: that children who were born boys but identify as girls use the boys’ restroom, and vice versa. What Hoke found particularly egregious about the “Kentucky Student Privacy Act” was that, in its original version, the legislation also would’ve entitledstudents who sued offenders in state court to damages of $2,500 each. Hoke compared this proposed system to a witch hunt.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin and GOP presidential hopeful, publicly condemned the Supreme Court's recognition of gay marriage as a fundamental right. His sons--both college students--were "disappointed" by their father's intolerance. From WaPo:
In the political world, Walker drew immediate scrutiny for being particularly strident. In their house, Tonette Walker heard immediately about her husband’s response from the couple’s two sons, Matt and Alex, who are taking time off from college to help their father’s campaign. She told them to talk directly to him.
“That was a hard one,” Tonette said, pausing and choosing her words carefully. “Our sons were disappointed. . . . I was torn. I have children who are very passionate [in favor of same-sex marriage], and Scott was on his side very passionate.”
“It’s hard for me because I have a cousin who I love dearly — she is like a sister to me — who is married to a woman, her partner of 18 years,” she said.
She said her son Alex was her cousin’s best man at their wedding last year.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage. I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.”
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do — redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”
“The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.”
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
“The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.”
“This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.”
“The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.”
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum
“This is a watershed moment in American history. It’s the most egregious rejection of traditional values and the Bill of Rights since Roe v. Wade.”
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The graph below was lifted from an Atlantic essay that shortly predated the Supreme Court's announcement regarding gay marriage.
White evangelical Protestants and Mormons are the only two groups in which majorities of younger members do not support same-sex marriage. But even among these most conservative groups, the generation gaps are yawning. And it is striking that among young white evangelical Protestants, opposition falls short of a majority.
Whether or not the Supreme Court deals the final blow to the culture war over same-sex marriage next week, public opinion trends indicate—and the public overall perceives—that the days of the decades-long debate over this issue are numbered. In light of that reality, both supporters and opponents of gay rights are already asking, “Then what?”
It looks as though the GOP has settled into two camps regarding gay marriage. One--the more conservative--represented by Carla Fiorina, and the other--less conservative--represented by Jeb Bush:
"Throughout the millennia and in every religion in the world, marriage has a very specific meaning. Marriage is an institution, grounded in spirituality. It is the union of a man and a woman, and from that union comes life, and life is a gift from God," Fiorina said at the Western Conservative Summit. "Now that this decision has come down, I think we need to focus all of our energies on ensuring that we protect the religious liberties and the freedom of conscience of those who profoundly disagree with this decision."
In Nevada, Jeb Bush told reporters he didn't think that a legislative push by Republicans for constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage was realistic.
"I don't think it's going to happen. I think we ought to focus just as I said on trying to forge consensus so we can move forward," Bush said. "The courts have decided traditional marriage still is a hugely important element of a just, loving society and we should respect people that have long-term loving relationships and allow people to act on their conscience."
In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Kennedy's rhetoric is elegant, and as a cultural document, his judicial opinion has been celebrated by many Americans--and many more will celebrate in the future. But as a teacher of constitutional law, I wish he hadn't combined the equal protection and due process arguments to strike down the ban against gay marriage.
Here's what Kennedy wrote:
It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.
The straightforward argument from equal protection would have been easier to make, in my view; the due process argument--the argument that gay marriage per se is constitutional--would appear more difficult to make.
Homosexuality would seem to satisfy all the conventional requirements to be deemed a "suspect classification" that triggers strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Gays are a discrete and insular minority; suffer stigma; have endured a history of discrimination; and their sexual orientation--like that of heterosexuals--is probably immutable.
There could have also been some political dividends to be gained from making the argument that gays are a vulnerable group who have been wrongly denied equal rights by a prejudiced majority.
But Kennedy's approach mushes things, and it will be harder for con law teachers to explain to their students what precisely he meant in terms of either due process or equal protection.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Instructors of legal writing may wish to take note of Justice Scalia's memorable prose in his dissenting opinion in the gay marriage cases (I have placed in bold especially colorful language):
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court....
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.
The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.
Justice Kennedy said gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry.
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”
And SCOTUS Blog commentary:
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
In a first, the NALSAR Law University in Hyderabad has issued a gender-neutral graduation certificate to a student who did not wish to be identified with honorific Mr or Ms but with "Mx".
Anindita Mukherjee, who graduated this year from the Law school, had requested the authorities to address her as "Mx" in her certificates and the university, which has probably become the first Indian educational institution to do so, accepted the "fact".
Mukherjee also prefers to be addressed as "they" rather than "he" or "she".
Note the "Mx." designation:
BabyCenter.com noticed thisemerging trend in its midyear report. Though gendered names like Noah and Emma remain super common, gender-neutral names like Amari, Karter, Phoenix, Quinn and Reese are rising in popularity too.
“As usual, baby names are reflecting a larger cultural shift,”says BabyCenter’s Global Editor in Chief Linda Murray. “Millennials are an open-minded and accepting group, and they don’t want their children to feel pressured to conform to stereotypes that might be restrictive.”
Monday, June 22, 2015
The Supreme Court will soon announce its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the gay marriage case.
SCOTUS Blog has covered some aspects of the case.
And reflections from the New Yorker:
"What does it feel like to have changed the world?” As the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage approaches, many long-time gay-rights advocates tell me that they are being asked this question. It speaks to more than Obergefell v. Hodges, the case before the Court, or even gay marriage, but to the dramatic increase in acceptance that L.G.B.T. people are experiencing. Take, for example, Ireland’s vote for marriage equality and Caitlyn Jenner’s warmly received coming out. Last month, a Gallup poll showed that sixty per cent of Americans agree that marriage between same-sex couples should be recognized as valid. That number is the highest it’s been in the nineteen years that Gallup has been asking the question."
And (I am responsible for the text in bold relief):
Other polling shows that almost two-thirds of Americans expect the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with its Obergefell ruling. (It is already legal in thirty-seven states.) Most Supreme Court experts agree, and even conservative strategists don’t really want the legal chaos and social backlash that a ruling that rolls back gay marriage could bring. Having the gay-marriage battle continue “isn’t necessarily helpful for Republican candidates who are trying to appeal to a wider section of voters than just social conservatives,” Ron Bonjean, once an aide to former Senator Majority Leader Trent Lott, of Mississippi,” told Bloomberg Politics last week.
To be sure, there has been an effort by some conservatives to oppose the Court's recognition of gay marriage, but the effort is couched in language that is conspicuously removed from the rhetoric of morality, a seeming concession, in its own way, to the validity of gay rights in the abstract.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is known for, among other things, technological innovation, the world's most efficient subway system, universities brimming with resourceful and creative minds, and, to some extent,.....its hatred against the LGBT community, a reminder of Korea's gothic remnants.
Seoul's mayor Park Won-soon is an LGBT ally, but in 2014 he caved to pressure from conservative Christians and decided to scrap his once plan to install a city-wide human rights charter that would protect LGBT folk.
|(Left photo) Participants attend the opening ceremony of the Korea Queer Festival 2015 at Seoul Plaza in downtown Seoul on June 9, holding up cards that say “We become stronger as we connect.” Protesters, meanwhile, hold a rally opposing the event in front of Deoksugung Palace near the plaza earlier in the day. (Yonhap)|
Recently, Seoul 's police department refused to permit an LGBT parade in the city. Conservative pastors were elated. But the city's administrative court declared the police decision unlawful, as no threat of imminent harm appeared to be presented by the parade. Moreover, the court noted that prejudice could not serve as a motivation to block the parade.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Interesting piece from the Boston Globe:
If we accept that gender is fluid — a reflection of some inexplicable spiritual thing inside of us — why not race? Why do we police the boundaries of blackness more rigorously than we police womanhood?
The general consensus seems to be that as much as we want to do away with racial differences and as deeply as we believe in race as a social construct, we can’t accept Dolezal as a black woman trapped in a spray-tanned blonde’s body.
“Rachel Dolezal . . . may be connected to black communities and feel an affinity with the styles and cultural innovations of black people,” Alicia Walters, a black woman from Spokane wrote in The Guardian. “But the black identity cannot be put on like a pair of shoes.”
But wait a minute. I thought we just agreed that the female identity can be put on like a red mini-dress by Donna Karan. What gives? How can blackness — with all its shades and incredible diversity — be more immutable than manhood itself?
In a cozy cottage decorated with butterflies to symbolize transformation, Katherine Boone was recovering in April from the operation that had changed her, in the most intimate part of her body, from a biological male into a female.
It was not easy. She retched for days afterward. She could hardly eat. She did not seem empowered; she seemed regressed.
“I just want to hold Emma,” she said in her darkened room at the bed-and-breakfast in New Hope, Pa., run by the doctor who performed the operation in a hospital nearby. Emma is her black and white cat, at her home outside Syracuse in central New York State, 250 miles away.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Who knew Ireland would the most progressive nation on earth with regard to LGBT issues?
This month Ireland may go from not legally recognizing transgender people to having one of the best trans identity laws in the world.
Two weeks ago, the nation made history when it became thefirst country in the world to approve gay marriage by a popular vote.
Ireland may once again make history by allowing transgender people over the age of 18 to self-declare their gender on legal documents solely based on their self-determination, and without any medical intervention. The legislation is scheduled to go to committee stage on June 17.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Staff Sgt. Loeri Harrison could receive the paperwork any day now, forms certifying that after an exemplary eight-year Army career, she is no longer fit for duty and must leave Fort Bragg because she is transgender.
Early this year, Senior Airman Logan Ireland feared he might face a similar fate when he disclosed to his commanders during a recent deployment in Afghanistan that he transitioned from female to male. Yet, his supervisors have been supportive, allowing him to wear male uniforms and adhere to male grooming standards even though Air Force records continue to label him as female.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter should take on what they refused to do. The current policies leave transgender troops vulnerable to discrimination that the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission describe as a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Medical and military experts who have studied the policies have concluded that there is no rationale for disqualifying transgender troops from serving on medical grounds.