The Power of Perseverance: a Black Gay Man Reflects on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

David Wilson in front of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in DC

Fifty years ago I felt like I was living in two countries, two communities, two neighborhoods; among two distinct races and cultures, but in one class of poverty. I was born in an all- black housing project, but my parents thought opportunities would be better in an all-white housing project so we moved from the South End to Roslindale when I was five years old.  My parents, both Pennsylvania transplants, worked as domestics for white families west of Route 128, a secret I held closely because of shame, guilt and pride.

The message to this only child was keep your head down, fit in, get along, study hard, go to college, get a good job, marry, have children and you’ll be equal. During those formative years in this predominantly white environment, I felt pretty equal to my peers, attending school, playing sports, and accepting invitations to hang out with friends after school. We were all poor and living on some form of government assistance.

Our family moved to Dorchester when I was 16 so I could meet other black kids and experience black culture. My mother was hopeful that I’d date black girls and attend church on a more regular basis. For the first time in my life I felt un-equal. The clothes, shoes, music, cars were not the same as in my old neighborhood, and for the first time in my life class differences and cultural differences were very evident. Neighborhood and racial disparities were reflected in our stores, food choices, streets, and city services that I had taken for granted in my old neighborhood but now understood were absent in my black neighborhood.

At the same time, my brothers and sisters south of the Mason-Dixon line not only lived in segregated, marginalized neighborhoods like I did, they suffered under local, state and federal Jim Crow laws that prohibited equal access to housing, employment, education, full citizenship and basic human rights.

Making History: Mainers Said Yes to Real Values

 by Carisa Cunningham, GLAD Director of Public Affairs and Education

I'm still carrying my Yes On 1 election night badge with me!

Although I have wandered a few election night ballrooms in my life, I have never been on the inside of a campaign night – watching returns in a boiler room, biting fingernails, eating fried food – until last Tuesday night.

At the Holiday Inn in Portland, I nervously awaited the result of the Maine ballot question on marriage equality with my fellow executive committee members – folks from the ACLU, EqualityMaine and MaineWomen’s Lobby I’ve worked with for years, through good times and bad, to get to this day

Plain and Simple: Making the Case for Fair Treatment of Trans Students

by Laura Kiritsy, Manager of Public Education

GLAD has litigated two cases in Bangor, Maine. The first was Bragdon v. Abbott, in which Senior Attorney Ben Klein represented a woman with HIV who was denied treatment by a dentist who had a written policy of refusing to treat anybody with HIV. Ben argued that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won a landmark victory in 1998 that established anti-discrimination protections for people with HIV under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fourteen years later, Ben and I drove the 440-mile round trip in his 2001 Honda Civic DX (with manual locks and windows) back and forth to Bangor so he could argue another important case, Doe v. Clenchy. GLAD is representing Susan Doe (a pseudonym), a transgender girl who had her education disrupted when the public school she attended did an “about face” by excluding her from the girls’ bathroom after a male student repeatedly harassed her. 

The hearing took place on Wednesday in Penobscot County Superior Court in downtown Bangor before Judge William R. Anderson. The day before his court appearance, Ben followed his standard argument preparation on our drive to Northern Maine. First, he lowered the volume of the Glee soundtrack and treated me to a preview of his argument on the drive up. It was nearly flawless, although I didn’t interrupt with umpteen questions, as judges often do. Then, after a sumptuous dinner at the local Longhorn Steakhouse, Ben retreated to his hotel room for a final review of his notes and a session of yoga and meditation. Meanwhile, I retreated to my room to eat a Snicker’s bar and watch a Civil War documentary.

At counsel table along with Ben were Jennifer Levi, the director of our Transgender Rights Project; John Gause, counsel for the Maine Human Rights Commission, which is also a party to the case, and Jodi Nofsinger, a Maine attorney who is also part of our litigation team. Susan, who is now a sophomore in high school, was seated close behind them, along with her very supportive mother and father.

To give some context for this case, Maine has a statewide law prohibiting discrimination against people based on gender identity and expression in all areas, including public education and public accommodations, plain and simple. To defend against what otherwise seems to be a cut and dry case of discrimination, the school has pointed to a Maine Human Rights Commission regulation that permits schools to have separate restrooms for boys and girls, a regulation the school interprets to mean it can ignore a student’s gender identity in that one instance.

Ben countered that the Commission’s regulation cannot override the state’s non-discrimination law, making his arguments quite thoroughly and forcefully, despite the anticipated barrage of questions from the judge. He made the case that the plain language of Maine’s non-discrimination law prohibits the school from denying a girl access to facilities that other girls use simply because she’s transgender. Lastly, he argued that the school violated the law because not only did it exclude Susan from the girls’ bathroom thereby treating her differently than all other girls, it forced her to use a separate facility thereby treating her differently than all other students. 

Ben was satisfied that the arguments “went as well as they could have,” as the judge really seemed to be wrestling with the issues presented in the case. That’s a common experience; our litigation frequently raises new and novel legal issues that judges are often encountering for the first time. Indeed, just as Judge Anderson is wrestling with the rights of transgender people, the judge in the Bragdon case wrestled with the issue of proper access to care for people living with HIV/ AIDS 14 years earlier. Now, it’s simply a no-brainer that people can’t be discriminated against in any setting because of their HIV/AIDS status. We’re working toward the day when treating transgender people equally and respectfully is also a no-brainer.

As with so many of our cases, we understand that the argument before Judge Anderson is just the first step in a long process that may potentially lead to a full trial, and ultimately a decision from the Maine Law Court, the state’s highest court. So now, we await a ruling.

Stay tuned.

Fearless, Uncompromising and Creative Advocacy

Janson Wu with Sarah Remes at the ACS National Convention

GLAD Staff Attorney Janson Wu was named the 2012 recipient of the American Constitution Society’s David Carliner Public Interest Award, becoming the first LGBT-identified attorney to receive the honor.

The Carliner Award recognizes “outstanding mid-career public interest lawyers whose work best exemplifies its namesake’s legacy of fearless, uncompromising and creative advocacy on behalf of marginalized people.”

In her presentation of the award  at the ACS National Convention in Washington, D.C. last Saturday, David Carliner's granddaughter Sarah Remes pointed out the many parallels between Janson's work and that of her grandfather:

 Mr. Wu has been a powerful advocate for marriage equality. He led the legislative effort to secure marriage equality in New Hampshire at a time when others believed such a thing was impossible.

In his recommendation, Bishop Gene Robinson wrote, "I now have a husband, not just a 'friend' or partner, because of Janson Wu's efforts in our midst."

Mr. Wu has taken the fight into the courts, where he is a lead member of the team challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. He and his team recently achieved an enormous victory when the First Circuit became the first circuit court to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional.  It is appropriate that Mr. Wu is honored with this award in the name of the person who brought the first interracial marriage case to the Supreme Court in 1956.
 

Mr. Wu has been a leader for transgender rights. While working on the marriage equality bill in New Hampshire, he insisted that his coalition include the struggles of transgender people.  He led a litigation effort against Denny's in Maine, after the restaurant refused to allow a transgender customer to use the appropriate restroom. Not only did Mr. Wu secure a settlement for his client, but Denny's changed its policies to be welcoming and respectful of all transgender customers.

Mr. Wu also was a key member of a Maine coalition that protected transgender rights against a right-wing attempt to cut them from an anti-discrimination bill. He is the co-author of a chapter in a recently published book, Transgender Family Law: A Guide to EffectiveAdvocacy.

In 1965, my grandfather won the right of gay employees to work for the federal government, and Mr. Wu's work follows in those footsteps.

“I’m humbled to receive this award for doing work that I love, particularly fighting for transgender rights and marriage equality,” Janson says.  “I hope to honor David Carliner’s amazing legacy by fighting for the most disadvantaged and unpopular in our communities, because it’s the right thing to do.”

All of us here at GLAD congratulate Janson on this well-deserved recognition!

Sprinkling Seeds of Trans Equality and Other Tales from Netroots Nation

 Blogging for Transgender Equality panelists Dr. Jillian T. Weiss,
Jos Truitt, Monica Roberts, Autumn Sandeen and Jennifer Levi

It’s true – I chose to spend the Saturday of Boston Pride hanging out at GLAD’s booth in the Netroots Nation exhibition hall, and I liked it. Drag queens, Mardi Gras beads and block parties are great, but who can resist the opportunity to spend the day inside a hotel convention center gazing into the eyes of progressive bloggers from around the country as they peer at you over their open laptops? For me and my colleagues Amanda Johnston and Carisa Cunningham, the hottest ticket around last week was for Netroots Nation 2012 down in Providence, Rhode Island*.

The highlight, of course, was the GLAD-organized panel Blogging for Transgender Equality on Friday morning, the first trans-specific panel in Netroots Nation’s seven-year history. We had a great line-up of panelists: our Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi; and bloggers Autumn Sandeen, Jos Truitt, Monica Roberts and Jillian Weiss. Jillian was a most excellent moderator for the panel, which was well attended by a crowd that seemed as excited as we were that trans issues were being discussed at Netroots Nation. The discussion was wide ranging and nuanced. For instance, while Jos noted that the mainstream media’s coverage of the transgender community has improved overall, Monica lamented the lack of coverage of trans women of color and their accomplishments. Ultimately, said Jos, the trans community needs to guide the mainstream media to the stories of the community that need to be covered.

The Netroots website has a great page dedicated to our panel, featuring a complete video of the presentation and discussion, panelist bios, and a catalogue of some of the awesome Tweets from folks who attended. See what you missed here. And check out Amanda’s photos from the panel on Facebook (don’t forget to “like” and “share” – this is a social media conference, after all!). So exciting!

My favorite Tweet during the panel was this one, from Netroots conventioneer @nolanpack:

 

#NN12 Blogging for Transgender Equity - amazing panel! Learning so much!

Yay! That’s why we organized it.

Another great thing about Netroots was the opportunity to meet and hear from some of the community’s most influential bloggers and activists, particularly at the LGBT Connect, a daylong pre-conference that took place last Wednesday, courtesy of online activist guru Mike Rogers. The most interesting portion for me was a panel discussion that featured activists from Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and South Carolina discussing the successes and struggles of LGBT organizing in conservative states. It was an eye opening discussion, and a reminder that despite our community’s gains -- from the recent rulings striking down DOMA to the historic support we have from President Barack Obama -- that in many states LGBT people are still fighting for the most basic legal protections.

We wrapped it up with the LGBT caucus on Saturday morning. I didn’t expect great turnout after Friday night’s numerous festivities, especially since while I was at the coffee bar in the convention a hall, a woman talking on her cell phone noted that a discussion with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman that morning was poorly attended “because everyone’s hungover.” With all due respect to Mr. Krugman, the LGBT caucus was pretty crowded. We even got a visit from Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, a staunch LGBT supporter who addressed the crowd and took a bunch of caucus-goer questions. Given our recent victory in our Gill DOMA lawsuit (which, incidentally, Dahlia Lithwick raised in Friday afternoon’s Big Decisions panel as very likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court next session), I was heartened to hear Sen. Cardin tell the crowd, “I want to repeal DOMA. I want to get it done. Marriage equality is a basic right.”

A nice way to end my visit with the Netroots Nation, and this blog post.

*And anyway, we get another chance to celebrate Pride right there in Providence next weekend, when Rhode Island Pride honors our own attorney Karen Loewy for her years of advocacy in the state. Join us there!

Watch Live: Blogging for Transgender Equality Today at 10:30 a.m.

GLAD's Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi joins bloggers Monica Roberts, Autumn Sandeen, Jos Truitt and moderator Dr. Jillian T. Weiss for a look at the role of blogging and online advocacy in the movement for transgender equality.

This panel is part of the Netroots Nation 12 conference

You can watch the panel streamed live here starting at 10:30 a.m. EST

 

Religion and Equality

We received news this week that our friends at the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (RCFM) will be closing their doors here in Massachusetts – for the best of reasons. “We’ve accomplished our mission!” said RCFM leader Rabbi Devon Lerner. While marriage equality is secure in Massachusetts, Rabbi Lerner also told us that she recognizes that the work of religious leaders is not done: “We know we have more work to do in our denominations and in our faith communities for GLBT equality, but it will be done through new and different coalitions.”

Our partnerships with religious people over the years have subverted the idea that religion = bigotry, and that the religious right speaks for all people of faith when they denounce gay equality. In our work throughout New England, we’ve seen religious coalitions for equality grow in strength and numbers in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine, and of course here in Massachusetts.

One of the most powerful moments on the June day that our Massachusetts legislature was to vote marriage equality up or down came early in the morning. The Religious Coalition held a rally and prayed at St. Paul's Cathedral, then marched en masse across the Boston Common to the State House. Religious opponents to marriage equality, praying across the street, had to part ways to let the supportive clergy through. It was only one of many times and many ways over the years that RCFM has demonstrated its support for equality, and we are extraordinarily grateful.

Sex on the Margins - The More Things Change...

We recently had the pleasure of hosting writer/sex educator Susie Bright, writer/cultural critic Michael Bronski, and GLAD founder Attorney John Ward at Boston's Old South Meeting House. The event, Sex on the Margins: The More Things Change..., was meant to foster a provocative discussion about the past, present, and future of the LGBT rights movement.

And it did.

Our panelists did not disappoint, posing questions about whether the gay community in the U.S. has become too assimilationist for its own good while reminding us that almost everywhere in the world you are still at risk - physically, legally, politically - if you are not heterosexual; suggesting that we have practically settled the question of marriage equality and now need to come up with the next big thing (an "exit strategy" as Susie Bright put it); and taking the gay community to task for not coming to the defense of Senator Larry Craig when he became the victim of a bathroom police sting - just like the 103 men whose arrests at the Boston Public Library prompted the founding of GLAD in 1978.

The audience, too, raised important issues - reminding us that many in our community don't have the luxury of pondering assimilation as they continue to struggle for things like jobs, health care, and basic safety; that marriage equality is still a distant goal in many parts of this country; and that, while their concerns and strategies may differ from those of their predecessors, there is a vibrant, active, and engaged young LGBT community out there pushing the movement forward.

Were you at this event? Join the conversation - where are we and where should we be heading?

Dignity, Respect, and Equal Treatment (O'Donnabhain Trial Concludes)

Trial ended today in Rhiannon O'Donnabhain's challenge of the IRS over their refusal to allow her a tax deduction for the costs of her treatment for Gender Identity Disorder. The IRS presented testimony from a final expert witness and both sides made their closing arguments.

Both parties will next file briefs with the court on November 6. Following that, each side will have seventy-five days to file a response brief (due January 21, 2008), after which the judge will issue a decision.

At the conclusion of today's trial proceedings, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain issued the following statement:

"I'm glad to have had the opportunity to tell my story and it was important for me personally, as a citizen and tax-payer, to have my day in court.

It also was important for the transgender community, my community, to speak in an official forum about what it means to be a transgender person living in this country.

I hope that this case sends a clear message that transgender people deserve dignity, respect, and equal treatment not just for our medical care, but in all aspects of our lives - just as every human being deserves dignity, respect and equal treatment.

I also hope that this case addresses some of the misunderstanding, bias, and prejudice transgender people face in our lives every day. Because what's really at the heart of this case - and my story - is a basic misunderstanding about the critical importance of being able to express my gender identity. It's something everyone should be able to do."

O'Donnabhain Tax Trial Resumes Thursday

The potentially precedent-setting trial, O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, resumes this Thursday, August 23, in Boston.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, represented by GLAD, is challenging the IRS over their refusal to allow her a tax deduction for sex reassignment surgery related to her treatment for Gender Identity Disorder.

The trial began on July 23 and recessed on July 27. On Thursday, the IRS will present their final expert witness, and both sides will make closing statements.

Check back here later this week for a post-trial wrap-up.

More on Trans Medical Deduction Case

While the O'Donnabhain trial is temporarily in recess, the case, Rhiannon, and the GLAD attorneys representing her continue to receive supportive press (read this editorial from David Yas of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly) and feedback. Thanks to all who have written such supportive and encouraging emails and comments.

Clearly this case is affecting many people. Here is a sampling of the comments we've received:

"Thank you for representing Rhiannon in this US Tax Court Case. It will affect me as well. I have an almost parallel journey to hers, was navy though 24 years."

"I am a bisexual cisgendered female resident of Massachusetts currently dating a hopeful Male-to-Female transgendered bisexual woman who I love very much and support strongly in her pursuit of aligning her sex with her gender. As such, I am so pleased that GLAD is supporting the transgender community in such a strong way. Bennett Klein as well as all of the other amazing GLAD contributors have my thanks and encouragement."

"GLAD is like a pit bull. You better look out if they decide to sink their teeth into you, even if you're the Internal Revenue Service."

Looking for help?
GLAD's Legal InfoLine offers help for individuals in the New England area dealing with legal issues related to their gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, and/or HIV status. If you have concerns or questions, visit our Legal InfoLine online for more information on the resources GLAD can provide.

O'Donnabhain Trial Wrap Up

What a week.

Yesterday was the final day of trial (for a while) in GLAD’s case representing Rhiannon O’Donnabhain in U.S. Tax Court. And that has meant that for the first time ever in tax court there was a rich and full discussion about transgender identities.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether one transgender woman will be guaranteed equal treatment by the Internal Revenue Service. But this case goes beyond Rhiannon as an individual. Having a court consider the experience of one trans woman has been an important opportunity to show the pervasive discrimination that transgender people face every day.

On Tuesday, the first day of the trial, we heard from three fact witnesses. Rhiannon and two of her primary health care providers testified to a courtroom packed with local and national media, students, supporters, and government officials. The focus of the day was Rhiannon’s personal story, what she’s gone through, and what it feels like to live as a trans woman in the world.

We heard expert testimony on the second and third days. Through this testimony both parties developed more fully what individuals with expertise in the area understand about what it means to be transgender.

One of the striking things about the trial was the level of discussion about trans identities, and about how trans people live in and experience the world. People in the courtroom seemed moved by the discussion. It’s hard to imagine that anyone left without a richer understanding of transgender people’s lives.

The trial will continue August 23, with testimony from the government’s second and final expert witness, followed by closing statements from both parties.

More press coverage: Bay Windows, Congressional Quarterly and In Newsweekly, including a profile of Rhiannon O'Donnabhain.

Press Coverage of Trial, Day One

Scott Malone filed this article for Reuters on the first day of the trial.

In Newsweekly has this story on the case.

You can also listen to an interview with GLAD Attorney Jennifer Levi on the Human Rights Campaign's radio show The Agenda (recorded Monday night).

O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Trial Begins

GLAD Attorney Jennifer Levi (left), Rhiannon O'Donnabhain (center), and GLAD Attorney Karen Loewy prepare for court on the first day of the trial

Equal Marriage is the Law in Massachusetts

You've no doubt heard about the MA bar association applicant who is suing because he claims a question on the test involving the marriage of a same-sex couple violated his right to exercise his religion. He's also claiming that his refusal to answer said question is what kept him from making a (barely) passing score on the exam.

Alot has been said already about this case (you can read more about it here, and here, and here, for instance), and we don't want to give this frivolous case much more airtime.

Other than to point out the obvious - the bar exam is a test of the applicant's knowledge of the law. And in Massachusetts, the law is equal marriage.

The Sky Isn't Falling, Says Post

Another excellent point in today's Washington Post:

"When the high court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the commonwealth's constitution gave same-sex couples the right to marry, detractors railed against "activist judges" who were "imposing" their will on the people. Only the people, through their elected representatives, should decide something so fundamental, they said. Thus began an effort to amend Massachusetts's constitution by referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Four years and about 10,000 same-sex marriages later, here's what the people have said: never mind."

That's exactly what happened a few weeks ago when opponents of equality failed to get the 50 votes needed in the legislature to move forward a ballot initiative to ban legal rights and recognition for lesbian and gay couples.

It's heartening (though not surprising) to see how the experience of witnessing lesbian and gay couples and families go about their lives with the recognition and protections of civil marriage has changed the view of many citizens and legislators in this state. People have realized what we've known all along - allowing all loving, committed couples access to equal marriage does not hurt the commonwealth, the society, or the institution of marriage in any way. If anything, it enriches it.

The rest of the nation can now take a good look at Massachusetts and see that, in the words of the Washington Post, "the sky isn't falling."

Trouble with Civil Unions

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that some couples in New Jersey who have registered for civil unions since they became available four months ago are still being denied the rights and benefits the law was intended to grant them.

The article tells of Craig Ross and Richard Cash. Despite their civil union, Ross's employer of 21 years is refusing to provide health insurance coverage for Cash. The company has a self-funded insurance plan, and claims - as have other employers - that federal regulations therefore allow them to ignore state laws regarding employee benefits.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act is often cited by companies like Ross's as justification for denying benefits to the partners of employees even when they are legally recognized by the state.

Ross and Cash are not alone. According to the Post, "A recent study by Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay advocacy group, indicated that as many as one in eight of the 1,092 same-sex couples who have registered for civil unions there have been denied all or part of the benefits they hoped to gain from the law."

This is an excellent example of why civil unions are not an adequate substitute for equal marriage, as they are clearly considered to be less than marriage by some employers (not to mention the federal government).

Fighting for Dignity and Respect

Take a look at more photos from the day

After yesterday's oral argument at the Connecticut Supreme Court, GLAD Attorney Ben Klein and the eight plaintiff couples in the case participated in a press conference on the courthouse steps.

Ben opened by saying: "Today the plaintiffs argued for the right to the same treatment and dignity that all other families get. Under the Connecticut constitution, we believe that they are entitled to the same respect and dignity of any other couple."

Lead plaintiffs Beth Kerrigan and Jody Mock then took the microphone to explain how important it is to them and their children to be able to say that they are married, and how heartened they were to hear one of the Justices bring up that point in court. "We have five year old boys in kindergarten, and they always ask us 'are you married?' And it breaks our heart to have to say the truth, which is that we're not. But we're fighting for that."

12:59

In closing, Ben focused his argument on the fact that marriage is more than the sum of all the tangible rights and benefits associated with the word “marriage.” Rather, the ability to say that you are married is one of the benefits of marriage. There is no adjective or verb associated with the word “civil union” and gay and lesbian couples and families deserve a legal status that let’s them convey to the world that they have access to the same level of equality enjoyed by CT’s other citizens.

Ben also rebutted the state’s argument that the legislature could have rationally believed that civil unions are better because they are more likely to be granted recognition in other states. Ben said that the premise was all wrong. Only a few states have civil unions but all states have marriage recognition laws. No one can prejudge whether a marriage will be respected in whole or in part because the outcome of a marriage recognition analysis might turn on what aspect of marriage someone needs to have recognized, as well as potentially competing public policies. For example, a state may respect a marriage to enforce child support obligations arising from a marriage because the state policy of protecting children surmounts any competing public policy.

12:55

After Ben's return to the podium, Justice Borden revisited the issue of whether the plaintiffs should be considered a suspect class or a quasi-suspect class. Are gays and lesbians politically powerless now? Or do we look at whether they historically have been politically powerless? What lens do we look at in applying that part of the test?

Ben responded that, to answer this, the Court has to look through an historical lens, to reflect the reality that systemic discrimination does not appear in a short timeframe. And also a national lens, because Connecticut citizens are affected by what happens nationally. There have been gains, but gays and lesbians as a group are still subject to the control of the majority, and there is still inequality.