Keep the Maine Human Rights Act Intact

Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director

GLAD has been working intensely over the past couple of weeks as part of a coalition of LGBT organizations, civil rights groups and concerned citizens and allies in Maine to defeat LD 1046, a bill that would repeal a vital portion of the Maine Human Rights Act and prevent transgender Mainers from using public restrooms and locker room facilities consistent with their gender identity and expression by restricting access to sex-segregated public facilities based on “biological sex.”

On Tuesday, April 12 I made the trek to the State House in Augusta to deliver 10 minutes of expert testimony – against LD 1046 before the Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary. I joined several of my GLAD colleagues and representatives from many of our coalition partners – among them MaineTransNet, EqualityMaine, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, the Maine Women’s Lobby and GLSEN, in a hearing room that was packed mostly with transgender Mainers and others eagerly awaiting their turn to speak against this bill.

The committee heard from inspiring folks like Max Katler, a young trans law student who had been living quietly with his wife on their farm, rarely disclosing his transgender status to anyone, until he turned up to testify, out of concern for his safety and dignity should this bill pass. They heard from Jean Vermette, who has long toiled on behalf of Maine's trans community. They also heard from Wayne Maines, a dad who relocated his family to another city to protect his daughter from the anti-trans bullying and harassment she endured in her middle school. As the first transgender Mainer to testify at the hearing, celebrated author and Colby College professor Jennifer Finney Boylan clearly impacted the committee.

I left the hearing feeling energized and positive about our ability to kill this misguided effort to partially repeal the Maine Human Rights Act. No matter how this turns out we made a proud showing before our legislators. I was struck by the beauty of our community, by the eloquence of colleagues and friends, and moved by the rightness of our position.

For nearly six years, trans people throughout Maine have been protected by state laws. I am convinced that those protections have ensured that some hard-working transgender people have been able to get and retain jobs they otherwise would not have. I have no doubt that the laws have ensured that transgender youth could remain in school when they previously would not have. And I am certain it has enabled some transgender people who previously had avoided restaurants and other public places for fear of being discriminated against to go to them and regularize their daily lives. Given the history of discrimination we have faced, we need full and trans-specific civil rights protections without exceptions or exclusions to even begin getting to a place of inclusion, much less acceptance and support.

For the second time in less than a month, I had the chance to testify before legislators about the importance of respecting the humanity of transgender people’s lives. I am happy to field the questions that some will only ask if they feel safe enough to voice their uncertainty and reveal their ignorance (and I mean this to be descriptive, not judgmental) of our lives.

The more I hear the questions, the more confident I am in our answers: First, nobody transitions as a lark or to cause mischief (whether in bathrooms or elsewhere). A person’s gender identity is well-established at a very early age (not changeable or susceptible to any kind of so-called reparative therapy). If we don’t support our young people, they are at great risk of physical and psychological harm. And finally, so-called “biological rules” are impossible to police in any non-discriminatory way and, regardless, are insupportable by medical standards or science -- which increasingly recognize gender identity or brain sex as the only true determinant of a person’s sex.

The four-plus hour hearing in Maine is part of the educational arc we must draw to protect advances in this social justice movement. No matter how many repeal efforts we face (and this effort in Maine is an important reminder that the passage of trans-inclusive laws marks only the end of the beginning of our work), we cannot help but continue to move forward in our effort for full inclusion of transgender people in our society. We are human, our lives are worthy of respect and dignity and together, along with our friends and allies, we will convince even those to whom our lives and truths are new that we are their brothers and sisters.

View YouTube video of Jennifer testifying at the hearing here. Her testimony begins around the 47-minute mark.

Fighting For Our Rights Shows Our 'True Colors'

Guest post from GLAD Public Education Intern Alison Kane

As a passionate film student, I am eager to jump at any chance I have to be on set. So, when Amanda at GLAD approached me to help out on April 1^st & 2^nd’s LGBTQ youth rights shoot, “no” was the farthest thing from my mind.

Going into the shoot, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I know how to turn on a camera; I’ve fetched coffee for many a director; and I know the basic lighting skills. However, every time on set is an opportunity to learn more. Going into this project, I didn’t know the director or the actors, unlike most of the student films I have been involved with in the past. Anything could happen. That, for me, was thrilling.

On Friday evening, after rushing into a part of Boston unknown to me after a day’s worth of classes, I finally arrived at the Boston Center for the Arts (BCA). There, I was introduced to Evelyn and the actors from True Colors Out Youth Theater, the youth troupe at the Theater Offensive. Earlier in the week, the youth had collaborated on a script explaining the rights of LGBTQ students in Massachusetts public schools, hashing through the legal jargon to create a straightforward script in their own words. In pairs, the young actors took turns reading the script as Seth, the director, listened in on their individual rehearsals. Though everyone was reading the same script, there were six different stories in those words. Hearing the different voices, different inflections, different ways of empathizing, only got me more excited for the real shoot the next morning.

After the acting exercises, we joined together again to discuss the true stories behind the words in the script. These youth, ranging from sixteen to twenty, each had experienced bullying throughout their time at school. For the most part, the school administration had not addressed the issues and instead they were left to fend for themselves, though luckily, most had a strong base of friends and supporters to help them through. While these stories tore at my heartstrings, they also got me riled up, as they did most of the actors. After someone shared a story, it led to a passionate discussion about what we would have done in that situation or how it should have been handled, but unfortunately wasn’t. Though I was there as another pair of hands, these youth were my age and in that moment, though I had only known them a couple hours, I felt bonded with them in fighting for equality.

The next morning, I arrived back at the BCA at nine a.m. Running on little sleep after crashing on a friend’s couch in the city, I was much in need of a caffeine fix. However, I am no stranger to early morning shoots. Seth had arrived with Josh, his production assistant, and a sedan packed to the brim with equipment. I helped unload the car and lug everything up four stories of a winding staircase to the True Colors rehearsal room. Away from my bubble at school, I learned a lot from simply watching Seth and Josh setup. Most of the equipment was familiar, but I was intrigued by some of the new contraptions Seth had brought along, and learned some tricks I tucked away for my next personal film projects.

Noon rolled around and the True Colors actors were ready for camera. While most of them are seasoned veterans on stage, many have not spent much time on camera. It was amazing watching Seth pull sincere and energetic performances from the actors. However, what was most exciting was seeing the deliveries from the actors once they got warmed up. Ranging from sweet and sympathetic Julia to energetic Anzel to fiery Emma, the same script was read six times, but it never sounded the same. Each personality colored the script in a unique way. Each actor had about a thirty minutes session on camera, going over the script numerous times. While that can be an exhausting task for any actor, the True Colors youth were putting their whole being into their performance. As the day went on, I had heard the script at least thirty times, but it never got old.

As we all helped pack up Seth’s equipment, the bonding that had begun the previous night continued. We had just finished a lengthy day of shooting, but everyone knew we had completed something meaningful and amazing. Some of us exchanged contact information, hoping to meet up again soon. The excitement was present in everyone involved. This video would be shown at youth workshops, and distributed online, hopefully reaching students across the state. I could only imagine some scared and lonely high schooler stumbling across this video and feeling empowered after hearing his rights explained to him from his peers.

With the camera packed away and everyone ready to head home, we bid farewell and went our separate ways. However, the pride of a job well done and the impact of the project we had completed were instilled in all of us. The experience of that weekend will stick with me for a long time. Beyond simply the technical skills, I was fortunate enough to work with some very talented individuals. Their energy surrounding this project is contagious just remembering it. It’s projects like this, and youth like those from True Colors that make the biggest of differences in the end.

The video will premiere April 27 & 28 at two free workshops GLAD is hosting for MA LGBTQ students

Know Your Rights: Why Can’t I Get My Spouse On My Company’s Health Plan?

Many companies provide health benefits to the spouses of their employees. So, most people assume that if a same-sex couple marries and lives in a place that recognizes the marriage that their spouse will be entitled to the same health benefits that a different-sex spouse is entitled to. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

The reason is fairly complex, but basically it has to do with whether the company’s health plan is insured (the company pays a premium for each health plan to an insurance company) or the plan is self-insured or self-funded (which means that the company directly pays the health expenses that are incurred under the plan). The only way to tell whether your company’s plan is insured or self-insured is to obtain a copy of the plan or speak to your HR person, because even companies with self-insured plans often hire an insurance company to manage their paperwork.

With insured plans, usually the state’s insurance laws apply to the plan, and so in places that recognize the marriage, the company and health plan are required to treat same-sex spouses the same way they treat different-sex spouses.

Self-insured plans, however, are regulated by a federal agency, ERISA, which sets minimum standards that employers must meet. Because of DOMA, ERISA does not require employers to treat same-sex spouses the same way it does different-sex spouses, and so with self-insured plans employers can legally discriminate against same-sex spouses and not allow them to get on the health plan.

It is important to understand though that ERISA does not PREVENT employers from offering the same benefits to same-sex spouses. If the benefit is denied, it is because the employer is deliberately choosing to discriminate against its same-sex married couples. Also, sometimes even with self-insured plans, the definition of spouse may legally require that same-sex spouses be covered. So if you are denied spousal coverage, call GLAD’s Legal InfoLine. We can arm you with information that may persuade your company to provide coverage.

Even if a same-sex spouse is allowed on the other spouse’s health plan, DOMA steps in with another example of discrimination. Employer benefits to different-sex spouse are tax free, but since the federal government does not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, any benefit the employer offers to a same-sex spouse gets considered as extra income to the employee (called imputed income) and gets taxed by the federal government. However, in places that recognize the marriage there is no state tax.

If DOMA goes away, both these forms of discrimination would disappear. There is more detailed information about this at www.glad.org. If you have any questions about this blog or any other legal question, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).

GLADHour: Trans Rights with a (Twitter) Twist

Wednesday night presented GLAD fans with two great choices: head to Cambridge for MIT’s panel discussion “The Future of Marriage,” featuring our own Mary Bonauto and other experts, or stop by Lir, the Boston pub that hosted “GLADHour,” a social event where Jennifer Levi, the director of our Transgender Rights Project (TRP), gave an informative and inspiring update on GLAD’s trans advocacy work. I chose the latter event, and it was an awesome night, despite an interesting Twitter twist – but more on that later.

About 110 guests crowded into the upstairs bar at Lir, located on Boylston Street, among them Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley, who stopped by after reading about GLADHour in Bay Windows. Councilor Pressley recently co-sponsored a resolution calling on the legislature to pass the Transgender Equal Rights Bill, on which GLAD is working diligently to pass as part of the Transgender Equal Rights Coalition.

Wednesday’s GLADHour was hosted by board member Dana Zircher, a Microsoft software tech and one of the stars of our educational video “Everyone Matters: Dignity and Safety for Transgender People.” Dana introduced “the fabulous” Jennifer Levi, who took the mic and immediately noted, “I’m just blown away by the turnout here tonight.”

“I don’t know if it’s the downtown bar, free food, Dana, me or GLAD,” she added, “but either way I’m just glad to see everybody here.”

She then went on to reflect on her recent testimony in favor of a transgender nondiscrimination bill in Connecticut, where she fielded an hour’s worth of questions from state legislators. “[It] was a really intense experience,” she told the crowd, “because it was one of the times that I really thought about the fact that I had to take the discussion to a very personal level because the questions that I was being asked about bringing non-discrimination laws into being in Connecticut, and the ways in which transgender people and gender non-conforming people ‘threaten’ other people, was a personal attack on my life. And I was really proud to stand up on behalf of the community and say we are not a threat, we don’t threaten anyone else’s safety, but the absence of nondiscrimination laws is threatening our safety and we need to get them passed and we need to get them passed now.” That’s not just true for Connecticut, Jennifer added, but it’s also true for Massachusetts and for Maine, where a Republican lawmaker is trying to roll back existing nondiscrimination protections for transgender people.

Jennifer also discussed two recent TRP legal victories – the first in Adams v. Bureau of Prisons, a suit that challenged the federal Bureau of Prisons policy prohibiting medical care for transgender inmates who entered the BOP system without a treatment plan for transition. GLAD won the right of our client, Vanessa Adams, to receive life-saving transition-related care that was previously denied because she was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder post-incarceration.

The second victory is Freeman v. Denny’s, where we represented Brianna Freeman, a transgender woman who was barred from using the women’s restroom at a Denny’s franchise in Maine, despite the state’s trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws. GLAD is nearing final resolution in that case, but Jennifer made clear that Denny’s has agreed to allow Brianna to use the women's restroom. “[It] is the right outcome,” she said, “and again, we can’t back down from the full comprehensive protections under the law.” Which leads me to that Twitter twist I mentioned earlier. I tweeted Jennifer’s comments about the Freeman victory, much to the delight, apparently, of the potty-minded folks over at the Family Research Council. Peter Sprigg, FRC’s senior fellow for policy studies, re-tweeted my comment prefaced with one of his own, which you can see here:



It was hard to know whether to respond, not because we don’t have plenty to say when opponents of LGBT equality try to distract focus from the real issues with false assertions, but really, why get into it with FRC? But lawyers always want the last word, so Jennifer tweeted a reply: “Yes, non-discrimination laws ensure that transgender people can use essential facilities like bathrooms.”

Additionally, in typical lawyerly fashion, Jennifer couldn’t limit her reply to 140 characters. Here’s her 629-character response, which pretty much sums up the true motivations behind FRC’s potty-talk:

“Yes, non-discrimination laws ensure that transgender people can use essential facilities like bathrooms. The alternative – keeping us out – is cruel. BUT let this be unmistakable, at the heart of such laws are protections to ensure that transgender people can work, go to school, and get housing – in short, to be able to provide for ourselves and for our families. Don't
doubt that those who oppose such protections, who flippantly characterize them as ‘bathroom bills,’ want to keep transgender people out of the boardrooms, shopping aisles, and movie theatres, as much or more than they want to keep us out of bathrooms.”

Same-Sex Bi-National Couples: Joy Turns to Sorrow

From the Legal InfoLine

There have been some very confusing developments concerning same-sex bi-national couples during the past few days. It all started with a couple of deportation cases being put on hold because the couple was married, and the US citizen had applied for permanent residency for the foreign national spouse. These isolated cases then resulted in a statement from immigration officials that all green card applications of same-sex married couples would be held in abeyance. Because of President Obama’s statement that he feels DOMA is unconstitutional, there was hope in the LGBT community that the applications would be held in abeyance until there was a final determination as to whether DOMA was constitutional.

These developments sent shock waves of joy through the same-sex bi-national community. However, yesterday immigration officials made it clear that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still being enforced and that any green card applications from married same-sex bi-national couples will be denied and not held in abeyance.

The Legal InfoLine gets many calls from bi-national couples who are desperate to find a way to stay together after the foreign national’s visa expires. And so the hope that was raised and then dashed is particularly painful. The unfortunate reality continues to be that a US citizen who is in love with a foreign national of the same sex, in most cases has no ability to improve the foreign national’s immigration status, and celebrating their love for each other by getting married can have negative consequences for the foreign national spouse.

Although immigration officials will not officially recognize a same-sex married couple, if they learn that the couple is married and the foreign national spouse has a short-term visa, they may use the marriage to deny that spouse entry into the US or deport the person if they are in the US. The reason for this is that they may interpret the fact that the foreign national is permanently attached to a US citizen as an indication that the person may overstay their visa date. For more information on why getting married poses risks, see our GLAD publication about this.

GLAD strongly recommends any same-sex bi-national couple who wants to marry or wants to deal with an immigration issue contact an immigration attorney who is experienced in LGBT issues BEFORE taking any action. The events of the last few days show that relying on what is being said in the media or what comes up on a Google search may prove to be inaccurate. Immigration is a high stakes issue, and you want to make sure that you have accurate advice before you take any action. GLAD can provide referrals to experienced immigration attorneys in the six New England states by calling our Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).

My Afternoon on the Hot Seat, and Other Adventures in Transgender Advocacy

On Monday, I testified before the Connecticut Legislature’s Judiciary Committee in favor H.B. 6599, “An Act Concerning Discrimination,” which would add the phrase gender identity and expression in Connecticut’s non-discrimination laws. My prepared testimony was just about two minutes, but I spent the next hour on the hot seat, fielding questions from committee members about the bill and how, when adopted as law, it would be enforced. That is as it should be. It’s important to let those who are just learning about transgender people’s lives ask of all their questions and have them answered in a reasoned, thoughtful way.

I got lots and lots of questions about bathroom use by transgender people, which is no surprise since our opponents know that the more people talk about bathrooms the more generally insecure and scared people feel about supporting transgender non-discrimination laws. From Maine to Massachusetts to Connecticut and beyond, opponents of transgender equality have tried to derail progress and undermine legislative advances by speciously asserting that trans-inclusive civil rights laws will lead to gender-neutral bathrooms and/or create a rash of sexual predators in women’s bathrooms, including in radio and TV ads that have been effective in peeling away our support. Many lawmakers have become preoccupied with this misinformation even though more than 100 trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws and ordinances have been successfully implemented nationwide with no reported incidents of these alleged problems. And, as I explained at the hearing on Monday, the reality is that transgender people have to and do use bathrooms, often using the restroom that is consistent with our gender identity or expression regardless of our physiology or assigned birth sex.

Interestingly, though, for the first time at a public hearing, I also got questions about what happens when a masculine appearing woman (whether trans or not) uses the women’s room and other women complain to management or confront the individual telling her to leave. This was an easy question to answer because of it being so personal – I experience other women’s discomfort with me using women’s restrooms on a near daily basis. The reality is that when that happens, the person who is the object of other people’s uneasiness (often, me) has to stick up for herself and assert that she is in the right place and, because the law protects her right to be in that space regardless of other people’s derision and discomfort, the uncomfortable party often backs down. They don’t require the gender nonconforming person to physically prove or present identification backing up her asserted gender. Rather, they get a needed education about the fact of gender diversity that hopefully makes it so the next gender non-conforming woman they encounter in the restroom doesn’t have to face the hostility the first one did.

That’s how civil rights and non-discrimination laws work. They don’t make bias and prejudice go away immediately, but they definitely provide important legal protections for marginalized and discriminated people and groups. Hopefully, over time they also change hearts and minds by shifting the burden on others to explain why we shouldn’t be in public spaces -- or employed, or housed, or educated, etc. -- rather than on us to explain why we should. As I told the Judiciary Committee, other people may be made uncomfortable by [an] individual’s expression and that transgender person’s presence in their life but it’s just that kind of discomfort that I would say non-discrimination laws are intended to address and will diminish over time as transgender people just gain more visibility and more presence and more protections in our laws.

At the end of it all – the hearing actually lasted well over 11 hours – I think that proponents of H.B. 6599 made a compelling case of the passage of this bill. Our partners at ctEquality did a fantastic job of filling the room with supporters and lining up compelling testimony from trans men and women, parents of transgender youth, and a host of strong allies. I’m feeling optimistic about the passage of this bill this year, and, anyone who knows me well can attest to the rarity of such optimism.

As Director of GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project, I’ll be talking more about our work on H.B. 6599 and our entire docket of trans legal advocacy at an event next Wednesday called GLADHour. It’s an after-work happy hour at the Boston eatery Lir, so I promise not to cut into the fun by talking too long. But you’ll hear about the latest promising developments in Freeman v. Denny’s, a case in which we’re fighting for a Maine transwoman to have proper restroom access in a local restaurant, and our efforts to defeat a discriminatory bill – filed in response to Freeman – that would limit public restroom access for transgender people. The Transgender Rights Project is doing lots of other exciting and groundbreaking work. I hope you’ll show up to hear all about it. See you next Wednesday!

Jennifer Levi
Director, Transgender Rights Project

Photo by Glenn Koetzner for The Rainbow Times. See more photos.

It’s Tax Time: Good News/Bad News

I was on vacation for a couple of weeks, and so although I intended to send in my blog post from Puerto Vallarta, it just didn’t happen—somehow beach won out over blog. But I’m back, and now that we are in the middle of tax season, I thought it would be good to provide you with some tax-related information.

First, the bad news. Although GLAD has two lawsuits going to take down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), until those cases conclude DOMA is still in force, and so that means that if you are a married same-sex couple you MUST each file a federal income tax return listing your status as single (unless one of you qualifies as a legal dependent under the IRS code). However, if you live in Massachusetts, Connecticut or Vermont, you MUST file your state tax as married (either married filing jointly or separately). If you live in another state that recognizes your marriage, check with our sister organization, Lambda Legal, about how to file your state taxes. GLAD has a publication that provides additional information on this topic.

Secondly, if because of DOMA you have been paying significantly more in federal taxes than you would have if you had been able to file as married, you may want to file an amended return as married now for the 2007 tax year, because for most people April 15, 2011 is the deadline for filing an amended return for the 2007 tax year. By filing an amended return as married, and then being rejected because of DOMA, you will be given a two year window to sue. This might buy you enough time for us to win our DOMA suit. You should consult with a tax professional before doing this, because filing an amended return could also increase your chance of being audited.

This tax burden is one of the many ways that DOMA continues to harm married same-sex couples. You can read some of the stories of families dealing with this issue on our website. And we encourage you to share your own story with us.

Finally, some important good news for transgender persons who have paid for medical treatment. You may now be able to claim those expenses as a medical deduction on your federal income tax. Thanks to GLAD’s victory in the O’Donnabhain case, treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) is now on the list of conditions that are eligible for consideration for a medical deduction on the federal income tax. As for any medical deduction, you need to have medical documentation that the treatment you received was appropriate for your particular diagnosis. For more details see our publication.

If you have questions about the above or any LGBT/HIV legal matter, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).