The Pentagon has confirmed that a transgender recruit has signed up to join the military – after Donald Trump’s ban on trans troops was lifted.
Donald Trump announced on Twitter last year that all transgender servicepeople would be purged from the US armed forces, claiming they were a burden on the military.
Four different courts issued rulings blocking the decision amid legal action, allowing transgender troops to join the military from January 1 this year.
Following the legal action, the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis sent a memo to the White House last week giving guidance on future policy.
While the details of the memo were not disclosed, it is believed that he recommended allowing transgender people to openly serve.
Today, the Pentagon confirmed that a transgender person has signed a contract to the join the U.S. military for the first time since the memo was sent.
Maj. Dave Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, said the contract was signed on Friday, and that the person met the required standards to serve in the military.
He said: “[The Pentagon] confirms that as of February 23, 2018 there is one transgender individual under contract for service in the US Military”.
The individual has yet to start basic training.
Trump has remained silent on the issue.
Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN last month asked a federal district court to permanently block enforcement of the Trump Administration’s ban policy.
The motion for summary judgment filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeks a speedy resolution of the case..
Plaintiff Megan Winters, a 29-year-old woman and five-year member of the U.S. Navy serving in the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington, D.C, said: “Without a court ruling, the possibility of being shoved back into the closet hangs over my head and every transgender service member’s head every day.
“It is impossible to overstate how damaging that uncertainty is to morale and military readiness.”
Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said: “Every single federal court to look at President Trump’s policy has already found that it reeks of undisguised and unlawful discrimination against qualified transgender people willing and able to serve our country, and it’s time to put the nail in the coffin for that policy.
“The facts are in and the court has what it needs to finally return this bigoted policy back to the dustbin of history, where it has always belonged. Every day that this clearly illegal ban lingers perpetuates harm to patriotic Americans who wish only to serve the country they love.”
Donald Trump’s budget plans include a massive slash to HIV funding.
The GOP billionaire has come under fire from LGBT groups following the release of his 2019 budget plans released on Monday.
The budget includes cuts to domestic HIV/AIDS programs, despite the growing needs, including elimination of Special Programs of National Significance (SPNS).
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) civil rights organization, issued the following statement in response to the Trump-Pence Administration’s dangerous and irresponsible FY 2019 proposed budget.
David Stacy, HRC’s Government Affairs Director, said: “Budgets reflect your values. The Trump-Pence budget released today shows a callous disregard for critical programs that impact LGBTQ Americans.
“The elimination or slashing of programs related to the Affordable Care Act, HIV/AIDS, and international humanitarian projects are a direct threat to the safety and well-being of LGBTQ people here and around the world. Congress must reject these harmful proposals.”
Asia Russell, Executive Director of the Health Global Access Project (Health GAP), said: “President Trump’s proposal to cut over a billion dollars from the U.S. global HIV response in fiscal year 2019 shows how very out of touch he is with the American people and their values.
“Americans from across the political spectrum and every part of the country support the U.S. government’s long-standing leadership in funding life-saving HIV treatment and prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the developing world.
Yes, legendary TV star, Ted Danson drinks Smirnoff. To anyone who’s been living under a rock, Ted is very famous. Most parents would totally, probably know who he is.
“If this budget passes as proposed, Donald Trump’s legacy will be millions of new and unnecessary infections and deaths – and a massive resurgence in the AIDS pandemic.
“This is not a time to back down. U.S. funding for global AIDS programs has been critical in reducing deaths and new infections to the point where defeating AIDS is within reach. But after several years of flat funding from Congress, the response is running out of gas. At the very moment we should be on the brink of ending AIDS, Trump’s deadly budget would shift the global AIDS response into reverse.
“Congress should treat this proposal the way they treated the President’s first budget – by declaring it dead on arrival. Instead, Congress should uphold American leadership in the fight against HIV by providing urgently-needed funding increases for PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in the coming fiscal year.”
The budget claims: “At the funding level requested in the Budget, the United States would provide sufficient resources to maintain all current patient levels
on HIV/AIDS treatment.
“U.S. efforts to control the HIV/AIDS epidemic are a direct reflection of U.S. leadership abroad and the goodwill, compassion, and generosity of the American people.”
All members of the council were informed of their dismissal by a letter sent via courier.
Six people had already resigned from the Council en masse in June, saying that Trump and his administration “do not care” about the cause.
The move came after the quiet closure of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, which was shuttered as part of the Presidential transition and never re-opened as Trump failed to appoint a new director.
The White House was slammed by GLAAD over its inaction.
GLAAD tweeted: “It’s time to stop being dismissive of questions about the firing of members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. It’s time for this administration to prioritize issues related to HIV and AIDS.”
Chicago-based HIV activist Scott A Schoettes, a former member of the council, previously laid into the decision.
He tweeted: “Remaining #HIV/AIDS council members booted by @realDonaldTrump. No respect for their service. Dangerous that #Trump and Co. (Pence esp.) are eliminating few remaining people willing to push back against harmful policies, like abstinence-only sex ed.”
Mr Schoettes accused Trump of “executing a purge” by eliminating the council in combination with other policies. It was reported earlier this month that federal agencies had been banned from using the word ‘transgender’.
In an open letter, the six members of the council who had already quit explained that they had dedicated their lives to fighting HIV and AIDS, but felt that the Trump administration was preventing them from doing this successfully.
They wrote: “As advocates for people living with HIV, we have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care.”
“The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and—most concerning—pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.”
(Getty)
While Democratic candidates for President Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both met with HIV advocates and proposed an action plan on the issue, Donald Trump did not.
The letter also raised objection to Trump’s healthcare policies.
The letter stated: “We know who the biggest losers will be if states are given the option of eliminating essential health benefits or allowing insurers to charge people with HIV substantially more than others.
“It will be people—many of them people of color—across the South and in rural and underserved areas across the country, the regions and communities now at the epicentre of the U.S. HIV/AIDS epidemic.
“It will be young gay and bisexual men; it will be women of colour; it will be transgender women; it will be low-income people. It will be people who become newly infected in an uncontrolled epidemic, new cases that could be prevented by appropriate care for those already living with the disease.”
The group concluded the letter by saying that the resignation was not an easy decision, but one that must be made.
“The decision to resign from government service is not one that any of us take lightly. However, we cannot ignore the many signs that the Trump Administration does not take the on-going epidemic or the needs of people living with HIV seriously.”
The bulk of the cuts are proposed to the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which was set up by former President George W Bush to tackle the AIDS crisis, and is one of the largest providers of funding for global projects battling the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Former President Bush, who is often praised for setting up PEPFAR despite his broadly regressive stances on LGBT issues, penned an op-ed for the Washington Post warning against any cuts.
He wrote: “My administration launched PEPFAR in 2003 to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic that threatened to wipe out an entire generation on the continent of Africa. Nearly 15 years later, the program has achieved remarkable results in the fight against
“Nearly 15 years later, the program has achieved remarkable results in the fight against disease. Today, because of the commitment of many foreign governments, investments by partners, the resilience of the African people and the generosity of the American people, nearly 12 million lives have been saved.
He added: “As the executive and legislative branches review the federal budget, they will have vigorous debates about how best to spend taxpayers’ money — and they should.
“Some will argue that we have enough problems at home and shouldn’t spend money overseas. I argue that we shouldn’t spend money on programs that don’t work, whether at home or abroad.
“But they should fully fund programs that have proven to be efficient, effective and results-oriented.
“Saving nearly 12 million lives is proof that PEPFAR works, and I urge our government to fully fund it. We are on the verge of an AIDS-free generation, but the people of Africa still need our help.
“The American people deserve credit for this tremendous success and should keep going until the job is done.”
The Republican National Committee has thrown its support behind President Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military.
Donald Trump announced on Twitter last year that all transgender servicepeople would be purged from the US armed forces, claiming they were a burden on the military.
The decision was reportedly taken without consultation with military chiefs or legal experts, and the policy has been repeatedly smacked down in the courts.
Transgender people were able to openly join the military from last month, after a court blocked Trump’s ban from coming into effect.
But the controversy and legal action over the policy hasn’t dissuaded the Republicans, who gave the President their backing on the issue.
The Republican National Committee passed a resolution at its annual meeting on Friday, voting to support the President’s policy.
The resolution states that being transgender is “a disqualifying psychological and physical” condition.
Lucas Acosta, LGBTQ Media Director at the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement: “Over the last month alone, the Trump-Pence administration has rolled back significant protections for the LGBTQ community, ripped apart families, and allowed health care workers to discriminate access to medical care.
“Today, the RNC decided to go even further and pass a hateful resolution, which only serves to subvert and further demean hardworking men and women who want to serve their country in the most honorable way they can.
“The RNC has proven they are more than willing to deny basic rights to LGBTQ Americans all while accepting money from an accused sexual predator and funneling money to an alleged child molester.”
National Center for Transgender Equality Executive Director Mara Keisling said: “Transgender people have been serving openly for the last 19 months, and the only disruption has come from President Trump and others who are determined to jeopardize military readiness to advance their extremist political agenda.
“The fact is that we’ve shown, both through studies and experience, that open service by transgender troops is good for the military. We look forward to the courts settling this once and for all so that transgender troops can focus on protecting our country without having to worry about their job security every day.”
Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD said: “President Trump’s bigoted proposal to purge qualified military personnel is in direct contradiction to the will of the American people and what’s best for our nation’s security.
“The fact that the RNC is siding with blatant discrimination over supporting the rights of brave Americans to serve our nation displays how toxic and deeply rooted the Trump Administration’s anti-LGBTQ ideology has become.”
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s Government Affairs Director, said: “Transgender members of the military are serving their country with effectiveness and honor.
“The RNC’s statement is a disgusting attack on thousands of brave transgender service members and the armed services as a whole.
“It goes against the expert opinions of the medical and military communities in addition to flying in the face of supportive statements offered by at least 20 Republican lawmakers.
“As every federal court ruling to date has confirmed: this ban is unconstitutional. We will continue to fight for, and win, the right of every qualified person to serve the country they love.”
The policy also conflicts with medical consensus.
Last year, the American Medical Association said: “There is no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Transgender individuals are serving their country with honor, and they should be allowed to continue doing so.”
The American Psychological Association concurred: “We’ve seen no scientific evidence that allowing transgender people to serve in the armed forces has had an adverse impact on our military readiness or unit cohesion. Therefore, we ask that transgender individuals continue to be allowed to serve their country.”
Donald Trump rushed to a snap decision to ban transgender people from the military.
Donald Trump announced on Twitter last year that all transgender servicepeople would be purged from the US armed forces, claiming they were a burden on the military.
President Trump tweeted: “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.
“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”
Though Trump claimed the decision was taken “after consultation with Generals”, insiders claimed that he rushed to the conclusion by himself, after facing pressure from anti-LGBT Republicans in Congress.
And new Trump book ‘Fire and Fury’ by Michael Wolff, an inside story of much of the goings-on inside the Trump White House, presents a grim picture of how the decision was actually made.
The book paints a picture of the White House at the time in July when the ban was issued.
Wolff wrote: “That evening, the President travelled to West Virginia, to deliver a speech to the Boy Scouts of America. His speech was tonally at odds with time, place and good sense.
“It prompted an immediate apology from the Boy Scouts to its members, their parents and the country at large. The quick trip did not seem to improve Trump’s mood.
There are 5 critical strategies for how a data visionary can align resources and unleash data’s full potential. Discover them here.
“The next morning, seething, the President publicly attacked his Attorney General, and for good measure and no evident reason tweeted his ban of transgender people in the military.
“The President had been presented with four different options related to the military’s transgender policy. The presentation was meant to frame an ongoing discussion, but ten minutes after receiving the discussion points, and without further consultation, Trump tweeted his transgender ban.”
The account neglects to mention the pressure from Republicans in Congress, who days prior had attempted to attach a measure banning military funding for transgender medical treatment to a spending bill.
As The Advocate notes, the impasse on the spending bill was cited at the time as one of the key factors in the ban – though Trump’s snap decision to entirely ban transgender people from serving was far in excess of what the lawmakers in Congress had been seeking.
However, the lack of clarity in Wolff’s report potentially suggests an ignorance of advisors around Trump, who were the main sources for the book.
It’s possible that Trump’s advisors were simply not aware of the motive behind Trump’s action.
One thing is clear, however: if the account is to be believed, Trump was not telling the truth when he claimed the decision was taken “after consultation with Generals”.
Congress recently demanded that Donald Trump provide proof for his claims that generals supported the decision.
114 Members of Congress signed a letter requesting the White House release any correspondence with the Pentagon and military officials that took place prior to the announcement.
It says: “We request information about what discussions or correspondence between the White House and the Pentagon, if any, led President Trump to make his assertion.
“If senior military or Department of Defense personnel asked that the president ban transgender individuals from military service, we request access to any letters, e-mails, telephone transcripts, meeting logs and minutes. or other materials that document such requests.
“If the Department has records of any other discussions that might have justified the president’s claim, we request to see those materials, as well.
“We seek access to these materials in order to determine whether the president, his national security team, and military leaders are actively coordinating policy with one another, or whether the president’s transgender ban announcement reflected a breakdown in communication.
“As you know, clear communication between the White House and the Pentagon is essential to our nation’s security.
“We thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to receiving your reply. “
Tellingly, all 114 of the signatories are Democrats. Not a single Republican lawmaker has signed the letter asking to see evidence.
Former Vice President Joe Biden said: “Every patriotic American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to serve. Full stop.”
Rep. Joe Kennedy, who chairs the Transgender Equality Task Force in Congress, said: “When our bravest men and women raise their hand and volunteer to defend our nation, they defend all of her people. Rich and poor, young and old, democrat and republican, gay and straight. Americans of all races, religions, ethnicities, gender identities.
“Our soldiers do not discriminate. They don’t offer to pay the ultimate sacrifice for some Americans and not for others. Their government owes them that same courtesy.”
“To the thousands of brave transgender men and women serving today in uniform, please know that a grateful nation does not take your service, your patriotism for granted. you deserve better from your president, you deserve better from your government, you deserve better from your country.”
Senator Tammy Duckworth said: “When my Black Hawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, I didn’t care if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were gay, straight, transgender or anything else. All that mattered was they didn’t leave me behind.
“If you are willing to risk your life for our country and you can do the job, you should be able to serve—no matter your gender identity, sexual orientation or race. Anything else is discriminatory and counterproductive to our national security.”
The first out transgender people were able to join the military this month, after legal action over the ban.
Walmart is facing a lawsuit from a former employee who says she faced horrific discrimination at work because she is transgender.
The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund has today filed a federal lawsuit against Walmart on behalf of a North Carolina transgender woman.
The employee alleges she faced faced workplace discrimination at a Sam’s Club store in Kannapolis, North Carolina.
Sam’s Club is a membership-only retail warehouse chain owned by a subsidiary of Walmart.
According to the lawsuit, Charlene Bost endured a shockingly hostile work environment during her time at the company, from 2011 through her firing in 2015.
Ms Bost says that after she transitioned, co-workers and supervisors began discriminating against her because of her sex. She was repeatedly subjected to a barrage of hostilities which included being wrongfully disciplined and repeatedly called by the wrong name and pronouns.
The lawsuit says Walmart employees took to “misgendering Ms. Bost directly by addressing her as ‘Sir’ or ‘man’ or by her former male name, or mocking her by calling her ‘Ma’am’ or ‘Madam’ in a sarcastic tone of voice, or pretending confusion by calling her both ‘Ma’am’ and ‘Sir’ in succession.
She was also branded a “faggot” by colleagues, “while humiliating Ms. Bost by treating her as a freak”.
Don’t Miss these Innovative Creole-Caribbean Flavors in New Orleans
Chef Nina Compton Channels Caribbean Dishes mixed with Creole Character at Compère Lapin, Her Award-Winning Restaurant in New Orleans
Ad by New Orleans
The court heard that on one occasion, a customer in Walmart filed a complaint after overhearing workers referring to Ms Bost as a “faggot”.
Ms Bost says bosses failed to step in to stop the tirade of harassment.
She said: “Despite excelling at my job, Sam’s Club treated me with cruelty and disrespect, simply for being a woman.
“I am bringing this lawsuit because transgender people must have the same opportunities to work hard, earn a living and contribute to our communities, free from bias. No one should ever be confronted with the prejudice I experienced on the job.”
TLDEF contends that the discrimination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act.
In August the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found evidence that Ms Bost was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment because of her sex and determined this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The determination was one of two successful EEOC decisions secured by TLDEF against Walmart this year that led the Human Rights Campaign to suspend Walmart’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI) rating, despite the company’s trans-inclusive corporate policies.
TLDEF Executive Director Jillian Weiss said: “The EEOC put its weight behind this case and our federal lawsuit is the next step on the road to justice for Ms. Bost.
“This case makes clear that workplace discrimination against transgender individuals violates the law and will not be tolerated. It also sends a strong message to Walmart that good corporate policy alone will not suffice. It must be backed by strong enforcement mechanisms that reach the shop floor.”
“We stand with TLDEF and our fellow North Carolinian, Ms. Bost, in their pursuit of this discrimination case,” said Ames Simmons, Director of Transgender Policy for Equality North Carolina. “Mistreating trans employees is illegal and unacceptable. Sam’s Club must be held accountable.”
This case is Charlene Bost v. Sam’s East, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
TLDEF Senior Staff Attorney Donna Levinsohn is representing Ms. Bost in partnership with Robert Elliot of the North Carolina law firm of Elliot Morgan Parsonage, PLLC.
A spokesperson for the company said: “Wal-Mart maintains a strong anti-discrimination policy. We support diversity and inclusion in our workforce and do not tolerate discrimination or retaliation of any kind.
“We disagree with the claims raised by Ms. Bost. Her termination was for performance reasons. We will respond as appropriate with the court.”
There is no federal law that explicitly bans discrimination against LGBT people, so the case relies on an interpretation of a civil rights provision outlawing discrimination based on sex.
Such interpretations have been hotly contested in the past few months.
Under the Trump administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has argued that the Civil Rights Act provisions should be narrowly interpreted to refer to discrimination against men or women, whereas Obama-era officials had argued that it logically also provided protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
A court had been hearing the case of Donald Zarda, a late former skydiving instructor who alleged that Altitude Express Inc fired him because of his sexuality.
In a surprise intervention, federal government officials sided with the employer – arguing that it is entirely legal to discriminate against gay employees on a federal level.
Zarda’s lawyers had cited civil rights protections from the 1960s in their case.
But the Department of Justice now insists that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination in employment based on sex, does not provide any protection for gay people.
s.
Mooppan insisted: “Employers under Title VII are permitted to consider employees’ out-of-work sexual conduct.
“There is a commonsense, intuitive difference between sex and sexual orientation.”
The DOJ had insisted: “Discrimination based on sexual orientation does not fall within Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination because it does not involve “disparate treatment of men and women”.
“Rather than causing similarly situated ‘members of one sex [to be] exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed’, differential treatment of gay and straight employees for men and women alike.”
The DOJ also argued somewhat circularly that it was clear that existing civil rights law doesn’t protect gay people, because Congress remains opposed to “proposed legislation that would prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation”.
Catholic Bishops in the US are behind a new campaign encouraging parents to reject their transgender children.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter this week that brands transgender people “deeply troubling” and claims that changing gender is a “false idea”.
There is nothing in the Bible about transgender people or changing gender, but the Bishops have called for parents to refuse to allow kids to transition.
Studies have shown that an unaccepting or stifling environment drastically increases the likelihood that transgender youths will attempt suicide.
The letter says: “Children especially are harmed when they are told that they can ‘change’ their sex or, further, given hormones that will affect their development and possibly render them infertile as adults.
“Parents deserve better guidance on these important decisions, and we urge our medical institutions to honor the basic medical principle of ‘first, do no harm’.
“Gender ideology harms individuals and societies by sowing confusion and self-doubt.
“The state itself has a compelling interest, therefore, in maintaining policies that uphold the scientific fact of human biology and supporting the social institutions and norms that surround it. “
The letter adds: “The movement today to enforce the false idea—that a man can be or become a woman or vice versa—is deeply troubling.
“It compels people to either go against reason—that is, to agree with something that is not true—or face ridicule, marginalization, and other forms of retaliation.
“We desire the health and happiness of all men, women, and children. Therefore, we call for policies that uphold the truth of a person’s sexual identity as male or female, and the privacy and safety of all.
“We hope for renewed appreciation of the beauty of sexual difference in our culture and for authentic support of those who experience conflict with their God-given sexual identity.”
It also says: “We also believe that God created each person male or female; therefore, sexual difference is not an accident or a flaw—it is a gift from God that helps draw us closer to each other and to God. What God has created is good.
“God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
The advice is particularly harmful to families with transgender children, and represents a giant leap by the USCCB to a position that does not appear to be based on any scripture or pre-existing Catholic teaching.
Rev. James Martin, a highly-respected Jesuit priest, is the author of recently-published book Building a Bridge, which sets out a framework for the Catholic Church to begin to engage with the LGBT community with “respect, compassion and sensitivity”.
In the book, the priest draws on the Christian ideals of “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” as a model for how the Catholic Church should relate to the LGBT community, igniting anger from the anti-LGBT lobby which is dominant within the church.
In the wake of the book’s publication, hardline opponents of LGBT equality within the Church began a campaign targeting Rev. Martin – successfully convincing a string of global Catholic organisations to cancel planned events where he had been due to speak about unrelated subjects.
The Theological College in Washington DC, where the priest was due to give a lecture about the Bible, abruptly cancelled the event last week, after conservatives raised issues with Rev. Martin’s beliefs on LGBT issues.
The Order of the Holy Sepulchre in New York also cancelled a lecture by Rev. Martin, confirming that his invite “was in fact rescinded”.
Rev. Martin had also been set to travel to London to deliver the 2017 lecture for Cafod, the overseas aid agency of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.
After the backlash the event was shelved entirely, with Martin confirming that “cancellation of the 2017 Cafod lecture, scheduled for October, was out of fears of the backlash to my book”.
In a statement to PinkNews Cafod claimed that the 2017 lecture was actually just ‘postponed’ until next year for scheduling reasons and that an invitation “still stands” for Rev. Martin to speak in future.
This is somewhat incongruous given Cafod supplied a completely different statement to the Catholic Herald that confirmed it had been “considering” the future of the event due to “strength of feeling [Martin’s book] generated in some quarters”.
In a statement, Rev. Martin said: “I want to say that I bear no ill will whatsoever to Cafod, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre or Theological College. All of them are fine Catholic institutions that serve, in their different ways, the People of God.”
He added: “One of the many sad ironies of this episode has been that in each case the local ordinary was perfectly fine with my speaking – in London, New York and DC.
“Yet those who decided on the cancellations were ultimately influenced more by fear of protests and negative publicity than by the opinions of their ordinaries, in each case a cardinal.
“The situations were so terrifically fraught with fear for these organizations: fear of protests, fear of violence, fear of bad publicity, fear of angry donors, fear of lost donations, fear of offending, and on and on.
“When two of the organizers called me, I could hear the anguish in their voices.”
Addressing the anti-LGBT activists who had waged a campaign against him, he added: “So what do we do?
“Don’t give into them. To me, that’s an important lesson of the past few days. Don’t let them cow you.
“They’re like schoolyard bullies that keep taunting you? Well, you’re not 12 any longer. They can’t hurt you.
“And why let fear run your organization? It’s a sure way to disaster. And the PR from cancelling something is always worse. Don’t let them run things in your organization.”
He added: “If they are angry people, their anger comes from somewhere, which is ultimately sadder for them than for you. If they have a visceral hatred for LGBT people, it probably comes from a discomfort with their own complex sexuality, which is also sadder for them. ‘Hurt people hurt people’, as the saying goes.
“Often these sites or groups or individuals feel that they are being prophetic: i.e.,pointing out your supposed sins, completely contrary to Jesus’s command not to judge.
“Even more often, that prophecy morphs into pure hatred and obvious contempt and endless name calling. It’s called spite. But that doesn’t mean you yourself have to move towards hatred. That would be giving into the Evil Spirit.”
Others have been less forgiving.
Writing in America Magazine, San Diego Bishop Robert W. McElroy lashed out at those who had sought to censor Rev. Martin.
He wrote: “There has arisen both in Catholic journals and on social media a campaign to vilify Father Martin, to distort his work, to label him heterodox, to assassinate his personal character and to annihilate both the ideas and the dialogue that he has initiated.
“This campaign of distortion must be challenged and exposed for what it is—not primarily for Father Martin’s sake but because this cancer of vilification is seeping into the institutional life of the church.
“Already, several major institutions have canceled Father Martin as a speaker. Faced with intense external pressures, these institutions have bought peace, but in doing so they have acceded to and reinforced a tactic and objectives that are deeply injurious to Catholic culture in the United States and to the church’s pastoral care for members of the L.G.B.T. communities.”
Surprisingly, the active censorship of Rev. Martin has not aroused protests from any of the ‘free speech’ campaigners who have sprung up to defend far-right speakers on college campuses.
A judge violated ethics rules by insisting he did not want to oversee same-sex adoptions, officials have concluded.
Judge Mitchell Nance, who presides over family court in Kentucky’s 43rd Judicial District, caused a storm earlier this year after he banned cases involving gay families from his courtroom.
Judge Nance’s order registered an “conscientious objection to the concept of adoption of a child by a practising homosexual”, seeking to recuse himself from such cases on the grounds of “matters of conscience”.
The judge claimed he cannot hear the cases because he believes there is no circumstance in which “the best interest of the child [would] be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual”.
A probe into his conduct by the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission this week established that he had violated ethics rules.
The judge was handed a reprimand, having already confirmed that he will ‘voluntarily’ resign from the bench over the row.
The state judicial commission had pursued ethics charges against Nance, accusing him of violating the judicial code of conduct.
This bars judges from overtly “showing bias or prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status”.
He was also accused of failing to act in a way that “promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”.
The Time is Now! Request Your Copy of the 2018 IKEA Catalog Here.
Sign up to receive your printed catalog, or download the digital version today!
Ad by IKEA®
Responding to the charges previously, Nance’s lawyers confirmed that he would be resigning rather than face punishment.
The complaint against the judge was pursued by the Fairness Campaign, a Kentucky LGBT group. It was joined by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kentucky and University of Louisville Law Professor Sam Marcosson.
Speaking to the Herald Leader, Chris Hartman of the Fairness Campaign said: “I think that we’ve got justice here
“Judge Nance has proven he cannot be entrusted with decisions that affect his diverse constituency and their families.
“I hope it sends a message that fairness and justice must be applied equally, and that judges whose conscience conflicts with their duties must resign the bench if they cannot deliver that basic fairness and justice.”
The judge had insisted previously that he had not discriminated against gay couples because the order was “preemptive”.
The judge explained he wanted to make clear in advance that he would not take such cases, adding: “It’s preemptive in nature… I wanted to preempt there from being any uncertainty if the situation arose.”
Judge Nance was backed by anti-LGBT groups.
The anti-LGBT Family Foundation of Kentucky said: “If we are going to let liberal judges write their personal biases and prejudices into law, as we have done on issues of marriage and sexuality, then, in the interest of fairness, we are going to have to allow judges with different views to at least recuse themselves from such cases.
“When adoption agencies abandon the idea that it is in the best interest of a child to grow up with both a mother and a father, people can’t expect judges who do believe that to be forced to bow the knee.”
The group insisted the judge was correct to “recuse himself if he believes his views might bias a cas.
It added: “We can’t imagine how the groups now trying to unseat him claim to be in favor of tolerance and diversity while at the same time trying to hound from office public officials who don’t agree with their politically correct ideology.”
“If the Judicial Ethics Commission rules against Nance, it will be the second time in recent months which it has ruled against a judge for doing what the law requires judges to do.”
Danica Roem (Photo by PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)
Republicans have abruptly taken the decision to stop using gendered language in the Virginia House of Delegates – so they don’t have to refer to groundbreaking trans politician Danica Roem as a woman.
Democratic delegate-elect Danica Roem made history earlier this month as the first openly transgender lawmaker to be elected to a state legislature, after unseating GOP incumbent Bob Marshall, who penned anti-transgender ‘bathroom’ legislation.
Roem is set to take up her seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in January.
But ahead of the new session, the Republican-controlled body has opted to make drastic changes to the chamber’s 400-year-old rulebook.
Under the changes, politicians speaking on the floor of the House will no longer have to refer to eachother as ‘Gentleman’ or ‘Gentlewoman’, and will instead use the term ‘Delegate’ as a gender-neutral address.
While the removal of unnecessarily-gendered language might be cheered by liberals in other occasions, the GOP’s actions appear to be preventing lawmakers from having to refer to Ms Roem as a ‘Gentlewoman’.
House Majority Leader M. Kirkland Cox (R-Colonial Heights) confirmed the change.
In a statement to the Washington Post, his spokesperson said: “All members will be afforded the same respect and courtesy that this nearly 400-year-old institution commands.
“Speaker-designee Cox believes the ‘gentlelady’ and ‘gentleman’ terminology is outdated, and that referring to everyone as ‘delegate’ is more timely and appropriate.”
Republicans repeatedly referred to Ms Roem as male during the campaign, with Marshall focussing much of his campaign on attacking his opponent’s gender identity.
Delegate-elect Roem, who focused her campaign on local infrastructure issues, did not rise to her opponent’s jibes.
After the election result, she said: “Bob is my constituent now. I don’t attack my constituents.”
Politics professor Bob Holsworth told the Post that the Republicans are “trying in some way to thread a needle with their own base”.
He added: “They’re willing to change the tradition in this sense before they will explicitly acknowledge Danica Roem as a woman.”
Delegate-elect Roem said: “What matters the most is that I’m there.
“What matters the most to the people of the 13th District is that the woman they elected to serve them will be working on their behalf.
“I will be the delegate from Prince William, and I will conduct myself as the gentlewoman from Prince William while I’m in Richmond and in any other official capacity in which I serve.”
Marshall, who will be unemployed in January, co-authored the state’s now-defunct constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
In her victory speech, Roem said: “This election has to prove nationwide that discrimination is a disqualifier.
“When you champion inclusion, when you champion equality, when you champion equity and you focus on the issues that unite us, like building up our infrastructure…those are the issues that you have to focus on,” she added.
“I believe in building up our infrastructure instead of tearing down each other. That is fundamental.
“When the negative ads started coming out, attacking transgender kids…we stayed on our message while decrying discrimination.”
Roem told everyone watching: “We can’t get lost in discrimination, we can’t get lost in B.S., we can’t get lost tearing each other down.
“No matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify – and yeah, how you rock – if you have good public policy ideas, if you’re well-qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America too…and we are stronger together,” Roem told the crowd.
She dedicated her win to everyone who’s been discriminated against.
During the campaign, she championed LGBT rights, saying: “We are unabashedly pro-equality & anti-discrimination.
“It’s time we put LGBTQ kids front-and-centre, and I’m standing with them.
“As a trans woman, I know representation matters.”
In contrast, Republican Bob Marshall, who has been in office since 1991, has a long history of introducing hateful anti-LGBT bills to the Virginian legislature.
In May, Roem said: “When the people of the 13th District elect a transgender woman to replace the most anti-LGBT legislator in the South, it will be an act of certainty, and it will be a defining moment that will resonate across the country.”
Research has shown that one in three LGBT travellers experience homophobic or transphobic treatment while on holiday.
The news comes from a report into the issues faced by LGBT travellers worldwide.
The report reveals more than one in three (37%) LGBT travellers have experienced some form of discrimination whilst on holiday, with 6% experiencing a threat of physical violence due to their sexuality.
The report also highlighted that sexuality had a major influence on where LGBT Brits travelled, with two thirds (63%) refusing to travel somewhere that had an unwelcoming attitude towards the LGBT community.
A quarter (23%) of LGBT travellers admitted changing the way they act and try to camouflage their sexuality when on holiday.
Most alarmingly, an overwhelming 80% said that the travel industry don’t do enough to inform the LGBT community about local laws prior to departure.
The research was carried out for Virgin Holidays, which has launched a campaign with Stonewall on the issue.
There have been a series of high-profile cases in recent years of LGBT British holidaymakers experiencing discrimination abroad.
Ruth Hunt, Stonewall CEO, said: “It’s difficult for travel companies to negotiate the ever-changing landscape around global LGBT equality.
“Travel companies should be doing everything they can to keep their staff and customers safe when travelling anywhere in the world.
“We would love to see others join forces with Virgin Holidays and work towards a world where lesbian, gay, bi and trans people feel able to travel freely without fear of discrimination, and are accepted without exception.”
Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson said: “We believe everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, has the right to be whoever they are, wherever they are. That’s why it is shocking that in today’s society some of us can’t even enjoy a simple holiday without fear of discrimination.”
A number of MEPs have condemned Hungary’s decision to block a Europe-wide agreement on LGBT rights.
The Dutch government, which currently holds the EU Presidency, had tabled a draft agreement at the Council of the European Union this week, which called on the European Commission to tackle homophobic and transphobic discrimination, promote measures to advance LGBTI equality, and step up efforts to collect data on the treatment of LGBTI citizens.
The agreement has been welcomed by the majority of member countries – with conservative countries including Latvia, Lithuania and Poland dropping their initial reservations.
Following the news, three members of the EU’s Intergroup on LGBTI Rights have spoken out against the decision.
Austrian Green MEP Ulrike Lunacek said: “I strongly welcome the efforts by the Dutch Presidency to put this on the agenda and the attempt to reach unanimous Council Conclusions on the List of Actions.”
“Although it is disappointing that the Hungarian government has taken this as an opportunity to show itself from its most homophobic side, the broad agreement among all other Member States is really a promising sign of increased LGBTI acceptance across Europe.”
Italy’s Daniele Viotti MEP, continued: “The support by 27 Member States for EU action on LGBTI equality, should give the Commission, Parliament and Member States the necessary backing to continue working towards full equality for LGBTI people.”
“We cannot let one country halt all progress on LGBTI rights. Equality simply cannot wait any longer!”
Dutch MEP Sophie in ‘t Veld added: “The Dutch Presidency has demonstrated a clear commitment to getting the rights of LGBTI people on the Council’s agenda. I call on them, and on other allies in the Council, to intensify their efforts in convincing Hungary to ensure a successful Dutch Presidency for LGBTI people.”
The UK’s only Liberal Democrat MEP, Catherine Bearder, told PinkNews yesterday in a statement: “The EU has played a vital role in advancing LGBTI rights across the continent in recent year, including by making it illegal to refuse someone a job on the grounds of sexual orientation.“But the reality is that in some European countries LBGTI people still face daily persecution and discrimination.
“It is a disgrace that governments like Viktor Orban’s in Hungary are blocking progress in this area.
“The UK should use our influence in the EU to ensure LGBT rights are respected across our neighbourhood.”
A statement from Hungary’s right-wing government said: “Hungary is not in the position to agree with the list of actions to advance LGBTI equality.”
The agreement had called on the European Commission and member states “to take further action to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and to conduct awareness-raising to advance LGBTI equality”.
However, it added that it was important to “fully respect the Member States’ national identities and constitutional traditions as well as the competence of the Member States in the field of family law… [while] paying attention to the fundamental rights of LGBTI persons.”
