From the Dispatch

Stopping Bullying in Schools

Nora Ranney — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:32:41 -0400

The outcry following the suicides of two Massachusetts students, who killed themselves after being subjected to intense bullying in the past year, culminated in Gov. Deval Patrick signing anti-bullying legislation on May 3rd. The Massachusetts House and Senate passed the bill unanimously, following more than a decade of work by advocates. The law prohibits actions that cause emotional or physical harm to students, including taunting over the Internet. Faculty and students are required to have anti-bullying training and parents must be informed of incidents at school. School employees, including custodians and cafeteria workers, must report incidents of suspected bullying and principals must investigate each case.

Massachusetts now joins 42 other states with an anti-bullying bill, leaving Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, Hawaii (last introduced in 2009), Mississippi, and Montana yet to join them. Wisconsin's SB 154 is on Gov. Doyle’s desk and would require school boards to enact anti-bullying policies and implement procedures for investigating and disciplining incidences of bullying. A Michigan bill (HB 4580) is stalled in committee, but Gov. Granholm has stated she will sign the bill if it reaches her desk.

Protecting LGBT Youth: In Michigan, the sticking point, as with many other more recent state bills, is whether or not to give specific mention to LGBT youth. A compromise not pleasing to either side is in negotiations, tweaking the language to read, “[Bullying] is reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by actual or perceived characteristic.” The American Family Association of Michigan is lobbying hard to kill the bill. Similar socially conservative "family" organizations have fought anti-bullying bills in other states.

Studies have shown that LBGT youth are especially targeted for bullying. A 2007 report by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that 9 out of 10 LGBT students (86.2%) experienced harassment at school in the past year, three-fifths (60.8%) felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and about a third (32.7%) skipped a day of school in the past month because of feeling unsafe.

Advocates in Massachusetts were disappointed that LGBT youth were not specified as a class in need of protection in the bill just enacted there. On the other hand, North Carolina last year passed SB 526, requiring schools to adopt strong policies against bullying and harassment, including bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, despite a protracted and oftentimes mean-spirited fight. This was the first time the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" appear in the North Carolina General Statutes -- a significant victory for Equality North Carolina, which joined forces with a statewide school violence prevention coalition and other allies to support the bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Glazier.

Upgrading Old Statutes: Many states with existing anti-bullying legislation are experiencing “upgrade” bills to include cyberbullying, training and/or to add “sexual orientation or gender identity” to the list of protected students. Cyberbullying -- defined as communicating harmful, violent and/or malicious words and/or pictures through the means of technology -- has been a growing area of harassment that states are increasingly seeking to address.

This legislative session, Illinois lawmakers passed an upgrade to their existing bill, now including LGBT students specifically and mandating tolerance training. The Senate bill passed with all but two senators supporting it; the House passed the bill unanimously. Gov. Quinn is expected to sign the bill within the week.

The key focus of all these anti-bullying laws is to hold school officials accountable for developing policies to prohibit bullying. Where they vary is in the details of bullying prevention programs, training for staff, and accountability measures to require individuals to report school bullying incidents. And regardless of the statute language, assuring they are interpreted and implemented appropriately is an ongoing challenge.

Resources:
Massachusetts: Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Bill Passes
Colorado: Colorado School Violence Prevention and Student Discipline Manual, Office of the Attorney General
New Jersey: Model Policy and Guidance for Prohibiting Harassment, New Jersey Department of Education
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN): National School Climate Survey: Nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT Students Harassed
Human Rights Campaign: Statewide School Laws and Policies (Map)
National Institute on Mental Health: Anti-Bullying Resources

Anti-Tax Forces Lose at Ballot/Split Decision on Gay Unions/Other Election Analysis

Nathan Newman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:30:19 -0500

While the governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia got most of the headlines, other state races around the country delivered a mixed message by voters on a number of issues.

Anti-Tax Forces Continue to Fail at the Ballot Box: The defeat of three anti-tax initiatives that were on the ballot in Washington state and Maine left the anti-tax movement as the big losers of the night -- and this just continues a multi-year string of defeats by the right-wing on tax issues. In both states, voters rejected the so-called TABOR ("Taxpayer Bill of Rights") initiatives that would have created rigid formulas restricting the power of states to raise revenue that would have crippled those states' capacity to provide services like education, health care, emergency services, and public safety. Voters in Maine also rejected a proposal to slash the excise tax on new and hybrid cars, which would have undermined local revenue around the state.

Back in the early 90s, the right-wing managed to pass a TABOR system in Colorado at the ballot box, which had disastrous consequences, including large declines in K-12 funding and increased higher education tuition rates. The measure additionally hindered the state's ability to address the lack of medical insurance coverage for many children and adults (see the PSN Dispatch on "TABOR's Disastrous Record in Colorado"). This led voters to partially repudiate TABOR at the ballot in 2005. And when the right-wing tried to enact TABOR-like initiatives in states across the country in 2006, progressives highlighted fraud in signature collecting in multiple states and the issue was thrown off the ballot in Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Missouri. On Election Day, voters in Maine, Nebraska and Oregon finished the job in voting down the remaining TABOR initiatives. And in 2008, anti-government tax measures were defeated overwhelmingly in Massachusetts, North Dakota and Oregon. So the 2009 results in Maine and Washington reflect that voters reject the rhetoric of the right-wing anti-tax movement -- a message more elected leaders should recognize as they grapple with budget crises needing new revenue.

Split Vote on Gay and Lesbian Unions: Even as Washington state voters supported a broad domestic partnership law providing many of the legal protections of marriage, Maine voters by a close margin rejected a state law granting full marriage equality to gay and lesbian partners. While the Maine loss was heartbreakingly close, supporters of marriage equality took heart from the fact that 47% of Maine voters supported it, something that would have been impossible even a decade ago. And as we detailed this past Monday, young voters overwhelmingly support marriage equality, so victory is inevitable in coming years. "As a young person in Maine, I actually feel very confident that marriage equality will be the law in our state at some point in my lifetime. I hope it's in the next couple of years," Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree said.

Voters Continue to Support Public Investments: Despite tough economic times, voters continued to support initiatives to dedicate funding to long-term initiatives for economic growth and environmental sustainability:

In Maine, voters approved a $71 million bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures that will make the state eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds.
In New Jersey, voters approved a bond act that would authorize $400 million in funds to acquire and develop lands for recreation and conservation purposes, preserving farmland, buying flood-prone or storm-damaged properties, and historic preservation projects.
Texas voters established a "National Research University Fund" to dedicate $500 million to turning seven Texas universities into top Tier 1 research institutions.

Although Gov. Ted Strickland opposed the initiative, Ohio voters, desiring jobs and economic growth, approved casinos in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo. Supporters of the measure estimate the casinos will create 34,000 jobs, bring $200 million in licensing fees and generate an estimated $651 million annually in revenue for Ohio. Ohio voters also approved selling $200 million of bonds to provide services and compensation to residents who are veterans of conflicts in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Denver Anti-Immigrant Measure Rejected: Denver voters soundly rejected a so-called car impound initiative, which was designed to target undocumented immigrants by requiring police to seize the vehicles of every unlicensed driver they stop.

Mixed Message for Progressives in Candidate Elections: In New York, a Democrat won a state Assembly seat that no Democrat had won since before the Civil War, even as progressive Gov. Jon Corzine lost in New Jersey. In the recent Virginia Governor's race, the conservative Democratic candidate spent much of his time explaining how he opposed a public option in health care, opposed robust climate change legislation, and opposed reforms to protect the freedom of workers to form labor unions. His subsequent loss highlights an important, perennial message for progressive candidates: when given a choice between a conservative and a conservative Democrat, voters will choose the true conservative.

Results were even more mixed when you look down ballot. New Jersey Democrats held onto their large majorities in the Assembly with little change, while conservatives in Virginia gained a number of seats in their House of Delegates. And conservatives gained majority control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by winning a hotly contested race for a state Supreme Court seat. Yet as Progressive Majority details, local progressive candidates did well throughout the country, although progressives lost in a few upscale suburban districts around New York City.

On the Ballot: Defeating TABOR, Defending Relationship Equality Laws & A Roundup of Other Ballot Issues

Nora Ranney — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:12:59 -0400

While New Jersey and Virginia are getting a lot of national press for high-profile governors races, the action on state ballots this year is in Maine and Washington, with scattered other issues playing out in additional states.

In both Maine and Washington, right wing groups have the same anti-tax initiative on the ballot and similar efforts to repeal laws giving gay and lesbian relationships protection under state law -- with the same kind of deception and fraud by the same right wing organizations that we've seen year after year in ballot initiatives.

Along with giving a roundup of the range of initiatives on the ballot in this off-year election, this Dispatch will give special focus to the campaigns against TABOR and defending relationship equality laws.

Table of Contents:

- TABOR Resurfaces in Maine, Heads to Washington

- Defending Wins on Same-Sex Relationships

- Fixing the Initiative Process

- Other Ballot Issues in November

TABOR Resurfaces in Maine, Heads to Washington

The right wing anti-tax movement has seen repeated failures in recent years, yet they are again promoting anti-tax ballot initiatives in Maine and Washington. So-called TABOR ("Taxpayer Bill of Rights") initiatives would, if approved, create a rigid spending formula that would cripple those states' capacity to provide services like education, health care, emergency services, and public safety.

In Maine, TABOR failed at the ballot in 2006 but is back again this year with the backing of the conservative groups Maine Heritage Policy Center (which also supported it in 2006) and Maine Leads, which is under investigation for violating campaign finance laws by hiding the identity of its funders. Behind the I-1033 TABOR initiative in Washington, is the ubiquitous Tim Eyman - referred to by many progressives and conservatives alike as a “professional initiative salesman,” who personally profits from his prolific ballot initiative career. Anti-TABOR forces are branding the message "Vote NO on Tim Eyman's I-1033."

Even as communities are postponing and canceling road work because of a lack of funding, Maine voters face an additional anti-tax measure that would reduce funding to roads by cutting the state's excise tax for new and hybrid vehicles. This would be a big tax break for those able to afford a new car, but would force many communities to raise local property taxes to make up for the lost revenue, leading a broad-based coalition called Maine Can Do Better to deem it a similar threat to state prosperity as TABOR.

TABOR's Disastrous Record in Colorado: TABOR passed in Colorado in 1992, leading to terrible results, including large declines in K-12 funding, higher education tuition rates, and hindering the state's ability to address the lack of medical insurance coverage for many children and adults (see our past Dispatch on "TABOR's Disastrous Record in Colorado"). While voters in Colorado partially repudiated TABOR at the ballot in 2005, the legacy of over a decade of TABOR's effects live on in a state ranked one of the lowest levels in K-12 education, drop-out rates, and immunization rates, among other problems.

TABOR uses a rigid formula restricting spending levels based on a simplistic calculation tying spending to population and the consumer price index (CPI). When health or education costs rise more than the specific CPI inflation calculator (as they have in recent years), states have to cut services and programs.

How Coalitions are Fighting TABOR: Broad coalitions of education advocates, health care organizations, community groups, unions and even chambers of commerce have united in both Washington and Maine to oppose to the TABOR measures. The No on I-1033 campaign has highlighted the lessons from Colorado and produced videos detailing personal stories about the likely effects of TABOR. In Maine, the No on TABOR II campaign is emphasizing how TABOR will undermine state efforts to recover from the recession and the campaign brought a number of Colorado Republicans to the state to talk about the damage TABOR did in Colorado.

Defeating TABOR initiatives in Washington and Maine will help stop any trend toward more of these ballot initiatives in the future. In fact, since 2005, TABOR has failed to be enacted in all 28 legislatures where it was introduced, but according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), any TABOR victories in 2009 could encourage several state legislatures or signature collection campaigns to put it on the 2010 ballot -- the most likely candidates being Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and Missouri.

While recent polls in both Washington and Maine show narrow leads for the TABOR initiatives, anti-TABOR leaders in both states express confidence that the broad-based coalitions speaking out on its devastating potential effects will win out on election day, as they have repeatedly in other states around the country.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - The Taxpayers' Bill of Goods
No on I-1033
Washington State Budget & Policy Center - Toxic Twins: I-1033 Mirrors Colorado's Corrosive TABOR
No on TABOR II and Maine Can Do Better
Maine Center for Economic Policy - TABOR in Maine
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
The Bell Policy Center - TABOR
Center for American Progress, TABOR
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - TABOR: A Threat to Education, Health Care, and Social Services
The Tax Policy Center - "The Economic Effects of TABOR

Defending Wins on Same-Sex Relationships

In contrast to 2006, when the anti-relationship equality movement was on the offensive with a spate of constitutional amendments banning all forms of state recognition for same-sex couples, this year, conservatives are on the defense, having to go to the ballot to try to rollback significant legislative advances in both Washington state and Maine legalizing same-sex unions.

Marriage Equality on the Move: In the 2009 legislative session, four state legislatures (ME, NH, VT, CT) passed bills that were signed by their governors to include same-sex couples in their respective state's civil marriage law. In Washington, since the state introduced its first nondiscrimination bill 20 years ago and passed it in 2006, the legislature has followed up year after year with additional relationship protections that add heft to domestic partnership protections. In both Maine and Washington, conservatives took to the ballot referendum process to rollback those gains:

In Maine, after the crushing blow of Prop 8, by which California voters rejected their state supreme court's ruling to allow civil marriages for same-sex couples, voters are well poised to turn the tide by becoming the first state to defend marriage at the ballot box.
In Washington, voters will be faced with Referendum 71 and decide whether to approve the state legislature's recent expansion of the domestic partnership law to protect couples' right to care for each other, especially in times of crisis.

Deceptive Tactics by the Right Wing: As noted above, initiative campaigns are under fire for ethics violations for fraudulent signature gathering processes. In Washington, signature gatherers for Referendum 71 were caught on video lying to citizens about the law and used deceptive signature petitions in order to trick people into signing their petitions.

While conservative groups like National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are funneling money into Maine, it is a hard sell to argue that the sky will fall with "traditional marriage" surviving quite well in next door Massachusetts with its own marriage equality law (which has existed for over five years). Using the same PR firm as was used in California, the anti-marriage equality campaign is recycling the same threat, that allowing this law to stand would mean altering the eduction system to "promote homosexuality." But a recent poll shows that the public isn't buying it: roughly 62 percent of respondents said they do not believe gay marriage will be taught in public schools if the law is allowed to take effect.

Setting the Stage for Equality Fights in 2010: If marriage equality supporters protects their victory in Maine, that will leave only Rhode Island left to solidify New England as a region for equal civil marriage laws. And while NOM's website talks about fighting marriage equality in "the Northeast and West Coast," they don't seem to want to mention that state legislators refused to repeal civil marriage equality as established by the Iowa Supreme Court or that just this past year, Wisconsin Governor Doyle signed domestic partnerships into law, highlighting that "pro-traditional family" arguments are failing, even in the heartland. In New Mexico, for example, Governor Richardson has pledged to put the domestic partnership issue on the legislative agenda for the 30-day budget session, and other states are moving to enact protections where legally feasible (some states ban any recognition, no matter how small, for same-sex relationships).

Resources:
Maine No on 1 campaign
Washington Approve R-71 campaign
The Task Force - Marriage/Partner Recognition
Human Rights Campaign - about marriage and relationship recognition
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - LGBT issues on the ballot
Williams Institute at UCLA - economic analysis on Maine - economic analysis on Washington

Fixing the Initiative Process

The high-profile fights on TABOR and relationship equality in both Washington and Maine show how the initiative process has been hijacked in recent years by monied interests, often using the same right wing front groups to try to undermine progressive goals -- and at the least to force progressives to waste money defending them.

As the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and others have documented, fraud and deception have become all too common in the signature gathering process for state initiatives. Reform of the process is desperately needed to fix the system and assure that initiatives reflect real grassroots concerns and not just those of elite right wing interests playing games with the ballot process.

As we detailed in our Dispatch Reforming the Ballot Initiative Process: Making Direct Democracy Work, there are a number of disclosure and anti-fraud measures that, if enacted, would prevent these kinds of abuses of the ballot initiative process.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Reforming the Ballot Initiative Process: Making Direct Democracy Work
Progressive States Network - Right Wing Fraud Derails Tax Revolt
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - Signature Reform Guidelines
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - The Campaign Finance Reform Blind Spot

Other Ballot Issues in November

While likely to get less national attention, there are other important initiatives on state ballots around the country. BISC has a roundup by state here, but a few key state decisions include:

Bond and Investment Measures: As a likely prelude to 2010, both Maine and New Jersey are moving large bond measures to invest in the state:

In Maine, there is a $71 million bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures that will make the state eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds.
In New Jersey, a proposed bond act would authorize $400 million in funds to acquire and develop lands for recreation and conservation purposes, preserving farmland, buying flood-prone or storm-damaged properties, and historic preservation projects.

Slate of Texas Constitutional Amendments: A number are non-controversial, but a few would have real impact, including:

Streamlining and equalizing the appraisal process for property taxes;
Protecting public access to beaches on the Gulf of Mexico;
Restricting eminent domain by limiting state and local governments use of eminent domain to promote economic development; and,
Establishing the "National Research University Fund" to dedicate $500 million in a fund to turn seven Texas universities into top Tier 1 research institutions.

Other Ballot Initiative Issues: Additionally, Maine voters will be asked to weigh in on:

Repealing the state's 2007 school consolidation law, which exempted many urban areas and led to opposition in rural parts of the state.
Another initiative would legalize medical marijuana in the state, following fourteen other states that have legalized medical marijuana for the treatment of a host of health problems such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, hepatitis C, and Alzheimer's disease.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Election: Given the recent history of business groups engineering the takeover of state high courts, there are high stakes in Pennsylvania where ideological control of the high court, currently divided 3-3 between business and consumer-labor friendly judges, will be decided by elections on November 3rd. Labor unions in particular have made the race a priority in both get-out-the-vote and campaign funding decisions.

Resources:
Maine No Bad Roads: Vote No on 2
Progressive States Network - Corporate Influence on State Supreme Courts Show Need for Reform

Marriage Equality Scores Historic Victories: Vermont and Iowa Become 3rd and 4th States to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:15:43 -0400

The number of states giving full state marriage rights to same-sex couples has doubled in under a week as first Iowa and then Vermont joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in achieving marriage equality. Additionally, the District of Columbia City Council recently voted to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

Vermont Becomes First State to Legislate Marriage Equality: On Tuesday, literally without one vote to spare, the Vermont Legislature voted to overturn the governor's veto of a bill granting full marriage rights under state law to same-sex couples. This marks the first time that a state legislature, rather than the courts, has extended equal marriage rights to its GLBT residents. The passage of this law, SB 115, sponsored by Senate President Peter Shumlin, is therefore a key milestone in the history of marriage equality. Vermont created civil unions for same-sex couple following a State Supreme Court ruling nine years ago that said denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violated equal protection. After nine years of civil unions Vermonters have come to the radical conclusion that marriage is good and should be available to all families in the Green Mountain State.
Iowa's Top Court Rules in Favor of Marriage Equality: Last Friday the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a decade-old law that banned same-sex marriage. The unanimous ruling recounted the Iowa Supreme Court's distinguished history of upholding equal rights, noting that the court's first case refused to "enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions." The court has also led the nation on gender rights and against segregation, observing that "[i]n each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution's ideals and reaffirmed the 'absolute equality of all' persons before law as 'the very foundation principle of our government." Specifically, the court found that "perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage."
District of Columbia Votes to Recognize Out-of-State Marriages of Same-Sex Couples: Another unanimous decision to support marriage equality came this week from the District of Columbia City Council, which gave preliminary approval to recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Legislative Leadership Consolidates Marriage Equality: Notable in each state was the legislative leadership on behalf of marriage equality. In overriding their governor's veto, the Vermont legislative leadership was obvious in its determination. In Iowa,the House and Senate leadership made it clear that they will oppose any constitutional amendment that seeks to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court decision. In a joint release by Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy, they praised the decision and said "the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long." Since Iowa requires legislative approval of constitutional amendments, such strong legislative leadership means that marriage equality in the state is likely to be protected in coming years in Iowa.

A Generational Change Promises Long-Term Victory for Same-Sex Marriage Nationally: Another factor driving acceptance of same-sex marriage is generational. Americans 18-45 give legal marriage over twice the level of support than do those over 65. In Vermont, this reality was clearly articulated by a group of prominent business leaders who wrote to lawmakers urging them to override the governor's veto in order to boost the economic wellbeing of the state:

"The generation that we are trying to attract is different from ours. They don't care about racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation differences. They like living among people from diverse backgrounds. They gravitate to places where those differences make life more exciting."

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has gained some well-deserved youtube stardom for his extremely thoughtful remarks on the Senate floor. Responding to a request to suspend the rules and co-sponsor a leadership bill to amend the state constitution to overturn the decision, Majority Leader Gronstal replied:

"One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them: ‘You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.’ I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. [Watch the video here or by clicking on the image above.]

Support for marriage equality has been growing among the whole population, but the fact is that a clear majority of Americans age 18-34 support same-sex marriage by a margin of 51-40 according to a December 2008 Newsweek poll (reflecting many other surveys), meaning that when it comes to full equality for GLBT Americans the question is not if, but when.

Resources
Iowa Supreme Court Decision A Gay Marriage Surge: Public support grows, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll
Joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy
Human Rights Campaign (HRC)- Maps of State Laws & Policies
GLAD- Marriage Rights & Resources

New England Leads Fight for Marriage Equality

Marisol Thomer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:52:50 -0400

On Monday, March 23rd, the Vermont Senate overwhelmingly passed (26 to 4) a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, making the state the first in the nation to take legislative rather than judicial steps toward granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. Although House Speaker Shap Smith was confident a majority of representatives would vote in favor of the "marriage equality" act, Governor Jim Douglas revealed in a press conference Wednesday that he would veto the bill, though he did say he would accept a legislative override. Speaker Shap, however, was less than confident about a veto-proof majority. Nearly a decade ago, Vermont became the first state in the nation to enact civil unions for same-sex couples. The current bill would end the separate institutions of civil unions and marriage, granting equal marriage rights and recognition to all committed couples.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives will vote today on a bill similar to Vermont's, and next month a legislative panel in Maine will hold a hearing on a bill to allow gay couples to marry, just as lawmakers did last month in Rhode Island.

Last year, Connecticut joined Massachusetts to become the second state in the country to allow same-sex marriage. Only Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and California currently permit civil unions. A court decision last year briefly allowed same-sex marriage in California, but the passage of Proposition 8 in November banned it.

The Minnesota House of Representatives is scheduled to hear four bills relating to gay marriage, including a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, a bill that allows civil unions, and a bill that takes away gender-specific references to marriage in Minnesota Statutes, effectively doing away with the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) currently on the state's books.

Movement on Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Legislation: Hopes that the Hawaii legislature would grant civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriage were dashed when senators yesterday refused to buck Senate President Colleen Hanabusa's opposition to a maneuver that would have allowed the bill to come to a full Senate vote. On February 12th, the Hawaii's House had passed HB 444 with a 33-17 vote, but the bill then stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee with a tie vote. The motion to pull the bill out of committee and to a full Senate vote is extremely rare -- it was last done 10 years ago -- and after leadership's lobbying against overriding the normal lawmaking process, the maneuver failed to pass by 3 votes. About 18 of the 25 senators, including Hanabusa had indicated they support civil unions.

Out West, some states have been moving to advance domestic partnership legislation:

A Colorado bill to allow two adults, regardless of sex, to enter into "beneficiary agreements" passed that state's senate on Monday with two Republicans joining senate Democrats to pass the measure. The bill would allow two people the right to file an agreement with their county clerk that would grant them rights to inherit and make medical decisions. In 2006, Colorado voters defeated a measure that would have given same-sex couples more of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
A Nevada bill set for a hearing tomorrow before that Senate Labor and Commerce Committee would create domestic partnerships defined to give partners the same rights, protections and benefits as married couples.
A measure to grant a legal status to domestic partnerships failed in the New Mexico Senate last month.

Resources
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) - Resources on New England Marriage Legislation
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) - Maps of State Laws & Policies
Progressive States Network - Gay Marriage - In the Courts, On the Ballot

Maine Religious Leaders Mobilize Around Gay Marriage - On Both Sides of the Issue

Adam Thompson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:48:09 -0500

Soon after the November elections and the dispiriting setbacks for gay marriage equality in California, Arizona, and Florida, a group of religious leaders in Maine formed a coalition to advocate for gay marriage rights and actively seek equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples within Maine law. The group, Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine, includes 120 clergy from across the state and 14 different faith traditions, including United Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Unitarian Universalist, Congregational, and the United Church of Christ.

In addition to articulating the moral argument for gay marriage rights - Maine law defines marriage as between a man and a woman but the Constitution is currently mute on the matter - the coalition cited the adverse effects of discrimination against gay and lesbian couples on children and the family unit. For instance, children in same-sex couples may lack health care and other benefits extended to children of married parents. In related news, the state's leading gay and lesbian rights organization, EqualityMaine, has not yet decided whether to submit a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, despite reporting that a majority of new state lawmakers support extending the legal rights of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

In response, on Tuesday, a smaller group of ministers and lay people announced a new coalition to oppose both gay marriage and civil unions in Maine. Alongside hackneyed and pseudo-religious/tradition based arguments opposing marriage equality, the new Maine Marriage Alliance announced its goal to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The coalition urged outreach to Catholic and Mormon churches and is already in touch with clergy in California who gained slim voter approval of Proposition 8, which revises the state Constitution to ban gay marriage in the state and overturn a Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage.

Glimmers of Hope for Gay Marriage and Other Rights: The fate of California's Proposition 8 is in doubt, despite narrowly passing voters by roughly a 52 to 48 margin in November. The State Supreme Court recently announced it will hear three lawsuits arguing that Proposition 8 was illegally brought to the voters. To support the suits, progressive legislators introduced a resolution opposing Proposition 8 and reiterating the lawsuit arguments that Prop 8 amounts to an improper revision of the state Constitution because it did not receive two-thirds legislator approval before going to the voters - which is required for ballot initiatives that would radically revise - rather than amend - the state Constitution.

And in Florida, a circuit-court judge recently ruled unconstitutional a three-decade old state law banning gays and lesbians from adopting children. The state already says it will challenge the ruling. Still, this provides hope for gay and lesbian couples who want to adopt children and provide a stable home for needy children. With recent voter-approval in Arkansas of a measure banning foster parenting and adoption by unmarried couples - effectively denying gays and lesbians the option to adopt - adoption may become a new battleground in the on-going fight for equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

Resources

EqualityMaine - Marriage Equality
Sacramento Bee - Proposition 8: Special Section

Gay Marriage - In the Courts, On the Ballot

Adam Thompson — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:00:01 -0400

Last week, Connecticut's high court struck down the state's civil union law and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut joins Massachusetts and California as the only states that recognize gay marriage. As the New York Times reported, the Connecticut ruling is notable because it found for the first time that a state civil union law, while providing all the legal rights of marriage to gay couples but limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, violated the state's "constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law."

Writing for the majority in the 4-3 decision, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote:

Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.

Speaking directly to whether civil unions provide the same constitutional right to "equal protection under the law" as marriage, Justice Palmer wrote:

Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal. The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.

Opponents of gay marriage are working to make the constitution a discriminatory tool by enacting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. They hope to use a procedurally complicated state constitutional convention to enact a ban, but first need voters to call the convention. However, a new poll shows that Connecticut residents support the court's decision by a margin of 53-42 and even the state's Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, who opposes same-sex marriage, does not support a constitutional ban.

Gay Marriage on the Ballot: The marriage rights of gays and lesbians in California, however, are much more tenuous. After the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage earlier this year, opponents mobilized the ever-potent "forces of bigotry and bias" to place a constitutional ban on gay marriage before voters next month. A recent poll shows support for the ban, on the ballot as Proposition 8, 47% to 42%, with 10% undecided. Currently, opponents to gay marriage are outspending its supporters "2 or 3 to 1" and are, predictably, using baseless fear to mobilize support for the ban.

Similarly, voters in Florida will vote next month on a question whether to amend the constitution by defining "marriage as between a man and a woman." Michael Schiavo, who battled with conservative Christians over his wife Terri's feeding and hydration tubes, is actively campaigning against the initiative. And, after rejecting a gay-marriage ban in 2006, Arizona voters will decide whether to amend the constitution by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, even though, as the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center points out, state law already denies marriage to same-sex couples.

A First Look at How McCain and Obama's Policies Would Affect the States

PSN — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:55:59 -0400

A First Look at How McCain and Obama's Policies Would Affect the States

There are stark differences between the two presidential campaigns' approaches to federal-state relationships. Differences range from the amount of funding appropriated for programs run by the states to whether the candidates would strengthen or weaken state regulatory authority.

In the current economic crisis, a key difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain can be seen in their proposals to revive the economy. Earlier in the year, Sen. Obama proposed sending $50 billion to the states to pump up the economy: $25 billion for fiscally ailing states and $25 billion to help states build and fix highways, roads, bridges, airports and rail systems. Sen. McCain has said little on the subject but he opposed a recent bipartisan proposal by two governors, California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Pennsylvania’s Ed Rendell (D), for a stimulus package devoted entirely to helping states rebuild infrastructure. With Congress preparing a second stimulus package, in the order of $100 billion to $150 billion, the debate on help for the states could determine whether we are able to weather the financial storm without making massive cuts in state programs like education and Medicaid.

The continuing debate around economic stimulus is just one example of the campaigns' very different approaches to federalism. This Dispatch will examine how the candidates' health care plans differ from a state perspective, followed by how Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain would affect energy, infrastructure and other pressing issues.

Obama and McCain - Miles Apart on Health Care and the States

Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have struck markedly different tones on health care reform and on the role of state governments in the health care field. Sen. Obama would build on the strengths of the current employer-based and public/private health care system, including current state regulatory authority, while Sen. McCain would largely eliminate both the existing health care system and state regulations that currently protect consumers, favoring instead the deregulation of insurance markets.

Funding Medicaid and SCHIP: Broadly, Sen. Obama would increase eligibility and funding to states for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while McCain would cut funding. This difference was exemplified when earlier this year Congress passed a five-year $35 billion expansion of SCHIP; Obama supported the SCHIP expansion while McCain opposed it. The measure was vetoed by President Bush.

Sen. McCain's health care plan would gut federal Medicaid spending by $419 billion over ten years, forcing states to roll-back their Medicaid programs or require them to come up with alternative funding to replace depleted federal matching funds. In a time of recession, such cuts would be devastating for state economies-- for example, a new report from the New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project shows that state Medicaid/SCHIP programs "created an estimated $3.36 billion in economic activity, 43,639 jobs, and almost $1.53 billion in wages and salaries for New Mexicans" that would be undermined by such cuts.

Maintaining vs. Undermining Employer-Based Coverage: Sen. Obama's plan would require large employers to offer health insurance to their employees or contribute to the cost of coverage programs. Small businesses would be eligible for tax credits to offset the costs of premiums and families would be eligible for income-based premium subsidies.

Conversely, Sen. McCain's plan would seek to replace employer-based coverage with a system of individual health care vouchers. 160 million Americans would have to pay income tax on their employer-provided health insurance, receiving instead a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance - $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Many employers are likely to drop coverage, increasing the number of residents subscribing to state Medicaid and SCHIP rolls, increasing costs for the states.

Insurance Market Regulation versus Deregulation: Small group and individual insurance plans are primarily regulated by the states, including requirements that companies cover necessary medical care, preventing insurers from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition, and requiring state approval of hikes in premiums to ensure that new rates are fair and justifiable.

While Obama would protect most state regulation, McCain proposes to allow insurance companies to sell policies in any state, ignoring regulations in states outside their home state-- much as banks now make a home in low-regulation states and sell predatory loans all over the country. Allowing the insurance market to promote lower premium coverage with poorer benefits would push workers and their families into insurance plans with fewer benefits and higher out of pocket costs. Sen. McCain's defacto deregulation of state insurance markets would leave families vulnerable to the lowest standards found in the most unregulated state market.

High Risk Pools versus Public Plans: For individuals who might find it hard to get insurance, Obama proposes the creation of a public health plan modeled after the coverage provided to federal employees and members of Congress. Like recent proposals in Wisconsin and Connecticut, the idea is to create a broad-based plan guaranteeing affordable health insurance to anyone. Furthermore, building on the Massachusetts Connector, Sen. Obama would create the National Health Insurance Exchange, offering a medley of private and public health plans to small businesses, the self-employed, and people without access to employer-based coverage. Insurers would be required to offer coverage to all applicants and would not be able to hike premiums based on health status.

McCain's plan would instead herd consumers denied regular coverage by insurers into state high risk pools, funded by $7 billion to $10 billion in federal funds. An Urban Institute analysis indicates that the tax increases and deregulation of insurance markets under Sen. McCain's plan would result in a run on high risk pools as older and sicker Americans seek coverage after being denied in the individual market or in the face of exorbitant premiums. To meet the demand, funding needs for the high risk pools would approach $100 billion, far above what Sen. McCain has indicated.

Overall Effectiveness: While spending similar amounts of money, the Tax Policy Center estimates that Sen. Obama's plan would reduce the uninsured by 34 million people over ten years while McCain would reduce the uninsured by only 2 million people. And while states would preserve crucial regulatory tools to rein in insurance company abuses under Obama's plan, they would lose most of their regulatory authority under McCain's deregulatory approach.

More Resources

Clean Energy, Transportation and Broadband

For this section, we borrow heavily from the comparison made by our allies at the Apollo Alliance, who have highlighted what the Presidential candidates' plans mean for achieving energy independence and green jobs for American workers.

Climate Change: While both campaigns support some version of "cap-and-trade" reductions in emissions, as pioneered in the states, Obama's plan is considered more aggressive and emphasizes solar, win and clean vehicles, while McCain puts more emphasis on nuclear and so-called "clean carbon" technologies. More broadly, Obama supports strong federal government incentives to utilities and individuals to use alternative energy and alternative-fuel vehicles. Obama would condition state funding on meeting energy conservation and "smart growth" goals, while McCain has not proposed a policy in this area.

Transportation: Obama supports reforming federal transportation policy to direct more funds to states for clean energy transportation infrastructure, while McCain has no clean energy transportation objectives. Overall, McCain's focus on cutting earmarks means he has historically fought many transportation bills funding state projects; he was one of only four Senators to vote against the current transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU. While Obama supports expanded support for mass transit and inter-city train systems, McCain has called for the "privatization" of Amtrak and cutting federal financial support.

Offshore Drilling: Obama supported the recent compromise legislation that would allow some offshore drilling between 50 and 100 miles off the coast, but only with the agreement of state governments. McCain, on the other hand, opposed the plan in favor of even broader mandates for offshore drilling, leaving it unclear whether states would have any voice in whether drilling happened off their shores in a McCain administration.

High-Speed Broadband Deployment: Obama 's technology plan calls for reform of the Universal Service Fund to support broadband deployment in the states, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives, to increase wide-spread broadband adoption. McCain's policy promotes a "market" approach to deployment with a few tax incentives for delivering services to rural and poor neighborhoods.

Although Internet services provided by local governments have run into opposition in many state legislatures because they are seen as competition to private providers, both candidates support community-based and municipal broadband efforts.

More Resources

Other Key Issues

Workers Rights: Obama and McCain sharply differ on federal labor policy, with Obama supporting policies to increase the freedom of workers to form unions, including conditioning money for states on supporting prevailing wages, while McCain has generally opposed policies that do so. McCain also has a history of not only opposing the minimum wage but of supporting amendments that would void state minimum wage laws in certain cases.

Education: With states complaining about unfunded mandates in the No Child Left Behind law, Obama proposes more funds to cover states’ expenses and would increase federal education spending by about $18 billion, with much of the money going to pre-kindergarten programs, teacher training and mentoring programs. Instead of increasing help for states to improve schools, McCain supports vouchers to allow parents to send their children to private schools, a plan that would likely further reduce money for public schools.

Immigration: While Obama and McCain both support comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, Obama has more recently emphasized strong enforcement of federal laws, combined with financial support for states to encourage citizenship and giving states the freedom to provide drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. McCain has emphasized criminal enforcement almost exclusively before moving to any kind of comprehensive reform.

Paid Family Leave: Obama would encourage each state to adopt a paid leave system for parents to stay home with a child or to care for a sick family member. He would provide $1.5 billion to help states start paid sick day initiatives, as well as to offset the cost to employees and employers. McCain called Obama's proposal to expand family and medical leave a "big-government solution" and said sick days should be negotiated between management and labor.

Abortion and Reproductive Rights: Sen. Obama has said he's committed to upholding Roe v. Wade, which restricts state regulations of abortion in favor of court protection of reproductive rights. On the other hand, Obama supports federal funding for contraception and teen pregnancy prevention programs to lessen the number of abortions. Obama also supports the funding for states and local community groups in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Conversely, Sen. McCain advocates overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring the ability of states to ban abortions across-the-board, but he has generally opposed federal funding for contraception and pregnancy prevention. McCain has voted in the past against VAWA.

Gay Rights: Both Obama and McCain, in 2006, voted against a proposed federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. Further, both say the issue should be left up to the states. At the state level, McCain has supported state constitutional bans on gay marriage, while Obama, although not advocating for gay marriage, has opposed anti-gay marriage amendments.

More Resources

Resources

Obama and McCain - Miles Apart on Health Care and the States

Center for American Progress - McCain's Latest Health Care Strategy
Commonwealth Fund - The 2008 Presidential Candidates' Health Reform Proposals: Choices for America
Families USA - Premiums Versus Paychecks: A Growing Burden for Workers
Urban Institute - An Analysis of the McCain Health Care Proposal
Urban Institute - An Analysis of the Obama Health Care Proposal
Urban Institute - Can a Public Insurance Plan Increase Competition and Lower the Costs of Health Reform?
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured - Headed for a Crunch: An Update on Medicaid Spending, Coverage and Policy Heading into an Economic Downturn

Clean Energy, Transportation and Broadband

Stateline.org, McCain vs. Obama: The difference for states
Apollo Alliance, Comparing Energy Plans: The New Apollo Program, New Energy For America, The Lexington Project
Brookings Institution, Candidates on Transportation

Other Key Issues

Stateline.org, What would an Obama win mean for states?
Stateline.org, McCain vs. Obama: The difference for states
Family and Work Institute, First Ever Presidential Platforms on Work Life Issues

Extending Rights to Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender Americans

PSN — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:02:00 -0400

Even as the "culture wars" supposedly rage, the reality is that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights are making slow and steady progress across the country. Gays and lesbians now have protection against workplace discrimination in states covering nearly half the U.S. population, rights for same sex partnerships and adoptions have made gains in at least ten states, and laws making violence or bullying against gays, lesbians, bisexual or transgender (GLBT) people a crime are increasingly being enacted.

While opposition to equality is still strong in many states, as this Dispatch will outline, GLBT rights are making significant advances, from the workplace to the schoolyard to the home.

More Resources

Extending Equal Employment & Economic Rights

While the federal government has failed to pass any laws protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans against discrimination in the workplace or public accommodations, states have slowly but surely been expanding the map of legal protection.

As a map produced by the Human Rights Campaign details, states are making steady progress in extending non-discrimination laws protecting individuals based upon sexual orientation and gender identity:

12 states plus the District of Columbia ban discrimination against gays and lesbians AND ban discrimination based on gender identity/expression, while another 8 states ban discrimination just against gays and lesbians. Just last year, Colorado, Iowa and Oregon passed laws banning discrimination based upon sexual orientation gender identity.
Over 43% of the American population live in states where discrimination against gays and lesbians is banned - and 30% of the population live in states that ban discrimination based on gender identity.
In addition to these 20 state laws, about 100 municipalities in the remaining 30 states without non-discrimination laws have local non-discrimination laws, further extending the percentage of the population protected against employment and other forms of direct economic discrimination.
Beyond the 20 states with statewide anti-discrimination statutes, an additional 9 have an executive order or some kind of personnel regulations in place to prohibit discrimination against government employees based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

More Resources

Same-Sex Relationship Protections

The role of families in providing for the welfare of all people cannot be understated, yet same-sex couples and their families have been systematically denied the benefits of marriage laws at the federal level.

Yet, despite the hot-button "culture war" debate, in the last decades we have seen a gradual erosion of the prejudice that has been the basis for withholding fundamental human rights from same-sex families. This positive trend will continue due to the fact younger voters are even more committed to equality. 44% of Americans ages 17 to 29 support full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

As a result, more states are taking steps to integrate these families into existing family law so that they too may benefit from the legal protections that other families take for granted: the right to make decisions on behalf of a spouse or child when it is necessary; rights to property jointly owned when a spouse or parent dies; and, rights of parental custody and visitation should a relationship dissolve.

While Massachusetts has provided marriage equality, and six states now extend all of the state level rights of marriage to same-sex couples (California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont), the majority of states have gone in the opposite direction.

Setbacks in Some States: Unfortunately, many states have enacted laws that specifically exclude same sex couples from the legal protections that opposite-sex headed families enjoy. 26 states have excluded same-sex couples from marriage laws in their state constitutions, and 19 others have passed laws to the same effect. Most troubling, in 17 of these states the law or amendment also prohibits conferring some or all of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples no matter the designation used - marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.

While repealing these discriminatory laws should be a priority for progressive, for pro-family legislators who believe that the laws should protect all of the families in their state, there are other steps that can be taken and should not be ignored.

Extending Legal Protections to Same-Sex Couples: The protections of marriage and the social importance of the institution cannot be equaled, and where possible advocates are fighting for full equality, but families who lack legal protections still benefit whether these protections are given under a different name or given only in part.

In the nine states with a marriage ban, but no prohibition on civil unions or domestic partnerships, all or some of the rights of marriage can still be extended to same-sex couples and their families. This has been the strategy used in California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont which all extend the rights of marriage under a different name, as well as Hawaii, Maine, and Washington which have conferred some but not all of these rights. Bills have been introduced in New Mexico and Arizona that follow this model. The New Mexico bill, sponsored by Rep. Mimi Stewart, passed the House earlier this year, but died in the Senate.
Some states have extended health and other benefits to same-sex couples working for their states. New York and Arizona have recently enacted such policies.
In addition, establishing domestic partner registries allows some couples to obtain benefits through private employers, regardless of a lack of legal rights under law. Currently thousands of private employers extend some spousal-like benefits to same-sex couples or domestic partners.
Creative means can also be used to defeat laws and referenda that seek to prohibit the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Very recently Arizona Rep. Krysten Sinema scored such a victory by attaching legal protections for domestic partners to such a referenda, effectively killing the bill.

Even in a conservative state like Utah, Salt Lake City has established a domestic partner registry and a state legislative attempt this year to shut it down was largely defeated, aside from forcing a cosmetic name change.

More Resources

Protecting the Rights of GLBT Parents

Whether married or not, gays and lesbians face a range of discrimination in becoming parents, from adoption and foster care rules to how laws of parentage based on biological relation fail to adequately protect the parentage rights of same-sex couples. Where these laws are based upon marriage (as with stepparent adoption) and the state does not recognize same-sex marriage or its equivalent, families are left unprotected.

Unfortunately, Florida has a statute that prohibits gays and lesbians from adopting (which the Supreme Court declined to review, but which some legislators are determined to overturn). Nebraska, Michigan, Mississippi and Utah have policies barring same sex couples from adopting, and other state courts have often been reluctant to extend full parental rights to same-sex couples through adoption.

The tragedy is that the need for adopting children into caring families is so great. National numbers show that 518,000 children were in the foster care system in 2004. Over 119,000 foster children waiting to be adopted were not able to be placed with permanent families. With so many children without any family at all, those advocating the ban on gay adoption are advocating that more children live without the comforts and protections only a loving family can provide.

Taking Action to Expand Adoption Options: The only state without marriage or its equivalent that has specifically protected homosexuals from being denied the ability to adopt based on that reason alone is New York.

However, other states do allow certain forms of adoption that are particularly important to same-sex couples such as joint adoption and second parent adoption and some do not allow them. In order to protect same-sex headed families, states can follow a number of courses.

States can explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption procedures based upon sexual orientation as is done in New Jersey (Admin. Code 10:121C-4.1).
States that lack such a procedure can establish second parent adoption where the legal rights of a parent need not be terminated for another person to adopt the child. Four states (California, Colorado, Connecticut and Vermont) authorize such second parent adoptions by statute and a number of other states have granted such rights through court proceedings.
States that lack such a procedure can establish joint adoption for unmarried, co-habitating couples.
Even more important, states can make sure that same-sex couples have explicit adoption rights analogous to the rights conferred in many states to stepparents, even though same-sex couples are not able to marry in those states.

States can and are modernizing adoption laws to accommodate all families in order to protect children from being at the mercy of laws that do not contemplate same-sex headed families.

More Resources

State Hate Crimes Laws

The FBI reported 7,722 hate crimes in 2006, crimes that were the result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability. This number, however, dramatically under-represents the extent of hate violence across the US as less than 75% of police agencies participate in the hate crimes reporting program. Also, the number of victims cannot be truly quantified. Hate crimes attack communities, as well as individuals. As the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) points out, violent hate crimes are designed to "cause fear to a whole community...to 'send a message' that an individual and 'their kind' will not be tolerated."

According to the FBI's report, 52% of hate crimes were motivated by racism, 19% were motivated by religious prejudice, 15.5% were motivated by prejudice against people because of their sexual orientation, and almost 13% were caused by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Of the known offenders, almost 59% were white and over 20% were African-American. The offender's race was unknown for 13% of crimes and the rest were committed by individuals of various races.

State Action: According to the HRC, 32 states and D.C., have a law that addresses hate or bias crimes based on sexual orientation, with 11 states also address hate or bias crimes based on gender identity. In 2007, 17 states introduced laws to add protections against hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity. However, only Oregon made substantive gains in 2007 with Senate Bill 2 by adding gender identity or expression to the state's hate crimes law which already applied to crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation.

In 2008, the level of activity continues. As Oklahomans for Equality point out, hate crimes legislation needs to, at least, have strong penalties, include at least sexual orientation and gender identity as categories, and make reporting of hate crimes to the FBI mandatory.

Advocates are working hard in Massachusetts to pass HB 1722, sponsored by Rep. Carl Sciortino, which would add gender identity and expression to the state's non-discrimination and hate crimes laws.
Lawmakers in Indiana, which is one of only 5 states without a hate crimes law, are moving HB 1076 to require training for law enforcement in identifying and responding to hate crimes, allow for civil actions for victims of hate crimes, and include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories.
Despite five bills introduced this session in Oklahoma, and one meeting most of the above criteria, HB 2913, most the bills have been referred to the Rules Committee, which usually effectively kills a bill.
In New York, lawmakers are considering three important bills: AB 4526, which would expand eligibility for those who receive awards under crime victims' compensation to include a domestic partner; AB 866, which would provide civil remedies for victims of bias-motivated violence committed because of a person's sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and; AB 6584, which would, in part, add gender identity or expression to the categories covered by hate crimes.
In New Jersey, as we wrote earlier this year, lawmakers enacted S2975 to include transgender persons to the state's hate crimes law.

As Indiana Equality points out, the justice system focuses on intent or motive and treats such premeditation very seriously. For instance, the distinction between murder and manslaughter is whether the aggressor intended to kill. Hate crimes are a similar act driven by the intent to discriminate and deserve their own place in the criminal code. While the act of violence in a hate crime may or may not be planned, the hate that fuels the violence is certainly preexisting as a direct reflection of the aggressor's biases and prejudices, thoughts and preconceptions.

More Resources

Campus Equality and Safety

K-12 schools and college campuses are also receiving lawmakers' attention. A 2003 report from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force indicates that 20% of GLBT students on college campuses fear for their physical safety due to their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and 51% concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid intimidation. To ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all students, lawmakers are introducing legislation to require that campuses develop policies to prohibit hate crimes and bullying.

As the HRC reports, 2007 saw 72 bills introduced to address campus issues. The results are a mixed bag, however. Of the three bills enacted to address anti-bullying, only one specifically included sexual orientation and gender identity as categories in anti-bullying legislation. Another bill in Utah prohibits students from joining GLBT clubs without parental consent. Recent state news, includes:

The Michigan House has sent to the Senate HB 4091, which would require school districts and public school academies to adopt policies to prohibit harassment, bullying, or intimidation motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
As part of its broad non-discrimination and hate crimes law enacted earlier this year (S2975), New Jersey will require schools to notify teachers and students of anti-bullying policies and creates a commission to study bullying at the state's schools and to make recommendations to future legislatures.
Conservatives in California tried but failed to gather signatures to launch a ballot initiative to block a new law extending anti-discrimination protections to public school students based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

More Resources

Conclusion

Earlier this decade, it seemed the rightwing found a fail-safe campaign message by scapegoating GLBT Americans. Americans, however, largely through leadership by state lawmakers and advocates, are rejecting these wedge scapegoating tactics and are extending equality to GLBT individuals and families. Gains are being made in the workplace, at home, on campuses, and in the justice system. As pointed out earlier, the future is promising for GLBT equality as younger Americans by decisive margins support non-discrimination in everything from family relations to the workplace.

More Resources