Shannon wrote:

WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organization, today participated in the first-ever Congressional hearing exclusively on the issue of workplace discrimination against transgender Americans. The hearing, held by the House Education and Labor’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, was titled "An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans." Coordinated by Congressional allies, including Subcommittee Chairman Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), as well as a coalition of GLBT groups, the hearing was intended to send a strong message to Congress about the need for fully-inclusive federal workplace protections.

Frank hasn't exactly proven himself to be an ally, but I'll let that go.

HRC Business Council Member Diego Sanchez:

"It’s an injustice that we are ever evaluated for employment based on other people’s comfort with our existence… I am before you today to affirm that transgender and transsexual people, including me, are equally human and deserve to be treated like other people."

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese:

The transgender community, too long marginalized in American society and even within the gay, lesbian and bisexual community, has made enormous strides in recent years. There are many reasons to hope that the future holds even greater acceptance and understanding, including full equality under the law. But hope alone will not protect the transgender woman in Topeka, Kansas who loses her job and health insurance when co-workers learn that she is transitioning or the transgender man in Shreveport, Louisiana who, despite an advanced engineering degree, must work in a fast food restaurant. It is critical that Congress act to protect these, our transgender friends and family, colleagues and neighbors."

Obama no. McCain yes. He'll be a friend to the transgender community.

Jello wrote:
Obama no. McCain yes. He'll be a friend to the transgender community.

Point taken. I don't expect anything from either one of them, nor do I see Congress doing anything substantive within the next few years, regardless of who's in control. I think we're at least a decade away, but maybe someone will surprise me and prove me wrong. I think hearings like this one do help the issue to gain momentum, though.

Regarding McCain, this article from last September is fairly amusing...

Another student then asked McCain a question about what he would do for rights for "LGBTs" -- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. McCain was confused by the question and acknowledged to the audience that he did not know what the initials meant. [The man is a professional politician, yet he's unfamiliar with "LGBT"?]

Once the meaning was clarified, McCain told sophomore William Sleaster he is opposed to any form of discrimination, but he supports the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and he opposes same-sex marriage. [Both of which are discriminatory.]

"I believe that the sanctity of marriage between man and woman is unique and should be preserved, and I understand the controversy that swirls around that issue, and that debate needs to be continued to be held, but I support that position," McCain said.

"You want to take away someone's rights because you believe it's wrong," Sleaster followed up.

"I don't put that interpretation on my position, but I understand yours," McCain responded, seeming to enjoy the back and forth.

Amazing.

From Obama's website...

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.

And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Sound nice, until...]

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.

"Separate but equal" is the best way? He goes on and on about fighting "discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity," but when it comes to marriage, he assigns a different social status to homosexual couples by suggesting that their unions should be something other than real marriages. So, he supports equal rights, except where doing so might cost him some votes. Swell.

Stefanie wrote:

"Separate but equal" is the best way? He goes on and on about fighting "discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity," but when it comes to marriage, he assigns a different social status to homosexual couples by suggesting that their unions should be something other than real marriages. So, he supports equal rights, except where doing so might cost him some votes. Swell.

I'm going to give you a completely different take on this. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution, adopted by the state for simple standards. If you want the best solution out of this you're going to get, here it is. Civil unions, with the state resolving the "separate but equal" issue by eliminating marriage as a state institution.

Marriage is between people and their church. If a church wants to marry gay people it will and there's not a damn thing the government can do to stop them. State amendment that says "marriage is between a man and a woman?" Tough shit state, freedom of religion in the first amendment trumps it. The only way out of that trap is for the government to either allow gay marriage, or eliminate marriage as a state institution.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
I'm going to give you a completely different take on this. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution, adopted by the state for simple standards. If you want the best solution out of this you're going to get, here it is. Civil unions, with the state resolving the "separate but equal" issue by eliminating marriage as a state institution.

Marriage is between people and their church. If a church wants to marry gay people it will and there's not a damn thing the government can do to stop them. State amendment that says "marriage is between a man and a woman?" Tough shit state, freedom of religion in the first amendment trumps it. The only way out of that trap is for the government to either allow gay marriage, or eliminate marriage as a state institution.

In theory, if you could convince the entire country to give up legal marriage in favor of civil unions, and make those civil unions available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples alike, then you would effectively eliminate institutionalized discrimination, regarding marriage. That won't happen though, nor have Obama or McCain remotely hinted support for anything along the lines of your plan.

It would be much easier and much more realistic to pursue legalization of homosexual marriages (along the lines of Loving v. Virginia) than it would be to eliminate marriage as a legal institution regulated by the states. While marriage does have religious roots, it has become (for better or worse) a legal institution. It is a civil contract, regulated by state law, and there's more to state-regulated marriage than "simple standards," but that takes us even further off topic.

The fact is that marriage is currently government's domain, and that's so unlikely to change, that it doesn't merit serious consideration in 2008. The people of this nation aren't going to give up marriage as a legal institution and take it back to being simply a religious matter. Even if we followed your recommendation and used the term "marriage" only in religious contexts and "civil unions" in all legal contexts, "civil unions" would still be a political issue, because it would just be legal marriage by another name. You'd be taking the long way around the issue, without really solving anything.

Stefanie wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
I'm going to give you a completely different take on this. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution, adopted by the state for simple standards. If you want the best solution out of this you're going to get, here it is. Civil unions, with the state resolving the "separate but equal" issue by eliminating marriage as a state institution.

Marriage is between people and their church. If a church wants to marry gay people it will and there's not a damn thing the government can do to stop them. State amendment that says "marriage is between a man and a woman?" Tough shit state, freedom of religion in the first amendment trumps it. The only way out of that trap is for the government to either allow gay marriage, or eliminate marriage as a state institution.

In theory, if you could convince the entire country to give up legal marriage in favor of civil unions, and make those civil unions available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples alike, then you would effectively eliminate institutionalized discrimination, regarding marriage. That won't happen though, nor have Obama or McCain remotely hinted support for anything along the lines of your plan.

It would be much easier and much more realistic to pursue legalization of homosexual marriages (along the lines of Loving v. Virginia) than it would be to eliminate marriage as a legal institution regulated by the states. While marriage does have religious roots, it has become (for better or worse) a legal institution. It is a civil contract, regulated by state law, and there's more to state-regulated marriage than "simple standards," but that takes us even further off topic.

The fact is that marriage is currently government's domain, and that's so unlikely to change, that it doesn't merit serious consideration in 2008. The people of this nation aren't going to give up marriage as a legal institution and take it back to being simply a religious matter. Even if we followed your recommendation and used the term "marriage" only in religious contexts and "civil unions" in all legal contexts, "civil unions" would still be a political issue, because it would just be legal marriage by another name. You'd be taking the long way around the issue, without really solving anything.

Well interestingly, my description may be the result because of the "defense of marriage" state constitutional amendments getting tossed around. Iowa may be one of the first states to run head on into this problem. They don't have such an amendment, but the do have an appeals court ruling (currently stayed on appeal) that marriage/civil unions fall into "separate but equal" meaning unconstitutional. Forced definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman does NOT solve the issue, it eliminates marriage as a state option.

Ingrained or not, "defense of marriage" could be the one thing to kill it as a state institution.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well interestingly, my description may be the result because of the "defense of marriage" state constitutional amendments getting tossed around. Iowa may be one of the first states to run head on into this problem. They don't have such an amendment, but the do have an appeals court ruling (currently stayed on appeal) that marriage/civil unions fall into "separate but equal" meaning unconstitutional. Forced definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman does NOT solve the issue, it eliminates marriage as a state option.

Ingrained or not, "defense of marriage" could be the one thing to kill it as a state institution.

That's a valid point. Assuming that the U.S. Constitution is not amended to define marriage, and assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't issue some screwy ruling indicating that the logic behind the Loving v. Virginia decision somehow doesn't apply to discrimination based upon sex, then you're probably right. It might take a while to play out, but it seems like a realistic conclusion.

Unfortunately, it's still politically fashionable to oppose gay marriages, just as it used to be politically fashionable to oppose interracial marriages. Too many people (including Presidential candidates) fail to see (or don't care) that such bans constitute violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.