On Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee will mark up the 2011 Defense Authorization, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) plans to introduce an amendment repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He’ll be followed by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran, who said Monday he would introduce a complementary amendment into the House’s version of the bill when it receives a full floor debate later this week. If passed, it would allow the Pentagon a few months’ worth of a grace period so an internal review due in December can guide how the implement overturning the ban.

See also: the text of Joe Lieberman’s amendment.

Originally uploaded by edkohler.

A big banner touting diversity pasted over a photo of five white guys didn’t catch anyone’s attention?

Immigration issues are not my strong suit at all and I don’t have new and different insights to offer, but my sense of the viability of the bill in Minnesota is this:

It doesn’t have a chance.

While there have been significant immigration raids in Minnesota in the recent past (meatpacking plant in Worthington, ABM Janitorial Services), I like to think that Minnesotans, on the whole, are not so xenophobic, but Minnesota, on the whole, is not that diverse, so white folks here are perhaps feeling less “threatened.”

Plus, both houses of the state legislature are controlled by the DFL. I’m not sure that will change in the next election cycle; if it does change, I still don’t think a vote on this matter strictly follows party lines.

But then there’s the crazies that elected and then re-elected Michele Bachmann, so… *shrug*

As the RaceWire article points out, the irony of the introduction of this bill in contrast with May Day demonstration turnout is notable. That this bill is presented as a “public safety” issue doesn’t even make sense to me.

Here’s the full text of HF 3830.

(via @QMcCall3)

Bruce Corrie is also behind ethnictrends.info. That and his Ethnic Trends blog are great reads on minority affairs in Minnesota. The former is more data driven, the latter is more commentary.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved her nomination to be U.S. marshal for the District of Minnesota by voice vote, suggesting her nomination won’t face strident opposition when it goes to the Senate floor.

UPDATE 12/28/09: Confirmed!

The version of the health care reform bill that passed in the House of Representatives last weekend contains the following provisions that would benefit LGBT Americans:

• Health Disparities – the bill specifically designates LGBT people as a health disparities population, opening up health data collection and grant programs focused on health disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity. With collection of data and funding of research, we can better address the specific health issues facing LGBT people.
• Unequal Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits – the bill ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, incorporating the language of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Without this tax penalty, more people will be able to afford employer-provided coverage for their families, and more companies will be able to offer these important benefits.
• Early Treatment for HIV under Medicaid – the bill also incorporates the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs, instead of withholding treatment for Medicaid recipients until they develop full-blown AIDS, This will dramatically improve the quality of life for low-income people with HIV, as well as saving taxpayers money and reducing the transmission of the virus.
• Comprehensive Sex Education – the bill provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs that focus not only on abstinence, but also reducing teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. After more than $1 billion wasted on failed and discriminatory abstinence-only programs, this funding will provide youth, including LGBT students, with the tools they need to live healthy lives.
• Non-discrimination – the bill prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care. HRC worked with a coalition of civil rights groups to develop and lobby for this language and we believe it will help protect LGBT people from discrimination in the health care system, where there are currently no federal protections for our community.

(via)

The U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan announced a series of proposals to ensure that HUD programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity as well as the first-ever nationwide survey of housing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. This historic announcement explicitly addresses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for the first time by a federal agency.

…

According to today’s announcement, the proposed rule by HUD will make three important changes to federal regulations. First, it includes language that ensures LGBT families are recognized and covered by HUD programs, including affordable housing assistance. Second it requires organizations that administer HUD grants to abide by state and local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Third it prohibits consideration of factors other than creditworthiness, including sexual orientation and gender identity, in the awarding of mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

[T]he United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a lawsuit brought by a woman who wasn’t allowed to visit her dying same sex partner in a hospital. The woman had all the proper documents, but the hospital still denied visitation, saying that “[Miami] is in a anti-gay city in anti-gay state.”

…

[T]he decision reminds gay couples everywhere that not even the best legal preparation can reliably defeat an institution determined to discriminate against them. This woman followed all the typical advice about bringing documents with her to ensure that her rights are recognized–it still didn’t work.

It scares the crap out of me that something like this could still happen. Which is no excuse to not go ahead and get this stuff legally squared away (as is even possible), but still.

Domestic partners are being eliminated from state employee benefits just a year after they were added to the benefits plan.

A bill signed by Gov. Jan Brewer redefined a “dependent,” canceling the rule change made by Gov. Janet Napolitano that allowed domestic partners to receive benefits.

Also eliminated are children of domestic partners, full-time students ages 23-24 and disabled adult dependents. The legislation is in legal review.

About 800 state employees are affected, according to the state’s administration department….

It costs the state $3 million to cover domestic partners and $625 million for other employees and their dependents….

Last year 170 [University of Arizona] employees signed up for domestic-partner benefits… Forty were same-sex couples and the remainder were unmarried, opposite-sex couples….

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is not just about equality–it’s also about encouraging socially beneficial behavior in gay relationships.

That statement by itself is an important one to remember. The government does this all the time. Like the fact that mortgage interest is tax deductible encourages us to by houses instead of renting. In this article, the example given is the fact that alimony is tax deductible (unless you’re paying alimony to a same-sex ex-partner) and the fact that it’s deductible encourages you to actually pay it if you owe it.

Whether or not that’s appropriate for the government to do is a whole ‘nother discussion.

While racial minorities account for approximately 29% of active service members, according to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, about 45% of the 640 men and women discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” in fiscal year 2008 were nonwhite….

Women, who make up 15% of all armed forces, accounted for one third of “don’t ask, don’t tell” discharges.

…Democratic representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado will be introducing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next Tuesday.

Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter in July that the bill would amount to a full repeal of DOMA, including Section 2, which advises states to disregard same-sex marriages that have been legally performed in other states, and Section 3, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

[A] former loan officer for Wells Fargo testified in one affidavit that employees regularly referred to minority borrowers as “mud people” and called subprime mortgages “ghetto loans.”

In the latest development, a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles recently certified a 2005 lending discrimination lawsuit against Wells Fargo as a class action case. The suit contends that area managers at the bank refused access in some minority neighborhoods to a software program that allowed for discounted prices on mortgage loans….

According to [attorney Barry] Cappello, Wells Fargo introduced a program in 2002 called “Loan Economics,” which gave loan officers the authority to offer discounts to loan applicants. The savings on lower fees and interest rates could be significant, ranging from $500 to as much as $10,000 per loan. The suit claims that the Los Angeles area Wells Fargo manager refused to allow loan officers operating in certain minority neighborhoods to offer the program. Borrowers in predominantly white neighborhoods were given access to the software.

Cappello said the suit stemmed from complaints by black and Hispanic loan officers for Wells Fargo, who said they asked to use the software in their branches but upper management refused.

I recently participated in a focus group sponsored by Wells Fargo on their marketing to the LGBT community. They asked a lot of questions about what influenced my perception of Wells Fargo. I told them that my perception is basically that it might be a great (i.e., gay-friendly) place to work, but otherwise everything I know of them is that they’re a terrible place to bank. Yup.

The first couples wed at midnight on September 1, 2009.

From publisher Gideon Alper:

There’s a lot of information out there on family law and estate planning. But there isn’t that much on how those laws apply to the unique needs of same sex couples. When I realized how little information is available that focuses on gay couples, I knew that I wanted to fill in that gap.

Same sex couples have these unique needs because, in most of the country, they can’t get married. Even in states where they can, their marriage still lacks federal recognition. As a result, gay couples wanting to simply take care of each instead face a body of law that is difficult to understand and use. Until gay marriage is recognized everywhere, same sex couples will have to deal with the law as it is. I want to help them to do just that.

I hope the information here will help gay couples protect their families and relationships, whether they are adopting, trying to keep custody of their children, minimizing their taxes, or figuring out how to set up their domestic partnerships.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken signed on to sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday. ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment. In 29 states, it is still legal to fire someone due to sexual orientation and in 38 states for being transgender.

Minnesota became the first state to ban discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993….

A House version of the bill is backed by Reps. Tim Walz, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and James Oberstar.

So it’s one of those things that has a ton of sponsors, but that’s okay. Happy to see our senators and representatives are down with the cause. Some of them, anyway.

Eva Young asks in the MnIndy comments:

Why is Amy Klobuchar unwilling to state that she would vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? ENDA covers discrimination by the private sector, but doesn’t cover the government sponsored discrimination in the military – and women are more affected than men by DADT.

A-Klo has been vague about her position on health care reform, too. I generally like her and I respect that she thinks independently. I’d like to get some better answers on these topics, though.

In the past, the state could seize someone’s home after that person died to recoup medical assistance money. That seizure was delayed if a surviving spouse lived in the house.

Under the new law, that exception now extends to anyone with an ownership stake in the house, who lived there for at least three months before his or her partner died.

And it doesn’t just help same-sex couples.

[Project 515 Executive Director Laura] Smidzik said the new law protects older Minnesota citizens who have decided not to remarry and rural families who move in together to help care for an ailing relative.

The bill would also change the definition of civil union to mean “two parties, recognized by the state of Minnesota” instead of “a civil contract between a man and a woman,” opening proposed civil union contract language to same-sex couples.

This is separate from the already-introduced Marriage and Family Protection Act which plenty of gay rights supporters are very excited about but which most folks realize will probably go nowhere, at least as long as Tim Pawlenty is the governor. This bill would make existing legal language around marriage gender-neutral, but would leave the word “marriage” as is.

Each of these bills squarely addresses two fundamental ways of thinking on same-sex marriage. One is that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights, responsibilities, and protections as hetero couples are under what we currently culturally and legally recognize as “marriage.” The other is that the government should provide the legal (“civil union”) contract and get out of “marriage” all together, leaving that to religious institutions.

They both would effectively achieve what us gay Minnesotans and our allies are hoping for. I have no sense yet of whether HF 999 – which is more closely aligned with how I think the state should operate – is more palatable to the general public or to the legislature.

An interesting twist is the possibility of the passage of the bill changing “marriages” to “civil unions” but without the gender-neutral language. I’m doubting this will happen simply because it doesn’t, in practice, change the status quo that I can see. I’ve not heard of any successful attempt to accomplish this particular separation of church and state in any state or municipality. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

On a related note, I’ve read some things lately that have actually changed my thinking on civil unions. This, I think, has everything to do with the fact that I am now happily partnered and do actually have a reason to worry about this stuff.

Implementing civil unions as a parallel legal status to marriage is creating a separate-but-(not really)-equal status. I still believe that. Plus, what’s to ensure that any changes to marriage law are similarly reflected in civil union law (and vice versa)?

However.

If civil unions that offer some protections — though they are not fully equal to marriage — are on the table, I’ll take them. Because some protection now is better than no protection at all. This is part of Project 515′s and Outfront Minnesota’s strategy as they pursue different themes and laws each year. Incremental, achievable progress is preferable to going for the whole shebang and not getting it.

HF 999, if I read it correctly, is not such an incremental step. It’s the whole deal. It circumvents that pesky argument over the word “marriage” that good Christian folk and President Obama take issue with. I really really really hope it gets somewhere.

The story of abandoned orphans in developing countries who need to be whisked away to adoring moms and dads in faraway lands is, unfortunately, largely fiction. So writes E.J. Graff, associate director and senior researcher at the Schuster Institute in her new investigative article “The Lie We Love,” published in Foreign Policy’s Nov./Dec. 2008 issue. The article exposes the myth of a world orphan crisis—and reveals that the large amounts of Western money offered for healthy “adoptable” infants and toddlers are inducing baby-trafficking in poor and corrupt countries.

Part of Brandeis University’s Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism‘s Gender & Justice Project.

(via Ann Freeman)

Before 2007, partners who inherited retirement plan savings typically faced immediate taxation on inherited benefits, unlike different-sex spouses, who could roll savings over to an individual retirement account (IRA) with no tax penalty. Under the [Pension Protection Act of 2006], as of January 1, 2007, qualifying plans could permit any nonspouse beneficiary—including a domestic partner, parent or sibling—to roll over inherited retirement benefits paid as a lump sum directly to an IRA. Qualifying plans include defined benefit plans (pensions), 401(k) plans, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), profit-sharing plans, money purchase plans, 403(b) plans and governmental 457(b) plans.

Unfortunately, this provision of the PPA was subsequently interpreted to be optional for employers, meaning each company had to affirmatively adopt this protection for partners under each qualifying plan. Under the [Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008], all qualifying plans that pay lump sum benefits to nonspouse beneficiaries are required to provide the rollover opportunity as of January 1, 2010.

(via Eleventh Avenue South)