Erin Bouquin, New Mexico’s chief medical officer, said she was asked to resign after she promoted condom use in a TV interview as a way to slow the growth of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. An hour after her interview aired, Bouquin said she met with Health Department Secretary Catherine Torres and was asked to leave because she had not met the expectations of the state’s Republican governor.
The health department spokeswoman said there was no connection between the interview and Bouquin’s resignation, but Bouquin suspects otherwise because she said Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) favors abstinence-only sex education. “On the day I was asked to leave, I said the word condom three times on the news,” she told the Santa Fe New Mexican.
The governor’s office and health department denied any involvement in Bouquin’s resignation. Martinez’s spokesman Scott Darnell said in a statement that “the governor is a proponent of taking a balanced and multi-pronged approach to controlling the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; there is nothing in Dr. Bouquin’s interview that would conflict with that approach
There’s been a lot of buzz about a new study in Psychological Science which suggests that people of both genders view men as people but women as objects. It’s a small sample size, and so worth taking with a grain of salt. But the science behind the study’s setup is interesting as a potential explanation for some of the more distorted depictions of women we see in popular culture.
The study, conducted by Philippe Bernard, Sarah J. Gervais, Jill Allen, Sophie Campomizzi and Olivier Klein, is based on a fairly simple idea: we can recognize objects easily when we see them upside down, but not people. So “if sexualized women are viewed as objects and sexualized men are viewed as persons, then sexualized female bodies will be recognized equally well when inverted as when upright (object-like recognition), whereas sexualized male bodies will be recognized better when upright than when
inverted (person-like recognition).” When the researchers briefly showed subjects pictures of a man shirtless but wearing shorts upside down, they correctly identified him as a human man 73 percent of the time, while they recognized an upside down picture of a woman in panties and a bra correctly 83 percent of the time.
Apparently, part of the reason women are easier to recognize even when presented upside down is that “analytic processing, which is involved in object recognition, does not take into account spatial relations among the stimulus parts.” That would explain why comic book artists can get away with drawing hugely distorted images of women’s bodies—as long as the “stimulus parts” are all there, we’re getting the basic message that this is a lady. Fascinatingly, the researchers also cite a study that suggests that “focusing on targets’ appearance, rather than on their personality, could diminish the degree of human nature attributed to female targets but not to male targets.” I wonder if that’s because, as we’ve discussed some this week, showing men as strong implies capability and capacity, which can be extrapolated back into personality. But showing women as consumable tells us things about how we perceive them and what we want from them, not about who they actually are.
North Carolina Business Faces Backlash For Defending Equality |
Today the New York Times profiled Replacements Limited, a silver, china, and glassware shop in Greensboro whose owner strongly opposed Amendment One. Many wrote to him attacking his business, claiming they could never bring their children to the store and promising never to patronize him again. Bob Page defended his choices, saying, “I just refuse to hide. I did that way too many years and it’s just not healthy… My life is not about money.” The hostility Page has faced nullifies arguments made by opponents of marriage equality like the National Organization for Marriage, which claims that their supporters are the victims. In any political disagreement, both sides can often be targeted for their views and one is not “more” the victim than the other. Page should be applauded for standing up for his partner of 23 years and their 13-year-old twins, regardless of the backlash he’s faced.
Earlier this week, a diverse coalition of religious and education groups led by the American Jewish Committee and Religious Freedom Education Project released a set of what they called bullying “guidelines.” While little actual advice was given, the guidelines suggested that bullying has little to do with the “disagreements” that happen between students and that priority should be given to ensuring that students’ religious condemnations of gay students have a fair hearing.
In response, the Anti-Defamation League urged Education Secretary Arne Duncan to disregard the guidelines because they are “ill-conceived, unnecessary, deeply flawed, and counter-productive to confronting the growing and serious problem of bullying and cyberbullying”:
Directly contrary to the Department’s Dear Colleague letter, however, the Guidelines issued this week emphasize students’ First Amendment rights over the responsibility to create a safe learning environment for all students — especially vulnerable minority, disabled, and LGBT students. While we agree that students’ free speech and religious expression rights are important, we strongly disagree with the Guidelines’ direct implication that such rights have been given short shrift in current federal and state law and policy and need greater protection.
The Guidelines issued this week have the word “Bullying” in their title, but break no new ground and offer no insights on preventing bullying. Even worse, they are tone-deaf as to the actual dynamics of real-world bullying in our nation’s private and public schools. Bullying situations very rarely erupt as conflicts over political or religious speech. Instead, they much more often involve the intentional targeting of an individual with less physical or social standing for physical or verbal abuse. Targeted students are in a very different power position than those doing the bullying. The aggressor’s objective is not to convince his/her target of the rightness of a policy position – it is, rather, to cause physical or emotional harm.
The ADL’s rebuke is significant because of the variety of religious organizations that had signed onto the guidelines. What’s most important is not protecting religious speech, but making sure that all students have a safe and welcoming environment in which to learn.
Brazil Moves One Step Closer To Civil Unions |
Yesterday, Brazil’s human rights committee finally passed a 16-year-old bill to classify a “union” as a longstanding partnership between two people regardless of gender. As the bill’s sponsor, Senator Marta Suplicy, pointed out, “All we have done is added something to civil law that the Supreme Court has already done.” Brazil’s Supreme Court has been approving civil unions for same-sex couples since last May and even allowing them to be converted to marriages.
Earlier this week, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins seemed oddly out of the loop about what LGBT organization Target is supporting with its new Pride t-shirts. The answer, of course, is the Family Equality Council, an organization committed to making sure all families are supported under the law. In an interview on CNN yesterday, Perkins seemed to indicate why he was unfamiliar with the equality organization’s work: he’s never been to the home of a married same-sex couple.
This is a situation the Equality Council seeks to rectify. Today, Executive Director Jennifer Chrisler has sent an official letter (PDF) to Perkins inviting him to join her and her family for dinner:
I would like to extend an open invitation for you and your family to visit my home and have dinner with my spouse and children with the full hope that you will witness the love that exists in our families. While I recognize it may not change your mind, I hope that it might soften your heart. As Christians, I think we can both agree that ours is not to judge and that we must live by the golden rule. I open my table to you and invite you to get to know me and my family.
Even if nothing comes of the experience, at least you can say you spent time with our families and knew us and still deny us our equality. But I know you will find that our families have much in common and share the same hopes and dreams for our children.
The invitation parallels Dan Savage’s recent acceptance of the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown’s debate challenge, in which Savage invited Brown to a private dinner in his home followed by a recorded debate.
Same-sex families have become a ubiquitous part of American culture, despite conservatives’ continued attempts to erase them from our laws, schools, and communities. These families are refusing to be invisible anymore, and how anti-gay leaders like Perkins and Brown respond will be quite telling. Will they continue to reject these families, proving that they are motivated entirely by animus? Or will they open themselves to learning about the lives they have committed themselves to demonizing?
Over 300,000 Thank President Obama For Marriage Equality Support |
When President Obama announced his support for marriage equality two weeks ago, many organizations invited supporters to join in expressing thanks for his evolution. Yesterday, these organizations combined their more than 300,000 signatures and presented a thank-you card to the administration, which was accepted by White House LGBT Liaison and Associate Director of Public Engagement Gautam Raghavan. GetEQUAL also gave a gift of 300 pens to make sure the President would have one to sign an executive order protecting the LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination. Pictured below are representatives from AVAAZ, GetEqual, Credo, and ThinkProgress’ own Zack Ford:
Before Holtz-Eakin began his second career as a salesman for Republican economic policy, however, he actually was a serious economist. In 2004, Holtz-Eakin served as Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and he was asked to analyse the impact on the federal budget of eliminating the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and extending marriage equality throughout the nation. According to the top Republican economist, opposition to marriage equality cannot be squared with the GOP’s supposed devotion to deficit reduction, as marriage equality slightly reduces the deficit:
The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person’s eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving “benefits, rights, and privileges.” In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.
According to last night’s federal court decision holding DOMA unconstitutional, Holtz-Eakin’s economic analysis is not simply an interesting historic artifact — it’s also a body blow to the forces trying to protect anti-gay discrimination from the Constitution. In defending the law, anti-gay Members of Congress proposed four reasons why they believed excluding gay couples from their constitutional right to marry is somehow justified, among them a claim that DOMA “is justified as an enactment designed to conserve scarce government resources.” Holtz-Eakin’s analysis refutes this claim, and the district court relied upon it in explaining why DOMA must go down.
In many ways, the resurrection of Holtz-Eakin’s days as a non-partisan economist is a metaphor for why conservative efforts to cling to anti-gay discrimination are doomed to failure. The most intriguing line in yesterday’s opinion is when it characterizes DOMA as an attempt to “establish[] an across-the-board federal definition of marriage limiting it to heterosexual couples, and preempting any opportunity to test the impact of state laws evolving to recognize same-sex marriage.” When marriage equality was nothing more than an idea, conservatives could scare the nation with warnings that gay couples would recruit your children, raise your taxes and destroy your marriage. Now it is a reality in many states — even if the federal government still needs to extend benefits to these couples — and the parade of horribles that anti-gay groups predicted never made it out the gate.
Holtz-Eakin’s memo demonstrates, however, that anti-gay discrimination was doomed even before America got its first taste of marriage equality. Reality leaks through, even if Congress does everything in its power to keep it away.
Arkansas University Opens Gender-Specific Bathrooms To Trans Students |
The University of Arkansas at Fort Smith recently told student Jennifer Braly that she was prohibited from giving lectures about being transgender to classes on campus, despite the fact that faculty were eager to feature her presentations. Braly suspected it was because she had sued the school for other forms of discrimination she faced. This week, the university reversed its policy restricting Braly to gender-neutral bathrooms after the Department of Justice sent a letter on her behalf. Trans students will now be able to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify. Braly’s complaints about housing and other discrimination remain unaddressed.
(Note: The original sources for this story, Fox News and Campus Reform, inappropriately and disrespectfully refer to Braly as “anatomically male,” using male pronouns — or no pronouns at all, in the case of Fox News — to reject the authenticity of her identity. Inside Higher Ed has published a story that better articulates her background and experiences.)
After Jessica Barba (right) was suspended, some of her friends, like Hannah Babbino (left) made t-shirts to support her and her anti-bullying video.
As a project for a persuasive speech class, 15-year-old Long Island student Jessica Barba created a video about a fictional girl named Hailey who committed suicide after experiencing extensive bullying and cyberbullying. For that, Longwood School District suspended her for five days, with Superintendent Allan Gerstenlauer calling the video “unfortunate in that it created a substantial disruption to the school.” The school also told her that removing the video would help “soften the blow” of her punishment, but after her suspension was passed down anyway, she reuploaded it. The school also took down the fictional Facebook page Barba had created for the character in the video.
Yesterday, however — after Barba had already missed several days of class — the school decided to lift her suspension and wipe it from her record. She reacted to the decision:
BARBA: I’m going back to school, and that’s what I wanted… The school did the right thing… they turned a wrong into a right, and that’s all that matters. It feels great to have made [the video] go around the world and made it get to different children’s eyes, and I hope made kids be inspired to be not bullies, and stand up for bullying. Speak up, speak out, and that’s what I’ve been saying.
Neither Jessica nor her father would comment on the school’s intention for suspending her in the first place. As one Longwood alum wrote in response to the incident, “The disruption was there before Barba’s project. It is she who is bringing the disruption to light and challenging others to talk about and deal with a real and dangerous problem.”
Watch Barba’s video, which now has over 130,000 views on YouTube:
Federal Judge Finds DOMA Unconstitutional | Last night, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in California ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in a case called Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Clinton-appointed federal judge found that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protections clause due to the fact that, along with a provision of the state’s tax law, it limits same-sex couples and domestic partners from fully participating in the California Public Employees Retirement System. This marks the first federal court decision on DOMA since President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage on May 9. Two otherjudges and a bankruptcy court have similarly ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT’s daily round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here’s what we’re reading this morning, but please let us know what stories you’re following as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.
- A new coalition of LGBT-friendly churches and African-American organizations is opposing conservative efforts to drive a wedge between black voters. Check out NoWedge2012.com.
- Over 80,000 have signed a Change.org petition urging Dictionary.com to amend its definition of “marriage” to be more inclusive.
- Courage, the Catholic Church’s anti-gay chastity ministry, is holding its 13th annual sports camp for men this weekend to help them become “manlier,” and thus somehow less gay — an insult to manly gay athletes everywhere.
- Chile will soon cover the costs of sexual reassignment surgery for transgender citizens.
- Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe believes homosexuality must be condemned or men will stop impregnating women, which “will lead to extinction.”
- A gay club in West Hollywood has banned bachelorette parties, citing their insensitivity to marriage inequality.
- CNN takes a look at the complicated rules for transgender athletes and the unique case of Keelin Godsey, the first openly trans Olympic athlete.
50 Cent, in an interview in which he endorsed marriage equality on the grounds that “If everyone else is for it, then hey, to each his own. I don’t have personal feelings towards it because I’m not involved in that lifestyle,” also decided it made sense to tell the world that:
So in process, we need organizations for straight men. We do. We need organizations for straight men in the case you’ve been on the elevator and somebody decides they want to grab your little buns. Times are changing. Those organizations are set up for at one point they were being attacked for those choices. Now its completely different. Obviously [homosexuality] is more socially accepted.
One of the hardest things about getting people to surrender their privilege is helping them to understand that giving some of it up isn’t going to materially change their living conditions. Asking that women be treated equally isn’t to ask that women have the right to sexually harass men or to invert the pay gap so women make more than men. Advocating for gay rights is in part about communicating that 50 Cent’s arrogant fear that gay men want to grab his ass is unfounded. Liberation, done right, can make things better for both people who have privilege and people who don’t. The people who are disadvantaged get access to the rights they see denied them. And then people who have privilege end up freed from their fears of what might happen if things change, benefitting from their contact with people they were previously separated from.
In this specific case, the wave of endorsements for marriage equality shouldn’t be mistaken for comfort with gay people. We normally talk about how contact with specific gay people makes straight people more receptive to gay rights: when you care for someone, it becomes emotionally difficult to support their continued legal subordination. But President Obama’s use of the bully pulpit reverses that process, and it means we’re seeing a lot of people coming out for substantive gay rights who don’t seem to have fully dealt with their homophobia. That doesn’t necessarily lessen the impact of their endorsements—indifference is better than aggression or loathing—but it is a reminder that progress doesn’t advance in tandem on all fronts.
NEWS FLASH
State Department Releases LGBT-Inclusive Annual Report On Human Rights |
Today, the State Department released its annual report on human rights, which details how countries have been treating their citizens. According to the introduction, “In many countries there was an uptick in discrimination against members of racial and ethnic minorities; people with disabilities; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people, all of whom were frequent targets of abuse, discrimination, and violence.” U.S. foreign and trade policy must take countries’ human rights performance under consideration.
On CNN today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins continued his anti-marriage-equality tour of cable news shows and repeated many of his often debunked claims about the dangers same-sex couples pose to religious liberty, public education, and the institution of marriage.
But when pressed by host Brooke Baldwin about real same-sex couples, he struggled to explain away his unjustifiable fears.
BALDWIN: Have you ever been to the home of a married same-sex couple?
PERKINS: I have not been to the home of a same-sex married couple, no.
BALDWIN: If you were ever to do so, and you’re sitting across from them over dinner, how would you convince them that their life together — either two men, two women — hurts straight couples? What do you tell them?
PERKINS: Well first, Brooke, we don’t make public policy based on what’s good for me and my family, or you and your family, or one couple.
BALDWIN: I’m just asking, on a personal level…
PERKINS: We’re engaged here, in a discussion about public policy and what’s best for the nation. Not annecdotes or what one couple likes.
BADLWIN: But this is issue–it is personal. It is personal as well.
PERKINS: But that’s not how we make public policy. Certainly, there are some same-sex couples that are probably great parents. But that’s not what the overwhelming amount of social science shows us.
Watch the video:
It is noteworthy that Perkins — who opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt at all — acknowledges that some same-sex couples that are probably great parents. Advocates for LGBT equality push for adoption policies that focus on what is in the best interest of the child — only placing children in need of loving homes with qualified parents. Perkins thinks that even same-sex couples who are great parents should be legally prevented from opening their homes to children in need of a family.
Perkins, like other anti-gay activists, misleads viewers on what the “overwhelming amount of social sciences” actually shows. Several studies have shown that children benefit from having a two-parent family, compared to those raised by just one parent. But those studies have not shown that children raised by two same-sex parents are any worse off that those raised by opposite-sex couples.
Perkins is right — this is about social science. And social science makes it clear that children would be far better off in a home with two loving parents, regardless of whether they are two men, two women, or one of each.
NEWS FLASH
Nepal Invites LGBTI Community To Identify As ‘Others’ |
In Nepal, individuals who do not conform to gender norms because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersex identity have often faced harassment and discrimination because they would constantly be challenged as to whether they are men or women. The nation’s Home Ministry announced yesterday that it will now offer citizenship under the gender category of “others” to accommodate members of the LGBTI community. By opting into this “third gender” designation, individuals will no longer have to fear unfair treatment because their appearance does not match their identification.
Dolores Huerta speaking at the 2009 National Conference on LGBT Equality.
At the Huffington Post, legendary civil rights and labor activist Dolores Huerta has quashed speculation that President Obama’s support for marriage equality will somehow alienate Latino voters. Instead, she says, the fight for immigrants’ rights and workers’ rights has helped many understand “the core American value of equality under the law”:
As a community that has fought and continues to fight against bigotry and discrimination , we understand how dangerous it is to pick and choose who deserve equality and respect. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to working for immigrants’ rights and workers’ rights understand the core American value of equality under the law. A better country for immigrants is a better country for all. A better country for gays and lesbians is a better country for all. We’re all in this together. [...]
The gay rights movement is working for many of the same basic rights and dignities that those of us in the immigrants’ rights and labor movements have been fighting for decades: workplace rights, economic security, access to opportunity. The gay community has been a strong ally for us in the quest for public policy that treats all people with respect and dignity. We will continue to do the same for them.
Huerta also took time to recognize the important intersections between race, sexuality, and gender that are often ignored, noting, “There are just as many LGBT people in our communities as there are throughout the country. We too have gay and lesbian hermanos y hermanas, friends and children.”
The 82-year-old activist is best known for working with César Chávez to found what would become the United Farm Workers. She also originated the slogan “Sí se puede,” which Obama adapted as his campaign motto, “Yes We Can.”
NEWS FLASH
POLL: African-American Marylanders Would Uphold Marriage Equality Law |
A new Public Policy Polling poll has found that 55 percent of Maryland’s African-American community would vote to maintain the state’s new marriage equality law if it’s challenged at the ballot in November. They join a 57 percent of all Maryland voters who support the law, up from 52 percent in March. An ABC/Washington Post poll yesterday found that 59 percent of African-Americans nationwide back marriage equality, a rate higher than the national average. Anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage have been fervently trying to drive a wedge between blacks and gays by highlightingblackreligiousleaderswhooppose marriage equality, but the narrative they’re spinning simply doesn’t reflect reality.
Last January, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) nominated openly gay attorney Bruce Harris to a seat on that state’s supreme court. According to the Star-Ledger, however, Harris is not expected to clear the state’s senate judiciary committee, which will hold a hearing on him today, due to both his lack of litigation experience and concerns over his overwillingness to recuse himself from cases:
Harris, a graduate of Yale Law School, is a transactional attorney at the international law firm Greenberg Traurig. . . . The sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, said Harris’ lack of courtroom experience was indeed a sticking point for committee’s eight Democrats. . . .
State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) said he remained opposed to the nomination because Harris has said that if approved, he would recuse himself from cases involving gay rights.
Christie has said Harris planned to recuse himself because in the past he had advocated for gay rights.
But Lesniak and other critics said a blanket recusal was unnecessary, and that most likely was a concession to Christie, who opposes same-sex marriage. A lawsuit brought by seven gay couples seeking the right to marry is pending in a lower court and is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court in a couple years.
Harris’ lack of experience is a legitimate concern. While transactional work can certainly be very challenging, it bears little resemblance to litigation, so it’s not clear how Harris is prepared to decide some of the most important cases that arise in his state.
His promise to recuse from gay rights cases, however, is far more troubling. An openly gay judge is no more required to recuse himself from gay rights cases than Clarence Thomas is required to recuse himself from race cases because he is black or Ruth Bader Ginsburg is required to recuse herself from gender discrimination cases because she is a woman. If Harris becomes a judge on the back of a promise to remove himself from gay issues because he is gay, he will set a dangerous precedent that anti-gay groups will cite every time another LGBT judicial nominee is named. Gay judges are not second class judges, and it is a grave mistake for them to behave like they are.
NEWS FLASH
Colombia Approves Adoption By U.S. Gay Man |
The Colombian Constitutional Court has approved the adoption of two brothers by New York Times journalist Chandler Burr, who is gay. Burr had finalized the boys adoption, but when officials learned he was gay, they canceled his newly adopted sons’ emigration visas, preventing him from returning to the U.S. with his family. A prominent Colombian bishop and the country’s Inspector General argued that Burr had a “disorder” and would be a threat to the children. In 2010, over two-thirds of the children adopted in Colombia, where nearly half of the population lives below the poverty line, were adopted by foreigners.
Erin Bouquin, New Mexico’s chief medical officer, said she was asked to resign after she promoted condom use in a TV interview as a way to slow the growth of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. An hour after her interview aired, Bouquin said she met with Health Department Secretary Catherine Torres and was asked to leave because she had not met the expectations of the state’s Republican governor.
There’s been a lot of buzz about 
Earlier this week, a diverse coalition of religious and education groups led by the American Jewish Committee and Religious Freedom Education Project released a set of what they called 
Earlier this week, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins seemed oddly 
50 Cent,
Last January, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) nominated openly gay attorney Bruce Harris to a seat on that state’s supreme court. According to the Star-Ledger, however, Harris is 
