Labor backs LGBT non-discrimination bill

From the AFL-CIO:

Statement by AFL-CIO President Sweeney On the Introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
June 24, 2009

The AFL-CIO strongly supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which Representative Barney Frank introduced today in the 111th Congress. This common sense legislation would bar discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

In far too many states, it is still absolutely legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. While federal law protects working people from firing or penalization based on race, religion, national origin, gender and/or physical ability, no federal law exists to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This means that in 30 states, it is legal to fire someone for being lesbian, gay or bisexual. In 37 states, it is legal to fire someone because they are transgender.

Because transgender people are so frequently vulnerable to employment discrimination, the AFL-CIO applauds their full protection in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009. It is just plain wrong for anyone to discriminate against or fire a worker based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and this legislation gives Congress the chance to make all such shocking discrimination illegal across boundaries.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is inconsistent with the principles of equal opportunity and equal employment that our movement has fought for. With the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers across this nation would have protection from workplace discrimination, protections that so many workers receive now only because of their union contracts.

The AFL-CIO is proud to stand behind this significant civil rights legislation that is urgently needed and long overdue. We look forward to working with others in the labor and civil rights communities to move this issue forward on Capitol Hill.

Call for Equal Protections for LGBT Immigrants

From Pride at Work, AFL-CIO:

Same-sex binational couples are not protected by U.S. immigration policy; since they are not recognized as a family, they are often forced to leave the country in order to stay together. There is a way to change this - with your help!

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is a bill pending in the U.S. Congress that will grant equal rights to American citizens who are in same-sex relationships with non-citizens.

On May 6, 7, and 8, Immigration Equality is leading an action week during which LGBT families will travel to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress to pass UAFA. Even if you cannot participate in D.C., you can support their efforts by taking action locally: call or writing your members of Congress, visit their local offices, write to your local papers, or sign a petition.

Please take a few minutes to demand equal immigration rights for LGBT people. For same-sex couples affected by the immigration system, this legislation cannot come soon enough.

Click here to take action...

Will progressives respond?

By Terrie Albano, editor, www.pww.org

Barack Obama's run for the White House has captured the imagination of a wide swath of Americans. The question is, will progressives respond?

The answer is not clear, yet. There have been great signs from many who count themselves on the progressive side of life. Tom Hayden, for example, endorsed Obama. He emphasized the multiracial movement that has blossomed around him.

The Progressive Democrats of America have said many favorable things in the wake of Hayden's endorsement. Hayden is a PDA board member and many in the PDA are so excited to see the numbers of young people involved in Obama's campaign.

But looking on OpEd News front page, where no mention of the incredible turn of events in the Democratic primaries have taken place, I have to ask myself, are all who claim the progressive mantle responding to the moment? I don't think so.

What could be the reason? Why wouldn't there be a screaming headline: "U.S. on track to elect first woman, or first African American" ?

These giant steps would transform the country in and of itself. But what would take the country further in a progressive direction is the election of a candidate that has the most diverse electoral coalition this nation has seen in 50 years.

Is it that many who count themselves on the progressive side of life feel above the Democratic Party? Probably. I personally, and so many of my colleagues have had discussions ad naseum on why it is important to defeat the worst, most backwards administration – even if that means working for, being a part of a coalition that is led by (at this time) the Democratic Party.

"Oh heaven forbid I touch a Democrat" many sneer.

That is one possibility why there hasn't been a reaction to the events since Iowa.

Another is an obvious blindness to gender and racial equality and how crucial that is to ANY progressive movement. It's not just a feel good thing. It's not just about diversity. At our country's essence, at democracy's essence it's about guaranteeing EVERYONE has an equal say. And anything that prevents that, prevents the full flowering of democracy.

I think that many who consider themselves progressive take for granted the issue of unity and diversity. That it's a given in the progressive agenda.

And in many ways, the progressive agenda embraces equality values.

But it's not just about embracing it. It's about taking concrete action and initiative to realizing it.

That's the difference.

The movement that has exploded around Obama is so important. It's antiracist in essence. It's deep and broad and multiracial and multigenerational. It has insightful and sophisticated everyday people active in it. It's the cream rising to the top after the long horrendous period of the Bush administration and ultra right rule since Reagan.

But even if Obama doesn't win and Hillary Clinton does, getting rid of any ultra rightist will take this country forward. And the movement around Obama will influence Clinton.

This kind of upsurge comes around just once in a lifetime. I hope for all progressives – each of us – get involved. Don't stand on the sidelines. Be active. Don't let history pass you by.

Michael Guest: Bush's Example of How He Won't Support Equal Rights

Michael Guest, an openly gay man who counts his partner among his family, was appointed by George W. Bush to be the ambassador to Romania in 2001. News accounts of that appointment ceremony say that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell referenced Guest's partner positively in his little announcement speech.

Guest retired earlier this month after 25 years in the State Department. One is tempted to add Guest to the list of bureaucrats and appointees and elected Republicans who have jumped the sinking Bush/ultra-right ship in recent months.

Indeed, a little digging would likely produce a laundry list of odious Bush policies Guest has supported (or at least refused to resign over). And Guest's role in assisting the US intelligence services to operate so-called black sites in Romania where torture is believed to have occurred is unknown. (The State Department and the CIA have always been tight.)

But the story isn't about Guest's politics.

During his retirement ceremony, Guest said of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

“For the past three years, I’ve urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees. Absolutely nothing has resulted from this. And so I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country."

Guest's long-time personal courage in standing up for equal rights and treatment of LGBT people earned him the 2003 Task Force Leadership Award.

But as I ponder this situation it becomes clear to me that what Guest views as a "stain" cannot be separated from the politics of the administration he served. It cannot be separated from the administration's disdain for human rights in general.

What makes anyone think that an administration that has belittled and abused human rights convention in order to justify torturing people would not do the very same to LGBT people, whom neocons and the religious right, the base of the Republican Party, hate with unbridled ferocity.

Recall that opponents (like ultra right TV and radio personalities Pat Robertson and James Dobson) of basic laws that would merely add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing civil rights and hate crimes legislation justify their opposition by more or less claiming true believing Christians have the right to hate and commit violent acts against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

What makes Guest think these same people would go so far as to treat him and his husband fairly?

Senate: Pass Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act

Send a message to your Senators today.