Outstanding!

The same bill passed Nevada's Assembly and is now going before the state Senate. The governor has also indicated he would sign it into law.

*fingers crossed*

Texas May Strip Away Transgender Marriage Rights

By JIM VERTUNO Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas April 25, 2011 (AP)

Two years after Texas became one of the last states to allow transgendered people to use proof of their sex change to get a marriage license, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back the clock.

Advocates for the transgendered say a proposal to bar transgendered people from getting married smacks of discrimination and would put their legally granted marriages in danger of being nullified if challenged in court.

One of the Republican sponsors of the legislation said he's simply trying to clean up the 2009 law in a state that bans same-sex marriage under the constitution.

"The Texas Constitution," Sen. Tommy Williams said, "clearly defines marriage between one man and one woman."

The legislation by Williams, of Houston, and Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, of Brenham, would prohibit county and district clerks from using a court order recognizing a sex change as documentation to get married, effectively requiring the state to recognize a 1999 state appeals court decision that said in cases of marriage, gender is assigned at birth and sticks with a person throughout their life even if they have a sex change.

Most states allow transgendered people to get married using a court order that also allows them to change their driver's license, experts said. Some advocates for the transgendered say the Texas proposal would not only prevent future transgendered marriages but also open up the possibility that any current marriage could be nullified.


"It appears the goal is to try to enshrine a really horrifying ruling and making it law in the state of Texas," said John Nechman, a Houston attorney whose law firm does work for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community.

Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman Mark Miner said the governor never intended to allow transgendered people to get married. He said the three-word sex change provision was sneaked through on a larger piece of legislation Perry signed two years ago regarding marriage licensing rules for county and district clerks. Perry, a Republican, supports efforts to "clarify the unintended consequences" of that law, Miner said.

"The governor has always believed and advocated that marriage is between a man and a woman," Miner said.

Williams said he understands that some people's gender cannot easily be determined when they are born and they later have an operation that could change the originally assigned gender.

"It is an emotional issue," Williams said. "I can appreciate that."

But when asked about claims of discrimination, Williams insisted his goal is to simplify marriage licensing for clerks who are trying to balance the 2009 law with the 1999 Texas appeals court ruling.

"They shouldn't have to resolve these issues," Williams said. "We have confused them."

Williams' legislation has cleared a committee vote and now awaits approval by the full Senate, which is predominantly Republican. The version in the GOP-dominated House has not yet been given a hearing.

Some advocates for the transgendered say that even if the legislation is passed, transgendered people could still get marriage licenses using other state and federally-issued documents such as a drivers' license or passport. But without the weight of a court order officially recognizing their gender reassignment, they worry any legal challenge, such as a divorce or estate dispute, would nullify the marriage.


"We want to be recognized as people. We want to have the same rights as all of you," Lisa Scheps of the Transgender Education Network of Texas said at a March hearing on Williams' bill. No one testified in favor of the legislation.

Kolkhorst, who authored the 2009 law that allowed the sex change documentation to be used in getting marriage licenses, did not respond to messages left at her office seeking comment on why she now wants to take it out.

The 2009 law originally was filed without the sex change document provision, but House records show Kolkhorst put it in as part of a lengthy amendment in the last month of the session. The changed legislation passed the House and Senate and Perry signed it into law a month later.


AP
In this April 20, 2011 photo, Nikki Araguz stands in front of a monument to fallen volunteer... View Full Caption

"It would be terrible for Texas, now that it finally caught up with the rest of the country, to take a step back," said Shannon Minter, an attorney for the national Transgender Law and Policy Institute. He said most states allow marriages for people who have undergone sex reassignment surgery.

Nikki Araguz was at the Capitol last week to lobby against the legislation. Her husband, a volunteer firefighter, was killed in the line of duty in July and she is being sued by her dead husband's family over control of his $600,000 estate.

Araguz had a final sex change operation in October 2008, two months after they were married, and says her husband knew and supported her. His family argues the marriage should be voided because Araguz was born a man and same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas. A hearing is scheduled for May 13.

"This is crazy. I feel like this is a personal attack on me," Araguz told The Associated Press. "If this bill is passed, it essentially means women like myself who have had reconstructive surgery will not be allowed to marry their heterosexual partner."

Dallas County Votes to Protect Trans Rights
 

Transgender professor denied tenure, terminated
 

How horrible. Thanks for posting this story.

News release from U.S, Department of Labor:

US Department of Labor announces renewed commitment to fair treatment and equal opportunity for all of its employees
New policy statements prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and pregnancy


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced its full commitment to implementing equal employment opportunity policies for all department employees and applicants. The policies ensure equal protections for all employees and applicants regardless of race; color; religion; national origin; sex, including pregnancy and gender identity; age; disability, whether physical or mental; genetic information; status as a parent; sexual orientation; or other non-merit factor. New, robust statements signed by Secretary Solis include updated policies on prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, including gender identity and pregnancy.

Secretary Solis strongly supports fair equal employment opportunity policies, and creating diversity and fairness in the workplace.

“I am expressing my personal commitment to ensure that the U.S. Department of Labor is a model workplace, free from unlawful discrimination and harassment, which fosters a work environment that fully utilizes the capabilities of every employee,” said Secretary Solis. “It is my goal that we achieve and maintain a high-quality, diverse workforce at all organizational levels throughout the department.”

The Labor Department is required to issue annual written policy statements expressing the secretary’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and a workplace free of discriminatory harassment, pursuant to 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1614, Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Management Directive 715. The EEOC’s directive identifies minimum requirements for the policy statements.

The statements issued by Secretary Solis articulate stronger protections and establish responsibilities to ensure meaningful adherence to equal employment opportunity throughout the department. They have been disseminated to all current employees and will be disseminated to new employees during orientation as well as to employees who are promoted into supervisory ranks.

The department’s policies on equal employment opportunity and harassing conduct in the workplace can be viewed at http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/cr...ternal/eeo.htm and http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/cr...-Workplace.htm.



Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gayso...#ixzz1KsCBTWpO

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-ri...trans-meeting/

In a White House first, trans groups have been invited to a closed-door meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to exclusively discuss federal trans-related issues. The meeting will take place Friday, April 29, and will not be open to the public.

It is expected that a federal, trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will be a topic of discussion as well as health policy as it relates to trans people, but a formal agenda has not been announced.

From The Washington Blade:

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the meeting, which is set to take place Friday at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, will include transgender leaders who work on federal policy.

"OPE routinely holds meetings with various stakeholders to discuss various policy issues," Inouye said. "Friday's meeting, like most OPE meetings, will be closed press and off the record."
Additionally, Inouye said the meeting will be the first ever for the Office of Public Engagement where transgender issues are the sole focus of discussion.

"While transgender issues have been covered in previous OPE meetings, and transgender leaders have been included in other OPE meetings, this would be the first time OPE has held a meeting solely focused on transgender issues," Inouye said.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said she plans to attend the meeting.
"This is the first president who has allowed trans people -- really allowed LGBT people -- to bring forward problems and then advocate for them," Keisling said. "In the Bush administration, we couldn't even do that. They wouldn't even listen to us. They didn't care what our problems were. In fact, they were making most of our problems."

[Read more from trans advocates over at Washington Blade.]

With the United States House of Representatives dominated by the GOP it would seem doubtful that there will be any significant moves on a federal ENDA.

As such, advocates have pressed for President Obama to issue an LGBT-inclusive executive order on workplace discrimination. This would only impact businesses contracting with the federal government and would not be as lasting as an Act of Congress but would be a good stop-gap measure until conditions are more favorable for ENDA.

Whether this possibility will be discussed during Friday's meeting is unknown, but you can read more the precedent for an executive order here.

For more on ENDA, please click here.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/27/smal....fsb/index.htm

I actually identify with the positive response that these individuals have experienced.

It took a while, but it passed the state Senate with an 11-10 vote; however, they added an amendment that employers could require appropriate workplace clothing and grooming.

Now it has to go back to the state Assembly because of the amendment.

Way to go, Nevada!

http://www.lvrj.com/news/senate-narr...8.html?ref=208

I was born and raised in Houston and spent a number of years in San Antonio too. I can ASSURE you the heat of Nevada is preferable to the heat in Texas...especially northern Nevada.

Saw that story... *shaking head*

http://www.examiner.com/lgbt-relatio...elebrity-child

On the one hand, we don't know how Shiloh feels/thinks. On the other hand, the information and resources should be out there for parents, so having someone like Chaz voicing what those resources are is good, I think. If I had a third hand (:p), I would say that I feel sorry for the children of celebrities...Shiloh shouldn't have to live in the limelight like that with the whole world wondering what Shiloh "is." It's just stupid.

NYT: Modern Love Article--May 19
 

I'm not sure where to put this, but someone may find it interesting:

A blog about what's in your pants http://www.originalplumbing.com/2011...r-not-to-pack/

Nevada's employment non-discrimination bill has been signed into law by the governor (he broke ranks with the Republicans on this one). Good job, Gov. Sandoval!

http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval-si...122529078.html

The man who was born a girl
 

Read an awesome article in the Mirror today that told the story and experiences of a British transman. It was cool to see that the article just told it like he said and like it was instead of making assumptions, insults or falling into the usual stereotypes.

More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23154617/

Transgender rights victory in Vermont
May 25, 2011
by taskforceblog

Congratulations to advocates in Vermont, and a special thank you to Rep. Bill Lippert and state health officials, who worked on tremendously important legislation relating to gender changes on birth certificates.

Although some other states allow gender changes without proof of surgery in their policies, Vermont becomes the very first to have clear language in its statute that makes clear surgery is not necessary to update one’s birth certificate.

It was our pleasure to provide consultation, along with GLAD, on state-of-the-art language in the statute so Vermont could modernize this law.

The trend against requiring surgery for identity documents is growing, with many states abandoning old-fashioned surgery requirements. The Department of State modernized its policy on passports in 2009. And, the policy for “Consular Reports of Birth Abroad,” which are federal birth certificates for U.S. citizens born outside of the U.S., also no longer requires proof of surgery.

A similar bill is being considered in California and advocates are working in other states as well. For many years, gender on driver’s licenses in many states has not been dependent on showing medical treatments.

What a great piece! Thanks for sharing it.