Bill Makes It Easier To Change Gender On Birth Certificates
HARTFORD (AP) – A bill moving through the Connecticut legislature would make it easier for transgender people to update their names and genders on their birth certificates.
The state already has a law on the books allowing people to change the sex on their birth certificates. But that’s only if they’ve undergone sex reassignment surgery.
Transgender people and their advocates argue that standard is outdated and the course of care for gender transition doesn’t always involve surgery.
A bill being considered by the General Assembly would allow a transgender person to provide a written statement from a licensed health care provider verifying that person has undergone surgical, hormonal or other treatment that’s clinically appropriate.
The bill could come up for a committee vote on Monday.
—–
Indiana Gov. Pence Signs Religious Objections Bill
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – Indiana Gov. Mike Pence vigorously defended the state religious objections bill that he signed into law Thursday as businesses and organizations including the NCAA pressed concerns that it could open the door to legalizing discrimination against gay people.
The state became the first to enact such a change this year among about a dozen where such proposals have been introduced. Arkansas’ governor said Thursday he supported a similar bill that’s advancing in that state’s Legislature.
Pence, a Republican mulling a possible 2016 presidential campaign, signed the bill privately in his office with at least a couple dozen supporters on hand. He later met with reporters and refuted arguments from opponents that law would threaten civil rights laws by saying that hasn’t happened under the federal religious freedom law Congress passed in 1993 and similar laws in 19 other states.
“There has been a lot of misunderstanding about this bill,” Pence said. “This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way I would’ve vetoed it.”
Those arguments didn’t satisfy opponents who worry the law, which will take effect in July, presents Indiana as unwelcoming and could give legal cover to businesses that don’t want to provide services to gays and lesbians.
National gay-rights consider the Indiana bill among the most sweeping of similar state proposals introduced as conservatives brace for a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
The Washington-based Human Rights Campaign said Indiana lawmakers “have sent a dangerous and discriminatory message.”
“They’ve basically said, as long as your religion tells you to, it’s OK to discriminate against people despite what the law says,” said Sarah Warbelow, the group’s legal director.
The Indianapolis-based NCAA, which is holding its men’s basketball Final Four in the city next weekend, said in a statement it was concerned about the legislation and was examining how it might affect future events and its workforce.
“We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in the statement. “Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.”
Soon after Pence signed the bill, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that he was canceling all programs that require its customers or employees “to travel to Indiana to face discrimination.”
The San Francisco-based company bought Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget for $2.5 billion in 2013 and has kept hundreds of employees in the city. A company spokeswoman declined to elaborate on Benioff’s statement.
Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.
—–
Texas Lawmakers Hear Bill Banning Gay Marriage Licenses
AUSTIN (AP) – Dick Francis appealed to Texas lawmakers ten years ago to vote against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Legislators – and voters statewide – approved the amendment in 2005. On Mar. 26, Francis once again pleaded with lawmakers on behalf of his gay son.
He asked members of the House State Affairs committee to vote against the “Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act” by Magnolia Republican Rep. Cecil Bell Jr., a bill that would bar state and local employees from licensing or recognizing same-sex marriages – even if the U.S. Supreme Court authorizes them. Francis said Bell’s bill should be renamed the “Preservation of Discrimination.”
“If you vote for this bill, you are judging my son,” he said.
Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner, of Houston, told Francis his statement was powerful and that he gave a voice to many people.
“We’re certainly not here to devalue your son, neither his partner,” Turner said.
Bell’s proposal, which is still pending in committee, would make the Texas Secretary of State solely responsible for issuing state marriage licenses. Under the bill, no state or local funds could be used to “license, register, certify or support” gay marriage. The measure would also prohibit officials from recognizing, granting or enforcing gay marriage licenses.
The Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage arguments this summer. Bell’s bill aims to ensure that, regardless of their ruling, gay marriage would face challenges in Texas. Bell said while the Texas Constitution clearly bans marriage for couples other than one man and one woman, “unfortunately,” a state judge issued a same-sex marriage license in direct violation of that ban.
In February, the Travis County Clerk granted permission for lesbians Suzanne Bryant and Sarah Goodfriend to wed. The license was ordered by an Austin judge because Goodfriend has cancer.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately asked the state Supreme Court to invalidate the marriage and block county clerks from issuing marriage licenses. The court sided with Paxton on the latter request but didn’t address Bryant and Goodfriend’s marriage.
—–
Arkansas Governor Says He’d Sign Religious Protection Bill
LITTLE ROCK (AP) – Arkansas inched closer Friday toward becoming the second state this year to adopt a law that critics say would sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians, with the state Senate approving a religious protection bill.
The bill, approved by the Senate 24-7, prevents state and local government from taking any action that substantially burdens someone’s religious beliefs unless a “compelling” interest is proven. The measure heads for a final vote next week in the House, which has already approved an initial version. The proposal faces an easy path forward, because Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said he’ll sign it into law.
One of the lawmakers behind the proposal said he didn’t believe the measure would lead to widespread discrimination.
“You certainly cannot legislate meanness in certain people, and people are going to be mean whether we have this law or not,” Republican Sen. Bart Hester told reporters after the vote.
But opponents have called it a thinly-veiled effort to endorse bias against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, with one lawmaker comparing it to the religious grounds used to endorse racial segregation and slavery.
“Having grown up in the South all my life, I know that religious freedom has meant that slavery was OK, it has meant that Jim Crow was OK, it has meant that it was OK to keep people from achieving that which they deserved,” Democratic Sen. Linda Chesterfield of Little Rock said before the vote. “It is impossible for me having suffered from that religious freedom in a negative way to fail to say that we are better than this.”
Before the bill reaches the governor’s desk, the House must agree to amendments that were made that supporters say are aimed at addressing concerns the measure could open the door to discrimination. But opponents of the bill say the changes are little more than cosmetic.
Six of the Senate’s 11 Democrats voted against the measure. Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, the governor’s nephew and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the only Republican to oppose the measure. Hutchinson and Democratic Sen. David Burnett both switched their votes to against after approving it in committee earlier this week.
Hutchinson said he regretted voting for the measure in committee.
“I think there are instances where religious activities are over-regulated, but in my estimation that does not outweigh the chance that somebody uses religion to do what Jesus would not want to be done in his name, which is to discriminate against somebody and offend a brother or sister,” Hutchinson said after the vote.
If the governor signs the measure into law, it’ll make Arkansas the second state to enact such a change this year. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar religious protection bill into law Thursday, and similar proposals have been introduced in about a dozen states. The legislation is patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and 19 other states have similar laws on the books.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT rights group, has stepped up its campaign against the measure and planned to run a newspaper ad in the San Jose Mercury News and on websites targeting the technology firms the governor has said he wants to draw to Arkansas. Retail giant Wal-Mart has said the measure sends the wrong message about its home state.
“This bill is a poison pill for jobs and investment in the state of Arkansas, and Governor Hutchinson has a duty to veto it,” HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement.
The proposal is advancing a month after Hutchinson allowed a measure to become law without his signature that prohibits local governments from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation or gender identity.
—–
Ex-BYU Student Sues Apartment Complex For Eviction
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – A former Brigham Young University student has settled with a university-contracted apartment complex he sued after he was evicted on the heels of telling his roommates he was attracted to men.
Andrew David White issued a statement Thursday afternoon through his attorney saying he and the Village at South Campus in Provo reached an agreement. Terms were not disclosed.
White sued the complex and the owner, Peak Joaquin Holdings, accusing the complex manager of orchestrating his eviction after White’s roommates kicked him out and assaulted him after he revealed to one of them his feelings of same-sex attraction.
White said in the statement he stands against the discrimination he suffered at the hand of his roommates but that the complex didn’t discriminate against him. He said the lawsuit was over landlord tenant law.
An eviction notice included in the lawsuit says White violated BYU’s honor code but doesn’t specify which part. The honor code is signed by all BYU students, requiring them to follow a set of rules set by the Mormon-owned university including no premarital sex, alcohol consumption or tattoos, among other things.
Simply expressing a same-sex attraction is not considered an honor code violation, but acting on it would be, said BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins, speaking generally and not specifically about White’s case.
The eviction notice also says White violated lease policies, residential living standards and the “quiet enjoyment of other residents.”
—–
Judge Fines Washington Florist Over Same-Sex Wedding Flowers
OLYMPIA (AP) – A Washington state florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding was fined $1,000 on Mar. 27, plus $1 for court costs and fees.
Benton County Superior Judge Alexander Ekstrom’s ruling gives Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington, 60 days to pay the state for her refusal to serve Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed when they sought to buy wedding flowers in 2013.
Stutzman, who had sold flowers to Ingersoll for years, knew he was gay and said when he sought to buy wedding flowers that the marriage went against her beliefs as a Southern Baptist. After they were refused flowers, Ingersoll and Freed went ahead with a smaller wedding than they had planned. They got married in their home with 11 guests and flowers from another florist.
In a February ruling, Ekstrom found that Stutzman’s refusal to provide flowers because of sexual orientation violated Washington’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. Along with the fine, the judge’s ruling also requires that everything Arlene’s Flowers sells to opposite-sex couples has to be available at the same price to same-sex couples.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office requested the fine, said in a statement Friday that the ruling is a reminder of the reach of Washington’s anti-discrimination laws.
“My primary goal has always been to end illegal discrimination,” Ferguson said. “I’m pleased that today’s ruling clearly prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples.”
Before Ferguson’s office filed the consumer-protection lawsuit against Stutzman, it had sent her a letter asking for an agreement to no longer discriminate, which she refused. Ferguson’s statement Friday said the office would not have sued if Stutzman had accepted the agreement.
—–
Birth Certificate Gender Change Wins Initial Colorado House Approval
DENVER (AP) – A bill to allow transgender people to change the gender listings on their birth certificates without undergoing gender-reassignment surgery passed its first test Mar. 26 in the Colorado Legislature.
The bill would also allow people to have their original birth certificates sealed, instead of having them marked to say that the gender has been changed.
“This new birth certificate is about respecting the privacy of the individual,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dominick Moreno, D-Commerce City.
The bill passed 8-5, but not before some uncomfortable moments when a conservative Republican said that changing gender on a birth certificate without surgery is fraud.
“It’s one thing to ask someone to pretend. It’s another thing to ask the government to agree with that pretense,” said Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt, R-Colorado Springs.
The remarks brought an emotional rebuke from a transgender woman who supported the bill. “I don’t sit in front of you as a fraud. I don’t sit in front of you as a liar. I sit in front of you as a woman who wants her birth certificate to reflect that,” said Sara Connell of Boulder.
Having identification that’s in sync with a person’s name and appearance could reduce harassment in schools and the workplace, supporters said.
“Transgender Coloradans are faced with discriminatory action in nearly every aspect of their lives,” said Dave Montez of One Colorado, a gay-rights group.
Colorado state registrar of vital statistics, Ron Hyman, told lawmakers that he anticipated only a few dozen people would request the change each year and that officials wouldn’t need extra tax money to accommodate the possible change.
The only witness to testify against the measure was Michael Norton, a lawyer representing the group Alliance Defending Freedom.
Norton said that transgender people deserve respect but that government documents shouldn’t be altered. “It allows a person to change what is historical and biological fact,” Norton said.
The vote was party-line except for one Republican, Rep. Lois Landgraf of Fountain, who voted for the bill. “This is about individual freedom and rights. It’s even about limited government,” she said.
The measure now awaits a vote by the full House, which is controlled by Democrats. The bill faces long odds in the Senate, which is controlled by the GOP.
—–
Montana Republican Proposes ‘Religious Freedom’ Referendum
HELENA (AP) – A Republican lawmaker proposed Mar. 25 that the Legislature ask voters if they want additional religious protections in Montana’s constitution.
Rep. Carl Glimm of Kila said he brought House Bill 615 before the House Judiciary Committee to prioritize people’s personal beliefs above job descriptions.
The proposal would give people a right to challenge state laws they say burden their freedom to exercise religion.
Glimm and bill supporters referenced Yellowstone clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after U.S. District Judge Brian Morris overturned Montana’s gay-marriage ban in November.
“It doesn’t say (same-sex couples) can’t get marriage licenses,” Glimm said of his proposal. “It just says that you don’t have to provide it if that’s your religious belief.”
Supporters said the measure would also protect pharmacists who do not want to dispense birth control pills or emergency contraceptives.
Jeff Laszloffy of the Montana Family Foundation testified in favor of the bill along with representatives of Catholic and Seventh-Day Adventist churches. Laszloffy said the measure would likely not protect, for instance, a Muslim woman who sued the state of Florida in 2002 after being told she could not wear a religious veil in her driver’s license photo.
Assistant Pastor Tyler Amundson of St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Helena argued against the bill. Amundson said infusing religion in state law could lead to infringements on religious independence.
Former Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson told the committee it’s rare for a law not to defy someone’s personal beliefs.
Nelson and other opponents argued that ample religious protections exist in the United States and Montana constitutions. Opponents said codifying the religious protections would open the floodgates for individuals, corporations and churches to object to any state law they say violates their religion.
Republican Rep. Seth Berglee asked the retired Justice whether he believes state law supersedes religious beliefs.
Nelson replied, “Montana citizens should not have to go and beg their public officials for the benefits to which they’re entitled under the laws in this state.”
Nelson said public employees and officials are aware of their responsibility to uphold the law, which bill supporters contended.
“You shouldn’t have to turn against your religious belief to do that job,” Glimm said.
Laszloffy said 19 other states have enacted similar legislation, although some committee members questioned whether those laws were as vague as Glimm’s proposal.
