From the Dispatch

States Advance Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Nora Ranney — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:48:09 +0000

As the Nevada legislative session draws to a close, two bills protecting transgender individuals passed the Senate and now head to a favorable vote in the Assembly. Senate Bills 368 and 331 passed 13-8 and 11-10 respectively, both outlawing transgender discrimination in housing and public accommodations. A third bill, Senate Bill 180, failed 10-11, and would have designated violence based on gender identify or expression a hate crime.

State Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas stated, "I view this bill as not being about creating special rights… It is about explicitly extending equal protection of law to those who are often the target of discrimination."

While happy about the passage of the two bills protecting against discrimination in housing and public accommodation, activists were frustrated at the failure of SB180, which lost by one vote and had support from Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval. The other two bills now go to the Assembly, which recently voted 29-13 in favor of Assembly Bill 211, which would outlaw employment discrimination against transgender people.

Existing state law prohibits employers from singling out individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation and other attributes – but leaving out real or perceived gender discrimination has put transgender people in a vulnerable place, often subject to higher unemployment rates than the general population.

Should the transgender nondiscrimination bills pass, Nevada will join 12 other states and DC as having laws on the books to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (In addition to the 12 states, Nevada and 8 other states offer statutory protection based on sexual orientation, but not based on gender identity.)

Source: Human Rights Campaign

Creating Protections in Your State
States with existing laws protecting sexual orientation as a category may add gender identity to their statute. Others that have neither category protected can pass legislation that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity, using the following definitions:

The term “sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
“Gender identity” means gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s assigned sex at birth.

According to the ACLU, for those situations in which it isn’t politically feasible to pass the legislation as written above, a recommendation would be to roll gender identity into sexual orientation, defining it as either:

the term “sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity; or
the term “sexual orientation or gender identity” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or a gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s assigned sex at birth.

(The second version listed above is preferable, as it is a much more comprehensive definition of gender identity.)

In terms of best practices for model policy, legal experts at the ACLU argue that “any policy should apply to ‘actual or perceived’ sexual orientation or gender identity. You can do this either in the definition of sexual orientation and gender identity, or in the provision of the law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The best way to include ‘actual or perceived’ is in front of all the characteristics protected by the law; for example:

It shall be unlawful to discriminate on the basis of actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or disability.”

Messaging Around Fairness
Few reading this article would disagree that individuals should be judged on their skills and capabilities in the workforce. More and more individuals – including elected officials – are coming to terms with the fact that firing an individual because they are gay or do not meet stereotypical norms for gender identity or expression is wrong and goes against American values of fairness and job performance. Some talking points from the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Rights Project:

Hardworking, high-performing employees shouldn't be fired just because they're gay or transgender. Americans almost universally believe that workers should be judged by their job performance-and that this principle also applies to gay people in the workplace. Gay and transgender people can and do lose their jobs just for being gay or transgender-and Americans believe that's wrong.
Emphasize values like hard work, earning a living, and providing for our families. Research shows that it's effective to use messages such as, "If you work hard and do your job, you shouldn't be fired just because you're gay." When talking about employment protections, talk about the importance of hard work, productivity, and contributing to the economic health of the nation. Remember, it's about having the ability to earn a living (not about being "entitled" to work). And, it's about work as a way to provide for and be responsible for our families.
Make it clear that America (and corporate America) supports employment protections.Employment protections are a mainstream issue. Since Gallup started measuring public opinion on workplace protections for gay people, support has risen from 56% in the 1970s to 89% today.

Full Resources from this Article

States Advance Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

ACLU – Getting State and Local Non-Discrimination Laws
Human Rights Campaign – State Laws Affecting LGBT People

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/nr042811.jpg

After Benefiting From Voter Furor Over Economy, Conservatives Prioritize Divisive Social Agenda in States

Charles Monaco — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:47:13 +0000

The morning after Election Day, conservative candidates across the country woke up to find themselves the beneficiaries of an historic national wave of voter anger over the state of the economy and record unemployment. Exit polls and other surveys unanimously showed that jobs and the economy were by far the primary issues on voters’ minds as they cast their ballots - while they simultaneously revealed no mandate for a conservative economic agenda that would hurt working families.

Yet in the first few weeks after this clear voter statement of frustration over the economy, conservative state lawmakers across the fifty states are already making it clear that their legislative priorities next year will include pushing a divisive social agenda - an agenda that remained largely hidden during the campaign.

Chief among the fights soon to take center stage in many statehouses will be a renewed right-wing attack on reproductive rights. Troy Newman, the leader of the notorious anti-choice group Operation Rescue, recently described the post-election outlook for social conservatives in the states by saying it made him feel like “a little boy on Christmas morning - which package do you open up first?”

In Iowa, the incoming Speaker-elect has indicated that he intends to pursue late-term abortion legislation to remove existing language that preserves the life or health of the mother. Some Florida lawmakers are promising to revive legislation next session - passed but vetoed by outgoing Gov. Crist this session - that would require mandatory ultrasounds for all women seeking abortions. Conservative lawmakers in Kansas are planning to push further reproductive restrictions. And the Washington Post recently reported that anti-choice groups are targeting “several states where Republicans made significant gains” with legislation that could bar private insurance companies from covering abortions under their standard plans.

Foes of same-sex marriage also plan to push new legislation in the states, following the first Election Day in years in which voters did not face a single statewide anti-marriage initiative. Anti-marriage forces in states like Indiana and North Carolina are promising to renew efforts to adopt a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The right-wing National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has indicated their intent to target states where marriage proponents had either made recent gains, or were promising to do so, including New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota, in an attempt to roll back recent victories for same-sex marriage proponents. (Despite the efforts of NOM and others, a bipartisan majority in the Illinois House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill this week, which is expected to become law.)

As the Far Right prepares to take control in many statehouses - and to assert newfound influence in others - their radical social agenda will increasingly come to the surface in an attempt to distract from their failure to address the pressing economic issues facing many of their constituents. Progressives have the opportunity to champion the type of policies that will make a real difference in the lives of the same voters who turned out this year to register their rejection of the status quo, and the responsibility to highlight when the other side chooses not to do so.

Full Resources from thisArticle

Stateline - GOP right flexes muscles in state legislative maneuvering
Washington Post - GOP's gains ready to propel social issues back into spotlight
New York Times - Now in Power, G.O.P. Vows Cuts in State Budgets

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/okstatecap120210.jpg

Stopping Bullying in Schools

Nora Ranney — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:32:41 +0000

The outcry following the suicides of two Massachusetts students, who killed themselves after being subjected to intense bullying in the past year, culminated in Gov. Deval Patrick signing anti-bullying legislation on May 3rd. The Massachusetts House and Senate passed the bill unanimously, following more than a decade of work by advocates. The law prohibits actions that cause emotional or physical harm to students, including taunting over the Internet. Faculty and students are required to have anti-bullying training and parents must be informed of incidents at school. School employees, including custodians and cafeteria workers, must report incidents of suspected bullying and principals must investigate each case.

Massachusetts now joins 42 other states with an anti-bullying bill, leaving Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, Hawaii (last introduced in 2009), Mississippi, and Montana yet to join them. Wisconsin's SB 154 is on Gov. Doyle’s desk and would require school boards to enact anti-bullying policies and implement procedures for investigating and disciplining incidences of bullying. A Michigan bill (HB 4580) is stalled in committee, but Gov. Granholm has stated she will sign the bill if it reaches her desk.

Protecting LGBT Youth: In Michigan, the sticking point, as with many other more recent state bills, is whether or not to give specific mention to LGBT youth. A compromise not pleasing to either side is in negotiations, tweaking the language to read, “[Bullying] is reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by actual or perceived characteristic.” The American Family Association of Michigan is lobbying hard to kill the bill. Similar socially conservative "family" organizations have fought anti-bullying bills in other states.

Studies have shown that LBGT youth are especially targeted for bullying. A 2007 report by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that 9 out of 10 LGBT students (86.2%) experienced harassment at school in the past year, three-fifths (60.8%) felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and about a third (32.7%) skipped a day of school in the past month because of feeling unsafe.

Advocates in Massachusetts were disappointed that LGBT youth were not specified as a class in need of protection in the bill just enacted there. On the other hand, North Carolina last year passed SB 526, requiring schools to adopt strong policies against bullying and harassment, including bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, despite a protracted and oftentimes mean-spirited fight. This was the first time the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" appear in the North Carolina General Statutes -- a significant victory for Equality North Carolina, which joined forces with a statewide school violence prevention coalition and other allies to support the bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Glazier.

Upgrading Old Statutes: Many states with existing anti-bullying legislation are experiencing “upgrade” bills to include cyberbullying, training and/or to add “sexual orientation or gender identity” to the list of protected students. Cyberbullying -- defined as communicating harmful, violent and/or malicious words and/or pictures through the means of technology -- has been a growing area of harassment that states are increasingly seeking to address.

This legislative session, Illinois lawmakers passed an upgrade to their existing bill, now including LGBT students specifically and mandating tolerance training. The Senate bill passed with all but two senators supporting it; the House passed the bill unanimously. Gov. Quinn is expected to sign the bill within the week.

The key focus of all these anti-bullying laws is to hold school officials accountable for developing policies to prohibit bullying. Where they vary is in the details of bullying prevention programs, training for staff, and accountability measures to require individuals to report school bullying incidents. And regardless of the statute language, assuring they are interpreted and implemented appropriately is an ongoing challenge.

Resources:
Massachusetts: Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Bill Passes
Colorado: Colorado School Violence Prevention and Student Discipline Manual, Office of the Attorney General
New Jersey: Model Policy and Guidance for Prohibiting Harassment, New Jersey Department of Education
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN): National School Climate Survey: Nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT Students Harassed
Human Rights Campaign: Statewide School Laws and Policies (Map)
National Institute on Mental Health: Anti-Bullying Resources

Article Images

/sync/images/dispatch/Bullying.jpg

New England Leads Fight for Marriage Equality

Marisol Thomer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:52:50 +0000

On Monday, March 23rd, the Vermont Senate overwhelmingly passed (26 to 4) a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, making the state the first in the nation to take legislative rather than judicial steps toward granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. Although House Speaker Shap Smith was confident a majority of representatives would vote in favor of the "marriage equality" act, Governor Jim Douglas revealed in a press conference Wednesday that he would veto the bill, though he did say he would accept a legislative override. Speaker Shap, however, was less than confident about a veto-proof majority. Nearly a decade ago, Vermont became the first state in the nation to enact civil unions for same-sex couples. The current bill would end the separate institutions of civil unions and marriage, granting equal marriage rights and recognition to all committed couples.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives will vote today on a bill similar to Vermont's, and next month a legislative panel in Maine will hold a hearing on a bill to allow gay couples to marry, just as lawmakers did last month in Rhode Island.

Last year, Connecticut joined Massachusetts to become the second state in the country to allow same-sex marriage. Only Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and California currently permit civil unions. A court decision last year briefly allowed same-sex marriage in California, but the passage of Proposition 8 in November banned it.

The Minnesota House of Representatives is scheduled to hear four bills relating to gay marriage, including a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, a bill that allows civil unions, and a bill that takes away gender-specific references to marriage in Minnesota Statutes, effectively doing away with the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) currently on the state's books.

Movement on Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Legislation: Hopes that the Hawaii legislature would grant civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriage were dashed when senators yesterday refused to buck Senate President Colleen Hanabusa's opposition to a maneuver that would have allowed the bill to come to a full Senate vote. On February 12th, the Hawaii's House had passed HB 444 with a 33-17 vote, but the bill then stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee with a tie vote. The motion to pull the bill out of committee and to a full Senate vote is extremely rare -- it was last done 10 years ago -- and after leadership's lobbying against overriding the normal lawmaking process, the maneuver failed to pass by 3 votes. About 18 of the 25 senators, including Hanabusa had indicated they support civil unions.

Out West, some states have been moving to advance domestic partnership legislation:

A Colorado bill to allow two adults, regardless of sex, to enter into "beneficiary agreements" passed that state's senate on Monday with two Republicans joining senate Democrats to pass the measure. The bill would allow two people the right to file an agreement with their county clerk that would grant them rights to inherit and make medical decisions. In 2006, Colorado voters defeated a measure that would have given same-sex couples more of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
A Nevada bill set for a hearing tomorrow before that Senate Labor and Commerce Committee would create domestic partnerships defined to give partners the same rights, protections and benefits as married couples.
A measure to grant a legal status to domestic partnerships failed in the New Mexico Senate last month.

Resources
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) - Resources on New England Marriage Legislation
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) - Maps of State Laws & Policies
Progressive States Network - Gay Marriage - In the Courts, On the Ballot

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/MoveVermontForwardRally.jpg

Extending Rights to Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender Americans

PSN — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:02:00 +0000

Even as the "culture wars" supposedly rage, the reality is that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights are making slow and steady progress across the country. Gays and lesbians now have protection against workplace discrimination in states covering nearly half the U.S. population, rights for same sex partnerships and adoptions have made gains in at least ten states, and laws making violence or bullying against gays, lesbians, bisexual or transgender (GLBT) people a crime are increasingly being enacted.

While opposition to equality is still strong in many states, as this Dispatch will outline, GLBT rights are making significant advances, from the workplace to the schoolyard to the home.

More Resources

Extending Equal Employment & Economic Rights

While the federal government has failed to pass any laws protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans against discrimination in the workplace or public accommodations, states have slowly but surely been expanding the map of legal protection.

As a map produced by the Human Rights Campaign details, states are making steady progress in extending non-discrimination laws protecting individuals based upon sexual orientation and gender identity:

12 states plus the District of Columbia ban discrimination against gays and lesbians AND ban discrimination based on gender identity/expression, while another 8 states ban discrimination just against gays and lesbians. Just last year, Colorado, Iowa and Oregon passed laws banning discrimination based upon sexual orientation gender identity.
Over 43% of the American population live in states where discrimination against gays and lesbians is banned - and 30% of the population live in states that ban discrimination based on gender identity.
In addition to these 20 state laws, about 100 municipalities in the remaining 30 states without non-discrimination laws have local non-discrimination laws, further extending the percentage of the population protected against employment and other forms of direct economic discrimination.
Beyond the 20 states with statewide anti-discrimination statutes, an additional 9 have an executive order or some kind of personnel regulations in place to prohibit discrimination against government employees based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

More Resources

Same-Sex Relationship Protections

The role of families in providing for the welfare of all people cannot be understated, yet same-sex couples and their families have been systematically denied the benefits of marriage laws at the federal level.

Yet, despite the hot-button "culture war" debate, in the last decades we have seen a gradual erosion of the prejudice that has been the basis for withholding fundamental human rights from same-sex families. This positive trend will continue due to the fact younger voters are even more committed to equality. 44% of Americans ages 17 to 29 support full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

As a result, more states are taking steps to integrate these families into existing family law so that they too may benefit from the legal protections that other families take for granted: the right to make decisions on behalf of a spouse or child when it is necessary; rights to property jointly owned when a spouse or parent dies; and, rights of parental custody and visitation should a relationship dissolve.

While Massachusetts has provided marriage equality, and six states now extend all of the state level rights of marriage to same-sex couples (California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont), the majority of states have gone in the opposite direction.

Setbacks in Some States: Unfortunately, many states have enacted laws that specifically exclude same sex couples from the legal protections that opposite-sex headed families enjoy. 26 states have excluded same-sex couples from marriage laws in their state constitutions, and 19 others have passed laws to the same effect. Most troubling, in 17 of these states the law or amendment also prohibits conferring some or all of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples no matter the designation used - marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.

While repealing these discriminatory laws should be a priority for progressive, for pro-family legislators who believe that the laws should protect all of the families in their state, there are other steps that can be taken and should not be ignored.

Extending Legal Protections to Same-Sex Couples: The protections of marriage and the social importance of the institution cannot be equaled, and where possible advocates are fighting for full equality, but families who lack legal protections still benefit whether these protections are given under a different name or given only in part.

In the nine states with a marriage ban, but no prohibition on civil unions or domestic partnerships, all or some of the rights of marriage can still be extended to same-sex couples and their families. This has been the strategy used in California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont which all extend the rights of marriage under a different name, as well as Hawaii, Maine, and Washington which have conferred some but not all of these rights. Bills have been introduced in New Mexico and Arizona that follow this model. The New Mexico bill, sponsored by Rep. Mimi Stewart, passed the House earlier this year, but died in the Senate.
Some states have extended health and other benefits to same-sex couples working for their states. New York and Arizona have recently enacted such policies.
In addition, establishing domestic partner registries allows some couples to obtain benefits through private employers, regardless of a lack of legal rights under law. Currently thousands of private employers extend some spousal-like benefits to same-sex couples or domestic partners.
Creative means can also be used to defeat laws and referenda that seek to prohibit the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Very recently Arizona Rep. Krysten Sinema scored such a victory by attaching legal protections for domestic partners to such a referenda, effectively killing the bill.

Even in a conservative state like Utah, Salt Lake City has established a domestic partner registry and a state legislative attempt this year to shut it down was largely defeated, aside from forcing a cosmetic name change.

More Resources

Protecting the Rights of GLBT Parents

Whether married or not, gays and lesbians face a range of discrimination in becoming parents, from adoption and foster care rules to how laws of parentage based on biological relation fail to adequately protect the parentage rights of same-sex couples. Where these laws are based upon marriage (as with stepparent adoption) and the state does not recognize same-sex marriage or its equivalent, families are left unprotected.

Unfortunately, Florida has a statute that prohibits gays and lesbians from adopting (which the Supreme Court declined to review, but which some legislators are determined to overturn). Nebraska, Michigan, Mississippi and Utah have policies barring same sex couples from adopting, and other state courts have often been reluctant to extend full parental rights to same-sex couples through adoption.

The tragedy is that the need for adopting children into caring families is so great. National numbers show that 518,000 children were in the foster care system in 2004. Over 119,000 foster children waiting to be adopted were not able to be placed with permanent families. With so many children without any family at all, those advocating the ban on gay adoption are advocating that more children live without the comforts and protections only a loving family can provide.

Taking Action to Expand Adoption Options: The only state without marriage or its equivalent that has specifically protected homosexuals from being denied the ability to adopt based on that reason alone is New York.

However, other states do allow certain forms of adoption that are particularly important to same-sex couples such as joint adoption and second parent adoption and some do not allow them. In order to protect same-sex headed families, states can follow a number of courses.

States can explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption procedures based upon sexual orientation as is done in New Jersey (Admin. Code 10:121C-4.1).
States that lack such a procedure can establish second parent adoption where the legal rights of a parent need not be terminated for another person to adopt the child. Four states (California, Colorado, Connecticut and Vermont) authorize such second parent adoptions by statute and a number of other states have granted such rights through court proceedings.
States that lack such a procedure can establish joint adoption for unmarried, co-habitating couples.
Even more important, states can make sure that same-sex couples have explicit adoption rights analogous to the rights conferred in many states to stepparents, even though same-sex couples are not able to marry in those states.

States can and are modernizing adoption laws to accommodate all families in order to protect children from being at the mercy of laws that do not contemplate same-sex headed families.

More Resources

State Hate Crimes Laws

The FBI reported 7,722 hate crimes in 2006, crimes that were the result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability. This number, however, dramatically under-represents the extent of hate violence across the US as less than 75% of police agencies participate in the hate crimes reporting program. Also, the number of victims cannot be truly quantified. Hate crimes attack communities, as well as individuals. As the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) points out, violent hate crimes are designed to "cause fear to a whole community...to 'send a message' that an individual and 'their kind' will not be tolerated."

According to the FBI's report, 52% of hate crimes were motivated by racism, 19% were motivated by religious prejudice, 15.5% were motivated by prejudice against people because of their sexual orientation, and almost 13% were caused by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Of the known offenders, almost 59% were white and over 20% were African-American. The offender's race was unknown for 13% of crimes and the rest were committed by individuals of various races.

State Action: According to the HRC, 32 states and D.C., have a law that addresses hate or bias crimes based on sexual orientation, with 11 states also address hate or bias crimes based on gender identity. In 2007, 17 states introduced laws to add protections against hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity. However, only Oregon made substantive gains in 2007 with Senate Bill 2 by adding gender identity or expression to the state's hate crimes law which already applied to crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation.

In 2008, the level of activity continues. As Oklahomans for Equality point out, hate crimes legislation needs to, at least, have strong penalties, include at least sexual orientation and gender identity as categories, and make reporting of hate crimes to the FBI mandatory.

Advocates are working hard in Massachusetts to pass HB 1722, sponsored by Rep. Carl Sciortino, which would add gender identity and expression to the state's non-discrimination and hate crimes laws.
Lawmakers in Indiana, which is one of only 5 states without a hate crimes law, are moving HB 1076 to require training for law enforcement in identifying and responding to hate crimes, allow for civil actions for victims of hate crimes, and include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories.
Despite five bills introduced this session in Oklahoma, and one meeting most of the above criteria, HB 2913, most the bills have been referred to the Rules Committee, which usually effectively kills a bill.
In New York, lawmakers are considering three important bills: AB 4526, which would expand eligibility for those who receive awards under crime victims' compensation to include a domestic partner; AB 866, which would provide civil remedies for victims of bias-motivated violence committed because of a person's sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and; AB 6584, which would, in part, add gender identity or expression to the categories covered by hate crimes.
In New Jersey, as we wrote earlier this year, lawmakers enacted S2975 to include transgender persons to the state's hate crimes law.

As Indiana Equality points out, the justice system focuses on intent or motive and treats such premeditation very seriously. For instance, the distinction between murder and manslaughter is whether the aggressor intended to kill. Hate crimes are a similar act driven by the intent to discriminate and deserve their own place in the criminal code. While the act of violence in a hate crime may or may not be planned, the hate that fuels the violence is certainly preexisting as a direct reflection of the aggressor's biases and prejudices, thoughts and preconceptions.

More Resources

Campus Equality and Safety

K-12 schools and college campuses are also receiving lawmakers' attention. A 2003 report from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force indicates that 20% of GLBT students on college campuses fear for their physical safety due to their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and 51% concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid intimidation. To ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all students, lawmakers are introducing legislation to require that campuses develop policies to prohibit hate crimes and bullying.

As the HRC reports, 2007 saw 72 bills introduced to address campus issues. The results are a mixed bag, however. Of the three bills enacted to address anti-bullying, only one specifically included sexual orientation and gender identity as categories in anti-bullying legislation. Another bill in Utah prohibits students from joining GLBT clubs without parental consent. Recent state news, includes:

The Michigan House has sent to the Senate HB 4091, which would require school districts and public school academies to adopt policies to prohibit harassment, bullying, or intimidation motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
As part of its broad non-discrimination and hate crimes law enacted earlier this year (S2975), New Jersey will require schools to notify teachers and students of anti-bullying policies and creates a commission to study bullying at the state's schools and to make recommendations to future legislatures.
Conservatives in California tried but failed to gather signatures to launch a ballot initiative to block a new law extending anti-discrimination protections to public school students based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

More Resources

Conclusion

Earlier this decade, it seemed the rightwing found a fail-safe campaign message by scapegoating GLBT Americans. Americans, however, largely through leadership by state lawmakers and advocates, are rejecting these wedge scapegoating tactics and are extending equality to GLBT individuals and families. Gains are being made in the workplace, at home, on campuses, and in the justice system. As pointed out earlier, the future is promising for GLBT equality as younger Americans by decisive margins support non-discrimination in everything from family relations to the workplace.

More Resources

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/equalrights.jpg