Special rights? I think not

A letter in the Aberdeen American News:

Equal rights already present
We wish to respond to the letter written by David Fischer on June 1. He states that the ELCA made the right move by allowing gay clergy. He also states that anyone who opposes this is reacting because of "ancient words with mere faith-based definition". In other words, we are reacting because of Biblical truths! We didn't know that the Bible has become old-fashioned and should be brought up-to-date. A scripture-based church does not embrace every sinful whim of society.

Your organization, Equality South Dakota, an organization whose mission is "to secure, protect, and support the rights and the well being of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) South Dakotans and their families," is working towards getting "special rights" for the gay community.

You already have equal rights.

Marvin and Marion Hoffman
Leola

Dear Marvin and Marion,

LGBT people (and by extension, their friends and family) do not have equal rights in South Dakota. Equality South Dakota is working with Republicans and Democrats to make our State a place where they cannot be discriminated against in housing, employment or health care. Yes, we have a "gay agenda" -- that everyone be treated fairly in South Dakota. A radical notion? I think not.

Frankly I was amazed last legislative session when HB 1144, a proposed state law, was voted down in committee (on partisan lines, although the bill had bipartisan support). Our testimony in favor of the law, backed up with facts and reasoned argument in favor of adding LGBT persons to our existing human rights law (which has not been modified since the 1970s). The testimony against 1144 frankly struck me as quite shrill and fact-free; it seemed aimed to stir up fear and prejudice rather than make any attempt at reasoned argument. In truth, I am encouraged by this fact -- as the arguments against basic fairness for LGBT people in South Dakota are getting thinner every day.

On the Biblical front, I urge you to go read your New Testament and find where Jesus speaks against lesbian and gay people. I can't find any words like that from Him, but He sure said a lot of radical things against divorce, economic disparity, and the turning away of anyone who only thirsts for justice and acceptance as they are.

I appreciate your sharing your point of view... but I'm very glad it's increasingly a minority view in South Dakota.

Curtis Price
Rapid City

Honoring ALL who serve our country

We hope you are having a wonderful Memorial Day weekend, remembering the sacrifice of all who serve our country to preserve the freedoms we too often take for granted. Today we celebrate freedom that we, in turn, have an obligation to preserve and protect, and exercise to make our Nation more just and fair for everyone. Our history has clearly demonstrated that we are stronger when everyone is included.

On that note, we want to ask all of you to thank Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin for her courageous vote to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). DADT, a compromise reached by former President Clinton and our nations legislators on gays serving openly in our military has by Clinton's own admission been a mistake from the beginning.  It is long past time that this law be overturned and we thank every U.S. House member (Republicans and Democrats) who supported this effort.

This link will take you to her comment page:

https://forms.house.gov/hersethsandlin/IMA/contact.html

We greatly appreciate your efforts in thanking Stephanie for her vote to end DADT.  Hopefully, we can drown out the hysterical voices of the Family Policy Council and related organizations that hate anything to do with providing equal rights for LGBT South Dakotans!

Curtis Price
David Fischer
Equality South Dakota

P.S. Don't forget to honor our veterans' sacrifices by being a real "values voter" in the South Dakota primary on June 6 (or vote early this coming week). Our voice matters!

Yes, Rapid City could be fair, too!

Equality South Dakota has renewed its call to the Rapid City Council to extend employment protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

This came up before, and Equality has come back with good answers to all the concerns the Council brought forward last time they visited this issue last year.

KEVN picked up the AP story. Yay KEVN!

Young Dems in Brookings this weekend!

This came across the internets... just a reminder.

This is looking like a MOVEMENT!

A few highlights:

• Robert Doody from the ACLU will be there updating the group on non-discrimination efforts of ACLU and EqSD, both non-partisan organizations. Will the Young Republicans invite him too?
  
• Julie Bartling, I'm sure, will be talking up her legendary support for the young women of South Dakota. (Yes, I'm still mad about 2006. You should be, too.)
  
• I think it's real nice that Rep Herseth Sandlin is taking an interest in South Dakota politics.
  

This is a reminder that our first ever convention will be this Saturday at the Shamrock in Brookings. Highlights will include Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin at 4:00!

Registration is $10, $20 if you would like lunch. Hope to see you there!

Schedule

9:00 Official Business and Campaign 2010
10:00 Media training with Rick Hauffe

10:30 Caucuses:
LGBT: Non Discrimination Policies and DADT, Robert Doody ACLU
Rural: Representative Jason Frerichs
Women:Carmen Toft, Planned Parenthood
Minority Caucus: Voting Rights and the Reservation, Kevin Killer

Candidates Luncheon featuring:
Ben Nesselhauf
Julie Bartling
Dan Ahlers
Pam Merchant
Jason Frerichs
Anthony Valella
Devin Oliver
Angie Buhl
State E.D. Erin McCarrick
Repower South Dakota"s Matt McGovern

1:30 Training with Organizing for America State Director Amanda Mack
4:00Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Gee, this seems familiar...

To your face they are very sweet, smiling, saying we disagree but that's okay. But after you leave the room... This is exactly my experience with the South Dakota Family Policy Council and their friends, the Citizens For Liberty (for People That Look Like Us).

(hat tip to nakedpastor)

Here's the story from the Washington Independent:

On Thursday, leaders of both groups posed for an impromptu meeting in view of CNN’s cameras, joking about the possibility of a beer summit. But on Friday morning, the National Organization for Marriage preemptively blasted GOProud in a surprisingly acid press release.

...

GOProud's executive director Jimmy LaSalvia was furious. "When the cameras were rolling," said LaSalvia, "they were very nice. Now that the cameras aren't rolling, rather than walking 20 feet over to us, they fire off a news release. What kind of man can’t walk across the row to deliver a message? I just have a question for them: Who's the pansy at CPAC? What wusses. Just come over. Don't play nice if you're not going to be nice."

...

[David Weigel] told LaSalvia that in my interactions with NOM, they’ve stressed that they respect gays and gay rights. "That's their tactic," he said. "Bottom line, that's what they do. They’re very nice and friendly, and they put on a pretty face, then they play in the gutter."

(BTW A fond memory of mine from the 2006 Amendment C campaign was a lovely lunch at the Firehouse Brew Pub with Jimmy LaSalvia and Jon Hoadley. That was fun!)

Legislators table HB 1144, 8-4

It ain't right.

-- EqSD PAC board member Gary Snow,
quoting his father's response when asked why
he helped others faced with injustice.

The vote went down today in the House Health and Human Services Committee, after straightforward and honest testimony from the "for" side, and frankly, dishonest and distracting testimony from the likes of the South Dakota Family Policy Council, Concerned Women of America, and one our favorites -- political money-launderer Rep. Roger Hunt.

On the plus side, their testimony showed how shrill and desperate those that fight LGBT equality are sounding. It's just a matter of time until we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Don't believe me? Listen to the testimony yourself... (here's a link that works better for Macs - skip to about 1:53)

The hearing basically juxtaposed:

Hypothetical dreamed-up nightmare scenarios of scary psycho poop-obsessed transvestites lurking in restrooms (these were so icky, and so far-fetched you wonder about the minds that came up with them, I mean really).


Versus:

Reasoned, reality-based presentation of facts from a Republican legislator, a psychologist, a legal professional, and a Methodist minister.

Details on the vote:

MOTION: DO PASS HB 1144

Moved by: Nygaard
Second by: Blake
Action: Was not acted on.

MOTION: SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO TABLE HB 1144

Moved by: Boomgarden
Second by: Jensen (no surprise there)
Action: Prevailed by roll call vote. (8-4-1-0)

Voting Yes: Boomgarden, Conzet, Curd, Jensen, Moser, Romkema, Rave, Pitts

Voting No: Blake, Lucas, Nygaard, Vanderlinde

Excused: Iron Cloud III

I'm off to Pierre tomorrow to hear about the future of this and other initiatives for Equality in South Dakota.

I am so looking forward to thanking these wonderful, courageous legislators who voted to keep the bill alive at EqSD's legislative reception.

Please thank them, too, (you can use the links on their names below), and PLEASE help them get re-elected:

Suzy Blake
Larry Lucas
Eldon Nygaard
Martha Vanderlinde

These legislators, on the other hand, really should be ashamed of themselves for having such a low opinion of their constituents that they caved to the SDFPC's talking points...

Boomgarden
Conzet
Curd
Jensen
Moser
Pitts
Rave
Romkema

Sadly, although the bill had quite a few Republican sponsors, this was a straight party-line vote in the House Health and Human Services committee. It's a shame, because this is not a partisan issue.

Which reminds me ... EqSD PAC is still looking for Republicans that are committed to supporting liberty (not just talking about it)!

HB 1144 on deck in the morning

House Bill 1144, which has to do with the protection of South Dakotans from discrimination, gets its first vote tomorrow morning in the SD House Health and Human Services Committee. There will be testimony from Equality South Dakota about why this bill is important to everyone.

You can listen online starting at 7:45 am CT (6:45 MT)

Here's a direct link: http://tinyurl.com/sd-hhe-live

Committee Agenda

Committee: House Health and Human Services
Room: 412
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Time: 7:45 AM

HB 1223 provide procedures by which adopted persons may obtain their original birth certificates and the contact preference of birth parents.

HB 1253 refer to a vote of the people a bill to authorize smoking in certain establishments under certain conditions.

HB 1275 extend the age limit for cochlear implants.

HB 1144 revise the Human Relations Act to include additional categories of persons.
Representatives Peters, Blake, Cutler, Dennert, Engels, Fargen, Gibson, Hunhoff (Bernie), Krebs, McLaughlin, Romkema, Solberg, Thompson, Turbiville, Vanderlinde, and Wismer and Senators Turbak Berry, Abdallah, Adelstein, Bradford, Jerstad, Maher, Merchant, Nelson, Nesselhuf, and Tieszen

BILLS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION WHICH HAVE HAD PRIOR HEARING.

HB 1230 permit certain persons to assist women during pregnancy and childbirth under certain conditions.

SDFPC uses misdirection and distortion against equality

The South Dakota Family Policy Council again doesn't tell the whole truth -- twisting anecdotes to fit their small minded agenda.

Just a little work on the interwebs shows how hard it is to make the case that equality is not a good idea in 2010.

Please look at HB 1144 yourself instead of taking their word for what it is. 

It's really a very fair bill and would be very good for our State.


OK, here we go...

To:         Friends of the South Dakota Family Policy Council
From:    Chris Hupke
Re:         Update on HB1144.  (This bill will place "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" into state non-discrimination laws.)
Thank you for your prayers and phone calls to House Members on HB 1144.

You're welcome!

-- snip --

Contact the House Lobby at 605-773-3851

Name	Chair/Vice
Blake, Susy
Boomgarden, Jamie
Conzet, Kristin
Curd, R. Blake
Iron Cloud III, Ed
Jensen, Phil
Lucas, Larry
Moser, Nick
Nygaard, Eldon
Pitts, Carol	Chair
Rave, Timothy	Vice Chair
Romkema, Fred
Vanderlinde, Martha

First, a little education from the all knowing Family Policy gurus:

Sexual Orientation refers to "who" a person is attracted to.

Gender Identity refers to “how" a person sees themselves.

And y'all have a problem with that?  

Like Jesus would give a whit if you loved God and your neighbor as yourself: "There is no commandment greater than these." 

Get it? Got it? Good!

OK, here we go ...  

TALKING POINTS:    

• HB 1144 goes way beyond where state non-descrimination [sic] laws should go.  There are no Federal Laws protecting "Sexually Orientation or Gender Identity" - For example, HB 1144 will protect categories of people specifically omitted from Federal Laws like the American Disabilities Act. 

 
WRONG. Many states have passed such laws, and a Federal ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act)  is not far away, as it has strong bipartisan support in the US House and Senate.

• 
  

  South Dakota is a Right to Work State.  Employers can release any employee for whatever reason.  However, HB 1144 will force employers prove employees are not released for discriminatory reasons listed in HB 1144. This changes the burden of proof required by the employer. 

WRONG. HB 1144 merely adds a small number of protected classes (including age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and veterans status) to the existing statute. Even in a right-to-work state, discrimination is wrong and should not be permitted.

• 
  

  Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, U.S. Supreme Court ruled organizations that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.  The Boy Scouts released an employee living in a homosexual relationship. This SCOTUS ruling overruled the New Jersey State Supreme Court, upholding a NJ state law.

WRONG. Apples and oranges. The issue is that the Boy Scouts wanted to discriminate on several fronts while accepting public funds that expressly forbid this. The Boy Scouts have chosen to be a public organization or private, depending on what was to their advantage. This is wrong and was a very bad Supreme Court decision.

• 
  

  Social Data on discrimination offers no compelling argument for changes either in the area of housing or employment.

WRONG. WHOSE social data? Ask one of the many young people who have left the state because they are LGBT or are disgusted by the discrimination here. Or, better, read the Williams Institute study.

Potential scenarios created by this legislation:

• A Christian business owner would be charged with discrimination if he/she refused to do business with a group that has their identity solely base on their sexual lifestyle. 
• A New Mexico photographer was fined for not agreeing to take photos for a "homosexual wedding." 

WRONG The New Mexico law was as whole different kettle of fish. HB 1144 does not force anyone to do business with anyone -- it's only about discrimination in employment and housing.

• A Christian printer in Canada refused to print posters for a pro-homosexual organization, we was fined and spent years defending himself.  

WRONG First of all, this was in Canada (Duh -- DIFFERENT LAWS, a whole different NATION with its own Constitution [imagine it - not exactly like ours!!])- their Human Rights Commissions system is something that we are unlikely to find in this country because our legal and political system is much more friendly toward Christian beliefs. Secondly, Brockie in the end won on appeal, he was found not to have to print posters. However he did have to print envelopes and letterhead, NOT posters.

• The Knights of Columbus were charged with discrimination for not renting their banquet facility to a homosexual couple.

WRONG. First, this was in Canada again -- wouldn't happen here.  Also, this is also inaccurate -- you can look it up on the intertubes: the tribunal found the Knights were indeed entitled to refuse access. The problem was the Knights abruptly cancelled their contract when they discovered that it was a wedding reception for a lesbian couple -- without offering any help to find a new venue, they just cut them off, did not return their deposit, etc.  Replace "lesbian" with "black" and you get why this law is necessary. (And, the Knights is not a church -- it's a Catholic organization that opens its doors to the general public, like the Elks.)

• Public Accommodations, bathrooms, would be open to people based upon their perceived "gender identity."  In Colorado, a man that identifies as a woman can use the same restroom as women, girls. 

How would you even know -- unless of course you pinned her down and looked. Wouldn't put it past these people! 
 

• A manager speaking to a subordinate about their sexual lifestyle could be considered "discriminating."  Christians are called to be Salt and Light, but counseling/mentoring/ or simply speaking to a business associate about their alternative lifestyle could be grounds for discrimination charges. 

OR HARASSMENT charges!  Would it be okay with you if atheists criticized your faith every day at work? Get over yourself!

• A property owner could not refuse renting to tenants again based on "sex. Orientation or gender identity" regardless the demographics of tenants currently residing in the property (children and families).  Imagine a transvestite man, requesting an apartment in a family unit.  

Yeah, imagine that. As if these people really have any clue as to the difference between transvestite men (who, like Rudy Giuliani, are usually straight) and LGBT people.  

Terrifying: South Dakota children growing up in a world where people are allowed to be different from you.

I guess if the SFDPC has their way, not in South Dakota.

HB1144 will grow liberty and equality in South Dakota!

I just sent this letter to my reps about HB1144, which is likely headed (with bipartisan support) to State Affairs Committee next week.

Dear Rep. ....

I am writing to urge you to join other West River Republican representatives that have already signed on to co-sponsor HB1144, which is going into committee soon. HB1144 will add several classes of people to an existing statute that prevents discrimination in the workplace, housing, and other areas.

My support for this issue comes from my experience as a friend, a husband, and a parent. It also comes directly from my Episcopal faith; I pledged at my confirmation to "respect the dignity of every person."  I volunteer with Integrity USA and Equality South Dakota and have been involved in this issue for many years.

We recently had a discussion of why protected classes are necessary at Rapid City school board meetings. (I highly recommend you view some of the discussion, it's online at: http://tinyurl.com/rcsb-2010jan07 - the discussion begins at about 20:15 into the video stream.)

NOTE - The RCAS website is not playing sound on the video - updated link soon I hope.

I was reminded at these meetings that most people why such policies are necessary – they directly address existing inequities caused by prejudice. By spelling out these groups that have been clearly demonstrated to face discrimination in law, this gives just enough support to give those people a fair shot at success in the workplace, finding decent housing, and other places. 

Also, contrary to testimony you will likely hear, laws and policies like this do not generate litigation... except perhaps in cases where litigation is warranted!  For example, although it was a political hot potato of sorts, this winter the Rapid City School District was merely *reinstating* a policy prohibiting discrimination for reason of sexual orientation. This policy was previously in place for almost a decade (2001-2008) with no lawsuits, contrary to the warnings brought forward at the meeting. Our State's university system has had a similar policy for 20 years without an epidemic of lawsuits. Honestly, this is South Dakota. We don't have a big problem with frivolous lawsuits.

Opponents will assert that human rights laws like the one HB1144 amends do not protect freedom of speech. This is not true. You can say whatever you want about protected groups under the First Amendment, but this law makes it clear that you cannot unfairly discriminate or harass anyone, even if they belong to one of the protected groups. The group designation is needed not because these groups need special rights. Rather it is needed because there is a demonstrable need (and moral imperative) to protect a group based on our experience in society.

Please support HB1144. It's good for South Dakota business, it's good for our State's image, it totally supports South Dakota values of liberty... and I think it's simply the right thing to do.

Kevin Woster captures what the RC School Board fuss was about

Wondering why the "gay agenda" so well-represented and articulate at the Rapid City School Board meeting this week after Gordon Howie's December 17 threat to of the school board?

Kevin Woster hit it right on the head in an op-ed (RC Journal, Jan 3, Navigating the icy roads of fatherhood)about what LGBT parents and parents of LGBT kids face every single day.

Well, okay he WAS talking about road ice but it's a very good metaphor.

They're big kids, well on their way to lives I can only guess at. But they're still my kids. And I still get jelly kneed at the idea of something terrible happening to them out in that big world of promise and hope and danger and pain.

Letting go is tough duty for a parent, even when the "kids" are 25 and 27. Yet, you have to do it every time they turn and walk away from your latest lingering hug.

They did that last Sunday morning, after six days here in Rapid City. It was the longest stretch we've had together since their high school years, and it left me feeling wealthy beyond words.

It also left me with a nervous knot in my stomach as they pulled out of the driveway and out onto roads turned treacherous by the two-day winter storm that swept the state.

When Judy Shepard spoke in Rapid City, she related that when her son Matthew "came out" to her, that her first thoughts were for her son's personal safety out there on the "icy roads" of the world.

A young person's call for change in South Dakota

from Libby Tramell in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader Letters...

Congress is considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill, which has 192 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives and 43 in the Senate, would prohibit discrimination based on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity and would therefore help to make my generation feel more confident and excited about our futures.

I know two young men who are straight A students and who would be great assets to South Dakota. They are planning to attend school out of state, however, because they think they will feel safer about their sexual orientations in a place that is more accepting of them.

Is this the image we want to set forth for the rest of the world to see? I think not.

South Dakota needs this to move forward: economically, and spiritually. In this economy we can't succeed if we turn good people away, and discrimination is wrong. It's that simple.

Equality South Dakota and Equality South Dakota PAC are now engaged in their annual appeal. If you think fairness is a South Dakota value, please consider donating at our secure web site:

• Support Equality South Dakota
  
• Support Equality South Dakota PAC

Equality South Dakota PAC looks for a few good Republicans...

The following is an ad publishing in the Argus on Sunday.

I sure hope they find some....

A quote from Maine says it all

I know this isn't very local to South Dakota, but this just shows how far out of touch South Dakota was to pass Amendment C. There's a reason it was close in 2006 and would not pass today... and this is true across the Nation...

From a Maine Public Broadcasting interview posted by Equality Maine:

What the Legislature and the governor did was make Maine the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage. But before the law could take effect this month, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland along with other groups, mobilized a decisive repeal effort.

Working out of an unmarked office in a small business plaza in Yarmouth, Mark Mutty, Executive Chairman of the Stand for Marriage coalition, says the group had trouble finding a place to put their headquarters.

"Many people wouldn't rent to us because of the position we're taking on this issue," he says.

Susan Sharon: "They turned you down? Said we won't take your money?"

Marc Mutty: "That's correct, said we don't want anything to do with people who are on the other side of this issue and, you know, we're considered bigots."

Ayuh.

And, in other marriage quality news, it turns out the first state to legalize same sex marriage has the lowest divorce rate in the country -- and it's DROPPED since marriage equality became the law there:

Is this Heaven?

No, it's Iowa.

Defendant [the State of Iowa] is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs or any other same-sex couples who a) are otherwise eligible for said licenses pursuant to Chapter 595 as amendment… and b) who properly apply for such licenses.

You can read all about it at Lambda Legal's website. They've also posted the text of the court's decision.

Marriage equality has come next door to Iowa.

The decision is simply excellent, because it includes many direct arguments aimed at those who, for political reasons, successfully legitimize prejudice and ignorance on a range of social and health issues by discounting or cherry-picking the facts. This decision could be a watershed decision for sanity and truth in the courtroom on marriage equality, not unlike the Dover School Board decision was for those trying change science education into something else. Here's a taste:

[The state's witness opposing same-sex marriage] makes it clear in his deposition that he has not read the vast majority of the studies concerning gay and lesbian parenting, that he has performed no related research himself and that he is unaware of the existence of many recently published studies [that contradict his assertions]....

Because he admittedly is unable to evaluate current social science regarding gay and lesbian parenting generally or critique the methodology upon which that science is based, Dr. Hawkins apparently is not commenting upon the relative frequency of positive outcomes in child-rearing by heterosexual couples nor apparently is he commenting upon how children do by various measure where reared by stably married heterosexual couples as opposed to same-sex couples.

Translation: the State's case holds no water because they ignored the facts of the case and instead clung to prejudices and assumptions that, although they may be politically popular, carry no weight in court because they simply aren't true.

SO, Iowa (pending an expected appeal to their state Supreme Court) is now set to be the eleventh state to implement government recognition of same-sex relationships, and the third to do the right thing and implement marriage equality.

Here's another part of the decision; for South Dakota State legislators take note:

Court costs are hereby taxed to Defendant.

Maybe some Iowan refugees can come home, to the benefit of our great sister state.

And it could happen here too, if we can open our eyes and see the truth--that the campaign against marriage equality has been used as a political tool, and an ugly and unconstitutional one at that.

Iowa.

Could have sworn it was Heaven.