DOCSLIB.ORG

2006 STATE of the STATES REPORT a Report Assessing the Capacity of State-Based Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy Organizations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2006 STATE of the STATES REPORT a Report Assessing the Capacity of State-Based Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy Organizations 2006 STATE OF THE STATES REPORT A Report Assessing the Capacity of State-Based Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy Organizations Equality Federation Institute and the Movement Advancement Project The Equality Federation Institute The Equality Federation is a network of state/terri- tory organizations committed to working with each other and with national and local groups to strengthen state- wide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy organizing, and secure full LGBT civil rights in every U.S. state and territory. The Equality Federation Institute pro- vides training and works to bring more resources to the work of statewide LGBT organizing and education eff orts. See www.equalityfederation.org for more information. Movement Advancement Project Launched in 2006, the LGBT Movement Advance- ment Project (MAP) is an independent, intellectual re- source for LGBT organization executives and donors, fund- ed by a small number of committed, long term donors to the movement. MAP’s mission is to speed achievement of full social and political equality for LGBT people by provid- ing donors and organizations with strategic information, insights and analyses that help them increase and align resources for highest impact. In short, MAP’s purpose is to stimulate additional contributions to the LGBT movement, as well as additional productivity from those contributions. See www.lgbtmap.org for more information on MAP. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this report reflect the best judgment of the Equality Federation Institute and MAP based on analyzed data that were collected from par- ticipating organizations. These opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of funders, Equality Federation members, or other organizations. Contact Information Equality Federation Institute 2370 Market Street, #386 San Francisco, CA 94114 877-790-2674 www.equalityfederation.org LGBT Movement Advancement Project (MAP) 2215 Market Street Denver, CO 80205 303-292-4455 www.lgbtmap.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Infrastructure 2 Type and Age of Organizations 2 Budgets and Income Sources 3 Capacity 4 Boards of Directors 4 Staffi ng and Salaries 5 Donor, Mail, Email, and Voter ID Lists 5 Program Priorities 6 Programmatic Activity 6 Strategic Planning 6 Priority State Issues 6 Electoral Endorsements and Candidate Support 7 Recommendations 7 Conclusion 8 Appendix A: Survey Participants 9 Appendix B: Organizational Structure and Capacity 11 Appendix C: Structure and Capacity Trends 13 Appendix D: Trends in Political and Electoral Work 14 Appendix E: Program Priorities 16 1 INTRODUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE Achieving full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and Type and Age of Organizations transgender Americans requires strategies that target all levels of government. Over the past few decades, states have been Legally, nonprofi t organizations may be structured under the most successful arenas for passing LGBT-friendly legislation IRS rules in a variety of ways, depending on the mission and activities of the organization. A clear majority of organizations and achieving judicial victories, particularly in areas related to responding to the survey are made up of more than just one employment discrimination and family protections. In recent legal entity. Seven groups (18 percent) have both a 501(c)(3) years, opponents of LGBT rights have been aiming their own charitable nonprofi t organization and 501(c)(4) political advo- strategies at the state level in particular, resulting in increased cacy organization comprising their overall structure, and 24 threats and opportunities for the LGBT movement from coast to groups (60 percent) have a 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and a political coast. To meet these challenges, statewide LGBT advocacy or- action committee (PAC) and/or ballot committee. Only seven ganizations are creating sophisticated organizations to launch organizations (18 percent) have just one legal entity in their credible ballot measure campaigns, implement successful elec- organizational structure: four have only a 501(c)(3), one has a toral strategies, and build grassroots-based education eff orts to 501(c)(4), and two have either only a PAC or a ballot/campaign both fend off LGBT opponents and advance their own move- committee. (See Figure 1.) ments for LGBT equality. Figure 1: Organization Types, 2006 This report provides a window into the infrastructure that exists to support successful statewide advocacy eff orts. other c3 only Do state LGBT organizations have the human and fi nancial re- 10% 10% c4 only sources needed to meet the challenges and opportunities they 3% face? Do they have the political capital needed to plan and c3-c4 combo implement public policy and electoral strategies? Do they have 18% c3-c4-PAC/ballot the organizational sophistication needed to manage and grow committee multiple kinds of political and nonprofi t organizations? The re- combo 60% port also explores the political climate in the states, analyzing whether some issues might have a better chance of receiving legislative support than others. The survey results and analysis represent responses from 40 state-based LGBT groups in 35 states.1 A complete list of Diff erent legal entities are required to follow diff erent tax participants is available in Appendix A; other tables and fi g- laws, which in turn impact how and to what degree an orga- ures are available in Appendices B, C, D, and E. The survey was nization can engage in public policy and electoral work. Or- conducted online and via the telephone from June to Octo- ganizations that are strictly 501(c)(3), for example, can receive ber 2006. While 2005 data is based on actual fi gures, data for tax-deductible contributions, but may engage in only a limited 2006 is estimated and may not refl ect fi nal actual data for the amount of lobbying and are not allowed to conduct any kind year. Currently, there are plans to continue the survey annually. of electoral work that expressly supports or opposes a candi- LGBT issues are moving fast in many states, and it is important date for public offi ce (they are allowed to do unlimited public to have accurate, consistent, and regularly updated informa- education around their primary mission, however). Although tion to guide strategic planning throughout the movement they cannot receive tax-deductible contributions, 501(c)(4) or- for LGBT equality. Yearly data collection will also allow for long- ganizations can usually engage in unlimited lobbying and do term trend analysis across and within states. some electoral work, especially if it is directed at their 501(c)(4) members. PACs are specifi cally designed to engage in electoral work—generally through direct fi nancial support of candi- dates—but have very limited tax advantages. The data show that the current state-based LGBT move- ment is rather young. Nearly half of the survey respondents are less than ten years old, with 31 organizations (78 percent) hav- ing been established after 1990. Among PACs, 16 (76 percent) were founded after 2000. Five PACs were founded leading up to the 2004 elections and the fi rst major round of anti-marriage equality ballot measures, while nine were established from 2005 1 Not all questions were answered by every respondent, and some responses had to be dropped for a variety of reasons. Consequently, statistics are often reported as both whole to 2006. numbers and percentages. 2 Figure 2: Average and Median Budgets, Figure 3: Average and Median Budgets, Organizations All Organizations with Budgets Less Than $500,000 (All Entities Combined, Except Ballot Campaigns) $600,000 (All Entities Combined, Except Ballot Campaigns) $479,069 $180,000 $165,833 $500,000 $157,702 $158,625 $162,851 $160,000 $390,972 $137,125 $400,000 $140,000 $115,000 $302,069 $120,000 $300,000 $253,735 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $160,000 $80,000 $60,000 $100,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 $0 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 Average Median Average Median Figure 4: Average andNew Median Figure Budgets, 4 Organizations with Budgets Greater Than $500,000 (All Entities Combined, Except Ballot Campaigns) $1,400,000 $1,257,401 $1,200,000 $1,111,505 $956,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $754,000 $800,000 $693,075 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 Average Median $0 2004 2005 2006 Taken together, the above statistics show that most statewide 2004 to $253,735 in 2006. These lower medians and rates of groups are developing or have recently developed sophisticated growth refl ect the fact that most of the statewide organizations organizational structures to target all aspects of the policy process, are fi nancially small, with several large organizations pulling up from public education to grassroots and direct lobbying to direct the average statistics (See Figure 2). electoral participation. It also shows that their work is increasingly Since most statewide LGBT organizations have budgets un- sophisticated, complex, and geared toward the long-term. der $500,000, budget data were also analyzed for only those or- ganizations that fall under this threshold. In 2004 these organi- Budgets and Income Sources zations had an average budget of $165,833, which actually was Among respondents providing budget data for both slightly lower in both 2005 and 2006, when it reached $157,702 years, all except two increased their aggregate budgets from and $162,851, respectively. The median budget in 2004 was just 2005 to 2006, with the average organization’s budget increas- $115,000, but that increased in 2005 to $158,625, before drop- ing 31 percent (median growth is 21 percent)2. In 2004, when ping in 2006 to $137,125 (See Figure 3). These data provide a more the Equality Federation Institute conducted the fi rst survey of realistic picture of the fi nancial size and strength of state-based statewide LGBT organizations, nearly half of the respondents LGBT organizations, since they refl ect the budgets of the major- had total budgets of under $50,000.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • We Are New Hampshire: Stories of Transgender Lives in the Granite State
    Victory! Love and Marriage Win at the Ballot Page 8 WINTER ’13 GLADGAY & LESBIAN AD BRIEFSVocates & DEFENDERS We Are New Hampshire: Stories of Transgender Lives in the Granite State e know that one of the most important discriminatory behavior, the company instead steps we can take toward passing connected Gerri with a driver who was a cross- Wlegal protections against gender identity dresser, even though his training certification discrimination is to educate legislators and the had lapsed, meaning Gerri would have to public about transgender people’s lives. wait until he was re-certified. Meanwhile, she As we step up our work this year to ensure recalls, “I’m sitting here in Merrimack, with New Hampshire joins the rest of New England Photos Photo: BeckyFieldwork Field, no job, not making any money and not on the in putting such protections in place, GLAD road.” Taking matters into her own hands, and TransGender New Hampshire are doing she emailed a corporate officer to explain the that education with We Are New Hampshire: situation and within days she was being trained Transgender Lives in the Granite State. by a driver who later told Gerri she was one The online and print storybook shares ten of his best students. stories of transgender Granite Staters and their When she’s not on the road, Gerri, 59, families, including Gerri Cannon, whose story is visits with her two adult daughters and attends excerpted below. Pilgrim Congregational Church in Nashua, To read more and share these stories, visit where she found a supportive community after www.glad.org/nh-stories she started her transition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexities of Sex Education in Utah
    1 The Complexities of Sex Education in Utah Grace Sponaugle Occidental College, Urban & Environmental Policy Professor Cha, Professor Matsuoka, & Professor Shamasunder April 8, 2019 Sponaugle 2 Abstract Utah has a state-wide policy of abstinence education. Abstinence education programs have been proven to be ineffective at delaying the initiation of sex and changing sexual risk behaviors (Santelli et al., 2017), correlating with high rates of teen pregnancies and STIs ​ ​ ((Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011)(McCammon, 2017)). Limiting the standards by which sex ​ ​ education programs are deemed “effective” to disease and pregnancy prevention, neglects the holistic view of sexual health as defined by the CDC. Therefore, in an attempt to understand the broader implications that sex education has had on youth in Utah, this study examined, through a survey and interviews, the social, cultural, and educational influences that youth in Utah attributed to their sex education. Additionally, this study analyzed how these influences have played a role in the youth’s self perception of their sexual knowledge and sexual health. This research revealed that abstinence education is inherently limited, calling for Utah to expand its sex education framework beyond abstinence education and embrace a comprehensive model for sex education. Sponaugle 3 Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank Professor Cha, Professor Matsuoka, and Professor Shamasunder for their help and guidance not only on the completion of my thesis, but also throughout my journey at Occidental College. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone that participated in the survey and interviews. None of this would have be possible without your support and interest in my project.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Resources for LGBTQ+ Youth
    Statewide resources for LGBTQ+ youth State Organization Phone Address Website GLBT Advocacy & PO Box 3443, Alabama 256-425-7804 http://www.glbtays.org/ Youth Services Huntsville, AL, 35810 336 East 5th Avenue, Alaska Identity, INC 907-929-4528 http://www.identityinc.org/ Anchorage, AK, 99501 1101 N Central Avenue #202, Arizona One-n-Ten 602-475-7456 https://onenten.org/ Phoenix, AZ 85004 NWA Center For 179 N. Church Avenue Suite 101, http://www. Arkansas 479-966-9014 Equality Fayetteville, AR 72701 nwacenterforequality.org/ 2712 Telegraph Avenue, California The Pacific Center 510-548-8283 http://www.pacificcenter.org/ Berkeley, CA 94705 Stonewall Alliance 358 East 6th Street, California 530-893-3336 http://www.stonewallchico.org/ Center Chico, CA 95927 The Rainbow 2118 Willow Pass Road Suite 500, California 925-692-0090 https://www.rainbowcc.org/ Community Center Concord, California 94520 The GLBT PO Box 9798, Colorado Community Center 303-831-0442 http://www.glbtcolorado.org/ Denver, CO 80209 of Colorado 19 River Street, Connecticut Outspoken 203-227-1755 http://www.ctoutspoken.com/ Norwalk, CT 06850 576 Farmington Avenue, Connecticut True Colors 860-232-0050 http://www.ourtruecolors.org/ Hartford, CT 06105 1308 Delaware Avenue, Suite 10, Delaware J.U.S.T. For Youth 302-547-6629 http://www.justforyouthde.org/ Wilmington, DE 19806 2040 N. Dixie Highway, Florida The Pride Center 954-463-9005 http://www.glccsf.org/ Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Orlando Youth PO Box 536944, http://www. Florida 407-244-1222 Alliance Orlando, FL 32853 orlandoyouthalliance.org/ allconnect.com 1 Sunshine Social 1480 SW 9th Avenue, Florida 954-548-4602 http://www.sunserve.org/ Services Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 The Rainbow 3111 Clairmont Road, Suite B, Georgia 404-457-1721 http://www.chriskids.org/ Program Atlanta, GA 30329 1017 Edgewood Avenue, Georgia YouthPride 404-521-9713 http://www.youthpride.org/ Atlanta, GA 30307 Fierce Youth PO Box 8551, Georgia Reclaiming and 404-532-0022 http://www.fyrerj.org/ Atlanta, GA 31106 Empowering https:// Hawaii LGBT P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening the Door Transgender People National Center for Transgender Equality
    opening the door the opening The National Center for Transgender Equality is a national social justice people transgender of inclusion the to organization devoted to ending discrimination and violence against transgender people through education and advocacy on national issues of importance to transgender people. www.nctequality.org opening the door NATIO to the inclusion of N transgender people AL GAY AL A GAY NATIO N N D The National Gay and Lesbian AL THE NINE KEYS TO MAKING LESBIAN, GAY, L Task Force Policy Institute ESBIA C BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER ORGANIZATIONS is a think tank dedicated to E N FULLY TRANSGENDER-INCLUSIVE research, policy analysis and TER N strategy development to advance T ASK FORCE F greater understanding and OR equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual T and transgender people. RA N by Lisa Mottet S G POLICY E and Justin Tanis N DER www.theTaskForce.org IN E QUALITY STITUTE NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE POLICY INSTITUTE NATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSGENDER EQUALITY this page intentionally left blank opening the door to the inclusion of transgender people THE NINE KEYS TO MAKING LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER ORGANIZATIONS FULLY TRANSGENDER-INCLUSIVE by Lisa Mottet and Justin Tanis NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE POLICY INSTITUTE National CENTER FOR TRANSGENDER EQUALITY OPENING THE DOOR The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute is a think tank dedicated to research, policy analysis and strategy development to advance greater understanding and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
    [Show full text]
  • September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program
    September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service United States Department of Agriculture 3101 Park Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302 Re: Notice of Proposed Rule Making -- Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) RIN 0584-AE62 Dear Program Design Branch: The undersigned lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations urge the USDA to withdraw its proposed rule, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). If implemented, the proposed rule would harm millions of low-income Americans, with particularly negative implications for the LGBTQ community. Since 1996, over forty jurisdictions have implemented a process known as “broad-based categorical eligibility” (BBCE), for households receiving some in-kind services funded through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. While federal requirements restrict SNAP assistance to households with net incomes under 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL), gross incomes under 130% of the FPL, and in many cases liquid assets below $2,250, the BBCE option gives states flexibility to adjust these thresholds.i Most states have opted to eliminate the asset test and increase the gross income limit (up to 200% of the FPL) for SNAP. In this manner, states can: 1) extend SNAP eligibility to families with gross incomes working their way up the economic ladder but still struggling with high costs for basics, and 2) incentivize families to save by loosening restrictions on assets. Congress has consistently upheld BBCE since its inception, most recently during the 2018 Farm Bill.ii The proposed rule would greatly undercut the scope of BBCE, effectively sidestepping Congress’ bipartisan efforts to maintain the option.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Glbtq Legal Advocates & Defenders And
    TESTIMONY OF GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS AND EQUALITYMAINE LD 1585 – OUGHT TO PASS JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY May 12, 2021 Senator Deschambault, Representative Warren, and Honorable Members of the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety: Good Morning. My name is Anthony Lombardi, and I am a legal fellow at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, New England’s leading legal advocacy organization for rights of LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV, and I am a lobbyist associate of Mary Bonauto who lives in Portland. GLAD, alongside EqualityMaine, the state’s LGBTQ civil rights organization, write to share their support for LD 1585 – An Act To Increase Privacy and Security by Prohibiting the Use of Facial Surveillance by Certain Government Employees and Officials. We believe this technology will create problems, not solve them, and that ordinary people will be hurt along the way. The misapplication of facial recognition technology in perpetuating racial and gender biases is well-documented;1 as such, we write to provide additional context to illustrate the clear dangers that the implementation of this technology poses for members of the LGBTQ+ community. GLAD and EQME adamantly oppose any practice that perpetuates racial, gender, and/or economic injustice and urge this Committee to carefully consider all of the privacy and equity concerns raised, including from our peer organizations such as the ACLU of Maine. The most apparent and egregious failure of facial recognition software for LGBTQ+ people is its focus on sorting faces as only “male” and “female” when there is in fact a wide diversity of characteristics which people choose to stereotype as “male” or “female.” Facial recognition also routinely fails to correctly identify transgender people.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws Clifford J
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 2017 Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws Clifford J. Rosky S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rosky, Clifford J., "Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws" (2017). Utah Law Faculty Scholarship. 13. http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Law Scholarship at Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT: 117 COLUM. L. REV. ___ (forthcoming 2017) ANTI-GAY CURRICULUM LAWS Clifford Rosky Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of anti-gay marriage laws, scholars and advocates have begun discussing what issues the LGBT movement should prioritize next. This article joins that dialogue by developing the framework for a national campaign to invalidate anti-gay curriculum laws—statutes that prohibit or restrict the discussion of homosexuality in public schools. These laws are artifacts of a bygone era in which official discrimination against LGBT people was both lawful and rampant. But they are far more prevalent than others have recognized. In the existing literature, scholars and advocates have referred to these provisions as “no promo homo” laws and claimed that they exist in only a handful of states.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act
    647 ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE EQUALITY ACT National Organizations 9to5, National Association of Working Women Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC A Better Balance Asian American Federation A. Philip Randolph Institute Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) ACRIA Association of Flight Attendants – CWA ADAP Advocacy Association Association of Title IX Administrators - ATIXA Advocates for Youth Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists AFGE Athlete Ally AFL-CIO Auburn Seminary African American Ministers In Action Autistic Self Advocacy Network The AIDS Institute Avodah AIDS United BALM Ministries Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative American Academy of HIV Medicine Bend the Arc Jewish Action American Academy of Pediatrics Black and Pink American Association for Access, EQuity and Diversity BPFNA ~ Bautistas por la PaZ American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests American Association of University Women (AAUW) Caring Across Generations American Atheists Catholics for Choice American Bar Association Center for American Progress American Civil Liberties Union Center for Black Equity American Conference of Cantors Center for Disability Rights American Counseling Association Center for Inclusivity American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Center for Inquiry Employees (AFSCME) Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies American Federation of Teachers CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers American Heart Association Central Conference
    [Show full text]
  • The Undersigned 31 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer
    August 29, 2018 Dear Conferee: The undersigned 31 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations are writing to encourage you to protect the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) program and to work in a bipartisan manner to conference the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. We applaud provisions in both the House and Senate bills that seek to expand SNAP’s role in public health by incentivizing healthy food at retailers and farmers markets and protect programs such as The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). We also appreciate the Senate’s expansion of access to healthy food in healthcare settings through the Harvesting Health Pilot Projects, and the reduction in administrative burdens for older adults receiving SNAP and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) through expanded recertification periods. We urge you to defer to the Nutrition Title in the Senate version and reject the draconian proposals in the House’s version. As written, the work requirements in H.R. 2 would result in many LGBTQ people losing their access to healthy, nutritious food through SNAP. This would have exceptionally negative impacts on the health and wellness of the LGBTQ community, as well as that of all low-income Americans regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. According to the Williams Institute, 27% of LGBT adults—2.2 million people-- experienced food insecurity in 2014.1 LGBTQ individuals accounted for 4.7% of all food insecure Americans in 2014 despite only 3.7% of Americans identifying
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL CENTER for LESBIAN RIGHTS 870 Market
    Nos. 19-15974, 19-15979 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants, ESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY FEDERATION, FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL, GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ADVANCING LGBTQ EQUALITY, THE HIV MEDICINE ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSGENDER EQUALITY, THE NATIONAL LGBTQ TASK FORCE, THE SEXUALITY INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES (SIECUS), THE LGBT MOVEMENT ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC., GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS, THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, TRANSGENDER LAW CENTER, AND BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES SHANNON MINTER JAMES E. HOUGH JULIANNA GONEN 250 West 55th Street AMY WHELAN New York, NY 10019-9601 JULIE WILENSKY Telephone: (212) 468-8000 NATIONAL CENTER FOR [email protected] LESBIAN RIGHTS ANDRE FONTANA 870 Market Street, Suite 370 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 392-6257 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 [email protected] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Attorneys
    [Show full text]
  • Sign-On Letter Supporting the Dignity for Detained Immigrants
    8/15/2019 Dear Member of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our strong support for the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act (H.R. 2415/ S. 1243). As lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations, we recognize the severe danger detention poses to LGBTQ immigrants and the imperative need for increased oversight of detention facilities and the rights of asylum seekers. The Act would protect LGBTQ people from arbitrary detention and violence within facilities and ensure their right to seek protection within the United States. We urge you to protect these basic rights and co-sponsor this critical bill. Current Danger for LGBTQ Immigrants In 2018, Roxsana Hernandez fled to the U.S. from Honduras. As a transgender woman with HIV, Roxsana faced severe threats of violence and persecution in her home country. However, Roxsana did not escape such abuse upon arriving to the U.S. While detained at the border, Roxsana suffered abuse and mistreatment and died from dehydration and complications related to HIV only weeks after arriving.1 Roxsana is not alone. Johana Medina Leon, a 25-year-old trans woman from El Salvador entered US custody on April 1. Despite seeking safety, she was denied medical care and died seven weeks after being detained.2 LGBTQ people are more likely to be and remain detained, regardless of their flight risk or public safety risk. A 2016 Freedom of Information Act request from the Center for American Progress found that DHS detained 88 percent of LGBTQ immigrants who were eligible for release and not subject to mandatory detention, despite expressing fear of being targeted by other detainees and staff members because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.3 This fear is well-founded.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER Petitioners, V
    No. 02-102 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________ JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE AND TYRON GARNER Petitioners, v. STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent. _______________ On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District _______________ AMICUS BRIEF OF HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN; NA- TIONAL GAY & LESBIAN TASK FORCE; PARENTS, FAMILIES & FRIENDS OF LESBIANS & GAYS; NA- TIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS; GAY & LES- BIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS; GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION; PRIDE AT WORK, AFL-CIO; PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUN- DATION; ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE; MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND; PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND; SOCIETY OF AMERICAN LAW TEACHERS; SOULFORCE; STONEWALL LAW ASSOCIATION OF GREATER HOUSTON; EQUALITY ALABAMA; EQUAL- ITY FLORIDA; S.A.V.E.; COMMUNITY CENTER OF IDAHO; YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS; KANSAS UNITY & PRIDE ALLIANCE; LOUISIANA ELECTORATE OF GAYS & LESBIANS; EQUALITY MISSISSIPPI; PROMO; NORTH CAROLINA GAY & LESBIAN ATTORNEYS; CIMARRON FOUNDATION OF OKLAHOMA; SOUTH CAROLINA GAY & LESBIAN PRIDE MOVEMENT; ALLIANCE FOR FULL ACCEP- TANCE; GAY & LESBIAN COMMUNITY CENTER OF UTAH; AND EQUALITY VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS _______________ BRIAN V. ELLNER WALTER DELLINGER MATTHEW J. MERRICK (Counsel of Record) GAYLE E. POLLACK PAMELA HARRIS O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP JONATHAN D. HACKER Citigroup Center O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 153 East 53rd Street 555 13th Street, N.W. New York, New York 10022 Washington, D.C. 20004 (212) 326-2000 (202) 383-5300 Attorneys for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................ ii INTEREST OF AMICI..........................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................1 ARGUMENT .........................................................................2 I. TEXAS’ HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT LAW IS A PRODUCT OF ANTI-GAY ANIMUS........................4 A.
    [Show full text]