A federal judge in California ruled on Thursday that state prisons must allow transgender inmates greater access to commissary items that are consistent with their gender identity. The ruling stems from a settlement reached in August 2015 that mandates the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) to pay for a transgender inmate’s sex reassignment surgery.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas said the proposed policy of allowing access to female-oriented items does not go far enough, and that transgender inmates in men’s prisons should have many of the same items provided to inmates in female facilities.
According to CBS Los Angeles, Vadas said the CDCR should give transgender inmates access to items such as nightgowns, chain and necklaces, robes, sandals, scarves, T-shirts and walking shoes. He also ruled that these inmates should have supervised access to pumice stones, emery boards and curling irons. However, Vadas listed bracelets, earrings, brushes and hair clips as items that pose significant safety and security risks and should not be given to inmates.
The case was first brought forward by 56-year-old Shiloh Quine, a transgender woman currently being held at Mule Creek State Prison, a men’s prison southeast of Sacramento. Represented by the Transgender Law Center in Oakland, CA, her case was first brought forward after she was denied sex reassignment surgery in addition to clothing and other items that were only available to inmates in women’s prisons due to California state prison policy.
Quine’s attorneys argued that these actions and policies are discriminatory and violate constitutional guarantees, including the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment outlined in the Eighth Amendment. Quine and her attorneys argued the state’s policy on the restricted access to commissary items have a foundation in gender norms rather than security concerns.
The complaint for access to the commissary items requested was part of Quine’s request that the CDCR provide her with sex reassignment surgery as a medically necessary treatment for her gender dysphoria. After Quine’s surgery, now set for December, she will be placed in a CDCR facility for female inmates, and will have access to the items designated for female inmates.
Ilona Turner, legal director at the Transgender Law Center, said in a statement that transgender women should not be denied items that other women in CDCR facilities can access. “We are pleased that the court recognizes the importance of having access to clothing and personal items that reflect a person’s gender, and that denying items because someone is transgender is discrimination,” she said.
Kent Scheidegger said the ruling was ridiculous. He serves as the legal director at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law organization that advocates for the “swift and certain punishment” of criminals on behalf of their victims rights of crime victims, in addition to promoting use of the death penalty.
He further said this increased access to feminine products may exacerbate the problem of sexual assault in men’s prisons, a prevalent issue in the state’s facilities. According to a study conducted by the University of California Irvine on transgender inmates, 59 percent of the transgender population in the California prison system have experienced sexual assault. These statistics suggest that the problem exists independent from transgender woman having greater access to items consistent with their gender identity.
The outcome of Quine’s case follows similar instances in the past year of transgender inmate’s fighting for their right to receive sex reassignment surgery and receive greater support from the prison system. Back in April 2015, a federal judge ruled that transgender inmate Michelle-Lael Norsworthy receive sex reassignment surgery as a medical necessity. In the same month, the Justice Department condemned prisons who do not provide adequate support for their transgender inmates, in a case brought forth by 17-year-old Ashley Diamond.
The United States federal government has recognized as legally valid the April 1975 same-sex marriage of Richard Adams and Anthony Sullivan, approving the “green card” petition that Adams filed in 1975 for his husband, an Australian citizen. After Adams died in December 2012, Sullivan sought to have the Immigration Service recognize their marriage and grant a green card to him as the widower of a U.S. citizen.
The green card, granting Anthony permanent resident status in the United States, was issued on the 41st anniversary of his Boulder, Colorado marriage to Richard — a same-sex marriage that remained in the record and which was never invalidated by Colorado officials.
The green card was recently delivered to the Hollywood apartment Richard and Anthony shared for nearly four decades.
The green card was issued on the 41st Anniversary of Australian national Anthony Sullivan’ marriage to his American husband Richard Adams.
Immigration authorities, in 1975, famously refused the couple’s “green card” petition, saying they had “failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots.”
A ten year legal battle followed, as Richard and Anthony brought a lawsuit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now called United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) in federal court, becoming the first gay couple to sue the U.S. government for recognition of a same-sex marriage.
When the final ruling came from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1985 they were forced to leave the country.
Together, they endured expulsion from the United States, bounced from country to country and would go on to suffer decades of indignities; upon return to the U.S. in 1986 they were forced to keep a very low profile, living in fear that Anthony would be deported. It was a fear finally eased a year before Richard’s death in 2012 when the Obama administration issued a memo to protect low-risk family members of U.S. citizens from deportation, including same-sex partners of American citizens.
As newlyweds, Richard and Anthony could never have imagined that 41 years later the White House would ask the Director of USCIS to issue a direct, written apology to them. Nor could they have imagined that, in 2016, the very same downtown Los Angeles Immigration office that denied Richard’s green card petition for Anthony with such offensive language would, at long last, recognize their marriage and take the position that Anthony should be treated the same as all other surviving spouses under U.S. immigration law, with the dignity and respect he deserves in accordance with recent Supreme Court rulings.
Lavi Soloway, their Los Angeles-based attorney, says the federal government’s recognition of their 1975 marriage is groundbreaking because it affirms that the constitutional protection of fundamental personal liberties, including the right to marry, extends to a marriage entered into by a same sex couple that took place decades ago.
“The unique and historic nature of this case cannot be understated. The U.S. government not only apologized directly to Anthony Sullivan, but, for the first time since the Supreme Court established the right of same-sex couples to marry as a protected, fundamental liberty—the Immigration Service has shown its willingness to correctly apply recent Court rulings and to recognize as valid this same-sex marriage that took place in 1975. Undaunted by setbacks in the 1970s and 1980s Richard and Anthony never wavered in their belief that their marriage was valid and should be treated with dignity and respect. Eventually the Supreme Court and the Immigration Service caught up with them,” said Soloway.
“This outcome is an example of the potentially far reaching ripple effects of the Court’s ruling in Obergefell,” Soloway added.
“In 2014 we asked USCIS to take the steps necessary to reopen Adams’ 1975 petition in light of the Supreme Court ruling striking down the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” and subsequent victories by gay couples in marriage equality cases.” The last ruling on their petition had been issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 1978,” explained Soloway.
Anthony Sullivan and attorney Lavi Soloway exiting USCIS in Los Angeles in 2014.
“After the Supreme Court ruling on Marriage Equality, USCIS acted on our request to apply, constitutionally valid principles to the 1975 green card petition. As a result, in 2015 the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered the petition be reopened and the original denial reconsidered,” he said.
In January 2016, Adams’ original petition was approved and, because he was deceased, it was converted by USCIS into a widower’s petition, allowing Anthony to move forward with his green card application.
Anthony Sullivan (left) and Richard Adams married in Boulder, Colorado on April 21, 1975.
A LOVE STORY Theirs is a monumental love story that began in “The Closet” only to make history and has come to embody the entire narrative arc of the modern gay rights struggle and the fight for marriage equality.
They met in 1971 at “The Closet,” a Los Angeles gay bar, at a time when LGBT people were referred to as ‘homosexuals,’ or ‘faggots,’ were denied travel visas, classified as mentally ill, barred from many professions — a time when most of us were rejected by our families, could be imprisoned for having sex, were routinely evicted from our homes, easily fired from our jobs, and few authorities cared if we were beaten in the streets or even killed.
It was a time when our very right to existence was challenged at a near cellular level, even before AIDS.
Falling in love was one thing but finding a way to stay together was an entirely separate matter: Anthony was in the United States on a 90 day tourist visa. But they decided would pursue all legal avenues to stay together.
In the early 1970s, since Anthony was unable to obtain a long-term visa, they made risky border crossings to Mexico every 90 days to renew his tourist visa.
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 was the law of the land, declaring homosexuals ‘excludable at entry,’ along with ‘perverts’ and ‘psychopathic personalities.’
“We had a cloud over us,” Richard said in a documentary about their lives called “Limited Partnership,” which was broadcast on PBS in 2015. “Anthony didn’t want to get closer (in case a separation would occur). So, we had to start thinking of a way to stay together. There’s no way two men could stay together,” he said.
If Richard and Anthony had been a heterosexual couple they would have been able to fill out some forms, attach a marriage certificate and eventually go through an interview process that would result in the foreign spouse receiving a Green Card.
Soloway, says “When Anthony and Richard met in the early 1970s, as citizens of two different countries, there was no country in the world that provided for immigration for same-sex couples. There was no country in the world that was even discussing it. They had no country to go to.”
“We eventually realized,” Anthony told The Pride LA, “that the only thing that was stopping us from being able to remain together was the fact that we were two men and couldn’t get married.”
“And then…out of the blue, out of nowhere, we saw the most incredible news,” he said, referring to a Boulder, Colorado County Clerk, who created a huge controversy four decades ago when she issued the nation’s first marriage licenses to gay couples.
That was 1975. It is a seminal event in LGBT history that has been largely forgotten, only six years after the Stonewall riots in New York’s Greenwich Village.
“At the time I didn’t even know any gay couples,” said the clerk, Clela Rorex. “I was being faced with a very profound moral issue: ‘would I discriminate against two people of the same sex when I had been so involved in fighting discrimination against women,” she said.
She sought legal counsel from Boulder’s district attorney who determined there was “nothing in the Colorado marriage code that would prohibit” her from issuing marriage licenses to two people of the same sex.
Rorex began issuing licenses to same-sex couples. In a 1975 article in The New York Times Rorex suggested that marriage inequality could be “resolved by eliminating the gender words. Her reasoning, she said, was “Who’s it going to hurt?”
By week’s end, her defiance was top of the fold news.
Richard and Anthony were elated: “They’ve allowed these marriage to go on for a month. Johnny Carson has talked about them, so the government can’t claim ignorance. Therefore, these must be valid!”
They flew with friends and their Metropolitan Community Church minister to Boulder to get married. “We got the license in the morning and immediately got married.” Anthony says proudly.
The marriage, now recognized as valid for federal purposes, was certified in 1975.
“The press picked up on it and it was really quite chaotic,” Richard said. “We were conscious that if we weren’t careful it would become a three ring circus, which we didn’t want.” But it did and the impact of that publicity was was devastating.
“All of a sudden everyone looked at me differently,” Richard said. He was harassed and ultimately terminated from his job of ten years and his relationship with some members his large Filipino family soured.
Anthony’s mother wrote “a missive” from Australia, telling him she “could endure no more. Perversion is bad enough…but public display never,” she wrote, signing the letter “It is finished.” She never contacted him again and disinherited him.
One of the first things the couple did after they married was to return home to Los Angeles was to apply for spousal green card.
Weeks later an official response came from the United States Depart of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Services office in downtown Los Angeles: “You have failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots.”
Richard and Tony were photographed by Pat Rocco in fall 1975.
But in case that wasn’t clear enough the Justice Department sent a second letter: “neither party can perform the female functions in the marriage.”
Anthony was certain he would be forced to leave the country.
Word of the “faggot” letter quickly spread throughout what was already a well-organized gay community in Los Angeles. MCC’s Reverend Troy Perry and 500 people protested at the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles. “Justice! Justice! Justice!,” chanted the placard wielding protesters.
Anthony told The New York Times that his marriage to Richard was a test of the immigration laws that permit a foreign spouse to remain in this country: “we wanted to have the full benefits of other married couples — income tax returns, inheritance, wills and so on.”
But “rogue” activism was frowned upon by many of the emerging legal and advocacy organizations who felt the case was of little strategic value. “Some of our so called movers and shakers told us they weren’t interested in the case because we were a losing battle; the “faggot letter” had gotten too much attention,” Anthony says.
“Talk about a bunch of hens in a snit!” Anthony says of being confronted by one “leader” at a fundraising dinner. “He grabbed a white linen napkin off the table and, crunching it in his hands, and said ‘We will make you understand who is in control of this movement!’”
The couple was determined to pursue a legal course of action and hired a private attorney, David Brown, a Los Angeles constitutional lawyer. Brown told the media that gay couples had existed since the dawn of time and that equal rights should be afforded them.
LGBT equality was barely on the radar in the mid and late 1970s: The Supreme Court ruled that homosexual acts were illegal, Anita Bryant was leading a national crusade against gay rights laws in Florida and elsewhere, California was embroiled in a contentious debate about whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to teach in public schools and Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco. Demanding the right to marry seemed, well, ridiculous.
The couple persevered, filing suit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The case, Adams v. Howerton, sought to force the immigration service to recognize their Colorado marriage so that Anthony would be allowed to remain in the United States permanently as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. Their argument — that to discriminate against them because they were two men was a violation of their constitutional rights — is familiar and obvious today, but at the time it was unheard of,” said their attorney, Lavi Soloway.
Their argument was quickly shot down by the U.S. District Court Judge who ruled in the case relying on a now debunked justification for anti-gay discrimination: “marriage was intended to unite a man and a woman for the purpose of propagating the species.”
The case was appealed and in 1982 the Supreme Court had the last word on the case, refusing to hear it.
The only option left to the couple was to pursue another immigration hearing to make an appeal. In 1984 they requested that Anthony be permitted to stay in the United States because deportation would cause Richard “hardship” as his spouse. The request was denied when the Judge in the case disagreed that Anthony’s deportation would cause “hardship greater than that which would be faced by anyone being deported.”
They appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Anthony, recalling that hearing, says the “The quality of argument by our opposition was not good. The INS lawyer got the countries mixed up, our names mixed up and finally, in desperation, she said ‘well, he can go back to Australia and have another one of those… relationships.”
In what is surely the most striking alignment of the stars in their story, it was future United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, then an Associate Judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled against Richard and Anthony, setting Anthony’s deportation in motion. Kennedy wrote that he found “no extreme hardship to Sullivan because he is not ‘a qualifying relative’ to Adams.
It is poetic that the man who ordered such a callous action against a same-sex couple would, thirty years later, write perhaps one of the most beautiful — and certainly most consequential — gay rights decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In 2015, writing for the majority in [the case known as] Obergefell vs. Hodges, Anthony Kennedy said same-sex marriages were protected by the United State Constitution. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” he wrote.
In 1985, facing deportation, Richard and Anthony had exhausted their appeals. There was no court left except the court of public opinion. So they turned to popular talk shows of the time. On The Today Show, an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman called Anthony out: “Do you intend to leave our country on the 23rd of November?”
Richard replied for Anthony, “We are both leaving; we are not going to be separated.”
They became men without a country, forced to leave their friends and all their worldly possessions behind and headed to the airport.
As they arrived at LAX, they faced what Anthony called “a media circus” as they boarded a flight to London. Dozens of friends and family gathered to say goodbye. “It felt like death,” said Richard.
“We floated around the continent for many months,” said Anthony, until one day they both realized, “We need to be back home in Los Angeles.”
They decided to risk everything. Already experienced with crossing the Mexican border, they decided to fly to Mexico and re-enter the United States by car. “I was shit scared,” said Anthony. The American border guard simply waived them through.
Once home, Richard and Anthony had no options except to hide out and attempt to make a life on the margins of society.
The AIDS crisis began to hit close, devastating their family of friends and intensifying their sense of isolation. “The late 80s and early 90s was a horrible period for all of us,” said Anthony.
But then a small window of hope began to open, and, in forward and backward steps, gay rights began to advance. ACT UP broke the scientific and government wall of silence around AIDS. The Bush administration presided over reform passed by Congress in 1990 that removed the restriction on LGBT people entering the U.S., though HIV+ people were barred from entry. Then in 1992, the Democratic candidate for President made a major play for the gay vote and defeated the incumbent A protracted national debate ensued about gays in the military resulting in the uneasy compromise known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which arguably, for the first time, officially allowed lesbian and gay servicemembers to remain in the armed forces. Protease Inhibitors slowly began to transform AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic, manageable illness. A case brought in Hawaii began a national conversation about gay marriage rights, catapulting the obscure subject into the spotlight as a political wedge issue and the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act by Congress.
The isolation and hiding required to stay together took a toll on both of them. Richard, in the documentary Limited Partnership said, “It’s 2002 and we are more in the closet on one level now than when we first met.”
By the mid-2000s the debate over gay marriage engulfed the nation and the marriage equality movement emerged. Vermont offered legalized civil unions, following the example of cities like San Francisco and New York which created domestic partnership registration in 1989 and 1993, respectively. But losses followed in court — New York, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Indiana.
By 2004, a coordinated campaign to boost evangelical turnout for George W. Bush’s reelection saw 11 states pass constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. More states followed in 2006 and by 2012, gay-marriage bans had been put before voters in 30 states and won every everywhere. For every step forward for gay marriage, there seemed to be many more steps back.
Those halting steps emboldened Richard and Anthony as they became more righteous about their story, even though Anthony still faced immigration action. “Richard and I have never budged on the concept that the Boulder marriage was legitimate — it’s still on the books,” Anthony told the Washington Post.
In early December 2012, as Richard was dying of cancer, Soloway met with his clients and urged them to consider remarrying in nearby Washington state. They reluctantly agreed, thinking of it as a renewal of their vows rather than a new wedding. But Richard passed away the next day.
Sullivan’s despair was absolute but he was resolute that his relationship with Richard be honored with the dignity and grace civilized societies offer widowers. “I wrote to President Obama,” he said.
“I requested, basically for Richard, an apology for the faggot letter, because I felt that as an American citizen, he didn’t deserve to have that on his record,” Sullivan said. “Because he loved his country.”
León Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on behalf of the President: “This agency should never treat any individual with the disrespect shown toward you and Mr. Adams,” Rodriguez wrote. “You have my sincerest apology for the years of hurt caused by the deeply offensive and hateful language used in the November 24, 1975, decision and my deepest condolences on your loss.”
With federal recognition of their marriage and green card in hand, Sullivan is filled with wonder about the full circle of his life. “The same office that said we had failed to establish that a relationship can exist between two faggots now says yes. And on the day of our anniversary!”
Thumbing through a now historic folder of documents, Anthony looked at his hands and then gazed directly ahead, with a tear rolling down his cheek, and said “I desperately wish Richard was here with me for this.”
Of all same-sex married couples, Richard Adams and Anthony Sullivan now take their place in history as having the first legally recognized marriage in the world.
This morning, Dr. Delores A. Jacobs, chief executive officer of The San Diego LGBT Community Center, responded to the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida.
The investigation in Orlando is still underway, and additional facts will become known in the coming hours and days. At this time, it appears an action of terrorism and hate — carried out in part with an assault weapon — has taken the lives of at least 50 people and injured 53 more in a shooting at Pulse, a popular Orlando LGBT nightclub.
In addition, earlier today law enforcement authorities in Santa Monica, CA found weapons, ammunition and possible explosives in the vehicle of a man who said he was in town for the L.A. Pride festival in West Hollywood. It remains unclear at this time whether or not these events are connected.
The statement below is from Dr. Jacobs.
“We are simply devastated at the news of this horrific loss of life in Orlando. Unfortunately, our LGBT community is far too familiar with violence. This shooting – during LGBT Pride month – is now the deadliest mass shooting in United States history.
“Our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their friends and families. This weekend, and over the coming days, our community around the country will hold vigils and other commemorations of support, solidary and strength.”
In light of this tragic event, the San Diego LGBT community and its allies will gather together at The Center, 3909 Centre St., on Monday, June 13 for the San Diego United: #OrlandoStrong rally.
The doors to The Center will open at 6:30pm, with a short program, followed by a candlelit vigil stopping at the Hillcrest Pride Flag and ending at Rich’s nightclub. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to join us to stand together and unite in support of all those affected by this tragedy. For more information, call (619) 692-2077.
The Center offers counseling services through its Behavioral Health Services program. To speak with an on-duty counselor or request an appointment, email onduty@thecentersd.org or call (619) 692-2077, ext. 208on Monday.
Equality California today announced that 109 of its 116 endorsed candidates won enough votes in their individual races in the California primary election to advance to the November 8 general election or to win their race outright.“This election year is of enormous importance to the LGBT community,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “With the future of the U.S. Supreme Court in play, an open U.S. Senate seat and the strength of the California LGBT Legislative Caucus at stake, this is not an election year for LGBT people to choose not to vote. We congratulate all of our endorsed candidates on their primary races and will be working to secure the victories of our primary winners in November.”
Equality California was the first major LGBT civil rights organization to endorse Hillary Clinton for U.S. president. Clinton won the California presidential primary with 56 percent of the vote. In addition, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Equality California’s endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate, will now face Congresswoman Loretta Sánchez in the November election.
All four openly LGBT incumbents endorsed in legislative races by Equality California – LGBT Legislative Caucus Chair Assesmblymember Susan Eggman, Senator Ricardo Lara, Senator Cathleen Galgiani and Assemblymember Evan Low – will advance to the November election. Five additional strong LGBT candidates – former Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (running for Senate District 39), San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener (running for SD 11), San Diego City Councilmember Todd Gloria (running for Assembly District 78), Sabrina Cervantes (running for AD 60) and Greg Rodriguez (running for AD 42) – will also advance to November.
In San Diego County, three Equality California-endorsed, openly LGBT candidates won local contests. Equality California-endorsed candidate Dave Roberts will face Encinitas Mayor Kristin Gaspar for his seat on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and endorsed candidate Georgette Gómez will face Ricardo Flores to represent San Diego City Council District 9. Endorsed candidate Chris Ward earned more than 50 percent of the vote and was elected to replace Todd Gloria as councilmember for District 3, avoiding a November runoff election. Equality California endorses exceptional LGBT candidates at the local level with a proven commitment to LGBT civil rights.
The Equality California Political Action Committee endorses viable candidates who have a proven track record of supporting equal rights and legal protections for LGBT Californians and who are committed to advancing these goals in their capacity as elected officials. Please go tohttp://www.eqca.org/our-endorsements/ for a full list of primary results for Equality California-endorsed candidates.
###
Equality California is the nation’s largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization dedicated to creating a fair and just society. Our mission is to achieve and maintain full and lasting equality, acceptance and social justice for all people in our diverse LGBT communities, inside and outside of California. Our mission includes advancing the health and well-being of LGBT Californians through direct healthcare service advocacy and education. Through electoral, advocacy, education and mobilization programs, we strive to create a broad and diverse alliance of LGBT people, educators, government officials, communities of color and faith, labor, business, and social justice communities to achieve our goals. www.eqca.org
California’s State Senate has approved a measure to require California State University (CSU) and community college academic or administrative job applicants to disclose whether any final administrative or judicial action found them guilty of sexual harassment.
“My bill, SB 1439, puts a wrench in the ‘pass the harasser’ cycle that protects predators in our state higher education systems,” said Sen. Marty Block, the measure’s author. “Pass the harasser is a pattern of bad actors leaving a university to seek employment elsewhere when their actions gain notoriety. These harassers get away with it because they don’t tell; hiring committees don’t know and then do hire. Under SB 1439, applications for academic or administrative positions would require that applicants reveal any final findings that they committed sexual harassment.”
Block said his bill may be the first of its kind in the country. “When my staff and I were researching policy for this bill, we could not find a similar statute in any other state, even though it makes complete sense for hiring committees to know about this kind of history,” he said.
A final administrative decision is defined in Block’s measure as a determination based on the investigative findings of a designated investigator at a college or university on a sexual harassment complaint. A final judicial decision is a court determination of a matter submitted to it and that is recorded in a judgment or order.
Block said the state Education Code does not require disclosure or consideration of sexual harassment misconduct when considering the hiring of faculty. “It’s too easy for bad actors to move from one institution to another without their past being revealed – until it’s too late,” Block stated.
He noted that sexual harassment is painful to victims, creates havoc in the workplace and can even turn a student away from a field of study as a means to avoid the abuser. Block added that it is also costly for the state colleges or universities to defend against harassment.
SB 1439 was approved on a 31-1 bipartisan vote. It is supported by the United Auto Workers (UAW) which represents 9,000 academic student employees at the CSU system. The bill now moves to the Assembly for consideration.
California Gov. Jerry Brown this morning issued an “open letter to Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.” He writes:
On Tuesday, June 7, I have decided to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe this is the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump.
I have closely watched the primaries and am deeply impressed with how well Bernie Sanders has done. He has driven home the message that the top one percent has unfairly captured way too much of America’s wealth, leaving the majority of people far behind. In 1992, I attempted a similar campaign.
For her part, Hillary Clinton has convincingly made the case that she knows how to get things done and has the tenacity and skill to advance the Democratic agenda. Voters have responded by giving her approximately 3 million more votes – and hundreds more delegates – than Sanders. If Clinton were to win only 10 percent of the remaining delegates – wildly improbable – she would still exceed the number needed for the nomination. In other words, Clinton’s lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown – by millions of votes – that they want her as their nominee.
But there is more at stake than mere numbers. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has called climate change a “hoax” and said he will tear up the Paris Climate Agreement. He has promised to deport millions of immigrants and ominously suggested that other countries may need the nuclear bomb. He has also pledged to pack the Supreme Court with only those who please the extreme right.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one.
Next January, I want to be sure that it is Hillary Clinton who takes the oath of office, not Donald Trump.
The California legislature passed a bill that would allow organ transplants between HIV-positive donors and HIV-positive recipients. Senate Bill (SB) 1408, authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) and co-sponsored by Equality California, AIDS Project Los Angeles, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, and Positive Women’s Network-USA, would bring state law in line with federal law. The bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate unanimously.
“These lifesaving surgeries have been proven safe and are now allowable under federal law,” said Sen. Allen. “There is no reason for state law to maintain an antiquated prohibition on organ donation by HIV-positive persons. By expanding the pool of organ donors, we will shorten the time for all persons on the organ donor waiting lists, and save lives in the process.”
The number of individuals in need of organ transplants far exceeds the availability of healthy organs. Yet California law criminalizes transplantation of organs and tissue from an HIV-positive donor to an HIV-positive recipient. Allowing the donation HIV-positive organs and tissue would save the lives of hundreds of HIV-positive patients each year, and shorten the waiting list for individuals awaiting transplants.
“It should not be a crime to save someone’s life, yet current law criminalizes the donation of HIV-positive organs to HIV-positive recipients,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “There are currently HIV-positive people in California waiting desperately for an organ transplant. This is the first step in what we hope will be a number of measures to modernize California’s antiquated laws that harm and stigmatize people living with HIV. We urge Governor Brown to sign SB 1408 swiftly.”
SB 1408 is a first step towards modernizing a number of California laws that stigmatize people living with HIV by treating HIV differently than other communicable diseases. Most of these statues were enacted in the late 1980s, at a time of public panic about HIV and its transmission. Societal and medical understanding of the disease has since greatly improved, and effective treatments minimize transmission and give people living with HIV a normal lifespan. However, people living with HIV still can face felony charges, even when no real risk of transmission is present.
Equality California is working with Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (CHCR), a coalition dedicated to modernizing California’s HIV criminal laws.
SB 1408 now goes on to the governor for his signature.
Last night’s annual ‘Out at the Park’ event turned into ‘Nightmare at Petco Park’ as the San Diego Gay Man’s Chorus took to the field to sing the National Anthem.
Instead of their voices, fans of the Padres and Los Angeles Dodgers heard a recorded voice of a woman singing the anthem, and when the group stepped off the field at the end of the song it was to taunts such as, “You sing like a girl,” according to a statement on the San Diego Gay Men’s Chorus Facebook page.
Within hours the Padres had apologized on Twitter calling the incident a “mistake in the control room.” However, the Gay Men’s Chorus were not happy stating, “No attempt was made to stop the recording and start over. No announcement of apology was made to the singers or their friends and families in the stands. No attempt to correct the situation occurred other than to force the 100 men to stand in the spotlight of center field for the song’s duration and then be escorted off the field to the heckles of baseball fans shouting homophobic taunts.”
According to the Gay Men’s Chorus, “This incident followed several days of troubling comments and behavior within the San Diego Padres organization. “Three days before the game, San Diego Padres representatives aggressively sought to prevent singers from performing the National Anthem unless they purchased a ticket to the game — even if they did not plan to stay for the game — which was not part of any previous discussion or written or verbal agreement and would have cost the small, community-based non-profit thousands of dollars. The demand eventually was rescinded on Friday following repeated complaints made by SDGMC and San Diego Pride to San Diego Padres management.”
The Gay Men’s Chorus are demanding a full investigation and are calling on the Padres to determine if someone or some people intentionally engaged in anti-gay discrimination or a hate crime. The Chorus is also calling on the City of San Diego City Attorney’s Office and the City of San Diego Human Relations Commission to independently investigate the incident.
San Diego Gay Men’s Chorus singer Dan England posted on Facebook, “I was just shocked someone didn’t stop the recording! Then there was no announcement saying sorry! We just a stood there like fools, and then we were escorted off and out of the park. Definitely embarrassing.”
“We were just excited to be at a game and let the audience see us and hear us and let us know that we’re sports fans too, and we’re normal guys,” said RC Haus, artistic director for the Chorus. “And then a woman sings over us, and it was mortifying.”
“I really want to believe that it was an error,” said Bob Lehman, executive director of the San Diego Gay Men’s Chorus. “But the first thought was, did they do this on purpose?”
“I don’t want to live in a city where the LGBT community thinks the Padres hate them,” Lehman continued. “Even if it’s perception, it’s got to be fixed.”
The incident gained national and even international traction in media outlets ranging from the New York Daily Newsand USA Today, to the British publication The Daily Mail, reported the Union-Tribune. People on both sides of the issue weighed in on Twitter, arguing whether the incident was offensive or the reaction to it overblown. The Chicago Gay Men’s Chorus posted a musical video in support of their San Diego counterparts.
This week, more than 170,000 undocumented children became eligible to enroll in state-funded health insurance plans in California, going beyond Obamacare to allow more immigrants to have access to comprehensive health services for the first time in the state.
The “Health4AllKids” health care expansion allows low-income children under the age of 19 to receive affordable care under Medi-Cal, the name for California’s Medicaid program, regardless of their immigration status. This will allow undocumented kids to access the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits — such as regular preventive and primary care, dental, and mental health services, as well as behavioral health treatment for children with autism.
The aim of the expansion is to ensure health care for a population that “for the most part only had limited access to emergency-only services,” the children’s advocacy group First Focus said in a statement on its website.
California’s Department of Health Care Services estimates that 114,981 undocumented children were previously eligible only for restricted-scope Medi-Cal benefits, while another 55,019 children couldn’t receive any Medi-Cal benefits at all.
To qualify for the program, children must belong to a family that meets low-income requirements, making no more than $65,505 for a year for a family of four. Families with lower incomes may be able to receive coverage for free, while other families may pay between $19 per child or $39 for all their children, according to the Desert Sun. About one-sixth of the newly eligible low-income undocumented children live in the agricultural areas of Sacramento and Kern counties.
California is the fifth state to extend coverage to undocumented children, following Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, D.C., and Washington state.
Anywhere between 2.7 million to 3.4 million Californians are uninsured, including 1.4 million undocumented immigrants who may not be able to afford private insurance. Although the Affordable Care Act extended affordable insurance options to millions of Americans, undocumented immigrants were left out of health reform.
Health4AllKid‘s original sponsor, State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D) — who is himself the son of an undocumented immigrant — argued that extending coverage to more immigrants would help the government save money in annual emergency room bills. Many uninsured, undocumented individuals do not seek out medical treatment until they have to be rolled into the emergency room, which cannot deny care to anyone regardless of immigration status. In turn, emergency room visits cost the California economy between $18.3 billion and $36.7 billion in lost productivity, according to a 2009 Center for American Progress report.
For practical reasons, not seeking treatment for illnesses can also lead to significant financial hardship, since uninsured people are more likely to fall into medical bankruptcy than insured individuals, according to a 2007 American Journal of Medicine study.
Health advocates also argue that the extending health care services to the undocumented population has the potential of saving lives through preventative care, particularly because uninsured individuals are less likely to seek out services for major health conditions and chronic disease, which could have a big impact in their sunset years.
Dozens of LGBT activists and allies fanned out across the California Capitol Monday, meeting with legislators in support of ten bills that form Equality California’s 2016 legislative package and priorities. Each of the priority bills would significantly improve the lives of LGBT Californians in various ways and stand in direct contrast to laws in North Carolina, Mississippi and elsewhere that target LGBT people for discrimination.
“We are heartened to see so many faces eager and willing to create a more inclusive and fair society,” said Asm. Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), chair of the LGBT Legislative Caucus. “The LGBT community is often at the frontlines of progress and we, as members of the LGBT Caucus, rely on their input and support to continue effecting change here in California and across the country. Marriage equality was a huge victory for our community, but recent events remind us why LGBT advocacy is more important than ever. Our movement towards equality has been and will continue to be a grassroots effort. And these participants show us that we are in good hands.”
“As North Carolina, Mississippi and other states enact regressive laws that target the most basic freedoms of LGBT people, look what we are doing together in California,” said Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur at a morning rally outside the Capitol. “In this legislative session alone, the bills making their way through the legislature make it clear that our state is heading in a different direction.”
Two of the bills specifically address challenges facing the transgender community. AB 1732, by Asm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), would require that existing single-stall restrooms be labeled as “all-gender”. AB 1887, by Asm. Evan Low (D-Campbell), would ban state-funded travel by California state employees to jurisdictions with laws in place that discriminate against LGBT people.
AB 1888, also by Low, would deny Cal Grant funding to colleges and universities that seek a waiver on religious grounds for federal anti-discrimination protections. SB 1146, by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach), would require those institutions to disclose that intent to discriminate to potential applicants.
Two other Equality California-sponsored bills save lives. AB 2246, by Asm. Patrick O’Donnell, would require schools statewide to have a suicide prevention policy in place to get teachers the materials and support they need to identify at-risk students. SB 1408, by Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Redondo Beach), would allow organ and tissue donations between HIV positive donors and HIV positive recipients.
LGBT Advocacy Day was co-sponsored by the California LGBT Legislative Caucus, Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal.