By P.J. Reno

United Church of Christ Approves Same-Sex Marriage

Rev. John H. Thomas

The United Church of Christ general synod has overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting full legal and religious marriage equality for same-sex couples. The July 4 resolution came during the church's synod, held this year in Atlanta.

The 25th general synod said in its resolution that it &quotaffirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the State should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage."

&quotOn this July Fourth the general synod of the United Church of Christ has acted courageously to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of same gender couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate and bless those marriages," said Rev. John H. Thomas at a press conference after the resolution was passed.

According to a church Web site, Thomas also acknowledged that the issue of marriage equality is &quotthe source of great conflict" not only in society but also in the churches. The UCC, he said, &quotis no exception" and &quotthere are clearly great differences among our own members over this."

Synod action, he added, &quotdoes not presume a consensus of opinion among our members or our local churches, which are free and responsible to come to their own mind of this as on any other (issue). The general synod speaks to and not for our local churches."

When asked, Thomas declined to speculate on whether the passage of the resolution could cause some churches to leave the denomination. A proposal to table the marriage discussion until 2007 failed.

The resolution also called on congregations to &quotprayerfully consider" adopting wedding policies at their churches that do not discriminate against gay and lesbian couples," and called for an end to &quotrhetoric that fuels hostility, misunderstanding, fear and hatred expressed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons."

The United Church of Christ, which evolved from congregational churches founded by the Pilgrims and German immigrant and African-American communities, is a denomination of 1.3 million members.LGBT rights groups praised the decision.

"At a time when President Bush and so-called faith leaders are working to enshrine discrimination in our state and federal constitutions, the UCC has issued a prophetic call challenging Americans to live up to the truth that the signers of the Declaration of Independence found to be self-evident, namely, that all 'are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,'" said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.

Bipartisan Bill Protecting Gay Federal Employees Introduced in Congress

Rep. Henry Waxman

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Chris Shays, R-Conn., introduced bipartisan legislation June 30 that would clarify existing law to ensure full enforcement of prohibitions against anti-gay discrimination in the federal workforce. The bill was introduced in response to a Bush administration appointee who said protections for federal workers based on sexual orientation may not be necessary.

All three openly gay members of the House of Representatives, Democrats Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin and Republican Jim Kolbe, are co-sponsors of the bill.

Special Counsel Scott Bloch, who one of the federal agencies responsible for investigating and settling claims of workplace discrimination, indicated at a Senate hearing in May that he has no intention of investigating or acting on certain claims of sexual orientation discrimination from federal employees.

In April 2004, the White House released a statement that was in contrast to Bloch's assertions. &quotLongstanding federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation," the White House said. &quotPresident Bush expects federal agencies to enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected from unfair discrimination at work."

Frank reacted strongly to Bloch's comments in a May 25 statement, noting that &quotWhat Scott Bloch has done now is to shatter this agreement that employment in the federal workforce should be based solely on merit, and he has also unfortunately raised questions about the sincerity of President Bush's commitment, since he is a Bush appointee to the position which enforces this. It is essential that the president act promptly to do what is necessary to see that the policy he has announced is in fact enforced by his appointee."

LGBT rights groups argue that for more than two decades a federal statute, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace for federal employees. This legislation would clarify the protections of that law by explicitly making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation a prohibited personnel practice under the act.

&quotThis legislation would end Scott Bloch's bogus assertions that federal employees aren't free to enjoy the same non-discrimination protections they have enjoyed for over 25 years," said Joe Solmonese, president of LGBT rights group Human Rights Campaign. &quotWe call on the Congress to quickly pass this bipartisan bill to prevent a further deterioration of non-discrimination protections in the federal workforce and work to enact legislation that protects the entire American workforce from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

Gay Groups React to Justice O'Connor's Retirement

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

In response to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's surprise July Fourth weekend announcement that she was stepping down from the Supreme Court after 24 years of service, LGBT rights groups reacted to her retirement, her legacy as the first woman appointed to the nation's court, and what a vacancy could mean for future decisions that will affect the LGBT community.

Kevin Kathcart, executive director of the legal rights group Lambda Legal, said O'Connor's role as a pivotal vote in a number of important cases made her a key player on the nine-member court.

&quotAs the final say on the constitutional rights of Americans, the Supreme Court plays an incredibly important role in ensuring that this country's promise of equality is real for everybody, including LGBT people and people with HIV," Kathcart said. &quotOver the past two decades Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has often been the 'swing vote' as the Court has decided issues that are critical to all people who care about equality and civil rights."

The Log Cabin Republicans also issued a statement, with the group's president, Patrick Guerriero, saying &quotHistory will record that it was President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who nominated Sandra Day O'Connor as the nation's first female Justice of the Supreme Court."

&quotLog Cabin recognizes Justice O'Connor for her tremendous record of accomplishment on the bench and for her commitment to safeguarding individual liberty.Ê In particular, Justice O'Connor will be remembered for her principled decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case, which confirmed that the principle of individual liberty extended to gay and lesbian families," Guerriero added.

O'Connor was one of six Justices siding with the majority in the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down state sodomy laws that prevented private, non-commercial sexual acts between consenting adults. In 1986, however, O'Connor voted with the majority in Bowers v. Hardwick, a case that upheld state sodomy laws. Guerriero went on to encourage the president to nominate another centrist to the Supreme Court.

"We call on President Bush to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, a jurist, who like Justice O'Connor, recognizes the constitutional safeguards of individual liberty for all citizens," he said.

David Kravitz, a Massachusetts lawyer who clerked for O'Connor in the mid-1990s, wrote in the July 2 edition of his blog Blue Mass Group that she was &quotthe most powerful woman in America."

&quotOn many issues that matter a great deal to many Americans, Justice O'Connor was at the very center of the Court for many years," Kravitz wrote. &quotThat fact is why her surprise retirement announcement has knocked Washington, and the nation's legal community, for a loop. Everyone thought that the first retirement would be the cancer-stricken Chief Justice Rehnquist, a far-right conservative whose replacement could hardly have been further to the right than he is.Ê But with Justice O'Connor's retirement comes an opportunity for President Bush and the Senate Republicans to change the course of American law dramatically, and quickly."

Kravitz noted that in the 1996 decision Romer v. Evans, O'Connor joined fellow Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy and the four liberals on the court &quotin striking down Colorado's state constitutional amendment barring local governments from adopting any gay-friendly ordinances (such as employment discrimination)."

Kravitz went on to write that O'Connor's retirement shouldn't greatly change the balance on LGBT issues, but could make future decisions much more evenly split if a more conservative judge is appointed.

&quotBecause Justice Kennedy has generally been surprisingly gay-friendly, Justice O'Connor's replacement may not be able to dramatically shift the Court's balance on this question, but a real 'cultural conservative' would mean that there are four votes to reject almost any gay rights-related claim -- an uncomfortably thin margin," he wrote.

Kathcart also recognized the opportunity and risk that comes with the next new Supreme Court justice appointment.

&quotThe LGBT and HIV communities have a huge stake in ensuring that her replacement is not an extremist ideologue, but instead an open-minded judge committed to giving our communities and our issues a fair hearing. At Lambda Legal we look forward to learning who President Bush will nominate to replace Justice O'Connor. We also look forward to helping our communities make our voices heard to ensure that the Supreme Court remains a place where we can continue to win justice."

Missouri School to Stop Censoring Student's Gay Rights T-Shirt

A Missouri high school has agreed to no longer censor a student from wearing T-shirts expressing her support for gay rights.

After months of negotiation with the American Civil Liberties Union, Webb City High School recently informed LaStaysha Myers, a heterosexual 15-year-old student who was punished twice for wearing T-shirts expressing her support for gay rights, that she would no longer face retaliation for what she wears. In return, the ACLU has agreed to end a censorship lawsuit that began in April.

"We're very pleased that the school has agreed that it will no longer censor LaStaysha for her support for gay people," said Rose Saxe, a staff attorney with the ACLU's national Lesbian & Gay Rights Project. "As we've been explaining to Webb City High School all along, schools can't censor a student solely because his or her point of view may cause others to act disruptively."

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court in April against Webb City High School for violating Myers' First Amendment right to free speech. Claiming that her T-shirts were "disruptive," school officials sent her home from school twice in November 2004 for wearing homemade T-shirts; first, one bearing several handwritten slogans such as "I support the gay rights!" and "Who are we to judge?" and the next day one that bore a rainbow and the Webster's Dictionary definition of "gay": "M[e]rry, happy." On both occasions Myers had just arrived at school and no apparent reaction to the shirts had taken place.

In its 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that students in public schools don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," and ruled that schools can only censor student speech when the speech itself -- and not other people's reaction to it -- is disruptive to the educational process. The ACLU noted that many schools have misinterpreted this notion, calling student speech disruptive in an attempt to illegally censor free speech. The ACLU cautioned schools against censoring students merely because disruption is feared or because other students are causing disruption in reaction to that speech.

"LaStaysha Myers is a remarkably brave young woman for standing up to Webb City High School," said Dick Kurtenbach, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "No matter what your point of view on what she has to say, we should all be applauding her for making sure that all students at her school can freely enjoy their First Amendment rights."

"All I ever wanted was to get my school to stop silencing me and allow all students to express their opinions," Myers said in reaction to the agreement, &quotso I'm really happy that's finally going to happen."

Research Institute Finds Flaws in Congressional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Report

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military released a report July 6 assessing a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) study, entitled "Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues." The Center's assessment finds that CRS draws misleading conclusions about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prevents gay, lesbian, and bisexual military personnel from serving openly, and its effects on the military.

The CRS study addresses the recent history of the current policy on gay service members, as well as legal challenges, public opinion, violence against gays, recruitment, discharges and foreign military experience. But according to the Center's report, CRS arrives at misleading conclusions about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" through questionable statistics, selective presentation of evidence, and mischaracterization of what the law says.

For example, Pentagon statistics show that annual discharge rates for homosexuality followed a clear pattern after the passage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1994. In six out of the first seven years following the passage of &quotDon't Ask, Don't Tell," discharges of gays and lesbians increased. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, discharges declined every year for the past three years. The CRS study attributes this pattern to random fluctuations in the data. But CRS arrives at its conclusion about the random nature of the data via a statistical sleight of hand. In particular, the CRS report combines the rising discharge figures from the first seven years of the policy with the falling discharge figures from the most recent three years, thus focusing on the overall average number of discharges since the passage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The past three years of falling discharges, however, are the result of a practice of troop retention that has followed from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Center and author of the assessment, "the effort to conceal the trends by combining the pre-9/11 and post-9/11 discharge rates, and to dismiss the pattern as the product of 'random fluctuations,' appears to misconstrue the unavoidable conclusions of the evidence -- that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' correlated with a significant climb in discharge rates, and that, during wartime, discharge rates fell."

In addition, the CRS study omits the latest evidence showing significant support for letting gays serve openly, both among civilians and, increasingly, military personnel. While two polls from Gallup and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center both show that 79 percent of the public favors letting gays serve openly, the CRS study only mentions polls putting that figure at 63 percent. Similarly, CRS cites a Military Times poll, based on non-random sampling techniques, showing that 25 percent of active duty military personnel support letting gays serve openly. But a more recent Annenberg survey based on random sampling methods puts the figure at 42 percent, a statistic the CRS report did not mention.

Finally, the CRS study mischaracterizes what the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law says. According to the study, the statutory language of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" targets individuals "based on conduct," while making "no mention of 'orientation.'" It says that individuals who "choose" to make their sexual identity public will be discharged. "The implication," says Frank, "is that gays have the option to serve simply by refraining from coming out."

In reality, he explained, the law targets homosexuals based on their identity, not just their conduct. "Gays have been discharged because their orientation was disclosed by a third party, because their personal letters or photos were found, or because they were otherwise investigated without having been involved in any misconduct," Frank said. "That's punishing the person, not her behavior."