In Brief

Staff Reports

Michigan Mayor Calls Use of Queer In Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Post on Facebook Mistake

TROY, MICHIGAN -- The blog, “Keep Troy Strong,” which is dedicated to progressive politics in this Michigan city, unearthed a June 25th Facebook post that Troy’s new mayor, Janice Daniels, posted just prior before entering the mayoral race which she won. The posting read: “I think I am going to throw away my 'I Love New York' carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

The blog's entry about her Honour's Facebook post was picked up and went viral across the social media sphere Friday.

In an interview with MLive.com, the mayor, who commenced her term last month, acknowledged that she was responsible for the entry.

“I may have said something like that,” she said. “I probably shouldn’t have used that kind of language, but I do believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

Daniels also criticized “Keep Troy Strong” for having a vendetta against her administration. The site supported the Troy library millage and supports a planned transit center—both of which Daniels opposed. It has also catalogued quotes and social media updates from the mayor and her allies, including anti-Islamic Facebook messages posted by Birmingham lawyer and activist David Wisz.

Daniels added that while she’s opposed to gay marriage, and has moral issues with homosexuality, she doesn’t hate gay people.

“I love all people. I am human. That was probably a poor choice of words.”  ~ MLive.com

The Executive Director of Equality Michigan noted that while the mayor is entitled to her opinion on gay marriage, allowing that also Daniels' message on Facebook was posted prior to her election as Troy mayor, Daniels' use of the word queer was inappropriate.

“When we start attacking each other with slurs, and degrading others as human beings, it crosses it line,” Denise Brogan-Kator said. “She is entitled to her own free speech. Her use of the word queer in the context she used it is extremely offensive. I’m outraged that someone in a position of public authority would have those views, and would express them. I think it’s important that it doesn't go unnoticed.”

U. S. 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals appears ready to hand favourable decision to transgendered woman fired by Georgia legislative office

ATLANTA, GEORGIA -- Two of the three judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals signaled Thursday that U.S. Supreme Court precedents will require them to uphold a U. S. District Court decision that a former Georgia state legislative aide fired during her gender transition was the victim of sex discrimination.

Vandy Beth Glenn was fired as a legislative editor at the General Assembly after she disclosed she was going to make the transition from man to woman. According to Glenn, when she informed her boss Sewell Brumby, of her impending transition she was told it would be seen as “immoral” by Georgia’s lawmakers.

Gregory Nevins of the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who is representing Glenn said he was confident the law was on his client’s side;

“Vandy Beth was fired because her boss didn’t like who she is, and that kind of treatment is discriminatory and illegal,” he said, adding: “It is unfair and illegal to fire a transgender employee because she does not conform to your sexist stereotypes of how a woman should be.”

The 11th Circuit panel is considering the state’s appeal of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Story, who found Glenn was the victim of sex discrimination. Story ordered Glenn returned to her job and for the state to no longer discriminate against her after she returns, but that decision was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, according to Nevins.

Glenn was hired to edit the text of legislation in 2005 when she was a man named Glenn Morrison. Earlier that year, however, Glenn had been found to have gender identity disorder, a psychiatric diagnosis of those with a strong cross-gender identification and persistent discomfort with their own sex. Her doctor recommended Glenn make the transition to become a woman.

Glenn began living outside the workplace as a woman, underwent electrolysis to remove facial hair and began hormone therapy to make her body more feminine and suppress testosterone. She underwent surgeries to lift her brow and narrowed her jaw line.

In 2006, Glenn told her direct supervisor she was in the process of becoming a woman. That Halloween, she made her first appearance at work dressed as a woman. But Sewell Brumby, then head of the Office of Legislative Counsel, found Glenn’s appearance inappropriate and asked her to leave.

“It’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing,” Brumby said in pretrial testimony, explaining his decision. It’s “unnatural,” he said.

in the fall of 2007, Glenn told her supervisor she would begin coming to work as a woman and would be changing her legal name to Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn. She provided the supervisor photos of herself as a woman and literature about gender identification disorder.

The supervisor told this to Brumby and gave him the written materials and photos.

On Oct. 16, 2007, Brumby called Glenn into his office and asked if she fully intended to become a woman. When Glenn said she did, Brumby fired her.

Brumby, who headed the counsel’s office from 1978 until he retired in August, also testified that he was concerned that “some members of the Legislature would view that taking place within our office as perhaps immoral, perhaps unnatural and perhaps, if you will, liberal or ultra-liberal.”

During Thursday’s oral arguments, the judges seized on Brumby’s pretrial testimony.

They cited a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found it is not just illegal to discriminate against employees because of their sex, but that it is also illegal to discriminate against those who don’t conform to the stereotypes associated with their biological sex.

“It looks to me you got a big problem based on what the U.S. Supreme Court said,” Judge Bill Pryor told lawyer Richard Sheinis, who represented the state. “We have direct evidence of intentional discrimination, it seems to me.” ~ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A decision by the 11th Circuit is expected in a few months. Standing outside the courthouse after the hearing, Glenn said she was eager for the court to issue its decision.

“I felt it went very well,” Glenn said. “It took a long time to get here, and I’m feeling good.”

Right Wing Claims Removal Of Archaic Sodomy Statue Will Encourage Bestiality In U. S. Military

WASHINGTON -- The Senate in a 93-7 vote Thursday passed the National Defence Authorisation Act which included a 3 sentence instruction on page 147 of the 665 page legislation which repeals Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,(UCMJ)which bars troops from engaging in consensual sodomy.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and other Gay Equality Rights advocacy groups had lobbied for its repeal during hearings on the Act by the Senate Armed Services Committee, intensifying their collective efforts after the final passage of the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" repeal last September.

Activists have campaigned for this provision to be removed from the UCMJ for several years, highlighting the fact that United States Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision which struck down sodomy laws that apply to civilians should be held as a reference point for the military.

Reaction from right wing conservatives, particularly the anti-gay family values groups immediately likened the repeal of the article as giving servicemembers licence to have sex with animals. On the ultra conservative media blog, CNSNews, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the effort to remove sodomy from military law stems from liberal Senate Democrats as well as the President’s support for the real of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”

Perkins said removing the bestiality provision may have been intentional--or just “collateral damage”

“Well, whether it was inadvertent or not, they have also taken out the provision against bestiality,” he said. “So now, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), there’s nothing there to prosecute bestiality."

Perkins was referring to the current wording of Article 125 of the UCMJ which states:

[...] "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Former Army Col. Bob Maginnis told the website that according to some military lawyers, bestiality may be prosecutable under another section of the military code of justice – the “catch-all” Article 134 for offenses against “good military order and discipline.” But don't count on that, he said. “If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis told CNSNews.com.

“When the reader stops laughing, the reader needs to ask the question whether or not this is in the best interests of the government, in the best interests of the military and the best interests of the country? I think not.”

He added: “Soldiers, unfortunately, like it or not, have engaged in this type of behavior in the past. Will they in the future, if they remove this statute? I don’t know.”

The House version of the bill does not contain the Article 125 repeal provision, which must be reconciled in the joint committee of both chambers before the bill goes to the president for his signature.