The Populist Review

Civil Unions Dishearten Activists in NJ

   Yesterday, the State of New Jersey joined Massachusetts, Vermont, and California in extending all rights and priveledges of marriage to gay couples, including adoption, hospital visitation, health insurance, inheritance, and parental rights. Even so, Steve Goldstein, director of the gay rights advocacy group, Garden State Equality (GSE), wasn’t pleased. ''Even by the standards of a civil unions bill, it's putrid,” he said. “I've been with my partner more than 14 years and he's well beyond 'a party to a civil union.’”

   Excuse us, Steve, but are we missing something? Okay, sure, the new law isn’t as broad as the one in Vermont, which specifically states that civil unions include ''any definition or use of the terms 'spouse,' 'family,' 'immediate family,' 'dependent,' 'next of kin.' '' And it falls somewhat shy of the law in Massachusetts that refers to such unions as “marriage.” But from where we sit―and for those just tuning in, we’re in the reddest state in the West―the creation of civil unions in any state is cause for celebration. Gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens in New Jersey can now gain access to their hospitalized partners. They can no longer be denied health coverage under their partner’s insurance. They can no longer be denied pension benefits, once the sole province of heterosexual partners. They can no longer be denied their inheritance. They can adopt children. Surely, such progressive leaps should be hailed at a time when our rights are disappearing faster than the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro.

  And yet, Mr. Goldstein―whose disappointment may be linked to his organization’s take-no-prisoners strategy: “to win marriage equality and nothing less!”― isn’t alone. Laren Nicholson-McFadden, one of seven same-sex couples who brought the State Supreme Court case that led to this legislation, lobbied against it. "I will never be allowed to marry the only person I would ever want to marry if you pass this bill," she said, insisting the creation of “civil unions” only fuels discrimination by institutionalizing second-class citizens. As did her partner, Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, who complained that the stigma would be difficult to explain to her kids (testimony that provoked an unrepentant cry of “Child abuse!” from the crowd). Attorney David Buckel, Marriage Project Director at LAMBDA Legal, the organization that represented the couple in court, called the law “one of the largest forms of statutory discrimination ever created by the New Jersey legislature.”

   Come on now, guys. Sure, we’d like to see marriage legalized in New Jersey for same-sex couples. Sure, anything less is discriminatory and sets GBLT citizens apart as a separate entity. But we agree with the Human Rights Campaign and others who see this law as a huge step forward. Garden State Equality is to be commended, not only for their efforts regarding this legislation, but also in their fight for transgender rights. And we applaud the hundreds of state-wide organizations who petitioned the governor on behalf of same-sex unions. But let’s remember that we in the GBLT are in the minority and, as such, have an obligation to show gratitude for incremental progress. Kicking the cat when rebuffed only fans the opposition. Gratitude and magnanimy should be the guiding principle. With such an attitude, even those who oppose such unions may same day see the futility of their position.

   

                                                 

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Trans Advocates Lose Battle in Zealous NYC Bid

  A proposal to amend New York City's birth certificate policy to include a diverse range of self-identified transgender citizens was rejected on Tuesday. The rejection brings to a close a collaborative, four-year effort by the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, Transgender Law and Policy Institute, and others to permit changes to birth certificates for citizens who live opposite their physical gender. The move further erodes New York's image as a hub of cultural enlightenment.

   Advocates expressed dismay. "We are disappointed but we are not going to take defeat and walk away," said Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund. "We are going to try again and get an even better law the next time around." But when might that be, in ten years? 

   In disseminating blame for this wholesale defeat, we're inclined not to focus on the New York Bureau of Vital Statistics--whose intractable actions were nevertheless predictable--but rather on those activists who sacrificed incremental change for a radical blitz. And make no mistake about it, incremental change would have been welcomed by many in the transgender community. Under current law, New York City reserves the right to refuse an amended birth certificate to anyone, including those who've undergone sex reassignment surgery. To those alone, the city imparts a genderless document. That document not only creates difficulties in procuring passports, driver's licenses, medical information, and entitlements--like the tax breaks offered to women business owners--it amounts to a government-sponsored "outing" of the individual. Indeed, the policy puts New York on a par with such progressive states as Alabama, where amended birth certificates list the applicant's current and previous genders, and far behind such cultural bastions as Arkansas, where an amended certificate can be issued with a simple court order.

   But the folks at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, and their fellows, weren't content with such low-hanging fruit. They wanted to remove the requirement that applicants live in their chosen gender for two years before applying for an amended certificate. They wanted to remove the requirement for a name change order. They wanted to remove the requirement that providers, called on to verify documentation, have only two years experience in treating transgender patients. They wanted to remove the Department of Health's ability to request additional information. Is it any wonder their proposals were rejected outright?

   The naive belief that their proposals would be approved intact is, in our view, what led to this defeat. And that false sense of confidence may have led to a tactical legal blunder as well. The authority to issue birth certificates resides with the states, not municipalities. New York City holds the authority to issue birth certificates only because the State of New York conceded that authority. The legality of that concession--especially as it impacts the lives of out-of-state residents and the conduct of interstate commerce--remains highly questionable. Imagine the scenario if every municipality assumed such statutory powers? The City of Newark might decide that birth certificates list any medical problems the child has at birth. The City of Miami might decide that the parents' religion be included. The City of Berkeley might decide that the child's gender be left blank, to be included at a later date. A vast hodgepodge of conflicting documents would emerge, in contrast to the main reason given by the Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for rejecting the proposals: "federal identity" concerns. Indeed, contesting New York City's authority to issue birth certificates should have been the first order of business for these transgender activists, especially since the problems stem solely from city policy. The State of New York puts no such burden on its transgender citizens. Transgender folk from anywhere else in the state have no difficulty changing their birth certificate if they've had the operation. It's only the city that puts such blanket restraints on its citizens.

   In conclusion, we might recommend that these noble activists lower their expectations or rethink their strategy. A cohesive policy is sorely needed to address the thousands of New Yorkers who suffer from gender dysphoria, but we doubt the City of New York will ever acquiesce. In the absence of that cooperation, transgender activists have only two options: "stay the course" and redouble their efforts, or go on the offensive by challenging the city's authority. In the face of this bitter defeat, we hope our friends in the trenches choose the latter.

         

                                           

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net