I promised myself that I would not be blogging politically for the foreseeable future b/c my frustration with the state of LGBT advocacy in Western Pennsylvania is just off the scale.  I have little objectivity b/c it is my actual life and livelihood and living conditions that have been cast aside in favor of bigger and better, suburban fried fish to fry.  And, yes, I resent that.  Quite a bit. 

Here's a good example of why I now think that HB 1400 is probably a waste of your time.

My employer began offering AFLAC last year.  My company offers domestic partner benefits across the board, from medical to family leave.  So I asked the AFLAC rep about a family policy for unmarried, domestic partners as our agency has many such families, both gay and straight.  She first said yes, then later told me that Pennsylvania insurance regulations prohibited AFLAC from offering me the same policy as a married couple.  Instead, I could purchase two individual policies at a higher combined price.  I declined.   I had no reason to disbelieve her.

Fast forward many months and we are meeting with local financial advisor, Deborah Hughes.  She hooks us up with some insurance brokerish dude who can get us a similar policy.  I ask him about the insurance regulations.  He looks into it.  He won't give me a straight answer because he's trying to sell me a different policy that he claims is better.  At this point, my curiosity about the so-called regulations is much stronger than my interest in the policy so I decline.

I contact State Representative's Dan Frankel (former insurance guy himself) and Chelsa Wagner (my rep).  Their staff do some digging and discover that PA regulations do not prohibit AFLAC or any insurance company from offering coverage to unmarried couples. Nor, however, do the regulations require them to do so.  So the decision is up to the company.

I passed the information along to my employer and ask them to investigate.  We'll see where that leads.  I also emailed AFLAC and received no response thus far.

Then I start to think.  Does non-discrimination in the workplace promised by HB 1400 mean that employers have to offer access to the same benefits at the same price?  Would it force employers who want to offer AFLAC to make the coverage universal regardless of family type? 

I asked.  I emailed Frankel's staff.  I was given this information:

HB 1400 would simply require that employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identification. Therefore, if one employee is offered benefits, the company cannot refuse to offer benefits to an individual based on his/her sexual orientation or gender identification.

And advised to contact the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission for more information as the Human Relations Act is what will be amended by HB 1400.  So I dutifully looked up their website which I must say is very under-impressive and kitschy.  I finally figured out who I could call.  The woman who answered the phone kept asking me if I wanted to file a complaint.  I explained that I wanted to get some clarification on the impact of HB 1400 in my workplace.  She transferred me.  Then I was told that they can't answer my question until the bill passes and some sort of period passes.  Then I was told I should consult a lawyer.

Huh?  I should consult a lawyer to get information on AFLAC?  The attorney fees would mitigate any financial benefit to purchasing the policy.

So I've consulted with a HR department, an AFLAC sales rep, a financial advisor from Edward Jones, a rogue insurance broker type guy, two State Senators, the PA Insurance Commission, AFLAC HQ, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  To what end?  No answer. 

So why bother?  If it takes this much energy to get exactly nowhere on such a small matter related to employment, should I have confidence that any of these people will really be in my corner if I experience more significant discrimination (again, not sure if the AFLAC thing is discrimination)?  I've been discriminated against in the workplace because of my sexual orientation (and my gender).  It is an ugly, diminishing experience and I was grateful I did not need to go to an external source for redress (my employer was in the City limits).

Now, I'm doubly grateful.  My lord.  Such energy for such a simple question. 

I'm beginning to suspect that our allies in politics are quite happy to get the glory of setting up these legislative victories, but not concerning themselves with implementation.  Such is the case with the Pittsburgh Domestic Registry.  We've learned that despite landmark legislation extending workplace protections to homosexuals and the extension of domestic partner benefits to City employees, only five same sex couples (and 65 common law married couples) have applied.  Five.  That seems really low given that we are one of those five couples.  So how groundbreaking was the whole effort in the 1990's if so few people choose to access that particular benefit?  (The City offers AFLAC, too, but let's not go there.)

According to the US Census, more than 60% of the City's African-American residents are not married.  Nearly 58% of African-American families headed by an unmarried female were below the poverty level in 2000.  That's a lot of folks who wouldn't qualify for AFLAC if their lover, boyfriend, fiancee, whatever doesn't put a ring on their finger.  Add in the fact that lower income families are more likely to have marginal or poor credit and unable to meet the requirements for the Domestic Registry, at least at first blush ... and you have a problem that is going to hurt a lot more than poor queer people.

Who is looking out for these folks?  I emailed Doug Shields, Tonya Payne and Bruce Kraus about this situation.  Shields emailed me back, but I don't think he understood my point -- that could be on me.  I called Kraus' office.  Staff was nice, but had no answers.  Bruce hasn't called me in the six weeks since then.  Tonya Payne's office just blew me off.

So, I guess one noisy lesbian doesn't make much of an impact.  Who will?  Who is looking out for folks impacted by these City matters?  The gay advocates have turned their attention elsewhere. Do local poverty advocates care?  That's one group I haven't networked with on this.  The State can't even resolve the AFLAC issue.

Everyone is so concerned about electing The Incarnation on the national level that they've forgotten that politics is local.  I guess.  Maybe? 

No wonder Bill Peduto is getting in touch with his inner Al Gore.  HB 1400 is just going to provide a new level of distraction away from all the current promises and policies and programs that aren't working.  Why bother? 

Final nail in the coffin.  For this round. Courtesy of Equality Advocates:

Amen. 

Now if someone would turn their attention to the City of Pittsburgh's yet-to-be-appointed LGBT Advisory Board and the yet-to-be-named LGBT Mayoral Liaison, a few more loose ends would be wrapped up before bounding onto the newest and coolest LGBT advocacy flavor of the month issue. 

Or we can just wait to see in what new direction we are led, write our email messages and get on with not paying attention.

Color me not surprised by this little pronouncement from Mr. Theocracy.

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Some of those hands, Senator Obama, happen to be doing a damn fine job without being faith based.  How about funding us?

Faith based institutions do not serve the entire public.  They serve their faith based constituencies.  Some folks play by the rules and don't play the conversion card.  Too many don't and we cannot afford -- we cannot PREVENT -- them from inflicting their agenda on the vulnerable people they are entrusted to serve. 

What's worse is that faith based entities are going to suck up resources previously allocated to secular organizations -- organizations already doing good work and perhaps heavily affiliated with unpopular and underserved communities.  Like ours.

This is pandering, pure and simple.  It is the #1 reason I am opposed to electing Barack Obama, but I have no choice do I?  And he seems to know it.  Damn.

As reported by the PG web-edition, City Council gave a thumbs up on the first vote for the domestic partner registry.  The lone naysayer was the Reverend Ricky Burgess.  Final vote will be next week.  No word on how the Mayor feels about all this registry stuff, but it appears veto proof at this stage of the game.

Sigh.  I am only speculating here, but my guess is that Reverend Burgess is sticking with the right wing rhetoric that even second class relationship civil rights are too much for Pittsburgh's homosexuals.  This new system is just a scooch along the path toward anything resembling civil unions in Pennsylvania.  Barely a scooch.  Way more important to this lesbian is the probability that this registry will help our family keep our domestic partner benefits if Ledcat's job is merged into the County.  Which is unlikely given her job, but it is good to be prepared.  Like Boy Scouts.  Only with labia.

I emailed Councilmen Shields and Kraus (no "e") asking for their thoughts on how the registry requirements might impact low income families, suggesting that the City compile a guide on how to meet the registry requirements.  The most vulnerable families are those least likely to afford things like attorney fees for wills and those most likely to have financial and credit blemishes impacting their economic stability.  Thus, they are most in need of the registry benefits (if any are available to them). 

And, to be honest, some of the requirements are a bit arduous.  I went through the process of adding my name to the household utility bills and it was a pain.  Lots of red tape and questions and three way phone calls.  It would be great if the City could put together a simple how to list to make things easier.  I would hate to see this great new resource benefit only those of us who have the luxury of joint credit cards and power of attorney documents.  That would be a great shame. 

You know ... that would be a great project for the Mayor's new LGBT Advisory Board with input from his LGBT Liaison.  Oh, except for the little detail that he hasn't appointed any of those people.  Darn. 

I have been informed that individuals invited to the LGBT luncheon with Luke Ravenstahl are not being required to make a campaign contribution.  They are invited to do so, as their discretion.

I don't know all the ins and outs of these sort of invitations, so I'm going to take this information at its word.  What I must do is also assume that my original source acted in good faith and perceived the invitation language in a different way.  That's for them to sort out.

I stand by the rest of my post.  LGBT leaders attending a campaign fundraiser for Luke Ravenstahl strains creduality in light of his failure to move one single inch closer to gay-friendly positions during his tenure as Mayor. It just gives him further ammunition to say that he has broad based LGBT support. 

Attending a meeting with the Mayor in his capacity as an elected official is a different animal, particularly when you hold him accountable for his promises.  Where is the gay liaison?  Where is the gay advisory committe?  Where does he stand on gay civil protections and domestic partnership benefits under a City-County merger? 

The private campaign meetings (apparently, 4 not the 2 I reported earlier) are not generating results for our community.  Does it make sense to make financial contributions or lend your name to a campaign under these circumstances?  Is is the responsible thing to do when you represent our community?  I say the responsible thing to do is to ask the Mayor to take one step forward and take action before you support him. 

That's my opinion.  Yes, I am stirring up the pot.  I do it all the time.  But you -- you the supporter of Luke, you the letter writer from Braddock, you the person who took on a leadership role in the GLCC or the PrideFest committee -- you put the pot on the stove.  I am following a long tradition of pot stirring -- stirring that took groups of Pittsburghers to DC marches, stirring that got PrideFest up and running and then up and running again, stirring that codified civil protections in City law, stirring that grew a phone line into a community center, stirring that brought thousands of gay people out of the closet. 

I just use a computer instead of wooden spoon.  I'm not out to attack anyone personally and just this morning took down an anonymous comment that slandered someone in our community.  This isn't about attacking anyone.  It is about a dialogue.  Sure, I get the ball rolling with my thoughts and opinions. But blogging is a wonderful resource and it would be great to see more folks in the LGBT community doing it. 

Have a great weekend!

As we discussed earlier in the week, plans are underway for LGBT "supporters of Luke" to get together with him over lunch to discuss LGBT issues.  A few key LGBT designated leaders have been invited.  This was confirmed by local LGBT business owner and chair of the Delta Foundation, Gary Van Horn, in the comments section of our blog. 

Also confirmed in the comments: this is a private event and not open to the media. 

What I've recently discovered is that those attending the private lunch to discuss LGBT issues are allegedly being required to make a campaign contribution to the Luke Ravenstahl war chest.

Wow.  I'm sure this goes on all the time.  Money buys you access.  Is it a sign of the times that gay money is worth courting?  Should we care about a secret meeting?

Well, yes.  And here is why.  This will be the second private opportunity for dialogue on LGBT issues between the Mayor and actual LGBT people.  The first was held on election eve after he infamously announced live on WQED that he was opposed to civil unions.  That meeting, too, was top secret and did not result in the Mayor reversing his public stance on civil unions. 

Publicly, the Mayor has had contact with the LGBT community.  He's just adroitly sidestepped any type of public contact that involves dialogue.  This includes the "Big Gay Chat" sponsored by the Allegheny County Democratic Committee last spring.  Luke sent a surrogate. 

Luke himself did attend PrideFest.  With a police escort.  He attended OUTrageous Bingo.  He spent some time in a gay bar.  None of these contacts allowed for any real dialogue between Luke and our community.  He came, but he didn't listen.  He didn't even know we had anything to say.  Or maybe he just didn't care.

The community is not well-served by secret meetings and backroom negotiations.  We deserve a Mayor that is willing to talk publicly about our issues and engage a cross section of the community, not just one particular interest.  We deserve a Mayor who doesn't trade access for campaign contributions (allegedly).

If that is the price of admission to this luncheon, let us hope that those who represent us on boards and committees and commissions will think twice before attending.  Have any of the previous private meetings and soirees moved Luke a single inch further along the line of gay tolerance?  There is no evidence of that.  No change on civil unions.  No support for HB 1400.  No promise to protect the civil liberties and domestic partner benefits in a City-County merger.  No nothing. 

The private meetings aren't working.  At least, they aren't working for our community.  They might be working for the campaign.  We don't know because even the gay media is excluded (believe me, I've tried).

Make no mistake, gentle readers, we are WAY past the point at which attending PrideFest is newsworthy.  There's no extra credit points for taking that risk.  The Mayor's people should be aggressively courting connections with the LGBT community.  What happened to plans for a LGBT liaison in the Mayor's office?  Or the LGBT advisory committee? 

So, the meeting.  Gary thinks it is a worthwhile investment of his time and he's entitled to that opinion. He's also entitled to organize events to support candidates in whom he believes.  However, I think that continuing to contribute our hard-earned monies to a candidate that hasn't done a single thing for our community is going to get us nowhere.  We cannot allow Luke Ravenstahl to continue making promises to us -- liaisons and committees, etc -- with no consequences for his failure to act. 

So, why not email your local LGBT leaders and ask if they plan to attend the Mayor's event and, if so, whether they are financially supporting his campaign?  It would be interesting to identify LGBT leaders that publicly support a candidate opposed to civil unions.  After all, we can get the campaign contribution information after the fact if the City Paper keeps up the database.  It would just be nice to know in advance where people stand. 

LGBT supporters of Luke, comment away ...

What's more important for local social justice - the stability of the Thomas Merton Center or the culpability of a dead police dog?  I'd like to ask Carole Weidmann that question.  Carole's pants were ripped during an anti-war protest a few years ago and the culprit may have been Ulf, the dog who was shot and killed by Justin Jackson a few weeks ago. Mr. Jackson was subsequently killed by return fire.  (Ripped pants do not equal dead teenager.)

Carole is oft brought up as an example of the horrors of police brutality in Pittsburgh.  Carole is also a board member of the Thomas Merton Center, Pittsburgh's most significant anti-war organization.  The Merton Center seems to be in terrible straights -- almost all of the professional staff have resigned.  One sent an email (I have a copy if you want it) citing board issues as a reason for his resignation.  The organization is struggling financially.

Who is going to protect the rights of other Justin Jacksons if TMC isn't back on solid ground?  As a member, I'd personally prefer Carole put her time and energy (and her legion of fans) to use on that issue. 

It is sad to read a City Paper story about a CMU student who claims to have stared down Ulf and avoid being "mauled" as he put it.  That's just silly, condescending talk.  David Struthers believes his elite status saved the day when he was confronted with a big bad police dog anxious to get 'em.  I noted with some interest that the City Paper did not include any perspective from reputable dog trainers.  I have consulted a few and their interpretation of the YouTube video footage is very different than Mr. Struthers. 

Further, there's the never-ceasing coverage of police dogs gone wild with little if any acknowledgment of situations where police dogs saved lives or prevented violent endings.  No information on the difference between a dog grabbing a suspect and a dog biting a suspect.  Anyone with large dogs can tell the difference.  A dog can be trained to subdue.  They do it every day and no one ends up dead.  It doesn't take Swami Struthers to prevent a catastrophe. 

I love the man called Potter and his crew.  They do good reporting.  But this story mimics the one-dimensional approach to the death of Justin Jackson we saw when the story broke.  And it continues to really piss me off to see all of this man v dog coverage.   And I would be disingenuous if I didn't write this post out of deference to their feelings.  I almost didn't.  But they have much thicker skins than certain people who write 80 paragraphs responses to my criticism.  So on we go ...

If David Struthers is so concerned about the other Justin Jackson's of the world, maybe he should call up Carole, roll up his sleeves and do something to build up the TMC. 

Instead we get this ...

Still, Struthers believes, there was one overwhelming factor that helped his police-dog encounter toward its peaceful end. "I had a confidence, when I was sitting there, with the dog coming toward me, [police] weren't just going to let the dog maul me," he concludes. "First, because there were a lot of people there. But, really, if you release dogs on people attending elite universities there's going to be a lot of people upset at that," and very publicly. "I can't imagine [Jackson] thinking that a lot of people are going to care if he gets mauled, in the world at large. It changes how you are going to react in that situation. What happened to this guy was par for the course in many Pittsburgh neighborhoods, and that's the real story, as far as I'm concerned."

Par for the course?  Ahem.  This man puts monies (and his talent) in the coffers of a University that builds robots for war.  A war in which Justin Jackson is much more likely to be used as cannon fodder than CMU "elite" students.  So spare us the moral high ground, David.  You have no clue what Justin was thinking when he pulled that trigger and it is insulting to imply otherwise.  More importantly, why don't you speak out about what you are doing to make a difference? 

To summarize.  Stop the man v dog media coverage.  Give the public a well-rounded perspective on police dogs  -- find out how many suspects have been apprehended without violence with the assistance of a police dog --- now that would be a story.  Consult dog behavioral experts instead of college students for analysis.  Figure out what the hell is going on with the Thomas Merton Center -- they don't even list their board members on the website.

Simply put, we cannot support this merger until we have two guarantees.

First, we must have the County pass legislation ensuring our civil rights are preserved.  Right now, those of us who live or work in the City are assured protections based on our sexual orientation and gender identity.  At the Big Gay Chat last spring, sponsored by the ACDC, County Council President Rich Fitzgerald admitted that passing this type of legislation would be an uphill battle. 

Second, we must insist that the County provide domestic partnership benefits for all employees.  Onorato hides behind claims that it is a budget issue.  That's ridiculous.  If all the gay and unmarried heterosexual employees quit tomorrow and they were replaced by happily married heterosexuals, the budget would somehow accommodate their families.  WHY IS MY FAMILY DIFFERENT?  I can say this based on the fact that Ledcat works for the City so this will directly impact moi!

So, here's where our champions suit up and make sure that Pittsburgh's gay residents are not kicked to the curb.  I understand that Luke is having a big gay luncheon at Images in the next few weeks. I'm hopeful Gary and company educate him about the importance of these two issues.  It is important that we use whatever access we have to make sure Luke is aware of how this very significant legislation will impact us.

How come I never get invited to important gay luncheons?  I eat lunch.  I know my silverware. 

Let's not forget Dan.  Or our County Council reps.  Oh, in my case, that's NOT Brenda Frazier so I'm basically screwed (thanks, HosPAC for quashing homo allies, by the way).  We'll need that $0.15 discount on those drinks to drown our sorrows when we can't take the damn bus out of the County to find housing or jobs.  Awesome.

Deep breath.

Anyway, we need to be sure that our County Council and Chief Executive understand that we are law-abiding, tax-paying, bus-riding, drink-buying residents of this County and we deserve equal rights. 

So, our champions have their work cut out for them.  Bill and Doug, Patrick and Bruce.  Rich.  Brenda.  Gary and Steel City need to work with Luke to make sure he understands these issues.  Someone needs to do something with Dan.  Maybe explain budgets. 

Champions?

Pennsylvania's most colorful Senator -- and he would stand out brightly even in the gayest of gay communities -- Vince Fumo is proposing to amend the, well, amendment legislation to outlaw divorce with a few exceptions.

Mr. Fumo, who leaves the Senate on Nov. 30, said the stated goal of Senate Bill 1250 is to "protect the sanctity of the marital institution" by defining a legal marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The next logical step, according to Mr. Fumo, is to also outlaw divorces

You know, there just isn't much I can add to that. 

Except this ... if Vince Fumo will go to such lengths, can't you make a phone call? 

We have to start calling our House members soon. 

The legislation passed in the Appropriations Committee 18 - 8.  Four Democrats voted yes.  Two Republicans voted no.  So now the legislation moves toward a vote by the full Senate. 

Yes, that means more telephone calls. 

The "yes" votes (pro-Amendment) in SW PA are:

John Pippy (R)

Barry Stout (D)  - Yikes!

Mary Jo White (R)

Regola (R)

The "no" votes (anti-Amendment) is SW PA are:

Gerald Lavelle (D)

Sean Logan (D)

So here is what you need to do.  If you live in Lavelle (most of Beaver County) or Logan (Monroeville and some of the Mon Valley) country, please call them to say thanks and ask them to continue to oppose the legislation. 

The big thing for me is Barry Stout -- a Democrat -- voting in favor of legislation that would constrict the civil rights of my community.  Your job is to think of at least one person you know that lives in his district and pick up the phone to call THAT PERSON to make a call to Senator Stout telling them they do not appreciate his vote on this issue and that not everyone in Washington, Greene or Beaver counties are bigots. 

Does your sister live in Mon City?  Is your cousin from West Finley Township?  I know there are gay people in Waynesburg.  This is the time.  Call 'em up.  Ask them who is taking care of their health care, their jobs and their taxes while Senator Stout protects them from gay marriage? 

Stout's telephone numbers:  (724) 225-5400    and   (717) 787-1463

And kudos to reader ctb for calling out John Pippy on the issue.  Is it deplorable that his staff would treat you with such disrespect just because your opinions differs from him.  He still works for you (and by default, so do they).  Good for you for not backing down.  Sending the letters is perfect.  You deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy when you call someone elected to represent you.  Good for you.

So get on the phone.  Here's a handy map for Senate contact information.  Lots and lots of gay people come rolling into town from these areas.  Hey, isn't Patrick Arena from Little Washington?  Someone call him.  Get some names from him.   Isn't Eda Bagel from Little Washington? 

I know some women from Beaver County read this blog.  We need your help!