RA-news

---

Newsletter of the Rainbow Alliance at the University of Florida March 2005, Vol. 3, No. 6 Please contribute to the Rainbow Alliance Fund. Our next Rainbow Alliance dinner/meeting will be on Wednesday, March 9, at 6:30 pm at Carabba’s Italian Restaurant on 34th Street just south of Archer Road. The Rainbow Alliance is the staff and faculty organization at the University of Florida concerned with matters related to sexual orientation and gender identity. RA welcomes all members of the University community who share its goals.

---

Contents First Words -- A Question for the Community Features DP Benefits at UF: All Progress is Incremental UF Library Receives $30,000 for LGBT Film Collection Coalition Opposes Same-Sex Marriage in Florida, Seeks State Constitutional Amendment Miami Herald Editorial Address Marriage Issue Bill Introduced by US Reps to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" LOGO Cable Channel Scheduled to Launch in June 2005 Departments Update on RA Projects Contributing to the Rainbow Alliance Fund Resources How To Join Rainbow Alliance Contributors to This Issue of RA-News

---

First Words A Question for the Community While researching for this month's newsletter, I ran across some interesting statistics. In New York, 77% of gay people are in favor of same-sex marriage rights; 58% of Democrats are in favor; 36% of blacks; and 24% of Republicans. That tells you right there what the conservative strategy will be. To the 76% of Republicans that oppose (or are undecided about) marriage rights, I'd like to say think about what you stand for. You want to increase government interference in people's private lives? You want to limit private property rights? Can conservatives admit they were on the wrong side of history in opposing civil rights for African-Americans? Can conservatives see they were on the wrong side of history when they derided and opposed the women's movement? Can they see that they are on the wrong side of history once again when they oppose LGBT rights? To the 64% of blacks that oppose (or are undecided about) marriage rights, I'd like to say, think about your own history. Even when a majority of white Americans opposed civil rights, it was the right thing to do. Remember the pseudo-religious justifications for the subjugation of Africans? Remember the pseudo-scientific justifications for the separation of the races? Every possible form of human reason has been distorted to support racism, don't allow your conservative values to be exploited. To the 42% of Democrats that oppose (or are undecided about) marriage rights, I'd like to ask the same question as the Republicans – think about what you stand for. Of course, you might have religious objections to same-sex marriage, but you have to separate your religious beliefs from your civic responsibility. It's very popular in some circles to believe that our religion should inform all our decisions, and regardless of what you believe about the religion of our Founding Fathers, it is clear that only by limiting the influence of religion were they able to create the system of government we have today. And to 23% of gay people in New York that oppose (or are undecided about) marriage rights, I'd like to say that just because you can get married doesn't mean you have to. Surely, every gay person knows some gay couple that needs these rights and some children of gay parents that need the protections of marriage. When you oppose same-sex marriage, are you really saying that no gay person deserves these rights? Read about the survey: <http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x14941.xml> [top]

Features

DP Benefits at UF: All Progress is Incremental by C. Maxwell With the recent addition of sexual orientation to UF' s nondiscrimination clause and the creation of the director of LGBT affairs position, the next logical step for the University of Florida (UF) is the realization of domestic partner (DP) benefits. Improvements in the LGBT environment at the University are part of an effort to bring UF policies and therefore its profile and competitiveness into line with the top educational institutions in the country. Originally, UF planned to implement DP benefits in February or March 2005. Now however, even with President Machen's strong support of the idea, it seems as though the project's details will not be completed until this summer; subsequently making the benefits available in fall of 2005. Thus, the effort to design, implement and integrate DP benefits at UF moves forward regardless of some setbacks and conflicts. Design, Implementation, and Mechanics The current design of the DP benefit plan calls for hard and soft benefits. The primary hard benefit is, of course, healthcare coverage. Soft benefits include perks such as library, gym and Lake Wauburg access, use of child care facilities and all other benefits associated with having a Gator One card. Dental and vision plans are not part of the DP benefit plan, though they are a part of the State Plan the focus right now is first and foremost health care coverage. Implementation of the plan is slightly more difficult than designing it. Presently, the state medical plan is administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, which continues to be UF's health care insurer. Blue Cross Blue Shield, however, does not recognize domestic partner benefits; consequently UF must find a supplemental carrier. The VP of Finance and Administration as well as a small faculty and staff subcommittee are seeking bids for a carrier to cover the extended risk pool. As of now, there are three bids. Participants in the DP benefit plan do not have to be of the LGBT community. Individuals who are employees of the university, who are in heterosexual relationships, and who are not married will also be able to enroll. In all cases, domestic partnership status will have to be proven. The requirement to demonstrate domestic partnership is a rather standard protocol. The couple will sign an affidavit stating they have been together the required amount of time and will provide certain documents illustrating their togetherness. For example, they may show proof that they jointly own housing, share a checking account, have powers of attorney, are the beneficiaries of each other's life insurance policies, and/or provide other such verification. Once the partnership has been substantiated, then the current UF employee will have the option to remain with the State plan, or enroll with the supplemental carrier. The partner and his/her dependents, however, will have to enroll with the supplemental carrier. Generally, under 1% of the UF faculty and staff are expected to enroll in the DP benefit plan. In 2004, that number was projected to be 59. Information regarding the DP benefit plan will be given at the new faculty and staff orientations and will be available through the current benefits administration department. Conflict and Comparison Given the political environment in Florida, the designation of a director of LGBT affairs at UF has already gained negative attention towards UF and its growing "liberalism" (see LGBT position hurts UF in Fla. House). In addition, after a lengthy period of advances, the LGBT community is facing some setbacks on the national scene and in Florida (see Florida for Marriage). This complicates the implementation of DP benefits and raises potential conflicts with State and Federal regulations. Further complications exist, however, besides negative publicity. For example, it is possible that many people, namely LGBT individuals, who qualify for DP benefits may not take advantage of the plan due to documentation. The documentation required to enroll makes an individual's sexual orientation a permanent part of their record. This means that if an LGBT person is in the closet, they will first have to out themselves before being able to enroll. Furthermore, a record of sexual orientation and partnership could lead to problems with workplace discrimination and could provide evidence to block LGBT individuals from adopting children in Florida. All three of these consequences can have life-changing ramifications resulting from simple enrollment. An additional conflict results from the fact that although many individuals are working to make the DP benefits plan mirror the current State plan, the DP plan will fall slightly short because of the triangle of interaction between the state, the federal government, and the institution. For example, since the federal government does not recognize DP benefits, post-tax dollars have to be used to pay for the plan rather than pre-tax dollars (which are currently used for the State plan). There are efforts to curb this problem by reimbursing the difference in taxes to those that will be enrolled in the DP benefits plan. There are several other dissimilarities between the State plan and proposed DP benefits plan, but the project is still developing and changes are possible. Futures It is clear that the DP benefits plan faces challenges that rise from the interaction between UF, the federal government and the state government and the differences between the two insurance plans. A greater threat may lurk in the future, however, in the movement towards a state constitutional amendment which could prohibit LGBT partnerships. If an amendment were to pass in the state of Florida banning LGBT marriages and/or partnerships, then UF's policy would be in direct conflict with the state. To avoid additional controversy, the focus is on getting DP benefits approved while the legislature is not in session this summer, and then to deal with future policy inconsistencies, if they arise. Regardless of the amount of work, occasional setbacks, ominous future and numerous details, the project is moving forward thanks to the hard work of many courageous individuals. Any step forward is progress and all progress is incremental. . . [top]

UF Library Receives $30,000 for LGBT Film Collection [from Chapter One, Winter 2005, a newsletter of the George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida] Gilbert Vansoi and Darren Roesch, Ph.D., both UF graduates, have established a $30,000 GLBT Film and Resources Endowment at the George A. Smathers Libraries. Gay and lesbian cinema as a discrete genre dates from the early 1970s, emerging in response to societal changes and a general loosening of censorship. But it has a long pre-history dating back to the silent film era involving gay directors, screenwriters, and actors. Gender issues are generally taught in the Women's Studies program at the University of Florida. There is a growing demand from faculty for gay and lesbian films, but this demand has been hard to meet during the past several lean budget years. This endowment will allow the purchase of many of the feature films and documentaries listed in the 1996 documentary film, The Celluloid Closet. Vansoi said, "Without the invaluable support of Sandy Melching of UF's George A. Smathers Libraries and Cody Helmer of the UF Foundation, this project would probably have never seen the light of day. As University of Florida graduates, Darren and I are forever grateful for UF's commitment to diversity and look forward to a continued association with the university and particularly with the George A. Smathers Libraries." [top]

Coalition Opposes Same-Sex Marriage in Florida, Seeks State Constitutional Amendment The move to amend the Florida Constitution and prohibit same-sex unions is underway. The effort is being carried forward by a loose coalition of groups operating under the legal umbrella "Florida Coalition for Marriage" (Web site: www.Florida4Marriage.org). The goal of the organization is to put the amendment on the November 2006 ballot through a petition drive. The coalition must collect 611,000 signatures before February 2005 to achieve their goal. A number of groups and individuals have announced support for the petition, including the Florida Baptist Convention, the Florida Catholic Conference, Florida Family Action (a state affiliate of the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based Focus on the Family), the Christian Coalition of Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, and US Representative (Tampa) Jim Davis. Governor Jeb Bush has stated that he sees no need for an amendment at this time. Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Florida by a state law. President George Bush is on record as supporting domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, while at the same time openly supporting a federal amendment limiting marriage sexual couples. Opposition groups, including Equality Florida, have discussed starting an initiative for the ballot that would expressly allow domestic partnerships or civil unions. One barrier to Florida Coalition for Marriage's goal is review by the state Supreme Court. If the necessary number of signatures is acquired, the proposed amendment must go before the state Supreme Court to determine if the measure is constitutional. Darryl Paulson, professor of government at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg, stated that the amendment might be rejected if the Florida Supreme Court finds that it violates the Florida constitution's right to privacy. This is an explicit protection of the Florida Constitution as opposed to the U.S. Constitution, from which the U.S. Supreme Court has inferred a right to privacy. Several same-sex Florida couples married in other states or countries have filed lawsuits challenging the state and federal marriage laws. Earlier this year, three of the lawsuits were withdrawn because of what was viewed as an unfavorable environment in the U.S. Supreme Court. In one case, the refusal of the Supreme Court to review Florida's adoption ban was cited. [top]

Miami Herald Editorial Address Marriage Issue The Miami Herald printed an editorial on March 6, 2005 opposing the prohibition of same-sex unions. It is quoted in full: Views of gay marriage offensive The letter supporting a Florida constitutional amendment to ban the freedom for gays to marry was one troubling remark after another that fly in the face of reality. I'll tackle just a few of several statements: -- Gay marriage is being pushed by ''a small cadre of people on the fringes of society'': While most Americans are opposed to gay marriage, polls show that a solid majority favor some legal recognition of gay couples, either domestic-partner benefits or marriage. This is a trend around the world. In the United States, most young people favor the rights of gay people to marry, and even President Bush supports domestic-partner benefits for gay couples. -- Banning gays from marrying ''ensures society's stability'' and is part of ''mankind's collective and age-old wisdom as well as biology'': Such hysterical arguments were made against interracial marriage, too -- that it's against God's will, is unnatural and that the children would suffer. These ''reasons'' are all largely discredited. -- ''Opening the concept of marriage to any interpretation will lead to a slippery slope for any type of relationship to emerge as the new norm'': This is the most offensive argument of all. It says that if a loving gay couple can marry, we will have to allow some farmer somewhere to marry his pig. There are only two sexes, male and female. There are also only two sexual orientations -- heterosexual and homosexual, and there is more proof that something genetic helps determine why we are one way or the other. Anything else, such as sex with animals, is not based in sexual orientation. There is no slippery slope. Marriage is a blessing for most of those who successfully enter into it. The freedom to marry, and the rights and responsibilities that go along with marriage, cannot be denied to gay people without violating the principle of equal protection under the law. All people should be treated equally. Marriage should be broadly supported, not rationed. This is the legacy that we should leave for future generations. LUIS GONZALEZ, Miami [Editor's note: We applaud the Miami Herald for printing this editorial, nonetheless, it misses a central point of the marriage debate. Marriage is a civil contract between two individuals. Legally, that is all that it is. No matter how much two people love each other, no matter what they hold in common or whether they have children together... You can have marriage ceremony at the holiest, most conservative institution you can find... you can spend thousands on the ceremony... Until you file a properly completed marriage license, you are not married. There are limits on who these individuals can be. With some exceptions, the individuals must be eighteen years of age. The closest blood relation a person may marry in Florida is a first cousin. It is not permitted to marry a person of the same sex. LGBT people are seeking the right to marry not for largely sentimental reasons, but for the same emotional and practical reasons that any couple chooses to marry. No one is seeking to change the marriage contract in any way whatsoever. LGBT people are not seeking multi-partner marriages as some heterosexuals have sought for many years – without success. And no one will ever be able to marry an "animal" because an animal cannot enter into a contract. Love is a nice argument for same-sex marriage, but at the core of the argument is an issue of civil rights, and — make no mistake — it is civil rights that are under attack under the current wave of conservatism.] [top]

Bill Introduced by US Reps to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1059) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), and lift the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual troops, and allow them to serve openly in the military. The United States remains one of the last NATO countries to support such bans. The MREA was introduced by Democratic representative Marty Meehan of Massachusetts along with more than 40 congressional cosponsors from both parties. Rep. Meehan gave the following speech on the floor of the House on March 3: "Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, bipartisan legislation to repeal the military's senseless Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. "With our troops spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military is having serious problems meeting personnel requirements. The Army missed its February recruiting goals by 27 percent. Yet under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we are discharging thousands of experienced, dedicated service members simply because of their sexual orientation. "Hundreds of people let go under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy have skills that are critical to the war on terror, including translators and linguists. These soldiers have the courage to fight and the skills our military needs. There is no reason we should not allow them to serve their country. It is time for Congress to put national security interests first. It is time to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy so we can keep the United States military the strongest in the world." The Government Accountability Office, a non-partisan arm of Congress, recently published "Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated" (Report GAO-05-299, February 2005). The report amounted to 10-year review of the DADT policy passed in 1994 under the Clinton administration. According to the report, in that time period, 2.37 million service personnel have been separated from the armed forces for various reasons; of this number, 9,500 were separated under the DADT policy (0.4 percent of all separations). In the post-9/11 environment, questions have been raised about the cost of the DADT policy and the loss of service personnel in critical security functions or with important foreign language skills, for example, in Arabic, Farsi, or Korean. Separations steadily increased in the years following 1994 up to 2001. In years thereafter, separations declined precipitously. The title of the GAO report states that the costs associated with the policy cannot be estimated. The report further explains that the armed forces do not record costs in such a way that the specific impact of the separations can be calculated. Nevertheless, when recruitment and training costs are estimated to replace separated service personnel, the total is near $200 million. Important costs which are not included are the costs of administering the policy, investigations, out-processing of service personnel, counseling (required for service personnel separated under the DADT policy), or court costs. Separations can be caused one of three situations: 1) the service member marries or attempts to marry another person of the same biological sex, 2) the service member engages in or solicits homosexual acts, or 3) the service member states that he or she is homosexual or words to that effect. The GAO report indicates that 83% of separations were in the last category. The GAO report is available on the Internet at: <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf> [top]

LOGO Cable Channel Scheduled to Launch in June 2005 In June of 2005, a new channel targeted at LGBT viewers will begin broadcasting. Launch of the new network was originally scheduled for February 2005, but was delayed by program production. According to the LOGO president Brian Graden, the delay will ensure that LOGO can air 24 hours a day from its first day. LOGO joins two other LGBT networks: Here! TV and Q television. Here! TV was established in 2002 with limited programming but has evolved into a 24/7 service. It is available in several major metropolitan markets and nationally via satellite service. Q Television was launched in September 2004 and is available through RCN Cable Networks in the Northeast and through satellite services. By contrast, LOGO plans to offer its service as a basic cable channel. Viacom has lined up powerful sponsors like Subaru, Orbitz, and Paramount, and will cross-promote on its many other cable properties. So, even though it is coming in later than Here! TV and Q Television, it should establish an audience quickly. LOGO has acquired an extensive library of gay-themed material and is developing a wide variety of original programming, including documentaries and reality television shows. Some of the titles which LOGO will feature are: In the Name of Allah, a documentary that explores what it's like to be Muslim and gay; My Fabulous Gay Wedding, in which lesbian and gay couples work with a wedding planner to create the wedding of their dreams; Cruise, just what is sounds like from the producers of The Real World; and Noah's Arc, a comedy/drama which concerns the love lives of four black gay male friends living in Los Angeles's West Hollywood. LOGO will also program material such as the movie Philadelphia and the documentary Ruthie and Connie. Learn more at these Web sites: LOGO: <http://www.logoonline.com/> Here! TV: <http://www.heretv.com/> Q Television: <http://www.qtelevision.com/> [top]

Departments

March 2005 Update on Rainbow Alliance Plans If you haven't had a chance to attend a dinner, it might be difficult to keep up with the progress of RA projects. We'll try to keep you current with a monthly update. 1) Rainbow Alliance Fund at the University of Florida Foundation The Fund (established March 2003) is the only one of its kind at the UF Foundation specifically dedicated to the support of the LGBT community at UF. The Fund needs continuing support if we are to realize our goals. As always, details about contributing to the Rainbow Alliance Fund can be found at the end of the newsletter. Details about payroll deduction will be e-mailed to RA members soon. Contributions to this Fund are fully tax-deductible. 2) Alumni We're in the process of forming an alumni steering committee. Also, our first alumni event is scehduled for Homecoming 2005... Details to come! 3) Of course, we'll continue our monthly dinners. We hope to see you there! 4) We're working on outreach to LGBT faculty and staff at other universities and junior colleges in Florida. If you have any contacts who would like to be on the Rainbow Alliance mailing list, please send them to cmb@ifas.ufl.edu. We're very interested in what is going on on other campuses. Maybe we can support and help each other. [top]