Tonight, our Maryland affiliate is co-sponsoring the premiere of a new documentary, “Maryland Voices of Equality.” The film, which is directed by noted filmmaker and African American lesbian activist Kalima Young, highlights the work of Maryland Black Family Alliance (MBFA), which is an alliance of straight African American leaders who are working to educate the black community about the importance of fairness, justice, and equality for lesbian and gay families.

If you happen to live in Maryland and would like to attend tonight’s screening at Coppin State University at 7, you can rsvp here. If you can’t make the premiere, you can watch the documentary on YouTube.

MBFA is doing some pretty amazing stuff. We need a Black Family Alliance in every state.

To learn more, visit Get Busy Get Equal

We have learned that the Department of Justice will not be seeking an appeal in transgender veteran Diane Schroer’s victory against the Library of Congress. This is, of course, great news. It means that our case against the Library of Congress is final and that the groundbreaking federal court decision ruling that transgender people are protected by Title VII will stand. It shows that the Obama administration had decided to put some muscle behind its promises to help end discrimination against transgender peoples. And it means that Diane won’t have to wait through a lengthy appeal process before getting the $491,190 that is due her from the government for the discrimination she faced by the Library of Congress.

For those who haven’t been following Diane’s case, it’s a perfect example of incredible harm caused by discrimination. After a distinguished 25-year career as an Army Special Forces Officer, Diane retired from the military and applied for a job as a senior terrorism research analyst. As someone who had been hand picked to lead a classified national security operation and had even briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, Diane was especially well qualified for the job. The Library of Congress agreed and offered her the job. Before starting work, Diane asked her future boss out to lunch to explain that she was about to begin transitioning from male to female and would like to start work as a woman. The next day, Diane received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her she wasn’t a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.

The ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Library of Congress charging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After a trial last September, a federal court agreed, issuing a groundbreaking ruling that discriminating against someone who transitions from living as one gender to another is discrimination under federal law. In reaching this decision, the court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.

Later the court ruled that Diane is entitled to the maximum damages of $491,190 for back pay, other financial losses and emotional pain and suffering after finding the Library illegally discriminated against Schroer because of her sex. The decision outlining why Diane is entitled to the maximum compensation, the court quotes an affidavit from Schroer:

I am not certain if I can adequately characterize how depressing, demoralizing and temporarily debilitating it is to lose hope. Especially when that hope is founded on something that, in my mind, was completely reasonable, doable, and logical. Doing a meaningful job and putting my qualifications and experience to work, completing my transition and just going on with life — all of these things seemed to me to be reasonable and achievable. When the Library took all that away, my life changed dramatically, because there were no other positive options.

The Department of Justice under the Bush administration vigorously defended the lawsuit, claiming that transgender people are not are not protected by any existing federal laws. Fortunately that era is over and the Obama administration rightly realized that it was time to put an end this litigation. A representative from DOJ has said in the press that its decision not to appeal was based on its assessment of the strength of the factual findings and the legal rulings made in this case, and not whether it would be a good move politically. That is a fine compliment to the ACLU lawyers who litigated the case, especially Sharon McGowan who has championed this case since her first conversation with Diane. But it also shows that the Obama administration really does recognize that discrimination based on gender identity shouldn’t be tolerated.

As far as lawsuits go, this one came out just about as good as we could have hoped. But no amount of money could ever compensate for the harm that is caused by discrimination. And I’m not just talking about the harm to Diane. I’m talking about the harm to all of us. As a man, Diane was considered the best person to help congress help our country fight terrorism. But the qualifications that convinced the Library of Congress to offer Diane the job were tossed aside as soon as it learned she is transgender. Our safety is a pretty hefty price to pay for the government’s discrimination.

Watch a clip about Diane's life and the discrimination she faced at the Library of Congress.

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a classroom discussion on bullying at the University of Puerto Rico High School in San Juan. Our Puerto Rico chapter is working with a number of students at the school who have developed a very effective anti-bullying presentation. I got to see the presentation being given to a 10th grade history class of about 25 students.

The class was mostly in Spanish, so I won’t pretend that I understood everything that was said. But it was clear that the two seniors leading the discussion, Gabriella and Jean Paul, really knew how to engage the students.

They started with a handout asking the students to mark the ideal qualities they were looking for in a boyfriend or girlfriend. The handout included categories such as skin color, hair style, nationality, and “style,” which included rocker, surfer and preppy among others. It also included sexual orientation, listing gay, straight and indifferent – the teacher explained that one, which she compared to being like a plant.

Gabriella and Jean Paul

It’s been a while since I was in a classroom of 10th graders, so I really didn’t know what to expect when the subject of sexual orientation came up. There was no laughter or finger pointing. In fact, it wasn’t a big deal at all, really putting some perspective on all the fuss around rainbows.

Gabriella’s and Jean Paul’s presentation included some powerful examples of the real dangers of bullying. They showed the YouTube video of Florida teen Victoria Lindsay being ambushed and beaten by some of her classmates. They let me talk about 11-year-olds Carl Walker-Hoover from Massachusetts and Jaheem Herrera from Atlanta who took their own lives back in April after facing anti-gay bullying at their schools. The teacher talked about an instance at the school of a student attempting suicide over restroom graffiti.

They summed up the discussion by talking about Law 49, which, if it passes, will require schools in Puerto Rico to be much more vigilant about protecting students from bullying and harassment.

After class Gabriella told me that bullying at the school was worst among the 10th graders. You could tell she was genuinely concerned whether her presentation had made a difference. But it was clear to me that it already had. Kids were clamoring for the anti-bullying bracelets they handed out. The bracelets read, “No seas buey, Alto al bullying,” or “Don’t be a bull, Stop the bullying.” By standing up for something they believed in, she and Jean Paul had gained the respect of the 10th graders and reached the students in a way adults never could.

Arguments just ended in our legal challenge to Prop. 8. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait – in this case sexual orientation – that has no relevance to the group’s ability to participate in or contribute to society.

We filed the challenge with National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Lambda Legal on November 5, after Prop. 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Prop. 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.

A constitutional democracy is built on two basic ideas: The people are in charge, but there are limits on the majority’s power over minorities. The people get to vote on most things, but we don’t put the fundamental rights of a disfavored minority up for a vote. But that’s exactly what happened with the passage of Prop. 8.

This case is not just about marriage or gay people. If a simple majority of the voters can take this core right away from gay people, it can take any right away from any other group as well (Kenneth Starr – who argued for the supporters of Prop 8 – acknowledged this in court today). If Prop. 8 is upheld, then Californians could, for example, vote to take religious freedom away from Muslims, or free speech rights away from women, or the right to vote away from Chinese-Americans. This case is important for every Californian: it’s about whether the limits we’ve set on the power of the majority have meaning.

The California courts have a solemn responsibility to enforce the state constitution to protect the rights of all people, regardless of popular opinion. We hope the court will recognize that it is not just the rights of lesbian and gay people, but the rights of all Californians that it must protect by striking down Proposition 8.

The court is expected to rule within 90 days. Stay tuned for further updates.