Susan's Place Transgender Resources

President Obama's Accomplishments for Transgender Americans
Posted by helenboyd – September 6, 2012

http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2012/09/06/president-obamas-accomplishments-for-transgender-americans/ (http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2012/09/06/president-obamas-accomplishments-for-transgender-americans/)

President Obama's Accomplishments for Transgender Americans is a new document (pdf) that you can download to print or send to your friends & family.

[...]

President Obama has taken unprecedented steps to expand rights, benefits, and resources for transgender people. From jobs and health care to veterans' benefits and safer working, learning and traveling environments, the well-being of transgender Americans has been a priority of this Administration.

---------------

Listing The Reasons Trans People & Allies Should Vote For Obama
By: Autumn Sandeen Friday September 7, 2012 4:00 pm    

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/09/07/listing-the-reasons-trans-people-allies-should-vote-for-obama/ (http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/09/07/listing-the-reasons-trans-people-allies-should-vote-for-obama/)

Helen Boyd — author of My Husband Betty and coordinator for Trans United For Obama — has recently spelled out why trans people should be voting to reelect President Barack Obama in her En|Gender post President Obama's Accomplishments for Transgender Americans

VOTE FOR MR. OBAMA!!!  >:-) >:-)

Accomplishments?

Lipstick on the pig.

collaborated ... to discuss
evaluation ... to better identify abuses ... overseas.
collecting healthcare data ... (to) identify and work to reduce health disparities
worked with educators across the nation to prevent bullying
outreach campaign ... to inform them of their ... rights to report discrimination.

Weasel words.

Failed to pass ENDA.
Failed to repeal DOMA

Enough said.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 10, 2012, 02:15:26 PM
Failed to pass ENDA.
Failed to repeal DOMA

Enough said.

Given that these require an act of congress and cannot be enacted by the president, shouldn't these rightly be considered failures of congress and not of Mr. Obama?

Quote from: Jamie D on September 10, 2012, 02:15:26 PM
Accomplishments?

Lipstick on the pig.

collaborated ... to discuss
evaluation ... to better identify abuses ... overseas.
collecting healthcare data ... (to) identify and work to reduce health disparities
worked with educators across the nation to prevent bullying
outreach campaign ... to inform them of their ... rights to report discrimination.

Weasel words.

Failed to pass ENDA.
Failed to repeal DOMA

Enough said.

I'm kinda doubting civil rights is on Romney's agenda though. I'd vote for Obama if just to avoid 4 years of Romney.

Quote from: agfrommd on September 10, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
Given that these require an act of congress and cannot be enacted by the president, shouldn't these rightly be considered failures of congress and not of Mr. Obama?

Well does he at least openly support those things? Has he said he would sign them if they passed Congress? My understanding was that he didn't. As I understand it, even his "support" of gay marriage is apolitical meaning he had no plans to act on it politically in any way. That's like saying "I support you. I'm not willing to actually stand up for you or use my power as the most powerful person in the world on your behalf, but I support you. In other words, I just support you in rhetoric."

BTW, please don't mistake my honest criticism of Obama as support for Romney. I'm just not that simple to figure out.

Quote from: dalebert on September 10, 2012, 06:57:33 PM
BTW, please don't mistake my honest criticism of Obama as support for Romney. I'm just not that simple to figure out.

Wouldn't assume such. I'm just saying despite any criticism I have for Obama, I feel that he would be my choice given the two (not considering other parties).

I always thought this skit was a great satire on politicians: Whitest Kids U'Know: Clint Webb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ5cGYBV2TQ#)

Sounds like most politicians that is for sure.

Quote from: agfrommd on September 10, 2012, 05:05:31 PM

Given that these require an act of congress and cannot be enacted by the president, shouldn't these rightly be considered failures of congress and not of Mr. Obama?

We must keep in mind, this is all political theater.  When the Democrats had complete control of the Executive Branch, complete control of the agenda in the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, for much of 2009 to 2011, they were unable and unwilling to get legislation out of a House Committee.

And the titular leader of the Party, did not make those issues a priority.

So when they could make advances, they did not.  And when they are blocked, they point fingers.

The authors of the articles, and compilers of the so-called facts, are nothing more than (what use to be called in the old Soviet Union) "useful idiots."

Quote from: Jamie D on September 10, 2012, 07:44:24 PMWhen the Democrats had complete control of the Executive Branch, complete control of the agenda in the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, for much of 2009 to 2011, they were unable and unwilling to get legislation of of a House Committee.

I'm guessing that they had/have a reelection agenda to meet. The have to be careful not to be too "aggressive" (in other words progressive) to the point that would seem questionable or arguable to a majority population or large minority. Now that Obama's administration doesn't have to worry about a reelection, it might mean that some of the more pertaining social/civil rights issues will be tackled. I'm guessing a leader that truly values the people over themselves is a hard to come by commodity.

One has said openly they will NOT support it or let it pass if he has the power to stop it. I don't see how that is better than someone who isn't against our having equal rights as far as civil unions? And when that is passed, most of this nonsense with gender marker changes requiring surgery will disappear as well.

I sure don't see the republican party as a whole doing -anything- to support GLBT rights and many actively work to make our lives as miserable as possible. Maybe someone can post a list of the pro-GLBT rights issues the R party has brought forward and passed? I know I can easily find a long list of things they have done against us.

Quote from: Slightly Interested on September 10, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'm guessing that they had/have a reelection agenda to meet. The have to be careful not to be too "aggressive" (in other words progressive) to the point that would seem questionable or arguable to a majority population or large minority. Now that Obama's administration doesn't have to worry about a reelection, it might mean that some of the more pertaining social/civil rights issues will be tackled. I'm guessing a leader that truly values the people over themselves is a hard to come by commodity.

As I said, political theater and posturing.

And why are their promises any more valid now?

They aren't.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Jamie D i wanted to click the like button on your comments but then i remember there is none hehe :) i agree with everything you have stated

That's better than a "like."  Thank you.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 10, 2012, 09:15:15 PM
As I said, political theater and posturing.

And why are their promises any more valid now?

They aren't.

Well we are 100% sure what Romney (and the R party in general) will do about same sex marriage.

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/same-sex-marriage/ (http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/same-sex-marriage/)

Right here is a great place for any R supporters to post a list of transgender rights the republican party has pushed forward to help our lives.

You mentioned they failed to repeal DOMA. Now who exactly was the person who authored that abusive legislation that would cause someone else even need to repeal it? Bob Barr, who was a republican at the time.  And when this came up for a vote, how many republicans in the house voted against it? The answer is one (the one gay republican in office) and given they controlled the house at that time, it had no chance not to pass. Now this wrong has to be -undone-. In case you didn't catch this, the republicans still proclaim they strongly support DOMA. I don't think this has any chance of being repealed by them.

On ENDA Obama has expressed his full support for both gays and gender ID, Romney has refused to comment this election but the last time he discussed this he said "I would not support [ENDA] at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think the policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level." Bush said if it had passed he would veto it. I have to assume Romney would do the same.

I'm sorry, I just don't share your view that I should support people who don't support my rights (and actively take them away) and that I should vote for them so -maybe- they will start caring about me in the future, when they have showed zero compassion in the past and many times have just plain been abusive.

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on 21 Sep 1996.

It had passed the House on 12 July 1996, on a vote of 342-67.
(224-1 Republican; 118-65 Democrat; 0-1 Independent)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml)

It passed the Senate on 10 Sep 1996, a vote of 85-14.
(53-0 Republican; 32-14 Democrat)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280)

Of those voting in favor of DOMA was Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware.
The Democrats had sufficient strength in the Senate (47 Senators) to have filibustered the bill, had they chosen to.

They chose not to. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party and the Democrat President supported DOMA in overwhelming numbers.

Why didn't the Democrats and Mr. Obama repeal DOMA when they had the power to do so?

Quote from: Jamie D on September 11, 2012, 02:42:03 AM
Why didn't the Democrats and Mr. Obama repeal DOMA when they had the power to do so?

The administration is maintaining that DOMA is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court or enforce it.

Federal courts have agreed, so there is no need to repeal it.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at Jamie d, Sure they haven't accomplished a great deal, but a great many of thier political opponents actively want to roll back what little progress there has been...

I guess I am trying to ask what you want to accomplish by always attacking the democratic record on LGBT issues, as best I can tell it is the only game in town, seems like them throwing us a bone, even if there is no meat on it, is a good thing.

Edit also in 1996, the entire culture was way different that was a very long time ago, maybe the CPUSA would have voted against it. It really the culture in this nation has changed a great deal since then.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 10, 2012, 02:15:26 PM
Accomplishments?

Lipstick on the pig.

collaborated ... to discuss
evaluation ... to better identify abuses ... overseas.
collecting healthcare data ... (to) identify and work to reduce health disparities
worked with educators across the nation to prevent bullying
outreach campaign ... to inform them of their ... rights to report discrimination.

Weasel words.

Failed to pass ENDA.
Failed to repeal DOMA

Enough said.

there you go again

So here goes the accomplishments, as you can sees can hardly bee emulated by any of the previous Re-publican administrations

Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanding federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation or gender identity
Signed the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a comprehensive overhaul of America's health care system that will hold insurance companies accountable, lower health care costs, guarantee greater patient choice, and enhance the quality of care for all Americans; LGBT Americans are disproportionately uninsured, and this law will provide access to affordable coverage and protection from insurance companies that deny coverage for pre-existing conditions
Lifted the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status
Ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to guarantee medical decision making and visitation rights to LGBT couples
Signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
Directed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court and declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional
Expanded the Family Medical Leave Act to ensure that LGBT parents and partners can take leave from work to care for their child, parent, or spouse—a right afforded to any other family
Removed a common barrier to safe housing by adding gender identity and expression in the Fair Housing Act
Led a successful international effort to gain recognition of LGBT organizations at the United Nations
Reversed an inexcusable U.S. position by signing the United Nations Declaration on Gay Rights, which condemns violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity worldwide
Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
Changed State Department policy so that transgender Americans can more easily obtain passports that reflect their true gender and ensure that same-sex married couples can use their legally married name on official State Department documents
Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the federal government
Endorsed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees
Formed the Interagency Council on Bullying Prevention and convened the first White House Conference on Bullying Prevention and launched Stopbullying.gov, a website with resources designed to assist bullied youth and their advocates—including specific information regarding LGBT bullying
Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept LGBT relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way and urging transgender Americans to identify their true gender
Hired and appointed a record number of qualified LGBT Americans, including several transgender appointees— the first president ever to do so
Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Billie Jean King and the late Harvey Milk
Department of Health and Human Services announces an award to Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE) to establish the nation's first LGBT seniors resource center
Sent an administration official to the Senate to testify in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the first time any official of any administration has done so
Hosted the first LGBT Pride Month Celebration in White House history, and after eight years of silence under the Bush administration, resumed the tradition of issuing Presidential Pride proclamations
Department of Health and Human Services awards largest grant ever to an LGBT organization, the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center—funds go toward combating discrimination against LGBT youth in the foster care system
President Obama, Vice President Biden, DNC, and White House staffs record "It Gets Better" videos
Department of Labor clarified definition of "son and daughter" under the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure that same-sex parents can receive parental rights to family leave regardless of legal or biological relationship
President Obama's FY 2012 Budget increases funding for LGBT community priorities including anti-bullying and safe schools, suicide prevention, and HIV/AIDS education, prevention, and access to medication

Quote from: Jamie D on September 11, 2012, 02:42:03 AM
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on 21 Sep 1996.

It had passed the House on 12 July 1996, on a vote of 342-67.
(224-1 Republican; 118-65 Democrat; 0-1 Independent)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml)

It passed the Senate on 10 Sep 1996, a vote of 85-14.
(53-0 Republican; 32-14 Democrat)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280)

Of those voting in favor of DOMA was Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware.
The Democrats had sufficient strength in the Senate (47 Senators) to have filibustered the bill, had they chosen to.

They chose not to. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party and the Democrat President supported DOMA in overwhelming numbers.

Why didn't the Democrats and Mr. Obama repeal DOMA when they had the power to do so?

Thanks for making my point, 1 republican voted against it, the sole gay republican in office. In the house ~25% of the dems voted against it and ~30% in the senate. And that was almost 15 years ago. You also left out this was drafted and brought to the table by a republican.

Today most of those dems now say that was a mistake and wouldn't vote for it. The republicans would vote 100% to keep this if it came up for a vote tomorrow. The whole party totally supports DOMA, so... it's in our best interest to support our persecutors? Oh yeah, in case they win, they might them become sympathetic, build bridges and all that.

And in case you didn't notice, Mr Obama was handed a country on fire and spiraling into a depression by the past administration. He might been a little busy trying to keep the country from burning to the ground and got ZERO help from the other party. Their whole goal in the last 4 years was to make him look bad by blocking anything positive they could.

Sorry but I don't see a group of elected officials trying to make the president look bad, so they can get their party back in the white house as "looking out for us".

Quote from: Jamie D on September 11, 2012, 02:42:03 AM
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on 21 Sep 1996.

It had passed the House on 12 July 1996, on a vote of 342-67.
(224-1 Republican; 118-65 Democrat; 0-1 Independent)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml)

It passed the Senate on 10 Sep 1996, a vote of 85-14.
(53-0 Republican; 32-14 Democrat)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280)

Of those voting in favor of DOMA was Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware.
The Democrats had sufficient strength in the Senate (47 Senators) to have filibustered the bill, had they chosen to.

They chose not to. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party and the Democrat President supported DOMA in overwhelming numbers.

Why didn't the Democrats and Mr. Obama repeal DOMA when they had the power to do so?

Yeah yeah and democrats up until the 50's or 60's were the people who held back the civil rights then. Here's the thing, things change. It's a slow process but things certainly do change.

Edit: I'll be nice :O

While I agree with most of those sentiments, not ALL republicans are really socially conservative, the tea party is a loud and powerful minority in the party, and the neocons still have a fair bit of clout but, there are a great deal of people who feel they have no choice but to be republican because of thier fiscal views, and the lack of effectiveness of third parties.

I disagree economicly and socially with republicans, but let's not try to paint them as some homogeneous entity because they are not.

Quote from: Hikari on September 11, 2012, 11:34:45 AM
I disagree economicly and socially with republicans, but let's not try to paint them as some homogeneous entity because they are not.

Well their supporters certainly aren't. But the Republicans in government seem all to cleave pretty faithfully to the party line.

Quote from: agfrommd on September 11, 2012, 07:43:50 AM

The administration is maintaining that DOMA is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court or enforce it.

Federal courts have agreed, so there is no need to repeal it.

To be precise, the Administration maintains one section of the law is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court precedents include Nelson v Baker, which the lower, activists courts have tried to creatively differentiate.  It remains to be seen what the current Court will do.

The issue, however, is largely a political one, which I believe needs a political solution.

Honestly I think I am just gonna pull the ol' agree to disagree thing here. I will concur that right now neither side looks good and focus too much on these single minded issues. If both sides would also focus on job creation etc it might give more of a clear view. *peace sign*

I just dun wanna argue. This place be my comfort zone and I like that <3

Quote from: Stephe on September 11, 2012, 10:58:23 AM
Thanks for making my point, 1 republican voted against it, the sole gay republican in office. In the house ~25% of the dems voted against it and ~30% in the senate. And that was almost 15 years ago. You also left out this was drafted and brought to the table by a republican.

Today most of those dems now say that was a mistake and wouldn't vote for it. The republicans would vote 100% to keep this if it came up for a vote tomorrow. The whole party totally supports DOMA, so... it's in our best interest to support our persecutors? Oh yeah, in case they win, they might them become sympathetic, build bridges and all that.

And in case you didn't notice, Mr Obama was handed a country on fire and spiraling into a depression by the past administration. He might been a little busy trying to keep the country from burning to the ground and got ZERO help from the other party. Their whole goal in the last 4 years was to make him look bad by blocking anything positive they could.

Sorry but I don't see a group of elected officials trying to make the president look bad, so they can get their party back in the white house as "looking out for us".

You made the point earlier the Rep. Bob Barr was the "author" of the bill.  More correctly, he was the "principal sponsor," and he had numerous "co-sponsors," as this PBS Newshour transcript shows:

On Capitol Hill, nearly 60 House Republicans and 60 Democrats have introduced a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. It does not specifically outlaw same-sex marriages, but it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed and recognized elsewhere.

If "most of those dems" thought it was a mistake, then why, when they were in complete control, did they fail to repeal it?

Actions speak louder than words.

Quote from: Hikari on September 11, 2012, 07:56:34 AM
I don't quite understand what you are getting at Jamie d, Sure they haven't accomplished a great deal, but a great many of thier political opponents actively want to roll back what little progress there has been...

I guess I am trying to ask what you want to accomplish by always attacking the democratic record on LGBT issues, as best I can tell it is the only game in town, seems like them throwing us a bone, even if there is no meat on it, is a good thing.

Edit also in 1996, the entire culture was way different that was a very long time ago, maybe the CPUSA would have voted against it. It really the culture in this nation has changed a great deal since then.

I, for one, don't like being used as a pawn in political games.  Nor do I like being thrown table scraps.

We all want to substantive progress.  Sometimes that requires "out of the box" thinking.

Consider the old adage, "Only Nixon could go to China."

No one wants to be used as a pawn and neither are we content with table scraps but, I also think that we would prefer table scraps to nothing. Basically, if not voting for the democrats what solution could one possibly provide? Something, still seems better than nothing to this girl.

Quote from: Hikari on September 11, 2012, 03:58:33 PM
No one wants to be used as a pawn and neither are we content with table scraps but, I also think that we would prefer table scraps to nothing. Basically, if not voting for the democrats what solution could one possibly provide? Something, still seems better than nothing to this girl.

This might work as a ulterior solution :3

Futurama: Fry would Dress Like a Clown, if he was registered to vote... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq4ZUVdJsG0#)

This is where I bow out of any discussion, when people start yelling at me in giant bold face caps. *sigh*

[edit] The post I was talking about was later edited....

Reminder:

10. Bashing or flaming of any individuals or groups is not acceptable behavior on this web site and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason.

This also applies to member's affiliations with any political party they choose.

Please keep discussion to the original topic; legislative accomplishments of Pres Obama as they relate to transgender community.

Zythyra - News Admin