Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit (first time in a decade)

[kpete]

Source: NPR

Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit

by Ari Shapiro

January 15, 2010

For the first time in a decade, Justice Department lawyers have moved to intervene in a lawsuit on behalf of a gay high school student who was beaten up for being effeminate.

The case marks a novel interpretation of the Title IX statute, which prohibits discrimination against students on the basis of gender.

Gay and lesbian groups see it as a bold statement about the Obama administration's priorities.

Brutal Harassment

The case centers around a 15-year-old named Jacob who lives in the town of Mohawk in upstate New York. His family requested that Jacob be identified only by his first name.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122620723

[QC]

1. Recommended--excellent news! n/t

[NJmaverick]

2. Now this is change we can believe in

Now the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has asked a judge for permission to intervene on Jacob's behalf.

"We haven't seen this kind of involvement in quite some time," says Hayley Gorenberg of Lambda Legal, a national gay rights legal organization. "It's a long time coming, and we really need it."

Republicans who worked in the Civil Rights Division under previous administrations agree that this is a case conservatives generally would not make.

[boppers]

3. Title IX defends against gender discrimination.

Morons in the article are confusing gender and sex...

[Fearless]

10. +1

[IndianaGreen]

13. This is a stretch that runs counter to case law!

The Administration must push for, and pass, and all inclusive ENDA.

Federal courts, including the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, have held that gender discrimination does NOT apply to sexual orientation or to gender identity.

[David Zephyr]

18. +1

After a year of the Justice Department being on the opposite side of GLBT rights in courtrooms, this is refreshing.

Of course, the injustice here is so outrageous, I don't see this as a bold move by the Justice Department at all. On the bigger issues, thus far, Holder's Justice Department has been anything but friendly to GLBT causes.

[DissedByBush]

25. I'm all for coming to the defense of a gay kid

But you are right. This is stretching the law beyond reason.

That being the case and strip away all partisan politics and specific circumstance and you have this description of the situation:

"The Executive branch is going outside the bounds of the law in order to further its agenda."

Doesn't this remind you quite a bit of a former president?

We may like what he's trying to accomplish, but we should never let that blind us to what is actually going on.

[boppers]

30. He's an effeminate male. His orientation is towards males, and does not identify as female.

The argument being made, as I understand it, is that people shouldn't be discriminated against for being "too butch", or "too feminine", *regardless* of their biological sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Should a person be discriminated against for having their hair too short, or too long? For painting their nails, or not? For having a high, or low, pitched voice? If a person is biologically male, and identifies as male, is it okay to discriminate against them for not being "male enough"? If a person is biologically female, and identifies as female, is it okay to discriminate against them for not being "feminine enough"?

[plantwomyn]

32. It isn't okay to discriminate against anyone.

The reason doesn't matter.

[No Elephants]

38. That is a moral stance, but the issue is whether a particular federal law covers this.

[plantwomyn]

41. My reply wasn't about an "issue" it was about

"The argument being made, as I understand it, is that people shouldn't be discriminated against for being ..."
My argument is that there is NO argument for discrimination. People shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason get it. It isn't only "a moral stance" it is also ethical and BTFW covered under federal law by the 14th Amendment. If equal protection of the law isn't clear enough what is? The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to codify equal protect for all kinds of different people from all kinds of discrimination for all kinds of reasons. Not all of these protections are based on gender or race. People choose their religion yet religion is still a "protected class" and that protection is legally adjudicated under "strict scrutiny". The fact that the powers that be including our "fierce advocate" can interpret "equal protection of the law" to read "unless you are GLBT" just proves cowardice and bigotry.

[elleng]

33. Would like to see DOJ's Petition/Briefs.

Seems to me 'sex,' 'gender' might not be necessary to make a case here. Shouldn't schools be required to 'protect' their charges? If he were just a skinny kid, or an ugly kid, or a smart kid, wouldn't he be entitled to same measure of protection?

Seems to me that school has just failed one of its basic duties.

[No Elephants]

35. the article says other courts have agreed with this position. 7th Circuit cases are not binding in

NY.

[No Elephants]

34. No one is confusing anything. Read the article.

You may disagree with the position the D of J and some courts have taken. But that does not mean anyone is confused.

[dave29]

4. K&R!

:)

[pinto]

5. Kick

:kick:

[ooglymoogly]

6. Kudos for a good decision kr nt

[SoapBox]

7. Bravo

...this is the right thing to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Excellent news

For all the Jacobs in America. Thanks to the DOJ.

[ThatsMyBarack]

9. How refreshing...

To see someone standing up for GLBTs! :woohoo:

[rasputin1952]

11. K&R

No more Matthew Shepherds...ever.

Violence needs to be prosecuted, non-violent situations need to be countered intelligently.

The Justice Dept made an excellent call.

[Nancy Boy]

12. Awesomeness

This is awesome. Well done!

Isn't discrimination going to have a subset that includes stereotypes? For example, a person could discriminate against a homosexual because he or she thinks that a homosexual wants to be a woman, so isn't manly and can be bullied so?

[impik]

14. Excellent. Slowly, slowly, Obama will fix this country

If the Left won't destroy him first, of course.

[Chicago dyke]

15. way to buy into right wing framing

cause yeah, "the left" is such a powerful and influential force in american politics and policy making today. it's why Single Payer types are totally dominating the HCR bill, and why DADT and DOMA are history.

/dripping sarcasm emoticon/

[rasputin1952]

28. Welcome to DU Chicago dyke...

:hi:


We have quite a few Chi DU'ers.

[boppers]

39. Welcome to DU!

To do emoticons, type ':' followed by the word you want, then close with ':'... so, :sarcasm: generates the drippy thing.

[mitchtv]

42. welcome Chi dyke

keep it up

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

22. "If the Left won't destroy him first, of course. "

Stupid right wing tripe

RL

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

36. When the D of J argued that homosexuality was like incest and bestiality,

the hero worshippers claimed you couldn't blame Obama even a little for a position taken by the D of J. (this was based on a total myth, namely, that the D of J is completely independent of the President).

Now, however, that the D of J has supported gays, the credidt goes only to Obama. None of the blame, only all of the credit. Nice work, if you can get it. But, on this, I agree Obama deserves credit.



BTW, I recommend you stop trying to silence criticism of Obama. It doesn't silence anyone. It only make you seem facist and maybe a little silly. It would make much more sense to destroy the other side's arguments, rather than simply trying to silence them.

Apart from that, welcome to DU.

[rosesaylavee]

16. K and R

[Rozlee]

17. As a perpetual wet blanket, I just hope that these eff yoo see kay

schools and their administrators don't squeeze out of their penalties. Because this is where the real example is set. And I hope the penalties are severe. The thing that bothers me the most is if the poor kid isn't gay. If he is gay, he can eventually leave these dooshes behind and find acceptance in the gay community. But, my ex-sister-in-law's sister, was so masculine looking that no one ever believed that she was a woman. Women would freak out when she went to the Ladies' Room. She had a baritone gravely voice, and a large hulking figure with no boobs. At the age of 34, she'd never had a date, let alone a boyfriend. My ex-sister-in-law told me that she wanted a husband and children just like any other woman, but that poor woman was not blessed with one single feminine feature except the one between her legs. I only met her a half dozen times or so, but there was definitely some kind chromosomal or adrenal abnormality that she'd been born with. My heart went out to her.

[Solly Mack]

19. k/r

[ejbr]

20. k & r n/t

[Deep13]

23. BFT.

'bout fuckin' time.

[alp227]

24. Great way to kick off the weekend before Martin Luther King Jr Day

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

And someday we will all judge each other by our character, not our genetic features.

[Union Yes]

27. K&R. A big thank you Mr Prez from this gay man! nt

[Robb]

29. Good. More, please. nt

[donheld]

31. k & R

[No Elephants]

37. No matter how this case turns out, I'm glad to see the D of J seems to have

abandoned the position that homosexuality is in the same bag with incest and bestiality.

I hope we never see anything like that again.

And, since the D of J is not, repeat not, independent of the Executive, I do believe the positive change does have something to do with Obama, so kudos to him on this, too.

Whether Title VII applies, though, is a big question.

No matter what, I wish them luck.

[Hekate]

40. Wonderful. The article at link makes for some grim reading. That kid was and is at risk for ...

being murdered with the tacit consent of the teacher(s), principal, and other students. He's at risk for committing suicide. He's having a hellish life and his only bit of good fortune is that his dad loves him just the way he is and is advocating for him, and in that he is lucky indeed.

Let's see now, who's the president in charge of setting the agenda for this DOJ? I guess that would be Barack Obama, making good on some of his promises.

Hekate