Tag Archives: LBGT Rights

A New Effort Demonstrates The Need For More

Domestic ViolenceIn the midst of all the current turmoil and related teeth gnashing ranting and railing associated therewith, it’s nice to find some heroes.  A UCC church in Las Vegas makes the news today with its plan to assist victims of domestic violence, regardless of their gender, race, or creed. [LVSun] Granted domestic violence is mostly associated with protecting women from abusive spouses, but that doesn’t mean it’s restricted to that category.  So, a large round of applause to the little church trying to make a difference in this problematic issue:

“A 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that bisexual and lesbian women were more likely to experience domestic violence than heterosexual women, and bisexual men were more likely to experience sexual violence than heterosexual men and gay men, who have similar rates.” [LVSun]

All the better since the re-authorization of VAWA in 2013 which finally recognized there might be a problem for members of the LBGT community and for members of Native American tribes.  To their credit, both Nevada Senators Reid and Heller voted in favor of the measure [GovTrak].  The final vote in the House showed all four members of Congress from Nevada voting in favor of the bill. [GovTrak] The measure passed on a 286-138 vote, all the nays coming from the Republican side of the aisle.

As described in a Department of Justice release, the re-authorization of VAWA addressed a serious problem in this country, and the inclusion of provisions for Native Americans was long overdue:

“In 2010, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 20 million violent and property victimizations, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). (NCJ 235508) These criminal victimizations included an estimated 4.3 million violent crimes defined as rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Almost 126,000 of the 1.4 million serious violent crimes were rapes and assaults. While this number has decreased over the last few years it is still shows that too many women are endangered and suffering. […] American Indians are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual assault crimes compared to all other races, and one in three Indian women reports having been raped during her lifetime.” [DoJ]

The Department of Justice was correct in reporting the disparity in the statistics regarding the physical abuse experienced by Native American women.  Some of the numbers are patently outrageous.

 In a 2008 CDC study, 39% of Native women surveyed identified as victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetime, a rate higher than any other race or ethnicity surveyed. This finding has been common over the years. A study from 1998 that utilized a large national probability sample (n=8000) found that American Indian/Alaskan Native American women were the most likely racial group to report a physical assault by an intimate partner. [FWV.org pdf]

And: ” According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs at least 70% of the violent victimizations experienced by American
Indians are committed by persons not of the same race— a substantially higher rate of interracial violence than experienced by white or black victims.” [FWV.org pdf]

One of the issues for Native American women in Nevada is distance. There are domestic shelters in all major Nevada towns and cities, but some of these are at no small  physical distance from reservations.  The rural fishbowl effect creates another dilemma.  If a shelter is located in the immediate vicinity everyone knows of it — just as they know about every other thing that happens. If the shelter is located far enough away to secure some anonymity the victim may not have the transportation options available to get there.

In the best of all worlds, we would consider ways to alleviate the need for shelters for victims of domestic violence, urban or rural.

While some of the lists vary, most sources focus on the following elements of spousal abuse behavior.   A 1998 study reported by the NCBI observed:

“The present study compared male spouse abusers, with and without alcohol problems, with age-matched, nonabusive males on measures of personality style, personality disorder, dysphoria, and a number of demographic measures. There were no differences among the groups in racial composition, religious preference, or religious devoutness. Male abusers were less likely to be employed, to be in intact relationships, and were less well educated. They were more likely to have witnessed abuse or experienced abuse as children, although that observation is more characteristic of abusers with alcohol problems. Measures of personality and psychopathology generally supported the hypothesis that abusive males would show greater elevations on test scales reflecting personality disorder and dysphoria and less conformity than nonbatterers. Alcohol abuse was related to greater batterer-nonbatterer differences.”

Translation: Batterers come in all races, creeds, and kinds. They are generally unhappy people, less likely to have steady employment, and more likely to be repeating abuse they witnessed as children.

The batterers tend to try to excuse their behavior — the drinks made me do it defense — and often try to deny that the behavior has any lasting effect on family or personal relationships.  Three other terms associated with battering are possessiveness, jealousy, and domination. [NCCAVA]  The use of violence is a learned behavior, a repetition of childhood scenes, or the continuation of behavior which is not confronted, curtailed, or contained.  Battering is also associated with overall low self esteem and poor communication or interpersonal skills. [NCCAVA]

If this sounds like a mental health issue … it’s because it is.  And, this is not territory in which the state of Nevada has exactly covered itself in glory.  FY 2010’s $184 million sounds like a large figure until it’s broken down per capita and the allocation was  41st in the nation with $68.32 allocated. [GovSL]  The national average per capita expenditure in 2009 was $122.90. [NAMI] The NAMI looked at state budget appropriations by state from FY 2009 to FY 2012 and reported Nevada’s proposed expenditures declined 28.1%, down from $175.5 million to $126.2 million. [NAMI] These reductions put Nevada back at the top of the list for budget cutting of mental health services, along with South Carolina and Alabama. [NAMI]

Unfortunately, in an Age of Austerity, in which public allocation of tax revenues are perceived as expenses rather than investments, there is less incentive to be “the best.” Doing just enough to get by appears preferable? If Nevada would like to be known as the state with the least need for domestic violence shelters — for anyone and everyone — then some soul searching is in order.

Have we equipped and staffed our public schools with the resources to identify, diagnose, and treat children who are in households experiencing domestic violence?  Have we required that private school counterparts do the same?

Have we allocated the necessary resources to help schools, local governments, tribes, and community organizations provide assistance to families in which domestic violence occurs?  Can we offer these entities coordinated programs to promote education, address bullying behaviors, decrease instances of domestic violence?

Have we done enough to provide jobs for those who find their economic circumstances so stressful that violent behavior comes from their lack of personal control as they cope, or not, with the frustration?

The victims of domestic violence, Native American, non-Native, members of the LBGT community, or straight, men and boys, and women and girls, shouldn’t have to wait until that mythical day upon which the magic of trickle down hoax economics kicks in and all will be right with the world.  These men, women, girls, boys, need assistance now — and not in some utopian ethereal world yet to come.

Our Thanks to the members of that Las Vegas UCC church for making life a little bit easier for more people to receive more support.

Comments Off on A New Effort Demonstrates The Need For More

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

Ziser Rides Again – The Sole Support for Nevada’s Gay Marriage Ban?

As the controversy continues in some quarters over the decision by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to haul down the now tattered “No Same Sex Marriage” banner, and let the Sevcik v. Sandoval case drop quietly, most of the arguments that can be made in favor of a ban on same sex marriages seem to have been made.

The legal issues revolve around whether or not a court has the jurisdiction to render a decision concerning laws related to marriage.   The answer so far is Yes.  The Supreme Court dipped into this territory in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case in which Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage was struck down as unconstitutional.  Justice Warren was quick to point out that the ban was contrary to the equal protection of the laws according to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.   The inclusion of racial classifications in marriage statutes was declared unconstitutional.

More recently, opponents of same sex marriage have made the claim that homosexuals do not fall into the forbidden “racial classification,” and therefore don’t have recourse under the Loving Standard.  This reasoning requires the assumption that if discrimination isn’t racial then it isn’t discrimination, however it’s already settled that other accepted ‘classifications’ (women) may suffer from discriminatory treatment.

Opponents have also argued that while an act may, in fact, discriminate against homosexual individuals, if the intent wasn’t discriminatory then the outcomes cannot be declared unconstitutional.  If this standard were to be applied then we have all manner of problems in the form of Gee Whiz Defenses.

“Gee Whiz, your honor, we didn’t mean to discriminate when we enacted a statute which said: ‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'” [DOMA]  “We just meant to ‘defend marriage.'”

However, when we start talking about the effect of “any public act, record or judicial proceeding” the implications are obvious, and obviously discriminatory.

Thus the specter of yet more cases challenging the same sex marriage ban across the country, in Texas [CBS], in Kentucky [ABC], and in Utah and Oklahoma. [NewYorker] The Nevada case remains with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and without much enthusiasm from Nevada officials or candidates for office. [LVRJ]

Who’s Left On The Field?

So, who’s left fighting on behalf of the same sex marriage ban in Nevada? In terms of the Sevcik v. Sandoval case the lone litigant supporting the ban is the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage.

Do we remember Richard Ziser, now the Director of Nevada Concerned Citizens and current member of the Board of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage? [AlOE, pdf]  This would be the self same Richard Ziser who in 2004 demonstrated to the Nevada Republican Party just how badly a person could lose to incumbent Senator Harry Reid; Ziser managed 35.12%, Reid scored a hefty 61.05%. [NVsos]  Even the much mocked campaign of Nevada GOP candidate Sharron Angle garnered 44.55% of the vote in the 2010 elections. [NVsos]

On May 8, 2013 Mr. Ziser’s organization filed testimony (pdf)with the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections concerning SJR 13, which would have removed the ban on gay marriages in the state.  His statements don’t sound all that far removed from the pronouncements he made 13 years ago.  Gay marriage will cause the Earth to stop spinning?

Well, perhaps not all that but at least we are to be reassured by Mr. Ziser that if the ban on gay marriage is removed in Nevada terrible things will occur because marriage is to bring men and women together for the purpose of the procreation of our species.   If we follow this logic we can extrapolate easily to the obvious. If the public purpose of marriage is procreation then why not, as many have scoffed, ban marriages between persons who are not of child bearing age? Between men and women who are unable to procreate?  But, there’s more.  Mr. Ziser believes he has an answer for that one:

“To exclude specific heterosexual couples from marriage based on their intentions or infertility would require intrusive inquiries and the drawing of arbitrary and imprecise lines. While not all heterosexual couples do reproduce, it is indisputable that only heterosexual couples can do so by natural means. No homosexual couples can do so. That fact provides a clear bright line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

Evidently, Mr. Ziser believes that documenting fertility is an invasion of personal privacy.  We might wonder about his stance on transvaginal ultrasound examinations in cases of an abortion?  Would that be an “intrusive inquiry?”  Would the conclusions be prone to drawing “arbitrary and imprecise lines?”  However, more to the point, isn’t it just as readily apparent  that a couple of octogenarians aren’t having intimate relations for the purpose of procreation?

For Mr. Ziser the limits on marriage are definitional — marriage isn’t between immediate family members, or polyandrous, or polygamous, or pedophilic. This argument doesn’t respond to the essential question, it merely dances around it saying that the state can define marriage and the current definition satisfies him.

But for Mr. Ziser, and his ilk, the problems are associated with the fact that some companies might have to offer same sex couples benefits available to heterosexual couples — and “they” have higher health care costs.  Unfortunately for Mr. Ziser, the numbers don’t support this rather bigoted conclusion.  A University of Massachusetts study looked at the health care situation for members of the LGBT community and found “Policies that confer protections to same-sex couples may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minority men.”  And,

“Additionally, previous research has found substantial economic benefits of same-sex marriage policies that are accrued to businesses (e.g., increased revenues).46 We extend these findings by documenting additional economic benefits of pro-gay marriage laws to sexual minority men through the reduction of their health care expenditures.” [AJPH]

When his attempt to convince us that business will be burdened, and LBGT individuals have higher health costs doesn’t wash, Ziser has the old School Argument.  “Homosexual relationships will be identical to heterosexual ones.”  No, what’s taught in sexual education classes will be determined by the school district’s policy on sexual education.  We can only hope that a district will be responsible enough to teach kids truly safer sexual practices, and won’t spend a semester reciting the mantra “just say no.”

Perhaps Mr. Ziser sees the expansion of rights to others as an attack on his individual beliefs?  This interpretation  may come closer to his concerns.  Freedom of conscience, he says, would be in “constant tension” with gay rights.  Yes, and when has this not been the case?  If one’s “conscience” forbid interracial marriage, then was there tension?  If one’s “conscience” forbid medical treatment for a baby with pneumonia, then was there tension?  If one’s “conscience” espoused polygamy, then was there tension?  There will always be tension between those whose interpretation of revealed truth is at odds with the multiplicity of beliefs and “consciences” in any community.  The larger the community, the greater the capacity for “tension.”

Other Ziser admonitions have a vaguely hysterical ring to them. “Fewer children will be raised by an mother and father?”  “Legalization of homosexual “marriage” would mean that, for the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children.” Take a deep breath and look at the demographic statistics.  “More Children Will Grow Up Fatherless.”   What we do know is that kids in a stable home environment grow up with fewer problems than those who don’t.  The format is less important than the stability.

Ziser is convinced that birth rates will fall, and then he indulges in a bit of gay-bashing — “they less likely to have committed relationships” — less likely than whom?  “They” are “less likely to monogamous and sexually exclusive relationships.”  Again, compared to whom?  You get the drift.  And, the drift becomes rather more intense.

By Ziser’s lights “demands for polygamy will grow.” Thankfully, Mr. Ziser’s commentary stopped at that point.   We can only hope that he stops before the current litigation becomes ever more expensive, time consuming, and ultimately futile.

References and Recommended Reading:

Legal Cases: Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 – Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2012  [Scholar] Sevcik v. Sandoval, Appellants Brief (pdf); Appellee Sandoval’s Answering Brief (pdf); U.S. v. Windsor Decision (Scribd); Amicus Brief U.S. v. Windsor; Windsor Plaintiffs Brief, SCOTUS (Scribd) jurisdiction;  Merits Brief, Amicus filing Family Research Council, U.S. v. Windsor (Scribd);  Sevcik v. Sandoval, motion for leave to withdraw brief, Nevada [Scribd] Sevcik v. Sandoval, district court [Scribd]

Commentary: Nevada gay marriage decisions creates uncertainty, SF Chronicle, Feb 11, 2014.  Nevada ends fight to ban gay marriage, Reuters, Feb 10, 2014. Same Sex Marriage Roundup, Los Angeles Times, Feb 10, 2014.  The Widening  Impact of the Gay Marriage Decision, New Yorker, Jan 27, 2014.  Gay Marriage Ban Supports Slips in Nevada, New York Times, Feb 10, 2014.   Lambda Legal Nevada Marriage Case Granted Expedited Hearing, Lambda Legal Blog, February 12, 2014.  Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie, APA, Amicus Brief.  Follow the Leader, Nevada Progressive, Feb 12, 2014.  No Leg Left to Stand On, Nevada Progressive, Feb 11, 2014.

Legalising gay marriage may improve health and reduce healthcare costs, Guardian, Feb 7, 2013.  Refuting Anti Gay Rights Arguments, ProgCyn, Josh Sager.

1 Comment

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics