|
|
E-mail the Executive Board at: lambdaexecboard[at]listserv[dot]bc[dot]edu |
|
|
- American Civil Liberties Union - Association of American Law Schools - Boston Queer Asian Pacific Alliance - Community United Against Violence - Fenway Community Health Center - Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders - Gender Public Advocacy Coalition - International Association of Lesbian & Gay Judges - International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Comm. - International Lesbian & Gay Association - Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund - Massachusetts Chapter of Gender Education &
Advocacy - Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association - National Center for Lesbian Rights - National Gay & Lesbian Task Force - National Latina/o LGBT Organization |
KARA SUFFREDINI'S
REMARKS AT THE LAMBDA ALUMNI
DINNER It’s very humbling to speak to you all tonight – it’s
truly an undue honor – and it’s made all the more daunting following an introduction
like that, from a person like Kent [Greenfield], who has done so much in his
own right for the BCLS community. I’d be remiss if I didn’t at the outset acknowledge the
many in this room, and those scattered all over the nation, who, for decades,
have generously invested their creativity, passion, and commitment into this
organization so that we, our allies, and the entire BC Law community, might
reach a higher calling. As a mini report from the front lines, right now, the
forward momentum of the Solomon litigation is a beacon amidst conflicting
marriage equality court decisions, cowering political leaders, and crushing
losses at ballot boxes all over the country. It’s no surprise to me – but is
a big point of pride – that that positive momentum generated out of this
community. So, I’m really excited to be here. I really want to thank
the Lambda executive board for extending me the invitation to speak. This is
exactly the kind of moment we dreamt about all the time as students – the day
when we’d be able to come back as alumni and say what we really think. And I
will. I want to begin by saying that everything I know about
queer activism I learned at BC Law. Put that in your admissions brochure. The Solomon “crisis” taught me so many things. How to spot
a teachable moment. How to lobby allies and build coalition partners. How to
read the law – TO read the law. How to deflect specious arguments and cheap
shots. How to speak truth to power, while respecting its authority. It gave
me faith that people are good and fair and can be reached – faith I’ve called
upon many times since—and proof that it really is the small groups that do
the big things. I had the pleasure of meeting Rep. John Lewis at the Both of these points resonate with me when I think about
how Solomon has unfolded. When the issue first hit the ground in 1998 – when
I was a 1L – we held the responsibility of our chosen profession in such high
esteem. We looked upon those training us with such lofty expectations. We
were outraged when we thought that folks hadn’t spotted the issue, didn’t get
the injustice, and didn’t feel compelled to dedicate all of their creative
lawyering skills to finding a just solution. There were times when we felt
like we were banging our heads against the wall – and I know folks have felt
that many times since. It really was an act of faith on the part of so many
people on so many levels to move the Solomon issue to the level of national
discussion it enjoys today. And, it’s such a delight to see the creative lawyering
that came out of it. Who would have imagined that in the name of social
justice for LGBT people, a professor of corporate law would create a
corporation for the sole purpose of empowering law schools to do what they
could not or would not do by themselves? It’s exactly what we all had faith
people of courage and conviction at BC Law were capable of, and it’s exactly
what John Lewis was saying is the unique contribution of lawyers in civil
rights struggles – not only believing in the end, but finding the means to
reach it. Now that the “teachable moment” that was Solomon has
reached a plateau, the challenge in front of us is to figure out where to go
next and how to get there. Before I speak to that, a few things need to be
said about the national context we’re operating in. First, enough of the BS charge that LGBT people cost Kerry
the election or won it for Bush. It’s a homophobic and transphobic lie,
exposed by every shred of empirical evidence generated after the election.
Period. Second, let’s be honest and acknowledge that – as with all
civil rights movements – the litigation strategy behind the push for marriage
equality is light years ahead of our political and public education work.
But, be that as it may, couples and families facing terrible injustices
sought redress by going to court and asserting their constitutional rights.
This is the way we know, particularly as lawyers, Americans are supposed to
do things. And the pious response from opponents to justice for LGBT
people? – This is an attack on Christianity, Western Civilization, and the
fabric of our society, and we must crush it. I don’t you know about you, but I am tired of having moral
values defined for us by those that would, for example, deny us the right to
marry while at the same time discriminating against us for being “incapable
of commitment.” We know what moral values are: Access to healthcare for all. That’s a moral issue. Affordable housing. That’s a moral issue. Teaching our youth how to protect themselves from disease
with comprehensive sex ed – the only programs proven to work. That’s a moral
issue. Sending our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
soldiers to war while denying them freedom at home. That’s a moral issue. Providing legal, financial and emotional security to all
of our families that need it is a moral issue. Putting minority rights up to a majority vote is a moral
issue. In the name of “traditional values,” those seeking to
crush LGBT people into oblivion seek to destroy many of the things many of us
in the room hold dear – choice for women, affirmative action, basic human
rights for immigrants, racial and economic justice, separation of church and
state . . . checks and balances. As Urvashi Vaid has been saying for decades – pull the
hoods off the leaders opposing us and we see far more than opposition to
same-sex marriage. We see a legislative push for covenant marriages – a
rollback of no-fault divorce laws. We see conscious objector bills – allowing
doctors to not treat patients, and pharmacists to not dispense medication, on
grounds of a “moral objection” – which means compromised access to prescription
contraception or drugs to treat HIV, and uncertain access to health care for
all LGBT people. Anti-gay adoption bills. Opposition to reauthorizing the
Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Voting Rights Act and the
Violence Against Women Act. We see those who insisted before the election that the
broad state constitutional amendments they were sponsoring would “only ban
marriage,” now using them not only to strip gay AND straight couples of
health benefits, but to gut the application of domestic violence laws to all
unmarried couples. If the state’s interference with Terry Schiavo’s valid,
heterosexual marriage is not a wake up call that marriage alone with not
protect LGBT people from the scope of those working to obliterate us, then let’s
be absolutely clear: This is not just about marriage. Not for them, and I would
humbly submit, therefore, not for our people, either. This is about
individual autonomy and self-actualization. It’s about the cheesiest, deepest
and most traditional of American values – life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Autonomy of the body, spirit, mind and faith. We must call upon
our each other to rise up and respond to the attacks against our people with
that breadth. This land is our land, too. As lawyers, we have a unique role to play in all this. I’m
not talking about representing our LGBT brothers and sisters in court. I’m
talking about speaking out against “activist judges” rhetoric and
court-stripping legislation, which are cultivating a climate of total
disrespect for our profession and for the judicial system, a climate in which
extremists feel called upon to murder our federal judges and their families. We know that civil rights gains are often made first in
the courts and we know that that is what this is all about. If the connection
between crushing LGBT people and eroding our system of checks and balances
isn’t totally clear, then consider that the most recently introduced version
of the Federal Marriage Amendment not only bans any form of relationship
recognition outside of one-man/one-woman marriage, but it also strips all
courts of the jurisdiction to entertain challenges to that ban. This just isn’t how America does things. Our courts and
our profession are under direct attack. As lawyers we must make it our
business to spot this issue and respond. Whether marriage is our movement’s issue of choice or not,
like Solomon, the national discussion about marriage has created an important
“teachable moment” – a context for real discussion about our families and our
lives that can move us forward – or roll us back – on many of the moral
issues we hold most dear. When else in American history have LGBT people been
able to go door-to-door in places like Mississippi , Oklahoma or Georgia to
talk on people’s porches about why discrimination against LGBT people is
wrong? And people are being reached. Against the backdrop of this national discussion, the
challenge for BC is to figure out how to sustain the “teachable moment” about
LGBT people absent the Solomon urgency. A few ideas come to mind. One. Now that categories protected by BC Law’s
nondiscrimination policy are less in question, let’s flesh out what having
that nondiscrimination policy means. If the career services office requires
employers to certify that they don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation, race, gender, etc., should it also survey employers to see what
this translates into? For example, who that “doesn’t discriminate” on the basis
of sexual orientation actually offers domestic partner health benefits? What
firms that have hired a meaningful number of females and African-Americans
have promoted a meaningful number of them to partner? In 34 states it is still legal to fire someone because
they are gay, and in 44 states it is legal to fire them because they are
transgender. For firms recruiting from these states, an LGBT applicant could
lose the chance of being hired – or later be fired – for even asking if
domestic partnership benefits are available. If nondiscrimination is the
goal, then perhaps the career services office should consider protecting LGBT
law students from discrimination by asking these questions for them. Two. Why, in 2005, when LGBT issues are at the forefront
of national political debate, doesn’t BC Law offer a class on LGBT legal
issues? I’m not talking about privacy law and tiers of scrutiny and trust and
estates and other broad issues of law where willing and responsible
professors can weave in a couple of LGBT-specific cases to flag the unique
issues. I’m talking about the complex patchwork of state
nondiscrimination laws and religious exemptions. Domestic partnership
benefits and federal preemption of state insurance laws. The havoc
sex-segregated facilities, such as bathrooms, homeless shelters, domestic
violence safe houses and prisons, reap in the already complicated lives of
transgender people. Vague and grossly broad state constitutional amendments
and their interplay with everything from criminal laws addressing domestic
violence to the use of the word “partner” in the wills of same-sex couples.
The interplay of federal and state tax laws when states recognize marriages
that the federal government does not. Speaking from experience, this is not the kind of stuff
you want to learn on the job. As LGBT legal issues become more complicated,
this community should renew its commitment to affording students the
opportunity to graduate with some level of competence around these issues,
particularly for LGBT students, who will be most intimately impacted by
ignorance. Three. Let’s start educating about the need to expand the
nondiscrimination policy to include folks who are not currently protected.
Host a panel, or a town hall meeting, about the serious difficulties some
transgender people have even using a bathroom safely in places not sensitized
to the existence, let alone needs, of transgender people. This is not a
radical concept – I get told I’m in the wrong bathroom all the time. Work with the undergrad to lobby and educate – like we all
did here with Solomon – about why inclusion of sexual orientation in a school
nondiscrimination policy is necessary and beneficial. You know, I’ve heard some fascinating justifications
recently for why sexual orientation should not be added to the undergraduate
policy. My personal favorite is the fear that “sexual orientation” allegedly
has no clear meaning, such that the University might open itself up to
lawsuits by people of “orientations” that prefer one-night stands or sex at
an early age. As law students, we know that decades of court decisions
have defined – without particular struggle – the meaning of sexual
orientation AND that any the scope of any term in any policy can be limited
within the policy itself. Help your peers cut through these cheap attempts to
resurrect old, tired stereotypes that LGBT people are promiscuous, incapable
of monogamy and, therefore, unworthy of protection from discrimination. Let’s
help them spot the issue the way we’ve asked others here to do for us. Finally, let’s embrace the acts of courage we all engage
in each day as part of living LGBT lives. It’s not necessary to be working
for an advocacy organization – or even on an advocacy issue – to be working
directly for the cause. Being in a committed relationship – or marrying – while
the forces that oppose us try to convince America we are incapable of
commitment . . . That is a revolutionary act. Choosing not to marry while the
forces that oppose us try to convince America that anything other than love
inside marriage is unworthy of respect . . . That is a revolutionary act.
Having and raising children. Coming out in 100 different situations each day.
Reporting a hate crime. Correcting an anti-gay slur. Using the right bathroom
even when you’re told you’re in the wrong place. These are revolutionary
acts. It’s been only 5 years since the Vermont legislature
created civil unions for same-sex couples. It’s been only 2 years since the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, and only 1 year since the
Massachusetts SJC ruling granted us marriage. Since then, courts in New York, New Jersey, California and
Washington state have ruled in favor of marriage equality; The California
Assembly has created civil unions and is moving marriage legislation forward;
The Connecticut and Oregon legislatures are moving civil unions legislation
forward; Maine, Illinois and Maryland have passed transgender-inclusive
statewide nondiscrimination laws – all since January; Maryland has passed a
medical decision making act; 83% of people recently polled in New York are
now in favor of extending marital benefits to same-sex couples; And the 3rd
Circuit has ruled that law schools cannot be forced to allow the military to
recruit on their campuses in violation of school nondiscrimination policies. This is warp speed for a civil rights march. At this extraordinary moment in time, both nationally, and
here at BC Law, it is an honor to share a legacy with you all – trusting our
moral compasses; spotting the issue; keeping the faith; and praying with our
feet. |
|
