A driver’s license is a big deal. And not just in that “I was 16 once” sort of way. A license is important for many things—including the simple fact that you need it to legally drive anywhere. Whether to school, work, or the grocery store, public transit isn’t always a feasible option depending on where you live. A license is also necessary for opening a bank account, checking in at a hospital or hotel, purchasing auto insurance, going to events that have age restrictions, and more. A license is a central part of functioning in daily life, and for Oregon’s 3.9 million residents, it is a basic necessity on a thousand levels.
That’s why it’s shocking that so many people lack access to appropriate identification documents including driver’s licenses, especially LGBTQ people and undocumented immigrants (267,000 of whom are LGBT). Many states have made efforts to update their policies on ID documents for LGBT people, and a growing trend is emerging, as states pass legislation to create a process for undocumented immigrants to access driver’s licenses. While awaiting comprehensive immigration reform, 10 states, as well as D.C. and Puerto Rico, have enacted legislation for driver ID cards that are issued to eligible applicants, regardless of immigration status. On Election Day, voters in Oregon have the opportunity to weigh in on the decision too.
The initiative, Measure 88, called the “Alternative Driver Licenses Referendum,” would enact a driver ID card provision, which would issue driver ID cards to any eligible applicant regardless of immigration status. In order to qualify as eligible, applicants must meet fairly standard criteria—pass the driver’s test (written and behind the wheel), provide proof of residence in Oregon for more than a year, and provide proof of identity and birth. Unlike a driver’s license, the driver ID card is only issued for a four-year duration, does not require proof of legal presence in the U.S., and does not carry citizenship benefits (cannot be used for air travel, voting rights, access to federal buildings, or government programs or benefits for U.S. citizens).
The Yes on 88 campaign and others in favor of the card argue that it will keep roads and communities safe. Think about it—for Oregon’s community and law enforcement, the law allows Oregon to regulate who is on the road and to know who is driving, and it also helps drivers meet insurance requirements. Overall, it would reduce the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road. Those opposed to the card primarily assert that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be in the U.S. in the first place and that federal immigration reform is key.
The fact remains that there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants throughout the U.S. today, 160,000 of which live and work in Oregon. People, especially those that have fought hardship and barriers to be here, are working hard to build families, support the community, and contribute to the economy. Undocumented workers and families produce positive economic impacts. Not only do families need goods and services (which increases demand for jobs), but also undocumented workers pay taxes, and a fairly substantial amount at that. In 2010 alone, undocumented immigrants in Oregon paid nearly $94 million in state and local taxes, including nearly $47 million in state income taxes, $23 million in property taxes, and $24 million in sales taxes. In fact, studies show that if all undocumented immigrants were removed from Oregon, “the state would lose $3.4 billion in economic activity, $1.5 billion in gross state product, and approximately 19,259 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time.”
Preventing people from accessing licenses is an unnecessary obstacle to progress. It just puts another roadblock in the way. There’s no reason to add insult to injury, and adding more barriers doesn’t somehow make someone’s work less valuable. There are about a million reasons why people come to the U.S., and denying them a livelihood or the ability to get around is not in line with our values as a country and the American dream.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said:
by Stacey Long, National LGBTQ Task Force Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs
In 1970, the federal minimum wage rate was $1.60 per hour, which is about $9.61 in today’s dollars. Today, in 2014, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. After nearly half a century our country now snatches over two dollars every hour–$2.36 to be exact–from the pockets of its workers because of its refusal to raise the minimum wage to keep pace with reality. How can we take pride in being a country rooted in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we are failing at ensuring access to a livable income? On November 4, voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota have the opportunity to do what Congress has not– raise the minimum wage. If you are a resident of those states, I urge YOU vote to increase the minimum wage.
LGBTQ people, women, and people of color make up a substantial portion of minimum wage workers, and their economic security would greatly benefit if the wage is increased. About 33% of LGBTQ individuals identify as people of color, and people of color represent 42% of minimum wage earners. If the minimum wage was increased, 60% of the people that would cross the poverty threshold would be people of color. Additionally, the increase would drastically improve the lives of transgender people, who are four times more likely than the general public to be living in extreme poverty while earning less than $10,000 per year.
We also still live in a time where women – including LGBTQ women –are only paid 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. Inequalities like this, which are not specifically LGBTQ targeted, still affect the community, and furthermore 24% of lesbian and bisexual women live in poverty. It is imperative for the LGBTQ community to support progressive policies that address these inequalities and move us towards a more just society.
Even if you are not part of the demographics most affected by the minimum wage, the wages of America’s lowest paid workers affect you. Those living with privilege, whether race, class, gender, or orientation, should care. If the working class can earn a livable wage it increases their spending power while boosting economic security and growth. Economic growth as a result of increased minimum wage rates, creates greater business confidence, improves workplace morale, decreases employee turnover, and reduces training costs. Essentially, increasing the minimum wage would be better, not just for the working class, but for every class. Economic growth is a concept that everyone can benefit from, including the CEO of a major corporation.
Another important slice in the pie of economic justice is worker’s access to paid sick leave. Should a parent really have to lose a whole day’s pay because he stayed home with their sick child? Who is to blame for the child’s illness? Certainly not the parent, yet employers all over the country continue to punish them and other workers in this position. If employees had guaranteed paid leave days, the workforce would experience increased efficiency and allegiance rather than lower productivity and an increased risk of spreading illnesses.
In addition to the ballot measures to raise the minimum wage in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, and the advisory referendum on the ballot in Illinois, there is a ballot measure in Massachusetts that would provide all workers the chance to earn sick paid sick leave. Who knows, maybe the next jurisdiction to raise the wage will compel neighboring localities to do the same. At the very least, voting to raise the wage for your friends, neighbors, children, parents, or employees will help prevent another two dollar pinch from their pockets for the duration of the next half century.
by Trevoria Jackson, National LGBTQ Task Force Holley Law Fellow
During Asexual Awareness Week we celebrate the asexual community, also known as the “ace” community, and challenge ourselves to incorporate asexuality into our advocacy work. Asexuality is a sexual orientation describing people who do not experience sexual attraction, and asexual or “ace” are umbrella terms for a spectrum of identities including demisexual and gray-asexual.
Even though I believed myself to be a well-informed queer activist on a college campus, I had never heard of the ace community before last year. However, during my time as a fellow with the National LGBTQ Task Force, I had the opportunity to research the history of asexuality and the formation of the ace movement as well as to interview prominent movement leaders. What I learned truly redefined how I saw myself as a queer activist and showed me that, as an advocate, I am never done learning.
Part of this redefining period was the result of learning about the overlap between ace and queer communities. According to the 2011 Asexual Community Census, 41% of respondents identified along the LGBTQ spectrum in addition to identifying as asexual, demisexual, or gray-asexual with 20% identifying as transgender or questioning their gender. Additionally, 38% did not identify as LGBTQ but did consider themselves LGBTQ allies.
The census also cites that about 40% of respondents are currently attending college/university and almost 19% are currently attending a high school/secondary school. Many of these young adults look for spaces on their campus where they can have conversations about intimacy, attraction, and identity. These groups are often exclusively LGBTQ campus groups that may act as the first safe space an asexual person may come out in. But even in LGBTQ spaces, ace people may be the target of hostility and exclusion due to misconceptions about what it means to be asexual.
Realizing that a queer student organization, like the one I am a part of, could potentially exclude or invalidate a person’s identity motivated me to make sure that we were as welcoming to all student who may reach out to us. This meant initiating structural changes, such as forming a new Asexual, Bisexual, Pansexual, and Fluid community within our organization, which established a space for ace students to have a voice on campus. But it didn’t stop there. Being intentional about ace-inclusion means ensuring the language we use around sex and intimacy does not alienate or marginalize members of the ace community, and acknowledging the types of relationships we privilege and see as legitimate in our community.
The need for ace-inclusive LGBTQ activism isn’t just an individual imperative on college campuses. It’s part of a larger conversation about disrupting the boundaries between single-issue movements and challenging what is really meant by—and who is included within—queer activism. Some LGBTQ organizations, for example, have made racial justice and immigration reform top priorities, understanding that members of our own community are also affected by the systems and discrimination that oppress people of color and immigrants. Through this, advocates learned when we look across movements, we can see that we face similar barriers although our experiences of them may be different.
Both LGBTQ people and the ace community face barriers and discrimination on both the interpersonal and institutional levels. Our communities fight for similar rights: accurate visibility and representation in the media, preventing physical and sexual violence, access to affordable and culturally-competent health care, relationship recognition, adoption rights and employment protections.
Employment discrimination against the ace community is becoming a growing trend as more people come out as asexual. The rise of asexual-identified employees will drastically increase in the next 5 years, as the 81% of ace individuals under 25 enter the workforce. Unfortunately, increased visibility may lead to widespread discrimination for ace young adults. In looking at the history of other marginalized communities, once the general population is widely aware that a minority group exists, we often see an increase in discrimination targeting that community.
In order for the LGBTQ community to become more inclusive, we have to educate ourselves about the asexual community and dedicate ourselves to fight for their rights. Only then can we stand in solidarity with all those who have felt the sting of injustice for simply trying to be their whole selves, no matter their sexual orientation or identity. As a queer activist, I have dedicated myself to making my activism ace-inclusive. I will step up when it is appropriate for me to demonstrate leadership and step back when it is important that other voices be heard. I will acknowledge what I do not know, educate myself, and stand in solidarity with the ace community. I will hold LGBTQ advocates and organizations accountable to do the same. We are stronger when we all stand together.
You can find resources to host your own Asexual Awareness Week events and social media campaigns here.
By Emmett Patterson, Former Task Force Policy Institute Fellow
Sometimes, it is fun to pretend to go back in time. I mean, it’s precisely the reason I love visiting Renaissance festivals, hiking away from the city, and cooking from old school recipe cards written in mostly faded, somewhat indiscernible short-hand.
As entertaining as those hobbies are, I know it’s just pretend—I know I’m not actually traveling back in time, and there’s a good chance I wouldn’t if I could. See, I’m not willing to swap medical care and air conditioning for archery and jousting, I always carry bug spray when hiking, and I have a box of cake mix in the pantry as a back-up.
I guess that’s the reason I get so nervous when I look at the upcoming election. This year, voters in three states will have the option to go back to a time before Roe v. Wade.
For the Nov. 4th election, Colorado, North Dakota, and Tennessee each have ballot initiatives that would result in banning abortion, regardless of the circumstances. There would be no abortion at all, not even for rape, incest, or to protect the mother’s life. Colorado’s Amendment 67 would literally make abortion a crime–adding unborn humans to the definitions of “person” and “child” in the Colorado Criminal Code. North Dakota’s Measure 1 would grant the “right to life of every human being at any stage of development.” And Tennessee’s Amendment 1 would give the legislature unlimited, unrestricted authority to make any decisions they like regarding abortion, because as the measure states, “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion.” Supporters of these legislative initiatives are primarily concerned with the protection of women and their unborn children.
But, in reality, these amendments don’t just ban abortion—they restrict access for those with limited economic means (i.e. cannot afford to travel to other states for the medical care they need). Which means banning abortion for individuals of low income, and largely those from communities of color. Let’s take Tennessee as an example. People of color make up roughly 20% of the state’s population. Of the 18% of the state population living in poverty (just over half of which are women), an estimated 84% are people of color. This means that, nearly half of all the Tennesseans living in poverty are women of color.
With Halloween around the corner, I can’t help but think that this is just a nightmare. Women make up more than half of our population, over 62 million are of reproductive age, and 99% have used contraception at some point in their lives. On average over a million women seek access to abortion services annually, including 16% of pregnancies in CO, about 10% of pregnancies in ND, and 18% of pregnancies in TN. I mean—it’s been 40 years since the Supreme Court decided in Roe V. Wade that women have a right to terminate their pregnancy should they decide to or should they need to.
And yet, it’s not just pretend. This conversation continues to be debated year after year, in state legislatures across the country. Women continue to encounter a number of unnecessary political barriers when seeking access to abortions. And in this election, abortion rights will be subject to a public vote. So, depending on the turnout next week, women in Colorado, North Dakota, and Tennessee could be transported 40 years back in time. The only difference is they’ll still have cell phones and the ability to wear pants (without scorn).
So, I wonder what’s next. I know right now, I live in a modern world where women have the right to consider all their options, not just ones that the legislators and the ill-informed public decide they should have. Will it stay that way?
I know that for me, personally, I’m looking forward to a future that provides fair treatment, regardless of economic status, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity. I’m looking forward to the day I can take my child (which I will have when and I how I choose) to a Renaissance festival and reflect on how lucky we are to not be living in the past.
So, why should LGBTQ people care about these issues?
Apart from all the other reasons, the bottom line is this is a question of bodily autonomy and access to quality healthcare—two issues that are essential to our lives and underscore the entire LGBTQ movement.
By Dominique Chamely, National LGBTQ Task Force Public Policy Fellow
For four years, National LGBTQ Task Force has hosted an annual Leadership Exchange for LGBTQ leaders from across our movement. We have retreated and contemplated our values, honed our analysis of power and privilege, developed skills for managing teams and generally gathered together in solidarity for one another’s experiences and needs in the vastness of this LGBTQ movement.
What I love most about this space is the culture that we create – respectful and co-creative, inclusive and curious; I have such a tremendous amount of respect for the culture we create and I believe strongly in the hope it gives each of us that we might help manifest this type of culture back in our home communities and organizations.
In 2015, the National LGBTQ Task Force will launch a Leadership Exchange exclusively for people who identify as transgender and genderqueer. This group of leaders will participate in a learning community that will offer peer coaching, opportunities for self-reflection, story sharing, skill development and action.
The Trans Leadership Exchange centers on 5 values:
- Personal Power and Transformation –Through the exploration of values, we will explore more ways of being self-aware, centered and true to our own desires.
- Build Relationship – working in this movement can be challenging and even isolating at times. How can we support one another and develop a sense of community with other leaders who have shared meaning with us about our lives and our work?
- Power, Privilege, and Oppression: discussing how social identities (such as race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, age) shared and best practices in communication skills for engaging across lines of significant difference.
- Organizing Skills – organizing people and money, and distinguishing between leading, managing and supervising.
- Movement Building – recognize different strategies and tactics for achieving political change in the LGBTQ movement and how to foster a more collaborative and generative LGBTQ movement.
Who Should Apply?
Trans and Genderqueer identified leaders working in the LGBTQ movement are welcome to apply. This includes campaigns and community organizers, policy advocates, faith leaders, higher education and community center professionals. Trans and Genderqueer leaders from other social justice movements (such as immigration rights, reproductive justice, and economic and racial justice) are also welcome to apply. This program is tailored for leaders with a wide range of professional or volunteer experience.
The Task Force is committed to creating multi-racial, gender diverse, accessible spaces in our leadership programs. The Trans Leadership Exchange is available at low or no cost to all accepted participants, based on a sliding scale. No one will be turned away for financial reasons.
I welcome inquiries about the program. Please contact Evangeline Weiss, Leadership Programs Director at the Task Force: firstname.lastname@example.org, 919-236-3049.
Applications are due by October 15, 2014–Apply here now!
Jorge Amaro escribe el blog “Salir del Closet”
[Este editorial fue publicado originalmente en La Opinion el 10 de octubre en la observancia de “National Coming Out Day.”]
A la tierna edad de cuatro años aprendí la importancia de mentir. Mis padres, tías, tíos, primas, primos, vecinos, y compañeros de escuela me exigían: “¿tienes novia?” Ellos insistían en que me sentía atraído por una chica—a la misma vez insinuado que era la única manera de comprobar mi masculinidad. Y aunque era demasiado joven para entender el concepto de la identidad y sexualidad, sabía que no me llamaba la atención las niñas, y que la única manera de evitar de ser presionando era mentir.
El mundo ha cambiado drásticamente en los últimos 25 años. De niño, no había ninguna persona lesbiana, gay, bisexual, transgénero y queer (LGBTQ) como modelos que se mencionaban en los medios. Hoy en día, el cantante gay Ricky Martín se escucha en la radio mientras continúa encabezando las listas de éxitos, la actriz y activista transgénero Laverne Cox aparece en la portada de la revista TIME, las películas de la directora abiertamente bisexual Angelina Jolie son vistas por millones de personas en la gran pantalla, y la comediante lesbiana Ellen DeGeneres rompe el récord del internet de la foto más compartida en las redes sociales.
Ahora más que nunca, las personas LGBTQ están decidiendo vivir sus vida con orgullo y auténticamente. Y aunque hoy vivimos en una sociedad que apoya más a las personas LGBTQ, nosotros continuamos enfrentando obstáculos formidables en todos los aspectos de nuestras vidas: en la escuela, en la vivienda, el empleo, la asistencia de salud médica, en nuestras congregaciones religiosas, en la jubilación y en los derechos humanos fundamentales. Por ejemplo, a pesar de la acción que toma la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos el lunes pasado que amplió el derecho al matrimonio a las parejas del mismo sexo a 30 estados, en cinco de esos estados (Indiana, Oklahoma, Pensilvania, Utah y Virginia), sigue siendo perfectamente legal que un empleador despida a alguien por ser LGBTQ.
Todavía hay mucho trabajo por hacer para garantizar la justicia, la libertad y la igualdad para todos. Al celebrar el “National Coming Out Day,” un día en el que animamos a personas LGBTQ de salir del closet y vivir sus vidas con autenticidad y celebrar su identidad, también es importante que nos comprometamos nuevamente a derribar todas las barreras que impiden a la gente de ser sus verdaderos seres. También es importante entender que el trabajo para asegurar la igualdad para todos, no sólo depende de la comunidad LGBTQ, pero también requiere el apoyo de las personas heterosexuales.
Salir del closet significa vivir mi vida como persona abiertamente gay. Afortunadamente para mí, diciendo a mis padres que soy gay no causo ningún problema; diciéndoles que soy ateo causó un lío. Esperé en decirles que soy gay tanto tiempo porque me había acostumbrado a vivir una mentira. Por muchos años fui maltratado simplemente por ser percibido como hombre gay, y aunque negué mi orientación sexual, todavía fui intimidado, acosado verbalmente, y atacado físicamente. Tenía demasiado miedo y no quise averiguar lo que significaba vivir abiertamente gay.
Ya no soy ese niño de cuatro años que siente la necesidad de mentir sobre su identidad. Pero hasta la fecha, para demasiadas personas LGBTQ, vivir la vida auténticamente no es una opción. En nombre de ellos, y millones más en situaciones similares, les invito que me acompañen en el trabajo de crear una sociedad que celebra y respeta la diversidad en la identidad y la expresión humana.
Jorge Amaro, National LGBTQ Task Force, Media and Public Relations Director