HB 201: Accurate Birth Certificates

Rep. Rafael Anchia

It is standard practice for courts to issue “supplemental birth certificates” that reflect the names of the adoptive parents of a child. This is done because birth certificates are the primary document for establishing the parental relationship and are often required to enroll children in school, add them to the parent’s insurance policy or admit them for medical treatment. Current Texas law states that supplemental birth certificates contain two fields for parents "one of whom must be a female, named as the mother, and the other of whom must be a male, named as the father."

It is perfectly legal in Texas for two men or two women to be the parents of a child. Adoption is about the relationship between parents and their children, not about the relationship between the parents, so Texas' lack of the freedom to marry has no affect on adoption law. From the perspective of the law two people of the same sex who have a child together are simply two single people with a child, in the same way that two people of the opposite sex who have a child together but who are not married are simply two single people with a child.

There are thousands of same-sex couples who are raising children together (20% of same-sex couples in Texas are raising children, according the 2010 Census), but those parents are unable to obtain the primary document used to prove the parent child relationship.

House Bill 201, by Rafael Anchia (D - Dallas), corrects this problem by deleting the requirement in the Family Code that one parent must be male and one must be female.

Anchia has been filing this legislation for nearly a decade. His version during the last session, HB 415, received a powerful hearing in the House Public Health Committee last session, with several parents of small children testifying about the need for the bill. Unfortunately the bill was never brought up for a vote in the committee.


The House Public Health Committee is chaired by Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R - Brenham), who is expected to retain her chairwomanship during the upcoming session. 89% of Texas voters believe that "gay and lesbian parents should have the same legal rights with respect to their children." With the overwhelming public support for this bill it is hard to believe that it would not pass a vote of the entire 150-member House, were the House given the opportunity, but first Rep. Kolkhorst must grant HB 201 a hearing, and allow it to come up for a vote in committee.

If you live in Rep. Anchia's district call him at (214) 943-6081 and thank him for for filing HB 201.

If you live in Rep. Kolkhorst's district call her at (979) 251-7888 and ask that HB 201 receive a prompt hearing and committee vote once the legislature reconvenes in January.

If you don't know who represents you go here to find out. 

Worst 10 Texas House Members on LGBT Issues

The 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature has come to an end. It was perhaps the best legislative session for queer Texans ever, but all was not rosy. Along with major victories on anti-bullying legislation and HIV medication assistance programs some truly hateful legislation was introduced. Fortunately all of the anti-LGBT legislation was, by and large, defeated, but it wasn't thanks to these people, the 10 worst members of the Texas House on LGBT issues:

#140 (tie)

Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham)

Score: -4 points Grade: F- Having voted for both HB 1386, the teen suicide prevention bill and HB 2229, which makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Assistance Committee, Kolkhorst has more good votes on the nine votes used in this scoring than any other member of the bottom ten. He authorship of HB 3098, however, insured her a place amongst the worst of the worst. The bill was the House companion to SB 723 and would have, among other things, banned opposite-sex marriage for people who have had their legally recognized sex changed. Fortunately the bill died in committee.

#140 (tie)

Linda Harper Brown (R-Irving)

Score: -4 Grade F- Harper brown would have managed a perfect set of nine "nay" votes on LGBT issues this session if not for her support SB 2229, which makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Assistance Committee (although she only voted for it after an amendment allowing a pilot needle exchange program in Bexar county was removed). What really solidified her spot on the bottom ten, however, was her co-authorship of HCR 110 which called on the Obama administration to defend the so-called "defense of marriage act."

#140 (tie)	Four Price (R-Amarillo)
	Score: -4 points Grade: F- Price has an identical voting record to Harper-Brown and the other House member tied for #140th, Charles Schwertner - it's hard hard to say if they were copying from each other, or just playing from the same Teabagger playbook, but anyone who thinks DOMA is in anyway defensible deserves to be on a worst legislators list.

#140 (tie)	Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown)
	Score: -4 points Grade: F- See above Re: Harper Brown, Price - Schwertner begrudgingly supported making the HIV Medication Advisory Committee permanent after the needle exchange program amendment was removed, and co-authored HCR 110, how unoriginal.

#144 (tie)

Wayne Christian (R-Center)

Score: -10 points Grade: F- Christian manged to be only member of the House to pass anti-LGBT legislation this session with his amendment to require state universities that have LGBT resource centers to equally fund "family and traditional values" centers (the amendment was later removed by the Senate). If not for his "yea" vote on HB 1386, the teen suicide prevention bill, he would have been ranked the worst member in the House, but we have to give the guy some credit for being against teen suicide, right?

#144 (tie)	Erwin Cain (R-Paris)
	Score: -10 points Grade: F- Cain voted against the best interest of the queer community on all nine of the record votes considered in this ranking. That, combined with his co-authorship of HCR 110 (which would have called on the Obama administration to defend the so-called "defense of marriage act") make his ranking as the third worst House member much deserved.

#144 (tie)	Dan Flynn (R-Canton)
	Score: -10 points Grade: F- Like Cain (and Taylor and Zedler (below)), Flynn voted against the best interest of the queer community on all nine of the record votes considered in this ranking and was a co-author of HCR 110.

#144 (tie)	Van Taylor (R-Plano)
	Score: -10 points Grade: F- Like Cain and Flynn (and Zedler (below)), Taylor voted against the best interest of the queer community on all nine of the record votes considered in this ranking and was a co-author on HCR 110.

#144 (tie)	Bill Zedler (R-Arlington)
	Score: -10 points Grade: F- Like Cain, Flynn and Taylor, Zedler voted against the best interest of the queer community on all nine of the record votes considered in this ranking and was a co-author on HCR 110. Seriously, do these guys call each other the night before to make sure that their votes will match?

#149

Warren Chisum (R-Pampa)

Score: -14 points Grade: F- No list of Texas politicians who are bad on LGBT issues would be complete without Warren Chisum, the architect of Texas' version of the so-called "defense of marriage act." Chisum has announced that this will be his last session in the House, but he couldn't leave without throwing a few homophobic punches. Chisum's HB 2636 would have massively expanded the powers of the state Attorney General to interfere in same-sex divorce cases (Chisum himself attempted to interfere in a Dallas same-sex divorce case last year by filing a brief encouraging the judge to declare the divorce illegal). Luckily his attempt to expand the powers of state government died in committee. Only Chisum's support of the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee keeps him from taking the throne as the worst House member on LGBT issues.

#150

Paul Workman (R-Austin)

Score: -15 Grade: F- Workman voted yea for "super" anti-bullying bill HB 1942 on one of the two recorded votes on the bill, that's the only good thing you can say about him. In addition to supporting Christian's attempts to defund campus LGBT resource centers Workman managed to out-Chisum, Chisum by filing HCR 110, which encouraged the Obama administration to defend the so-called "defense of marriage act" in court. Although the legislation would have had no binding effect on the federal government (and was defeated) signing on to it as a co-author became the easiest way this session for House members to prove their homophobic bona fides. Thank you, Paul Workman, you made it much easier to spot the bad guys.

The list of the Top 10 Texas House Members on LGBT Issues was published yesterday. We'll publish the full ranking of the 150 members of the House soon, and are working on a similar ranking of the 31 Senators. You can take a look at how LQ arrived at the scores if you'd like and and tell us what you think. Any ranking system like this naturally involves the biases of the people compiling the list. LQ welcomes comments, suggestions, rants and criticisms regarding the rankings

Day 120: Anti-Trans Marriage Bill in Senate, Deadlines Loom in House

Today is the 120th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The Senate returned from an overnight recess at 8:00 am, the House reconvenes at 9:30.

All eyes are on the Senate today as SB 723 is once again on the "intent calendar." SB 723 would remove a court ordered change of sex from the list of documents that can be used to prove identity when obtaining a marriage license, but the author's stated purpose is to prohibit anyone who has changed their legally recognized sex from getting married. The intent calendar is a list of fast-tracked bills that must receive a 2/3 vote of the Senate to be brought up for debate. The bill's author, Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands), originally placed the bill on the intend calendar back on April 18th, but removed it after a concerted effort by queer activist deluged Democratic Senators with phone calls and e-mails. Since 12 of the 31 members of the Senate are Democrats if they all oppose SB 723 it can not get the required 2/3, or 20, votes it needs to be brought up.

Williams placing SB 723 back on the intent calendar either means that he thinks he's turned one of the Democrats, or that this is a desperate last-ditch move to get his legislation passed. Equality Texas has set up an easy to use form e-mail that will automatically be sent to your Senator here. Please also call your Senator. If Williams has turned one of the Dems it may be Carlos Uresti (San Antonio) who voted "present, not voting" when SB 723 came through the Senate Jurisprudence committee (at one point a "no" vote from him would have killed the bill). Uresti can be reached at his Capitol office at (512) 463-0119.

Just because SB 723 is on today's intent calendar doesn't mean it will come up for a vote today. The Senate has a number of high-profile bills to consider today and it's likely they will run out of time before getting to this bill. The intent calendar rolls over through out the week so activists will need to keep watching the Senate carefully.

If SB 723 passes the Senate the next step will be 1st reading in the House (a mere formality: the bill number and a short description of the bill called a "caption" are read aloud on the House floor), and referral to House committee. The bill would likely be referred to the House Public Health Committee, which would have until Saturday, May 21st to vote on it. Considering the tight deadline it may be too late for SB 723 to pass. It's House companion, HB 2098 by Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), died last night when it failed to meet the midnight deadline for House bills to be voted out of committee. Kolkhorst is the chairwoman of the Public Health Committee, she could have scheduled her bill for a hearing and a vote at any time. The fact that she didn't indicates that it's either not a priority for her, or that she knows she doesn't have the 6 votes she needs to get this legislation out of committee.


In other pressing session deadline news: midnight tonight is the deadline for the House Calendars committee to schedule most House bills for a vote. HB 1386, Garnett Coleman's (D-Houston) rather comprehensive youth suicide prevention bill was voted out of committee last week, but if the Calendars committee doesn't put it on the schedule today it will die.

The other House bill we're watching with an upcoming deadline is HB 910 by Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), which would allow people recognized by Texas as "unmarried" to enter into gestational agreements with surrogate mothers (current statute only allows legally married persons to enter into such agreements). HB 910 was voted out of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence committee without any objection which allows it to be placed on the "Local and Consent Calendar" a list of noncontroversial bills to be considered by the House. Thompson is chair of the committee that creates the calendar, so she shouldn't have any problem getting her bill placed on it. The deadline for her to do so is Midnight on Wednesday, May 11th.

Both HB 1386 and HB 910 will have to pass the House by midnight on Thursday, May 12th, then must be voted on a second time in the House of Friday. After that it's on to the Senate.

Victory on Anti-Trans Marriage Bill, At Least For Now

Queer activists across the country have spent the last week fighting SB 723, by Sen Tommy Williams (R - The Woodlands). The bill would remove a court ordered "change of sex" from the list of documents that can be used to prove identity when obtaining a marriage license and has the potential to void all marriages in Texas between anyone who has had their legally recognized sex changed and a person of the opposite sex.

The Senate has published it's intent calendar for next week and SB 723 is NOT on it! (The intent calendar is a list of bills that Senators intend to bring up for a vote using a loophole in the Senate rules that allows 2/3 of the Senate to consider bills out of order.) The Texas Legislature Online lists the last action on the bill as "Not again placed on intent calendar ," which may be the sweetest words queer Texans will read this session.

SB 723 is now on the Senate's "general calendar," a list of bills to be considered in accordance with Senate rules and which therefore do not require the 2/3 vote of support to pass. The General Calendar is organized by type of bill:

1. Special orders: Like the intent calendar 2/3 of Senators must agree to make a bill a "special order," since SB 723 does not appear to have the required 2/3 support it is unlikely to be made a special order.
2. Unfinished business: anything left over from the previous legislative day.
3. Senate Joint Resolutions: Joint Resolutions are used by the legislature to exercise the power granted it by the state constitution (for instance to propose a constitutional amendment), Senate Joint Resolutions are Joint Resolutions that originate in the Senate.
4. Senate Resolutions; just plain ol' "resolutions" (without the words "joint" or "concurrent" in front of them) are used to communicate with-in the body they originate (in this case the Senate). For instance resolutions can are used to write the Senate rules or for the Senate to thank and/or congratulate citizens.
5. Senate Concurrent Resolutions: Concurrent Resolutions communicate the will of the legislature to other bodies, for instance instructing branches of the federal legislature to pass or repeal a law. Senate Concurrent Resolutions originate in the Senate.
6. Senate Bills on third reading;Senate rules require that bills be read on "three of several days." On the first reading the bill is referred to committee. The second reading is the first opportunity for debate on the Senate floor. If the bill passes after the second reading it then must be read again and debated again on a different legislative day (2/3 of the Senate can by-pass this rule, which is common for bills on the intent calendar but rarer for bills on the general calendar).
7. Senate Bills on second reading: Bills that are being debated for the first time on the Senate floor (see above). This is where SB 723 falls on the General Calendar.
   
8. House Joint Resolutions: Like Senate Joint Resolutions, but originating in the House.
9. House Bills on third reading: Like Senate Bills, but originating in the House.
10. House Bills on second reading: Like Senate Bills, but originating in the House.
11. House Concurrent Resolutions: Like Senate Concurrent Resolutions, but originating in the House.

Additionally, each of the 11 groupings of bills is placed in the order they were voted out of committee. Due to this strict structure for ordering the general calendar SB 723 is currently the 74th bill in line. Most of the time bills are only on the general calendar if they don't have the 2/3 support needed to be brought up through the intent calendar. This means that they tend to be more controversial and the floor debate on them tends to be prolonged, making working through the general calendar an arduous and lengthy process.

Never the less queer activists must continue to watch SB 723 carefully as it works its way up the general calendar. Williams has until May 20th to get this bill voted out of the Senate, after which it must work it's way through the House before May 25th. The longer it's held on the general calendar, the less likely it is to pass.

On the west wing of the capitol the companion bill to SB 723, House Bill 3098, has been sitting in the Public Health Committee since March 18th without a hearing. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) is both the author of HB 3098 and the chair of Public Health. Kolkhorst was also the author of the legislation that created the list of acceptable identity documents for obtaining a marriage license.

Before 2009 the only way for a person to prove their identity when obtaining a marriage license was to present the county clerk with a birth certificate. During the 81st session Kolkhorst filed HB 3666 to add a driver's license or passport to the list. Several legislators pointed out that some people don't have a driver's license or passport and started recommending other forms of ID, like a military ID, or school records. The session was rapidly coming to a close and Kolkhorst was desperate to get her bill out of the House and on to the Senate so she told her fellow House members to make a list of every identifying document they could think of and then sent that list to legislative council (the legislature's lawyers) for them to draft an amendment that incorporated everyone's suggestions.

Unfortunately for Kolkhorst, and fortunately for any Texan who's needed to have their legally recognized sex changed, she didn't bother to actually read the amendment before proposing it on the House floor. The amendment passed on a voice vote (meaning it was so uncontroversial that no-one wanted to bother counting votes) and then went to the Senate where it also passed with no debate and no opposition.

Now it seems that, two years later, Kolkhorst has read the law she created and wants to take it back. In contrast to SB 723 (which just removes one of the documents), HB 3098 rewrites the entire list, removing about half of the currently available documents, including a court ordered sex change. Additionally Kolkhorst's bill requires applicants for a marriage license who are using foreign identity documents to prove that they are legal residents of the United States.

As chair of the House Public Health Committee Kolkhorst can schedule her bill for a hearing pretty much whenever she wants, so I'm surprised she's let it sit idle for so long. Hopefully that indicates a lack of motivation on her part to pass the legislation. Although I suppose it's possible that she hasn't bothered to read this bill either, and has forgotten she's filed it.

Day 98: Anti-Trans Marriage Bill and Asher's Law

Today is the 98th day of the 82nd Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. The Senate will reconvene at 11:00 am, the House at 1:00 pm.

SB 723 by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands), is on the Senate intent calendar today. SB 723 would remove a court ordered "change of sex" from the list of documents that can be presented as proof of identity for obtaining a marriage license and would effectively outlaw opposite-sex marriage for trans Texans (Read LQ's explanation 0f the bill).

The Senate rules require that all bills be considered in the order that they are filed. The rules also allow the Senate to ignore that rule if 2/3 of the Senators agree. The list of bills that Senators would like to have considered to be taken out of order is called the "intent calendar." Any Senator may place their bill on the intent calendar, but they generally will not do so unless they are confident that it will pass the 2/3 vote. Since the Senate Republicans are 1 vote short of a 2/3 majority Williams must believe that he has the support of at least one Senate Democrat for SB 723 or he wouldn't have placed it on the intent calendar. A list of phone numbers for Democratic Senators is here, please take the time to call them and tell them to "oppose SB 723."

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

HB 1386 (Asher's Law) by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) will be heard in the House Public Health Committee on Wednesday. Coleman's bill is similar to the committee substitute for HB 1942 that passed out of the House Public Education Committee last week, but does not contain the redefinition of "bullying" that will make it harder for victims of bullying to be transferred to different classrooms or campuses than their victims and does contain a non-discrimination policy that protects sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. The bill is named after 13 year old Houstonian Asher Brown who committed suicide last fall after enduring years of bullying and harassment at school. (Read LQ's explanation of the bill).

The Public Health Committee is probably the most LGBT friendly committee in the House this session (which isn't saying much). The four Democratic members of the eleven person committee all have perfect voting records on queer issues and four of the six Republican members have at least some record of voting for the queer community.

The biggest challenge will be getting Chairwoman Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) to understand the need for a non-discrimination policy. Republican ideology holds that enumerating attributes that have historically been the cause of bias creates "special classes" of people and is, in itself, a form of discrimination. This is the core of straight, cisgender privilege: the assumption that only LGB people have a "sexual orientation" and only trans people have a "gender identity or expression" and that everyone else is just normal. Coleman will have the challenge of making the moderate Republicans on the committee, particularly Kolkhorst, understand that the enumerated list in his nondiscrimination policy equality protects all students. Otherwise it is unlikely that the chairwoman will bring HB 1386 up for a committee vote, the next hurdle Coleman must overcome for his bill to become law.

Even if HB 1386 makes it out of committee time is running out for it to pass this session. There are 41 days left in the 82nd legislative session. In those 41 days HB 1386 must not only pass out of committee but must be approved by the entire House, voted out of Senate Committee and pass the Senate. Time is running out and Coleman's bill is behind schedule.

Legislative Intent and SB 723

Yesterday I wrote that SB 723 had been put on the Senate Calendar for Monday. The bill would remove a court ordered "sex change" from the list of identifying documents that can be used to obtain a marriage license. Since then several LGBT organizations, blogs and publications have joined the call for action.

Disturbingly, some commenters have dismissed the gravity of the situation. It's easy to miss how damaging this bill is since it only deletes three words from the code: "or sex change." Several other identifying documents would still be permitted, such as a passport or drivers license. "If a trans person has the correct sex printed on their other ID," say the naysayers, "they can still get a marriage license."

Technically they are correct. What they miss, however, is the roll that legislative intent plays in the court room. Sen. Tommy Williams, who authored SB 723, has been very clear that his intention is to prevent someone whose original birth certificate assigned them one sex from marrying someone whose original birth certificate assigned them the same sex. In the bill analysis for SB 723 he states

"In a 1999 decision, Littleton v. Prange, by the Fourth Texas Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Chief Justice Phil Hardberger concluded that an individual's sex is decided by biological factors at birth, as indicated on a birth certificate. In Chief Justice Hardberger's opinion regarding the transsexual marriage between two male born men, he stated, 'We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid…'."

By using Littleton to support his bill Williams clarifies that he feels that the sex assigned to someone at birth is, by default, their actual sex and that, regardless of genetics, physiology or personal identity that person can never be legally considered another sex.

Understanding Littleton is the key to understanding the true maleficence of SB 723. The case involved a trans woman, Christie Lee Littleton, who attempted to file a medical malpractice suite after the death of her husband. Mrs. Littleton was told she could not because she was “genetically male”, and her marriage was therefore invalid. The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, but it had to strain really hard to do so. In his opinion, Justice Hardberger flatly stated that he could find no case law or statute in Texas, or for that matter anywhere in the U.S., on which to base the ruling. Instead he relied on English Case Law: Corbett v. Corbett (1970).

Since the ruling was in the fourth court of appeals it only applies as binding precedent in the fourth court's district (the San Antonio area), but other Texas courts can, and have, used Littleton to guide them in their decisions. If SB 723 becomes law Littleton will, effectively, become binding statewide.

There is very little transgender case law in Texas, and even less legislative history. When the original list of identifying documents was created two years ago by the legislature there was no debate or opposition. The author of the current list, Louis Kolkhorst, later said that she was not aware that a court ordered change of sex was on the list of identifying documents (she authored the House version SB 723 this session (HB 3098)), so there is no documentation of intent from the legislation that created the current list.

In citing Littleton Williams' has laid the ground work for a state-wide policy of refusing to acknowledge that some people are assigned the wrong sex at birth. Considering the current lack of case law or legislative record on the legal status of transgender people in Texas if he is successful his intention in passing SB 723 will become the overriding legal attitude for the entire state. It may even be possible for SB 723 to be used to prevent Texas' courts or agencies from issuing corrected identifying documents like driver's licenses.

So yes, even if SB 723 passes trans people who have a correct drivers license or passport will still be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. But if anyone chooses to challenge the validity of their marriage, as happened to Christie Littleton (and as is currently happening to Nikki Araguz) they will be unable to avail themselves to any of the protections of marriage. What good is a marriage certificate if, when the protections it provides are needed, it will be voided by the courts?

SB 723 is an attack on every trans person in Texas. It must be defeated. Please call these key senators and tell them to "oppose SB 723." If you are unable to call until this weekend call anyway and leave a message. A full voice mail box on Monday morning will go a long way towards helping these senators stand up for what's right.

Mario Gallegos (512) 463-0106
Wendy Davis (512) 463-0110
Rodney G. Ellis (512) 463-0113
Kirk Watson (512) 463-0114
John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
Carlos I. Uresti (512) 463-0119
Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121
Royce West (512) 463-0123
Leticia R. Van de Putte (512) 463-0126
Eduardo A. (Eddie) Lucio, Jr. (512) 463-0127
José R. Rodríguez (512) 463-0129

Day 44: Between the Conception and the Creation Falls the Education

Today is the 44th day of the regular session of the 82nd Texas Legislature. Both the House and Senate will reconvene at 10 am.

The House Public Health Committee meets today at 8 am for it's "organizational meeting". Chairwoman Kolkhorst will discuss her priorities for the session and get a feel for where other committee members want to go. HB 415 by Anchia (D-Dallas) has been referred to the public health committee.

Under Texas law adoptive parents may petition the court to have a new birth certificate that reflects the adoptive parents names. This is standard practice and is done to make easier for those parents to prove their relationship to the child. Unfortunately the law specifically prohibits two men or two women from being listed as parents on a birth certificate (despite it being perfectly legal for two men or two women to adopt a child). HB 415 would fix this problem.

Anchia has filed this bill before and it's always received an emotional hearing in committee, but has never been voted out and on to the House floor. I'm hopeful that it may be better received in committee this session (read Legislative Queery's Day 38 post for more information).


Last night I sat on the Panel for 'Issues & Answers - Bullying' in Houston with Rep. Jessica Farrar and Houston Independent School District Trustee Juliet Stipeche. Farrar indicated that HB 1386 by Coleman (joint authored by Farrar) may be referred to the Public Health Committee as well. HB 1386 is similar to HB 224 by Strama (the big "Bully Bill") but far more comprehensive and inclusive, going well beyond just bullying issues in schools to require training on suicide prevention awareness for almost all state employees who interact with youth. The hope is that since HB 1386 deals with the broader issue of suicide that it will be considered a public health issue and not just a public education issue.

The Speakers office has broad latitude in referring bills, but Speaker Straus has a reputation for respecting members wishes so it's quite possible that HB 1386 will go to the Public Health Committee. If that happens we may see two committee hearings on a very similar topic in the next month or so. This is good. The 82nd Texas House is almost 2/3 freshmen and sophomores. Although bullying legislation has been filed ever session for over a decade many of the current members of the House may never have been in a hearing when a parent described the heartbreak of their child's experience, or a teacher talked about the frustration of not having the tools they needed to address the problem. There is value in Committee Hearings, even when bills never make it out of committee, because it educates members.

This is the challenge of changing the law: the slow, torturous process of educating lawmakers on experiences that they have never had. It's a slow process, two steps forward and one step back, but it's how our system works. Before this idea that being tormented by other students should not be a part of any student's reality takes root and is born full-fledged as common wisdom, amidst all the struggle and pain, the conjouling and convincing we must educate, we must tell our stories and insist on being heard.

Day 38: Heather Has Two Mommies, But Only One Is Legally Recognized

Today is the 38th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes at 10 am, the Senate at 11.

Yesterday Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston) introduced HB 1386 which would create a truly visionary program to counter youth suicide that includes a non-discrimination policy for Texas public school students that includes sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. I'll write more about HB 1386 later, but wanted to take this opportunity to thank Rep. Coleman for his thoughtful legislation.

HB 415 by Rep. Anchia (D - Dallas) was referred to the House Committee on Public Health yesterday. HB 415 would allow same-sex parents to be given birth certificates for their children which accurately reflect both parents. Current law prohibits Texas' birth certificates from reflecting two men or two women as parents, straight people who adopt are regularly given amended birth certificates that reflect both parents names.

The composition of the House public health committee this session is interesting. An 11 member committee, it has 4 Democratic members and 7 Republicans and is chaired by Rep. Louis Kolkhorst (R - Austin, Grimes, Walker, Washington counties). Anchia filed this bill last session as well, during that hearing Kolkhorst was visibly moved by parents' stories of how not having an accurate birth certificate has made it difficult for them to get emergent care for their children, secure visas for travel and be recognized as a guardian by their children's schools. If Kolkhorst can be convinced to allow the the committee to vote on HB 415 there is a chance that this bill might make it to the House floor for a vote.

The 4 Democratic members of the committee include 3 of the staunchest allies of the queer community: Naishtat, Coleman, Gonzales. The other one, Alvarado, doesn't have a voting record on LGBT issues because she is a sophomore member and there wasn't a record vote last session, but she has made multiple public statements in support of the community. Those four votes are pretty secure, since the committee has 11 members the bill needs 6 supporters to make it out of committee and on to the House floor. If chairwoman Kolkhorst can be persuaded to support HB 415 that makes 5 yea votes. So where might the 6th one come from?

Of the 7 republican members only one is a member of the notorious "Gang of 37": Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R - Colin, Rockwall counties) - House members with perfect records of voting against the LGBT community - people who never miss an opportunity to exact their bigotry on the queer populous. The other 7, including chairwoman Kolkhorst have, at least once, been persuaded to vote in the best interest of the community or are freshmen or sophomores who have yet to establish a record. The relatively moderate make up gives me hope that one of those members might become the necessary 6th vote, but which one?

One of the more hopeful freshmen members is Rep. Sarah Davis (R - Houston). Davis actively sought and enthusiastically received the endorsement of the Houston chapter of Log Cabin Republicans during her campaign. The Harris county Republican party did very little to support her campaign, so she's not as beholden to the party machine as some other members, and she has made public statements that she would support the LGBT community (so long as that support doesn't include what she considers the "expansion of government"). This bill would seem a key opportunity for her to prove her statements. She could easily become the necessary 6th vote, particurally if sufficient public pressure is brought to bear.

Rep. Davis' Austin office can be reached at (512) 463-0389.

House Committee Assignments

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus has finally announced the committee assignments for the 82nd Texas House. As I predicted last month the partisan break down of the committee chairs roughly reflects the distribution of party control in the House with 11 Democratic chairs and 25 Republicans (not including the 4 select and joint committee chairs, all republicans).

House committees that queer Texans will want to watch very carefully:

Public Education - will get the anti-bullying bills. Chairman Rob Eissler scheduled the hearing for HB 1323 (last sessions anti-bullying bill) very late last session, but he did schedule a hearing and the committee eventually voted to send the bill to the floor for a vote of the whole House. Unfortunately, time ran out last session (more info on HB 1323). Rep. Strama, whose HB 224 is expected to be the water bearer for anti-bullying bills, is on the committee this session.

Public Health - will get HB 405, which would allow same-sex parents to get accurate birth certificates for their children. Chairwoman Lois Kolkhorst was visibly moved by testimony last session on this bill, lets hope that causes her to schedule it for an early hearing.

Criminal Jurisprudence - will get HB 604, the repeal of Texas's unconstitutional sodomy law and HB 172, the study of the effectiveness of the Texas Hate Crimes Act. Chairman Gallego has a solid record of voting in the best interest of queer Texans, but repealing the unconstitutional sodomy law, however common-sense, is going to a hard sell. Plus, with virulent homophobes Wayne Christian, Bill Zedler and Will Hartnett it seems unlikely that common sense will beat out bigotry. The Hate Crimes study has a better chance, it made it out of committee last session, but it's hard to predict what will happen this session.

Insurance - will get HB 208 prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating on the basis and sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Chairman Smithee hasn't let this bill through in past sessions and I'd be shocked if he lets it through this session. Smithee takes every chance he can get to hurt queer Texans, he's not likely to pass this chance up either.

State Affairs - will get HB 665, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. This bill, or a version of it, has been filed every session for over a decade, and it never gets a hearing. While new Chairman Byron Cook is an immense improvement over old Chairman Burt Solomons it's unlikely that this bill will go anywhere.

Now that we have committees bills are going to start moving left and right. The 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature is finally getting going!

State Department Makes Changing Gender Markers Easier, But What About Texas?

The State Department announced new guidelines today that will make it easier for Transgender Americans to have passports that reflect their gender identity. Under the new guidelines someone who is applying to change the gender marker on their passport must present “a certification from an attending medical physician that the applicant has undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition”. Previously, applicants were required to present proof of genital surgery (usually called sexual reassignment surgery (SRS)).

Many trans identified people choose not to have genital surgery. There are a number of reasons for this choice ranging from the costs of surgery, to concerns about its efficacy, to simply not needing the surgery to bring their bodies in line with their gender identity. This is a very personal decision and it’s great news that the federal government has decided to butt out.

But what about in Texas? Technically it is not legal in Texas for a transgender person to have their birth certificate altered, although a few brave judges have been known to issue the order. Changing the gender marker on driver’s licenses requires sexual reassignment surgery, similar to the old passport guidelines. (Again, there are some judges who will issue the order without proof of SRS, but this requires hiring a lawyer who knows which judges to go to - something that many transgender people can not afford.)

During the last two legislative sessions Rep. Garnett Coleman has introduced legislation that would create guidelines very similar to the new passport guidelines for changing both birth certificates and driver's licenses (81st session HB 4297, 80th session HB 1761). Representatives Alma Allen, Raphael Anchia, Lon Burnam and Jessica Farrar have all supported those efforts but the bills have never gotten out of committee (in fact they’ve never gotten a hearing).

One reason is that the Public Health Committee, who would hold the hearing on this bill, is currently chaired by Republican Lois Kolkhurst, and was formely chaired by Republican Diane White Delisi. Neither or whom were particularly inclined to grant a hearing.

The other reason is that the bills sponsor, Garnett Coleman, is a very busy man. Coleman has a reputation for filing more bills than average (he filed 118 last session). Coleman has a wonderful agenda of pro-LGBT bills, but he files so many bills that the vast majority do not get a hearing, let alone make it out of committee.

Most legislation gets passed as an amendment. Staffers watch the bills that are debated on the House floor and look for ones that cover similar subject material to a bill their boss is carrying. Then they point it out to their boss so it can be amended onto the bill being debated. I’m certain that Coleman’s staff does the same thing, but with 118 bills to watch out for it’s simply not possible for them to catch every opportunity.

How do we fix this? The queer community needs to make it clear to our allies in the legislature that this bill, and other pro-LGBT bills, need to be a priority. We have to stop being satisfied with simply having our bills introduced and insist that they be fought for.

The recent change in the State Department Guidelines provides an ideal opportunity to bring this issue up with our representatives. Please call or write your representatives (or better yet, make an appointment to go see them) and tell them that state law should reflect federal when it comes to gender markers.