Amendment to Ban Campus LGBT Resource Centers Defeated - Again

Late last night, as the 16 hour debate on SB 1, the "fiscal matters" bill, was drawing to a close on the House floor Wayne Christian (R-Center) offered his latest permeation of an amendment to ban LGBT resource centers from Texas Universities. In its original incarnation the amendment would have required schools that have LGBT resource centers to equally fund "family and traditional values" centers. The new version completely banned LGBT resource centers from Texas' public universities.

My post on the Dallas Voice Instant Tea Blog goes into further detail on the over half-hour debate of the amendment, and it's eventual death, but I wanted to take a second here to make an editorial observation: The first time Christian tried to destroy this valuable resource no member of the House spoke against him and only one (Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio)) questioned the need for the amendment, this time there was concerted and passionate opposition. The first time Christian tried to silence the voice of queer college students it sailed through with only 22 House members voting against, this time Trey Martinez-Fischer (D-San Antonio) threatened to sink the entire fiscal matters bill, probably the most important bill of the special session, unless Christian removed the amendment. The first time Christian sought to create an environment of closeted fear on college campuses all anyone could do was make jokes about what "pansexual" meant, this time members made statements like:

"Everybody’s not straight, people who are gay are born gay and they deserve the same rights, liberties and protections that everyone does."

-Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth)

"You may say ‘if they’re gay, and somebody hurts them, then so what?’ But let me just remind you that those persons are somebody’s child..."

-Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston)

"I have the same feelings elicited in me about the hate and bigotry put forth by measures like this as [measures that] were [introduced] back in the pre-civil rights period when certain buzz words and statements to create fear about certain individuals [who were] different [were] brought before legislative bodies and certainly before the Texas House of representatives on multiple occasions just to create a vote based on hate, because someone was different."

-Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin)

Do [LGBT students] have the right to participate in extra-curricular activities? Do they have the right to participate in the debate team? Do they have the right to play on our football teams, on our basketball teams, on our volleyball teams?
Or should we say, because they may be gay or something else, that they do not have the right to play right along with other girls and other boys, because we are sending the wrong message and they should remain in the bleachers?”

-Sylvester Turner (D-Houston)

What changed between April 17th, when Christian's amendment passed with almost no objection, and June 9th, when allies of the LGBT community were willing to bring the entire special session to a screaming halt to stop him?

You did.

The LGBT community changed. The LGBT community spoke, with a strong and unambiguous voice and told the people who were sent to Austin to represent us that we would not sit idly by while hate and bigotry were written into our laws. We told them we expected a fight, and they fought for us.

Take Raphael Anchia (D-Dallas), historically Anchia's been one of the stronger allies the queer community has in the House, but when Christian first offered his amendment Anchia voted "present, not voting." His aide explained to the Dallas Voice that the vote was intended to be a protest of what Anchia considered a ridiculous piece of legislation.

The LGBT community didn't see a it as a protest, we saw it as someone watching us being attacked and not doing anything about it, and we let Anchia know it. This time, when Christian offered his amendment, Anchia was one of the first at bat and asked Christian what might have been the most pertinent question of the evening: "What is your gender identity?" To which Christian replied "I'm a heterosexual father of three." Showing a better understanding of gender than most straight, cisgender men Anchia retorted "No, that's your [sexual orientation], what's your gender identity?" Anchia pushed Christian to understand that, just like everyone else, he has a gender identity, that's it's not some foreign attribute that only wierdos posses, but a universal attribute that everyone shares.

It is easy sometimes to despair, to think that efforts to influence our elected officials will never create dramatic change, and the truth is they won't. The change they create is subtle. Talking to our elected officials isn't going to turn a rabid homophobe like Christian into an ally, but it can push a quite ally like Anchia to become a vocal advocate. That's the key.

We must must constantly communicate with those charged with making these important decisions so that one day instead of Wayne Christian hating queer people and introducing amendments to make his hate statutory, he just hates queer people while quietly muttering to himself in the corner; so that a conservative representative who cringed at the Christian amendment but voted for it anyway will have the courage to vote "nay" next time; and so that a representative who this time voted against the amendment, but didn't take the opportunity to publicly and loudly decry homophobia on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives will find the courage next time to stand up and say "This amendment hurts me, because it hurts my fellow Texans."

While we work towards that day, please take the opportunity to call those members who fought for us on the House floor and tell them "thank you":

Raphael Anchia (512) 463-0746
Joaquin Castro (512) 463-0669
Dawnna Dukes (512) 463-0506
Trey Martinez-Fischer (512) 463-0616
Borris Miles (512) 463-0518
Senfronia Thompson (512) 463-0720
Sylvester Turner (512) 463-0554
Marc Veasey (512) 463-0716

----------------------------
There were two record votes taken on amendments offered to the Christian Amendments. As soon as those are available on the Texas Legislature Online LQ's House score card will be updated.

Top 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 with not one, but two anti-bullying bills passing and the HIV Medication Advisory Committee's future protected by statute. Multiple bills and amendments targeting the community were introduced but were all defeated. Although we didn't get everything we needed, and are still waiting for the Governor's signature on the three bills mentioned above, all in all it was a very good session for LGBT issues.

We here at Legislative Queery have crunched the numbers and ranked the 150 members of the Texas House based on their votes and authored legislation from the 82nd regular session, the rankings do not take into consideration past votes or legislation or public statements by the elected officials, you can read how we arrived at the rankings HERE.

#1

Garnet Coleman (D-Houston)

Score: 126 points Grace: A+ Coleman's district includes about half of Houston's historic "gayborhood" of Montrose, so it's no surprise that he voted in the best interests of the queer community for all nine of the record votes considered in these rankings. What put him over the top was authoring seven pro-LGBT bills or amendments this session including HB 1386, his teen suicide prevention bill and HB 2229 which makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee, both of which passed out of the Legislature and await the Governor's signature. Coleman also authored legislation that would equalize the current hetro-only defense to prosecution for indecency with a child if the contact is consensual and the partner is within 3 years of age and a bill that would would add gender expression and identity to current list of attributes bias against which can trigger hate crimes prosecution. Additionally he joint authored a bill that would have required School Health Advisory Councils to issue reports on bullying.

#2

Elliott Naishtat (D-Austin)

Score: 101 points Grade: A+ New York native Naishtat's district includes the University of Texas at Austin, which may explain the bill he's introduced for the last several sessions to allow Texas Universities to remain competitive by offering health benefits to the unmarried partners of professors and their children. Naishtat was the author or co-author of five additional pieces of legislation that would benefit the LGBT community including HB 1942, the "super" anti-bullying bill; both the House and Senate versions of legislation that would require School Health Advisory Councils to issue reports on bullying and HB 2229,which makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee.

#3

Carol Alvarado (D-Houston)

Score: 100 points Grade: A+ Alvarado was the principle author of HB 130, the elegant approach to fighting bullying that would have created a statewide anti-bullying hotline (the bill unfortunately died in the House Human Services Committee). She also has the distinction of joint and co-authoring more LGBT friendly bills than any other member of the House including 4 designed to combat bullying and its effects (HB 24, HB 224, HB 1386 and HB 1942).

#4 (tie)	Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin)
	Score: 97 points Grade: A Dukes carried both the House and Senate versions of a bill that, in its original form, would have required Local Community Health Advisory Councils to create recommendations on the anti-bullying portions of health class curricula. Unfortunately that portion of the bill was removed before the House voted on it (the bill, SB 736, now awaits the Governor's signature).

#4 (tie)

Jessica Farrar (D-Houston)

Score: 97 points Grade: A Farrar is chair of the House Democratic Caucus, but her duties don't stop her from being a passionate advocate of the LGBT community. Farrar is the author of legislation that would have finally removed Texas' unconstitutional law against "homosexual conduct." She also joint authored Coleman's teen suicide prevention bill, playing a pivotal role in its passage. During the Equality Texas Lobby Day back in March, Farrar personally welcomed citizen lobbyists to her office offering them snacks and telling them they were "wasting their time" at her office, since she was already such a committed supporter.

#6

Mark Strama (D-Austin)

Score: 96 points Grade: A This session marked Strama's third attempt to pass anti-bullying legislation. Although he was unsuccessful in passing his HB 224, major elements of the bill were included in HB 1942, of which he was a co-author. Although the legislation does not include any specific reference to sexual orientation or gender identity and expression Stama's advocacy on behalf of the victims of bullying is laudable.

#7	Armando Walle (D-Houston)
	Score: 95 points Grade: A Walle was coauthor of Coleman's teen suicide prevention bill, SB 1386. He also joint authored an excellent piece of legislation by Raphael Anchia (D-Dallas) that, if it had passed, would have allowed adoptive parents in same-sex relationships to receive accurate birth certificates for their children by allowing both parents names to be on the certificate.

#8 (tie)

Eric Johnson (D-Dallas)

Score: 93 Grade: A Tied for highest ranking freshman on the list (and the highest ranking Dallas-area rep), Johnson has proved himself an able ally. His district includes a small sliver of the historic "gayborhood" of Oaklawn which might explain why Johnson co-authored both Strama's anti-bullying bill (that included sexual orientation) and the eventual compromise "super" anti-bullying bill HB 1942.

#8 (tie)	Ron Reynolds (D-Missouri City)
	Score: 93 points Grade: A The only member of the top 10 not based in a major metropolis, Reynolds, who's tied for highest ranking freshman on the list, proved himself to be a keen ally in the fight to end bullying. He co-authored both Strama's anti-bullying bill (that included sexual orientation) and the eventual compromise "super" anti-bullying bill HB 1942.

#10 (tie)

Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth)

Score: 91 points Grade: A Burnam is a sleeper ally, known for being willing to fight for what's right (even when it's politically unpopular), Burnam knows that his reputation as the most liberal member of the Texas House means that sometimes his early support for legislation can scare off more moderate members. This is why he waited until late in the process to add his name as a co-author to anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942. (full disclosure: the author is a former aide to Burnam)

#10 (tie)	Joe Farias (D-San Antonio)
	Score: 91 points Grade: A Farias has served in the House since 2007 and is on the powerful Local and Consent Calendars Committee. Although not the most vocal member of the House his co-authorship of anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942 and his quiet habit of consistently voting in the best interest of the LGBT community make him a valuable ally.

#10 (tie)	Borris Miles (D-Houston)
	Score: 91 points Grade: A Miles is plain spoken and known for fighting hard for what he believes, attributes that have served him well in the 82nd legislature. he was a co-author on HB 1942 the anti-bullying "super" bill and can be counted on to consistently vote in the best interest of the queer community.

#10 (tie)

Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston)

Score: 91 points Grade: A The only member of the top ten to not score perfectly on the nine votes included in the rankings, Thompson made up for it by authoring HB 905 which would have allowed people legally recognized as un-married to enter into gestational agreements with surrogate mothers (currently only married people may) and by carrying SB 205 in the House, which would have expanded and clarified the anti-bullying requirements of school's student codes of conduct. Thompson's one errant vote was on anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942 and likely had more to do with amendments added by Rep. David Simpson than with any objection to the bill.

That's the top ten, well thirteen. We'll publish the rest of the list soon, but in the meantime take a look at how LQ arrived at the scores 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.

UPDATE: The list of the Worst 10 Texas House Members on LGBT Issues is up.

Budget Amendments Attempt to Elevate Straight, White College Students

Last Friday, April 1, the Texas House began its deliberation of the state's budget. Two amendments offered by Rep. Wayne Christian (Shelby, Nacogdoches, San Augustine, Sabine and Jasper Counties) 14 hours into the 16 hour debate attempted to ensure the continued elevation of straight people and white people in Texas' public universities. One amendment was successful, the other was not.

Christian's first proposed amendment to the budget (amendment #143 of the debate) required public universities in Texas who have a "gender and sexuality center or other center for students focused on gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transexual, transgender, gender questioning, or other gender identity issues" to spend an equal amount of money to fund a center for "family and traditional values." Every university in the state is facing a budget crisis. Christian's amendment would effectively double the cost of having gender and sexuality centers, which will cause schools which do not have them to be less likely to create them, and force schools which do have them to slash their center's budgets to make up the difference.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio) questioned why Christian felt that it was necessary for the legislature to dictate what kind of centers universities should have. Christian explained that he understood that schools were allowed to create gender and sexuality centers and that the legislature didn't have the power to stop them from doing so. To explain his position he offered a simile, suggesting that "if they were teaching students how to make terrorism bombs or murder or whatever" then the legislature would want to be sure that students were also being taught to love America. Likewise, he said, if universities are going to "teach alternate sexual behavior" then they should also teach "traditional values".

Castro, apparently unphased by Christian's comparison of queer people to terrorists (or his gross mischaracterization of the resources provided by college gender and sexuality centers), then asked what "pansexual" meant. Christian said that he didn't know, but that that was the kind of thing that these centers taught. The amendment passed: 110 yeas to 24 nays, the entire debate took 5 minutes. No one spoke against the amendment and only Castro questioned the need for it.

Christian's next proposed amendment (amendment #144) required Texas' universities to dedicate 10% of their classes to teaching "western civilization." Castro again questioned whether the legislature had the power to directly dictate what state universities taught. This time, however, he went so far as to raise a point of order against the amendment, claiming that it created "general law" (according to the House rules the budget can only be used to create funding for state agencies, it can not be used to create new laws). Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) ruled that the amendment did not create general law and debate continued.

Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) then spoke against the amendment. He questioned what Christian meant by "western civilization" and said that it was inappropriate for the legislature to start creating quotas about what kind of classes universities offered. Rep. Eddie Lucio III (D-San Bonito) then rose and asked Villarreal "have you been presented any information that defines 'western civilization' prior to this amendment?" Villarreal indicated that he had not (indeed, state statute contains no definition of "western civilization"). Lucio was followed by Rep. Mark Strama (D-Travis Co) who asked if the contributions of African Americans, Mexican Americans or Native Americans to our culture would be included in a "western civilization" class.

Castro made a motion to table the amendment. In accordance with House rules Christian came back to the microphone to explain why he thought that the amendment should not be tabled and to answer questions. Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) questioned Christian, trying to get him to explain what "western civilization" meant in the context of his amendment. Christian obfuscated, claiming that experts at the universities would be able to define what he meant. Anchia indignantly replied that the amendment appeared "very political and potentially insulting to the diverse membership of this body."

Rep. Borris Miles (D - Fort Bend Co) then grilled Christian about what parts of history would be included in a "western civilization" class: "would it include the Jim Crow South," he asked Christian "would it include the dragging of James Byrd that happened in your district?" (James Byrd Jr was killed in a horrific hate crime in 1998 in Jasper, TX which is in Christian's district) "It should, if that was part of the history," replied Christian. After much heated debate the vote to table the amendment succeeded: 108 yaes to 27 nays, the debate lasted 26 minutes. Five representatives spoke against the amendment.

Why did an amendment which promoted straight people succeed, while an amendment that promoted white people fail? Why did the people elected to represent us line up to decry racism, but not homophobia/transphobia? Why were members of the House so easily able to identify the coded language of "western civilization," but unwilling to seek a definition of "traditional values?"

Make no mistake, the racism inherit in amendment 144 is readily apparent. I am not naive enough to ask whether the oppression experienced by queer people is the same as the oppression experienced by people of color. There is not a quantifiable unit of measurement for oppression. It is not possible to hold one against the other and I refuse to be so arrogant as to try. This is not a question of "which is worse," but rather why, in this specific instance, homophobia/transphobia prevailed why racism was defeated.

Why? Because, frankly, it's easier to talk smack about someone when they're not in the room. At least 47 members of the Texas House are of African, Hispanic or Asian descent, including all 5 members who spoke against amendment 144. There is not a single out queer member of the legislature, in either the House or the Senate. When Castro questioned the need for amendment 143 he did so as a straight person who doesn't understand the queer experience. When he spoke against amendment 144 he did so as a Hispanic person who is well aware of the systemic racism historically perpetuated by the academic system.

Maybe if a queer person had been there they would have been able to ask questions like

• "What does 'traditional values' mean in the context of this amendment? Do you mean values like integrity, honesty, charity?"
• "Is it the author's belief that "traditional values" are not taught by gender and sexuality centers? Or that 'traditional values' are not shared by LGBT people?"
• "Is it the author's intent that these 'family and traditional values centers' support all families? or just specific types of families? Would a student with two dads, or two moms be welcome at the 'family and traditional value center?'"
• "Is it the author's belief that straight students need additional resources, not available through other venues? Is the author aware of straight students being disowned by their parents for being straight? Or of straight students attempting suicide because of society's disapproval of the straight lifestyle?"

But a queer person wasn't there, so instead we got snickering questions about what "pansexual" means.

It's our fault, really, the queer community's. We can't expect the straight people who've been elected to represent us to understand the queer experience unless we talk to them about it. When was the last time you called your representative and told them what it was like to be a LGBT college student (or high school student)? We are not in the room when decisions like this are made so we have to be certain that the people who are in the room hear from us regularly.

You can see the breakdown of who voted which way on HB 1, amendment 143 at Legislative Queery's new House Scorecard. It's good to know that 24 members of the 150-member house were willing to stand up for what's right (including one republican: Sarah Davis (R-Houston)!). It's disappointing to see who didn't.

In particular I'm disappointed that Anchia, who has historically been a staunch ally of the queer community (and who's district includes parts of the Oaklawn "gayborhood" in Dallas) decided to vote "present, not voting." "Present, not voting" means that the representative is on the floor when the vote takes place, but simply declines to have an opinion on the matter. Anchia should know better. He should know that "family and traditional values" means "straight people and homophobia/transphobia." He should know that amendment 143 will cause fewer universities in Texas to have resources for students who need help facing the transphobia and homophobia in our culture. He should also know that his constituents will not stand by while he cowardly refuses to take a stand on this issue. Anchia can be reached at(512) 463-0746, or by e-mail at Rafael.Anchia@house.state.tx.us