Upcoming Events
Sunday Forum
June 8 at 9:30 am.
The Unitarian Universalist Church of Midland
3301 Neely Ave.
Midland, Texas
PFLAG Odessa
Monthly Meeting
Monday, June 9, 2014
7 p.m.
The Unitarian Universalist Church of Midland
3301 Neely Ave.
Midland, Texas
PFLAG Odessa is a viable source in the Permian Basin, offering support to those in the LGBT community by helping to cope with an adverse society; education to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy to end discrimination.
Our Guest Speaker is with The Springboard Center of Midland.
Please join us!
Sunday Forum
June 8 at 9:30 am.
The Unitarian Universalist Church of Midland
3301 Neely Ave.
Midland, Texas
PFLAG Odessa
Monthly Meeting
Monday, June 9, 2014
7 p.m.
The Unitarian Universalist Church of Midland
3301 Neely Ave.
Midland, Texas
PFLAG Odessa is a viable source in the Permian Basin, offering support to those in the LGBT community by helping to cope with an adverse society; education to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy to end discrimination.
Our Guest Speaker is with The Springboard Center of Midland.
Please join us!
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico became the latest state to legalize gay marriage Thursday as its highest court declared it is unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Related Stories
Same-sex couples have been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, the justices said. Barring them from getting married violates the state constitution's equal protection clause.
"We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law," Chavez wrote.
The high court rejected opponents' argument that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman relates to the "important, overriding governmental interests" of having and raising children.
"Procreation has never been a condition of marriage under New Mexico law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged, the infertile, and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from marrying," Chavez wrote.
Under the ruling, clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage can decline to perform wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.
New Mexico joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage either through legislation, court rulings or voter referendums.
Eight of the state's 33 counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August when a county clerk in southern New Mexico independently decided to allow the unions.
County officials had asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage. Historically, county clerks have denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples because state statutes include a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants.
View gallery
Miriam Rand, 64, left, and Ona Porter, 67, both of Albuquerque, N.M., talked to reporters Thursday, …
Thursday's ruling was a victory for gay rights activists who had been unable to win a legislative resolution of the issue.
"This truly is a historic and joyful day for New Mexico," ACLU-New Mexico Legal Director Laura Schauer Ives said. "The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have already married in New Mexico can now rest certain knowing their marriages will be recognized and respected by our state."
Miriam Rand, 64, and Ona Porter, 67, both of Albuquerque and plaintiffs in the case, said they were ecstatic when they heard about the decision.
"We had a strong sense that the court was going to come down on this side of the opinion," Rand said. "Many years of work have gone into making this day possible."
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights represented same-sex couples in the Supreme Court case. They contended gay marriage must be allowed because of constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law and the state constitutional prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Attorney General Gary King also said he was pleased with the high court's decision.
Asked whether same-sex couples could feel confident in getting a marriage license in New Mexico, he said yes.
"Based on what I understand about the opinion, now in every county in New Mexico clerks will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," King said. "And certainly it's been our position that if you're validly married in New Mexico under those provisions, that your marriage has the same legal effect as marriage between a heterosexual couple."
King acknowledged that the laws in New Mexico that led to the debate are very complex and that state lawmakers likely will want to weigh in during their next session.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature repeatedly has turned down proposals for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and a constitutional amendment that would have allowed voters to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. Measures to ban same-sex marriage also have failed.
Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican who opposes gay marriage, has said a constitutional amendment will be needed to resolve the issue regardless of the outcome of the court case.
The Flora Vista-based Voices for Family Values said its members already are gathering signatures for petitions to present to lawmakers during the upcoming session in January.
"Today, the New Mexico Supreme Court released their ruling which redefines marriage to mean something it was never meant to be," the group said in a statement. "Though this battle did not end in our favor, the war is far from over."
Meanwhile, the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group that has opposed same-sex marriage, took a conciliatory tone.
"The Bishops of New Mexico recognize the New Mexico Supreme Court as the interpreter of the state constitution. The Catholic Church respects and loves the gay and lesbian members of our community," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to promote Catholic teaching of the biblical definition of marriage to be that of one man and one woman."
Related Stories
- NM same-sex marriage ruling comes amid long wait Associated Press
- New Mexico Supreme Court rules to allow same-sex marriage Reuters
- New Mexico becomes 17th state with legal gay marriage Christian Science Monitor
- New Mexico becomes 17th US state to back gay marriage AFP
- Judge hears arguments on Utah's gay marriage ban Associated Press
Same-sex couples have been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, the justices said. Barring them from getting married violates the state constitution's equal protection clause.
"We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law," Chavez wrote.
The high court rejected opponents' argument that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman relates to the "important, overriding governmental interests" of having and raising children.
"Procreation has never been a condition of marriage under New Mexico law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged, the infertile, and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from marrying," Chavez wrote.
Under the ruling, clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage can decline to perform wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.
New Mexico joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage either through legislation, court rulings or voter referendums.
Eight of the state's 33 counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August when a county clerk in southern New Mexico independently decided to allow the unions.
County officials had asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage. Historically, county clerks have denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples because state statutes include a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants.
View gallery
Miriam Rand, 64, left, and Ona Porter, 67, both of Albuquerque, N.M., talked to reporters Thursday, …
Thursday's ruling was a victory for gay rights activists who had been unable to win a legislative resolution of the issue.
"This truly is a historic and joyful day for New Mexico," ACLU-New Mexico Legal Director Laura Schauer Ives said. "The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have already married in New Mexico can now rest certain knowing their marriages will be recognized and respected by our state."
Miriam Rand, 64, and Ona Porter, 67, both of Albuquerque and plaintiffs in the case, said they were ecstatic when they heard about the decision.
"We had a strong sense that the court was going to come down on this side of the opinion," Rand said. "Many years of work have gone into making this day possible."
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights represented same-sex couples in the Supreme Court case. They contended gay marriage must be allowed because of constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law and the state constitutional prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Attorney General Gary King also said he was pleased with the high court's decision.
Asked whether same-sex couples could feel confident in getting a marriage license in New Mexico, he said yes.
"Based on what I understand about the opinion, now in every county in New Mexico clerks will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," King said. "And certainly it's been our position that if you're validly married in New Mexico under those provisions, that your marriage has the same legal effect as marriage between a heterosexual couple."
King acknowledged that the laws in New Mexico that led to the debate are very complex and that state lawmakers likely will want to weigh in during their next session.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature repeatedly has turned down proposals for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and a constitutional amendment that would have allowed voters to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. Measures to ban same-sex marriage also have failed.
Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican who opposes gay marriage, has said a constitutional amendment will be needed to resolve the issue regardless of the outcome of the court case.
The Flora Vista-based Voices for Family Values said its members already are gathering signatures for petitions to present to lawmakers during the upcoming session in January.
"Today, the New Mexico Supreme Court released their ruling which redefines marriage to mean something it was never meant to be," the group said in a statement. "Though this battle did not end in our favor, the war is far from over."
Meanwhile, the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group that has opposed same-sex marriage, took a conciliatory tone.
"The Bishops of New Mexico recognize the New Mexico Supreme Court as the interpreter of the state constitution. The Catholic Church respects and loves the gay and lesbian members of our community," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to promote Catholic teaching of the biblical definition of marriage to be that of one man and one woman."
Senate Passes Gay Rights Bill Banning Workplace Discrimination
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/07/senate-passes-gay-rights-bi
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/07/senate-passes-gay-rights-bi
One of the reasons for PFLAG
Please click on this link. For whatever reason you are looking at our Website or receiving e-mails from PFLAG Odessa, it will be well worth your time. It is a life-changer on many levels. Whether you are a parent, sibling, friend or a member of the LGBT community, there is something here for all of us.
Linda Robertson: Just Because He Breathes: Learning to Truly Love Our Gay Son
Please click on this link. For whatever reason you are looking at our Website or receiving e-mails from PFLAG Odessa, it will be well worth your time. It is a life-changer on many levels. Whether you are a parent, sibling, friend or a member of the LGBT community, there is something here for all of us.
Linda Robertson: Just Because He Breathes: Learning to Truly Love Our Gay Son
Please check this link for the story on the nation's first transgender
homecoming queen. Congratulations, Cassidy!
http://news.yahoo.com/california-teen-named-nation-s-first-transgender-homec
homecoming queen. Congratulations, Cassidy!
http://news.yahoo.com/california-teen-named-nation-s-first-transgender-homec
Jody Huckaby PFLAG National
Wonderful news from the United States Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service today, where it was announced that same-sex married couples will be treated the same as all other married couples for federal tax purposes, regardless of where they reside.
This is a huge step forward for equality for our LGBT loved ones: it is just and fair treatment for loving married same-sex couples and their families to have equal standing, rights, responsibilities, and protection in the eyes of our federal government.
We know that you, our members and supporters, will continue to urge all federal agencies to follow the lead of those which have already taken steps to equally recognize and respect all legally married couples and their dependents.
Together we will work fervently toward full federal understanding that without exception love is love, family is family, and marriage is marriage.
Wonderful news from the United States Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service today, where it was announced that same-sex married couples will be treated the same as all other married couples for federal tax purposes, regardless of where they reside.
This is a huge step forward for equality for our LGBT loved ones: it is just and fair treatment for loving married same-sex couples and their families to have equal standing, rights, responsibilities, and protection in the eyes of our federal government.
We know that you, our members and supporters, will continue to urge all federal agencies to follow the lead of those which have already taken steps to equally recognize and respect all legally married couples and their dependents.
Together we will work fervently toward full federal understanding that without exception love is love, family is family, and marriage is marriage.
What transgender people teach us about God, and our humanity
“Ultimately, the transgender question is about more than just sex. It’s about what it means to be human.” – Russell D. Moore, On Faith, Aug. 15
There are certainly more egregious quotes from Moore’s recent essay, but to focus on them would miss the larger point – that there is no transgender question. The question is about how people of faith continue to grow in their understanding of our transgender brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, teachers and pastors. And it’s a growth that, make no mistake, Mr. Moore wants to shut down.
In order to grow, one must leave the ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ framework behind. Mr. Moore relies on this narrow, tired and, frankly, dangerous argument to denounce transgender experience as sinful.
Now I don’t think Mr. Moore or the Southern Baptist convention lacks caring or compassion. In fact, I work Southern Baptists in our shared efforts to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in faith communities and beyond. But Moore’s argument is dangerous because it discourages a curiosity about the actual lived experiences of trans people. He’s shutting down any deeper conversation and, in the process, dampening our understanding of how the spark of the divine exists in all of us.
What would happen if rather than depicting transgender people as “fac[ing] a long road of learning what it means to live as God created them to be, as male or female,” we actually took seriously the question of what it means to be human and, more expansively, what it means to live into our full humanity? What if rather than saying that biology is destiny we actually explored the ways in which we all experience our own gender identities and expressions? What if we learned about the lived experiences of our transgender peers?
I remember riding my bike with my brother on a family outing as a child. It was hot and I took off my shirt. My mother’s face turned beet red as she loudly declared, “Little girls do not take their shirts off.” I was 11-years-old. Just the year before, I ran around impervious to such rules. No one cared. It was then that I learned gender had rules with consequences. I think often of that moment when I think of my transgender friends and colleagues.
My friend and colleague Jay Brown, a transgender man, remembers going to bed each night as a 5-year-old child. He remembers clenching his little hands and praying that he would wake up the boy on the outside that he felt on the inside. He remembers keeping that secret because, even at 5, he knew there’d be consequences.
I would wager to say we all had such moments when our gender identities were defined not by our biology, but by the dictates of our culture – whether or not we are transgender.
The core teachings of Christianity are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. We cannot love God fully if we don’t do the work of trying to understand who God is for each of us. When we look at the most moving and transformative religious writing – from Augustine to Thomas Merton – there is a sense of openness and curiosity to the experience of God. We can’t love God if we don’t try to glean how God works in our lives.
Similarly, we can’t really love our neighbors if we cast off all curiosity about who they are and their experience of life in the world. And finally, if we remain uninterested in ourselves – about how we come to know our gender–then we can’t really love the difference that shows up in our neighbors.
The variation of transgender experience has much to teach us. I was struck that in Moore’s piece he didn’t reference the experience of one transgender person. He’s missing an enormous diversity both in the experiences of faith and of gender identity and expression.
Experiences like that of Joy Ladin, a friend who transitioned while she was teaching at an Yeshiva University, or like Rev. David Weekley, a United Methodist minister who became one of the first openly transgender clergy members after coming out to his congregation about his transition decades prior. These experiences of faith and gender are different again from Rev. Megan Rohrer, an openly gay Lutheran pastor, whose own gender non-conformity provides a unique understanding of those on the margins, many of whom are the homeless community she pastors to in San Francisco.
To live our lives with true compassion and caring, we need to move beyond slogans and ask the deeper questions about gender and the diversity of experiences. But to do that, one must ask the right question and be open to a multitude of answers.
Sharon Groves, Director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Religion and Faith Program.
“Ultimately, the transgender question is about more than just sex. It’s about what it means to be human.” – Russell D. Moore, On Faith, Aug. 15
There are certainly more egregious quotes from Moore’s recent essay, but to focus on them would miss the larger point – that there is no transgender question. The question is about how people of faith continue to grow in their understanding of our transgender brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, teachers and pastors. And it’s a growth that, make no mistake, Mr. Moore wants to shut down.
In order to grow, one must leave the ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ framework behind. Mr. Moore relies on this narrow, tired and, frankly, dangerous argument to denounce transgender experience as sinful.
Now I don’t think Mr. Moore or the Southern Baptist convention lacks caring or compassion. In fact, I work Southern Baptists in our shared efforts to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in faith communities and beyond. But Moore’s argument is dangerous because it discourages a curiosity about the actual lived experiences of trans people. He’s shutting down any deeper conversation and, in the process, dampening our understanding of how the spark of the divine exists in all of us.
What would happen if rather than depicting transgender people as “fac[ing] a long road of learning what it means to live as God created them to be, as male or female,” we actually took seriously the question of what it means to be human and, more expansively, what it means to live into our full humanity? What if rather than saying that biology is destiny we actually explored the ways in which we all experience our own gender identities and expressions? What if we learned about the lived experiences of our transgender peers?
I remember riding my bike with my brother on a family outing as a child. It was hot and I took off my shirt. My mother’s face turned beet red as she loudly declared, “Little girls do not take their shirts off.” I was 11-years-old. Just the year before, I ran around impervious to such rules. No one cared. It was then that I learned gender had rules with consequences. I think often of that moment when I think of my transgender friends and colleagues.
My friend and colleague Jay Brown, a transgender man, remembers going to bed each night as a 5-year-old child. He remembers clenching his little hands and praying that he would wake up the boy on the outside that he felt on the inside. He remembers keeping that secret because, even at 5, he knew there’d be consequences.
I would wager to say we all had such moments when our gender identities were defined not by our biology, but by the dictates of our culture – whether or not we are transgender.
The core teachings of Christianity are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. We cannot love God fully if we don’t do the work of trying to understand who God is for each of us. When we look at the most moving and transformative religious writing – from Augustine to Thomas Merton – there is a sense of openness and curiosity to the experience of God. We can’t love God if we don’t try to glean how God works in our lives.
Similarly, we can’t really love our neighbors if we cast off all curiosity about who they are and their experience of life in the world. And finally, if we remain uninterested in ourselves – about how we come to know our gender–then we can’t really love the difference that shows up in our neighbors.
The variation of transgender experience has much to teach us. I was struck that in Moore’s piece he didn’t reference the experience of one transgender person. He’s missing an enormous diversity both in the experiences of faith and of gender identity and expression.
Experiences like that of Joy Ladin, a friend who transitioned while she was teaching at an Yeshiva University, or like Rev. David Weekley, a United Methodist minister who became one of the first openly transgender clergy members after coming out to his congregation about his transition decades prior. These experiences of faith and gender are different again from Rev. Megan Rohrer, an openly gay Lutheran pastor, whose own gender non-conformity provides a unique understanding of those on the margins, many of whom are the homeless community she pastors to in San Francisco.
To live our lives with true compassion and caring, we need to move beyond slogans and ask the deeper questions about gender and the diversity of experiences. But to do that, one must ask the right question and be open to a multitude of answers.
Sharon Groves, Director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Religion and Faith Program.
Modern Families and Worker Protections
by Laura Fortman on August 15, 2013
Modern Families and Worker Protections
by Laura Fortman on August 15, 2013
Until 1993, there was no law that protected workers from having to choose between their jobs and their health – or the welfare of family members who needed their care. TheFamily and Medical Leave Act changed that, by allowing covered employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without getting fired. This law provided greater protection and flexibility to America's workers, and the Wage and Hour Division has been proud to uphold it for the past 20 years.
But our agency doesn't just enforce the law. We also provide guidance to employees and employers, to make sure they understand their rights and responsibilities. Earlier this week, the Wage and Hour Division made a few revisions to some of our guidance documents that reflect changes to our enforcement of the FMLA in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Windsor.
These updates remove all references to the Defense of Marriage Act's provisions that denied federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples. In light of the Supreme Court's decision U.S. v. Windsor, the updates clarify the definition of “spouse” for Title I of the FMLA, which applies to covered private-sector employers and any covered public agency. The updated documents can be viewed at these links:
• Fact Sheet 28F
• FMLA PowerPoint (slide 12)
• WHD Field Operations Handbook Chapter 39d03(d)(1) (p.23 of PDF)
• WHD Opinion Letter FMLA 98 (header)
These changes are not regulatory, and they do not fundamentally change the FMLA. They simply recognize that the Supreme Court's Windsor decision expands the number of employees who are eligible for FMLA benefits to include legally married, same-sex couples. The effective date of this expansion is June 26, 2013, the date of the Windsordecision.
Pursuant to the president's directive, the Department of Labor continues to collaborate with our federal colleagues, including the Department of Justice, on interpreting the Supreme Court's decision and ensuring that we are implementing it in a way that provides the maximum protection for workers and their families. We believe the decision represents an important step toward equality for America's working families, and we look forward to providing further guidance as it becomes available.
Laura Fortman is the principal deputy administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
by Laura Fortman on August 15, 2013
Modern Families and Worker Protections
by Laura Fortman on August 15, 2013
Until 1993, there was no law that protected workers from having to choose between their jobs and their health – or the welfare of family members who needed their care. TheFamily and Medical Leave Act changed that, by allowing covered employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without getting fired. This law provided greater protection and flexibility to America's workers, and the Wage and Hour Division has been proud to uphold it for the past 20 years.
But our agency doesn't just enforce the law. We also provide guidance to employees and employers, to make sure they understand their rights and responsibilities. Earlier this week, the Wage and Hour Division made a few revisions to some of our guidance documents that reflect changes to our enforcement of the FMLA in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Windsor.
These updates remove all references to the Defense of Marriage Act's provisions that denied federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples. In light of the Supreme Court's decision U.S. v. Windsor, the updates clarify the definition of “spouse” for Title I of the FMLA, which applies to covered private-sector employers and any covered public agency. The updated documents can be viewed at these links:
• Fact Sheet 28F
• FMLA PowerPoint (slide 12)
• WHD Field Operations Handbook Chapter 39d03(d)(1) (p.23 of PDF)
• WHD Opinion Letter FMLA 98 (header)
These changes are not regulatory, and they do not fundamentally change the FMLA. They simply recognize that the Supreme Court's Windsor decision expands the number of employees who are eligible for FMLA benefits to include legally married, same-sex couples. The effective date of this expansion is June 26, 2013, the date of the Windsordecision.
Pursuant to the president's directive, the Department of Labor continues to collaborate with our federal colleagues, including the Department of Justice, on interpreting the Supreme Court's decision and ensuring that we are implementing it in a way that provides the maximum protection for workers and their families. We believe the decision represents an important step toward equality for America's working families, and we look forward to providing further guidance as it becomes available.
Laura Fortman is the principal deputy administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.