Monthly Newsletter of the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club
September 2005

Table of Contents

• LGBT Community Mobilizes for Hurricane Katrina Victims
• Dates With Alice
• September Co-Chairs' Report: “Voting with LGBT Unity”
• Reese's World: Perspectives from the Editor: “Family Values”
• On the Mark in Sacramento with Assemblyman Mark Leno
• Assemblyman Mark Leno’s Marriage Equality Bill Passes The Senate In Historic Vote
• Gay-rights groups are getting bills passed: “Same-sex marriage, key measure, face Senate showdown”
• Meth Forum with Senator Carole Migden
• House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi: “Checks and Balances and Independent Judiciary Must be Preserved”
• The Transgender Community Needs to Reestablish Its Voice
• Alice Membership Form
  

LGBT Community Mobilizes for Hurricane Katrina Victims

"Citizens and governments should come together 'with a force equal to that of Hurricane Katrina.'"
-- US Congressman Al Wynn (D-MD), as reported in the New York Times

Victims of Hurricane Katrina are in urgent need of aid. Our federal government is failing these people, but we will not. The LGBT community is helping to mobilize support. There are many ways to help. Below are some of the places to donate food and/or money, as well as find out more information about volunteer opportunities.

In addition, the LGBT community is hosting a fundraiser at El Rio on September 9 to help raise money for survivors. Log onto the Alice website in the next few days for more information.

Resources for helping the survivors:

The Ella Hill Hutch Community Center
1050 McAllister Street (at Webster)
Donation drive for: food, clothing & non-perishables
Sept. 3 - 30

Rainbow World Fund
LGBT Humanitarian Giving
www.rainbowfund.org

American Red Cross (they are calling for volunteers from outside of their network; if you can volunteer, you must attend a Red Cross training in the Bay Area before you will be deployed to a hot spot. Log onto their website for more information.)
www.redcross.org

Network for Good
www.networkforgood.org

How to Help (complete list at the New York Times)

top

Dates With Alice

top

September Co-Chairs' Report
Voting with LGBT Unity
by Laura Spanjian and Scott Wiener

It wasn't too long ago that our political community was hopelessly fractured. There was the Brown/Achtenberg 1995 Mayor's race, the Brown/Ammiano 1999 Mayor's race, the Leno/Hanson 2000 Supervisor race, the 2002 Leno/Britt Assembly race, and the 2002 Dufty/Hansen Supervisor race. Each of these races was intense. Each race became very negative. And, in each instance, the Alice B. Toklas and Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Clubs were on opposite sides. We weren't just on opposite sides -- we were all too frequently at each other's throats.

Of course, it's ok -- indeed, a good thing -- for our community to have two Democratic clubs with differing views. Alice and Milk have always been different, and they always will be different. Alice is the more "moderate" or "center-left" club. Milk is the more "progressive club" as that term has been defined in San Francisco politics. The clubs often represent different views and strains in our community. That's good, since we are a very diverse community.

But today, Alice and Milk are different clubs. Different because we have acknowledged where we are similar. We are both large LGBT democratic clubs with sought-after endorsements. We both have championed progressive causes over the years, particularly civil rights issues. We have fought side by side for our community and for our party.

And, now, over the past few years, we have begun to find even more common ground. It started a few years ago, when Alice and Milk leaders like Theresa Sparks, Paul Hogan, Rich Kowalewski, Robert Haaland, Debra Walker, and Jerry Threet realized that it was not a good use of our community's energy for the clubs to be in perpetual conflict -- that it would be much more productive for Alice and Milk to agree to disagree (civilly) on various issues and candidates while finding common ground where possible.

Our unity began to yield results in 2003 when Alice and Milk endorsed different LGBT Mayoral candidates (Alice endorsed Susan Leal and Milk endorsed Tom Ammiano) but did so in a respectful and mutually supportive way. We took the relationship to a new level in 2004 when we co-endorsed four LGBT candidates for the Democratic County Central Committee, something that had not happened in recent memory. And, we continued the finding of common ground by co-endorsing Robert Haaland for District 5 Supervisor in 2005. Indeed, Alice and Milk produced a joint slate card for District 5, which had not happened in 15 years.

Now, the clubs are at it again. Both clubs have endorsed Jose Cisneros for Treasurer and Dennis Herrera for City Attorney. Milk has endorsed Phil Ting for Assessor. Alice won't have it's endorsement vote for Assessor until September 12, but many believe that Ting has a strong chance of getting the endorsement. If he does, then Alice and Milk will have co-endorsed a complete set of candidates.

What is the significance of this progress? Some on both sides have criticized Alice and Milk. Some of our moderate friends have accused Alice of moving to the left and losing its moderate credentials. Some on the left have accused Milk of moving to the middle and losing its progressive bonafides. Moderates and progressives have criticized Alice and Milk for placing "identity politics" over substantive issues.

These criticisms are inaccurate and misunderstand the Alice/Milk relationship. Alice and Milk still are distinct. We still often disagree. For example, in 2004, Alice endorsed Lillian Sing for Supervisor, whereas Milk endorsed Jake McGoldrick. Alice endorsed Rebecca Silverberg for Supervisor, whereas Milk endorsed Gerardo Sandoval. And, of course, Alice endorsed Mayor Newsom in the Mayoral runoff, whereas Milk endorsed Matt Gonzalez. We frequently disagree on initiatives, such as Care Not Cash and Workforce Housing. And we disagree on issues, such as increasing home ownership and condo conversions, and how to reform San Francisco's school system.

We are still very different clubs. We still represent different philosophies on many issues. What has changed is that we now look for common ground -- areas where we really do agree. We've found that despite our many differences, there are a lot of areas where we are in agreement, as Democrats and LGBT people. And, now, when we do disagree, we do so respectfully and civilly.

Our community needs unity now more than ever before. There are people who want to convert all of us -- whatever our political views -- into second-class citizens. Alice and Milk will be there fighting for the issues about which we are all passionate. That unity will be powerful, indeed.

Laura Spanjian and Scott Wiener
Alice B. Toklas Co-Chairs

P.S. Alice has been working hard every weekend to elect our friend and Alice and Milk-endorsed current Treasurer, Jose Cisneros. For more information on how to volunteer or donate, please check out Jose's website at www.josecisneros.com. Last week, Community College Board member Julio Ramos withdrew his name as a candidate for Treasurer in the November election.

top

Reese's World: Perspectives from the Editor
Family Values
by Reese Aaron Isbell

My sister and I have a lot in common. We both had to struggle to tell our parents the truth, and to usher them through a reality that was going to be a difficult journey for us all.

Before I Came Out to my parents, I lived through years of worry, self-denial, and self-hatred. I feared their reaction, their possible rejection, everything. I also felt like I would be letting them down. I did everything in my power to make sure they didn’t know. I would have lied about it. Wait… in fact, I did lie. Constantly. I lied to them and I lied to myself. I lied to pretend. I lied to figure things out. I wasn’t lying to get-away-with-something. I was just lying for my own sense of survival.

After my sister’s 17th birthday my sister told my parents that she was pregnant. I can only imagine how difficult it was for her to tell them. Not only would she have had to go through all of the emotions and confusion I just listed about my own secret. But in a much shorter time frame. And she would have to quickly make a decision about it. No pretending or ‘passing’ for her. This was a physical change.

Yes, telling your parents you’re Queer and telling them you’re pregnant are two different things-- two completely different issues. As a male, I don’t mean to imply I understand the second issue at all. I don’t mean to equate the experiences necessarily. I do mean to say that I personally understand telling my parents a difficult secret. And I do mean to say that my sister and I are lucky to have such a wonderful family who listened and supported us after we told our secrets.

And, in the end, we did both tell our parents. And, although it was a trying time for the family in dealing with a new reality, we managed and we survived. My sister and I are lucky that we have such a wonderful supportive family behind us.

Not every family is as wonderful and supportive as ours. We Queers know that many families have kicked out their children for being Queer. Or worse. We know that happens. We have friends who have been through that. We live in a society that kicks us around constantly. We know not all families are kind to their children.

The abilities of families to communicate with each other are dependent upon each family. Every family is different; every family communicates in their own way. My family was supportive enough to hear us as we told our secrets and saw us through the new realities.

These are the issues I think about when people talk about ‘parental notification’ or ‘parental consent’ laws for abortion. These aren’t simple issues. Parenting is complicated; being a teenager is complicated. And each family has its own set of issues and dynamics with which to contend.

Government cannot mandate every family’s communication habits. And government cannot make people do what they’re not ready to do. If I had been mandated to tell my family my secret before I was ready, I would have done everything in my power to not tell them for as long as possible. And I would have lied for my own protection and survival. And I may have very well killed myself rather than confronting the truth I was not yet ready to vocalize.

For a teenage woman who’s pregnant, waiting as long as possible to tell the truth is running against the clock and further complicating the issue. And for those trying to hide the truth it can result in some dangerous health risks, oftentimes including self-inflicted trauma that no one should ever have to go through.

I am glad that my sister told my parents when she was pregnant. I definitely would have wanted to know, as I know my parents would have wanted to know.

But if my sister had not been able to tell us, if she had felt that she couldn’t go through with the responsibility, then regardless of her choices and decisions, I would have wanted her to be safe and healthy. And what I fear, and what we know from such ‘parental’ laws around the country, is that if a conversation is forced, the teenager may find their own unsafe methods of handling the situation.

The proponents of Proposition 73 want us all to believe that teenage women who are pregnant should tell their parents about it before they make a decision. Well, to be honest, I agree with them on that point. I agree that teenage women should tell their parents.

What I do not agree with is that they should be forced to by the government. And what I do not agree with is the idea that they should be forced to talk to their parents if they’re not able to do so. Family communication is a personal thing among the family members and not for the government to intervene. Yes, family communication is the ideal. Yes, we want to live in an open and honest society where everyone can be open about everything and that there are no secrets. Yes, we want our children to come to us each and every time. But here in the real world, if they can’t, for whatever reason, I would want my family and my children to be safe.

So vote against Proposition 73. Not only because it’s the right thing to do. Not only because Prop 73 is part of the right-wing’s decades-long agenda to take away the right to privacy. Not only because it’s an anti-choice initiative designed to hurt women and dismantle Roe v. Wade. Not only because it’s poor public policy. Not only because if they win this they’re even more primed to promote their anti-marriage-equality initiatives next year.

Vote NO ON 73 because you and I and everyone can all agree that we want our children to be safe. And we want them to come to us when they’re ready and able. Because in the end, that’s what makes a family great.

My sister and I went to our parents when we were ready and able to do so, and because we also knew that our family would hear us out. Our parents raised us right by loving us unconditionally and letting us know that we could always come to them. We told them truths that were difficult. But our family has been stronger for that ever since. Our family values were set by our parents and came from within. And government had nothing to do with that.

VOTE NO ON 73.

Reese Aaron Isbell, M.P.P.
Editor

top

On the Mark in Sacramento with Assemblyman Mark Leno

Dear Alice Friends,

It’s official. Ignoring public opinion, Governor Schwarzenegger has chosen to continue with a special election to be held November 8th. In doing so, he has unilaterally forced California’s local governments, already strapped for cash, to spend $70 million for an election Californians don’t need or want. San Francisco will be forced to spend $1.2 million we could otherwise use to hire more police officers, fix our roads and expand our homeless shelters.

Instead of working with the Legislature in good faith to address the complex issues facing the state, the Governor has spent the last year raising campaign dollars to fight teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses in his special election. Even while polls show that nearly two-thirds of Californians oppose a special election, the Governor has thrust us into an election that is neither about saving the state money nor improving the quality of life for our citizens. Rather it is about pure political gain on the part of the Governor and the Republican Party.

Now that the Governor has forced this special election, let’s call it what it is: one of the most important calls to action we have seen in recent history. The initiatives the Governor has officially endorsed will give him more power to cut education funding, delay teachers from gaining tenure and put the responsibility of drawing district lines in the hands of a panel of retired judges— you guessed it, appointed by the governor. Also on the ballot is an initiative that will shut workers out from participating in the political process. Let’s take a look at some of the measures he’s put before us.

Proposition 74 will increase the length of time a teacher must spend on probation from two to five years before gaining tenure. Unfortunately, the Governor truly missed the big picture here. This initiative won’t do anything to help our schools. It doesn’t reduce class sizes, buy up-to date textbooks for students or provide quality teacher training. Those are proven reforms that parents and teachers know work. The Governor should put his focus there rather than working to diminish the job security of a profession that is already in need of individuals willing to take on one of the most honorable challenges today— educating the next generation of Californians and for minimal pay.

Proposition 76 will freeze state spending at current levels whenever a budget agreement is not met by the June 30th deadline, giving the governor sole power over city and county funding sources for firefighters, police, health services, and other vital local programs. It will also lower minimum school funding requirements. If passed, it will give the Governor a constitutional incentive not to work with the legislature.

The Governor’s allies, the Small Business Action Committee, are bankrolling Proposition 75, ‘Paycheck Deception.’ It creates unnecessary red tape by requiring public employee unions to get annual written permission from members to use dues for campaign contributions. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that unions cannot use a member's dues for political purposes if the member objects. Union members already have the right to opt out of political contributions at any time. The goal of the initiative is to silence the voices of teachers, firefighters and health care providers who fight for higher public safety standards, better quality health care and decent funding for our schools.

Certainly, the Governor’s Proposition 77 is a clear attempt to gain more legislative and congressional victories for the GOP. Under this proposal, redistricting duties would go to a panel of three retired judges who would try to draw new districts in time for 2006 elections. District lines would be redrawn immediately, not within our constitutionally-guided once-a-decade timeframe, and without census data to guide the process. Let us not forget that this Governor lost every legislative seat he targeted in the last election. This is a governor who wants to win and is willing to do anything to do so.

I am particularly concerned that California voters won't know the real contributors behind 'Paycheck Protection' until after ballot pamphlets are published. Because the Small Business Action Committee is a general purpose committee, it can go on pouring funds into the measure without coming clean about who is bankrolling it.

Also on the ballot is Proposition 73, an anti-choice measure that is nothing more than an attempt to weaken Roe v. Wade. By requiring doctors to notify parents 48 hours before an abortion is performed, we simply delay medical care, putting young women at risk of health complications and place government in the middle of private decisions that should be between doctor and patient.

There are two prescription drug measures on the ballot. The first, Proposition 78 is supported by the drug companies and relies on ‘voluntary discounts’ from the pharmaceutical industry. This flimsy drug discount program does more to protect the pharmaceutical industry’s healthy profit margins than help Californians struggling to pay high drug prices which is why the industry will spend a record $70 million or more to win. Proposition 79 will give significant discounts for seniors, small businesses and families by creating a drug discount program that requires participation by drug manufacturers, or the drug companies will lose the ability to sell drugs to the Medi-Cal program.

Proposition 80 will require electricity providers to be regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and will hopefully prevent another deregulation disaster. It will repeal failed deregulation policies of the mid-90’s and develop more green power renewable energy.

Mike Murphy, Schwarzenegger's chief political strategist was recently quoted as saying, "the real campaign for these reforms has not even begun."

The Governor is sure to use his limitless supply of campaign dollars to deluge you with deceptive messages on his "reforms." I encourage you to make sure your family, friends, and colleagues are registered to vote and informed about the state and local propositions which will be before you on November 8, 2005.

Our future is at stake.

Yours,
Mark Leno,
Assemblyman, 13th District

P.S. Additionally, should you have questions or thoughts, please feel free to contact me at any time through my District Office at 415-557-3013 or keep updated on the web via: http://www.markleno.com

top

Assemblyman Mark Leno’s Marriage Equality Bill Passes The Senate In Historic Vote

SACRAMENTO – Assemblyman Mark Leno’s AB 849 passed off the Senate Floor today on a 21 to 15 vote, making the California State Senate the first full U.S. legislative body of duly elected representatives of the people to support equal rights for lesbian and gay couples who want to enter into the civil institution of marriage.

“Today represents another milestone toward the fulfillment of the American dream for thousands of lesbian and gay couples in California,” stated Assemblyman Leno (D-San Francisco). “Society is strongest when it upholds the basic civil rights of all its citizens, including the right to marry the person you love. I’m grateful that a majority of my colleagues stood up against discrimination and in favor of allowing same-sex couples who want to devote their lives to one another, raise families, and protect themselves and their children the same rights and responsibilities as different-sex couples with the same goals and dreams.”

Following the near passage of AB 19 in the State Assembly on June 2nd, Leno and LGBT Caucus members decided to continue consideration of the bill this legislative year by amending language previously contained in Leno's AB 19 into a vehicle currently in the Senate, AB 849.

AB 849 amends the Family Code to define a marriage as a civil contract between two persons, instead of a civil contract between a man and a woman. The bill also reaffirms that no religious institution would ever be required to solemnize marriages contrary to its fundamental beliefs.

With 23 Assembly co-authors, 8 Senate co-authors and over 220 supporting organizations, AB 849 is sponsored by Equality California (EQCA), the statewide LGBT civil rights advocacy organization. “Today is an unforgettable moment in California history that marks the courage of a majority of legislators and demonstrates the strength or our democracy,” said Geoffrey Kors Executive Director of Equality California. “The State Assembly in the largest state of the nation just took a bold and giant step in the direction of equality and respect for all families by voting to end discrimination against tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their children."

“This vote is an important step toward ending California’s endorsement of second-class citizenship for its LGBT citizens,” said Leno. “If this can happen in the nation’s most populous state, it can happen anywhere - with enough time, effort and honesty about the simple truth of our lives and our love. The struggle continues but 21 courageous citizen representatives helped us take a giant leap forward in this chamber today.”

AB 849 now goes back to the Assembly for concurrence. If approved, it would move to the Governor’s desk.

top

Gay-rights groups are getting bills passed
Same-sex marriage, key measure, face Senate showdown

From the San Diego Union Tribune...

SACRAMENTO – For two years, the focus of gay-rights advocates has been on passing legislation that's headed for a major showdown in the Senate this week – a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.

But during the same period, gay and lesbian groups have succeeded in moving less-publicized bills that advance homosexual rights in a wide variety of areas, ranging from insurance to the military.

This year, they expect to pass bills aimed at reducing discrimination against gays in political campaigns, banning discrimination against gays and lesbians by businesses, and expanding the rights of domestic partners.

Read on

top

Meth Forum with Senator Carole Migden

Many of you have heard quite a bit about the significant increase in Meth usage in San Francisco over the past year—something that poses a serious threat to the LGBT community, where 31% are already infected with HIV. Meth is making a bad situation significantly worse. That’s because it’s been known to raise one’s chance of having unprotected anal intercourse with a partner of unknown HIV status by 2.5%, as well as triple one’s chance of getting infected.

San Francisco has the highest Meth usage rate in the nation, and with a 46% increase just last year, we still have a lot to do to confront the situation .

That’s why I strongly urge you to attend my Meth Forum September 14 to discuss what we can do as a community to solve the problem. Meth expert Dr. Brad Hare from Positive Health at SF General will be speaking, as well as a dentist specializing in Meth cases and a recovered addict.

This will be an opportunity for us to discuss ways to improve the situation both at the community and the state level.

I hope you will join me that evening to face this problem and see what we can do about it before the problem gets even worse.

Where: Woman’s Building 3543 18th St, at 5:30 PM
When: Wednesday, September 14, 5:30 PM
For More Information: Call David Weinreich in my office at 415-557-1300

top

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
Checks and Balances and Independent Judiciary Must be Preserved

As we in San Francisco proudly commemorated 100 years of judicial independence at the Browning Courthouse, the United States Senate is considering the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, raising the fundamental issue of checks and balances, the separation of powers that protects the rule of law and thereby the rights of every American. From the very beginning of our nation, power was apportioned among three co-equal branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.

An independent judicial branch was integral to our Founding Fathers’ inspired design of our government. They established the judiciary to be free from manipulation and intimidation by Congress and the President, so that our Constitution and individual rights are always safeguarded, even at times when such protections are unpopular.

Our nation’s leaders should cherish these principles that Americans live by and promote around the world. Yet as retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently noted, “In our country today, we’re seeing…a desire not to have an independent judiciary.”

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s starring role in last month’s “Justice Sunday II” represents the latest effort by the radical right to undermine the independence of the judiciary and our separation of powers. Sadly, this is part of a disturbing pattern. In the Terri Schiavo case, Republicans threatened to impeach federal judges for their judicial decisions; and recently some House Republicans sought to cut the funding of the Supreme Court in response to a decision they did not like. These actions do not represent the American mainstream and they violate our constitutional traditions.

Especially menacing to our system of government are ongoing efforts in the Congress to violate the separation of powers by taking away the power of the courts to decide which cases they can hear. This idea, known as “court stripping,” is a dangerous notion that threatens the rights of every American.

Under these court stripping proposals, federal courts would be denied the ability to review certain claims affecting individual rights or acts of Congress for their constitutionality. Republicans want to pass unconstitutional bills and then ensure that there would be no right of courts to review them. In effect, they want to rewrite the Constitution by simple majority.

Court stripping violates the principle of judicial review that has been a central feature of American government for more than 200 years, since Marbury v. Madison. Yet the Republican leader of the court stripping effort, Congressman John Hostettler, has suggested that Marbury was “wrongly decided” and that an independent judiciary is an “absurd notion.”

While not yet considered by the Senate, court stripping bills have been passed by the House in recent years in response to decisions on controversial topics such as gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, and religious references. But the real danger is to our system of government and our system of checks and balances.

Retiring Justice O’Connor has criticized court stripping bills, but her proposed replacement, Judge Roberts, condoned court stripping efforts in the 1980s. He even disagreed with Theodore Olson, a noted conservative, who contended that a school prayer court stripping bill was “impermissible under the Constitution.”

The stakes in preserving an independent judiciary are profound. For more than two centuries, an independent judiciary has served as guardian of our Constitution, our individual rights, and the rule of law. It is a model for the world, and a model we cannot allow to be dismantled here at home.

top

The Transgender Community Needs to Reestablish Its Voice
by Commissioner Theresa Sparks

San Francisco is one of the few—if not the only—place in America with a true transgender political voice. And, that voice will hold elected officials accountable for their words and their actions in advancing acceptance and civil protections for transgenders.

The Transgender Political Caucus (TPC) was formed in 1999 to give voice to the San Francisco transgender community in those critical first district elections. It wasn't a non-profit, nor did it raise any money. It was a group of transgender leaders, from all over San Francisco, that bonded together to help elect individuals to the Board of Supervisors who would listen to our issues and concerns and support us in our fight for equal rights. We were fed up being harassed and strip-searched by the police, denied medical treatment, refused housing and even barred from using public bathrooms just because we were trans. We were tired of being beaten and murdered. So we went out and worked for a number of candidates, helped get one or two elected, familiarized most of the new supervisors-to-be about trans issues and, most of all, put a face to the label of transgender. Since that time, the TPC has been involved in very little political activity, as an organization. Instead, its members have been working with current elected officials on policies directly impacting our population. It’s time though for the TPC to reengage in the process. The lack of political attention to candidates and issues, history has shown us, is a sure-fire way to end up left out of the policy debates altogether.

Following that election, then Supervisor Mark Leno formed the Transgender Civil Rights Implementation Task Force, then Mayor Willie Brown appointed the first transgender to the Human Rights Commission, and many elected officials started scheduling time to hear about transgender issues. The City and County of San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in the United States to eliminate discrimination by adding full transgender medical care to its health services program. The San Francisco Police Department agreed to talk about setting up protocols for dealing with transgender individuals.

Obviously, all the achievements weren't attained through the formation of the TPC. It probably had little concrete effect on the struggle that had been waged for many years in San Francisco by a large number of courageous, dedicated activists, but it finally gave the Community an organized political voice which was being heard by some in elected office. There were others though that still refused to accept transgender people as worthy of basic human rights. During the crucial vote of the Board of Supervisors, upon which hinged the future of transgender medical care in San Francisco, a couple of Supervisors were outspoken in voting no on the proposed ordinance. One of the most dramatic and hurtful events of the session, however, came when the question was called, and one of the supervisors left the legislative chambers to recess in his office. He didn't want to vote in favor of the measure but he also didn't want to mar his carefully constructed progressive image by voting against it. To his credit, Supervisor Geraldo Sandoval eventually did do the right thing and cast his vote in favor of the measure. But his reluctance to stand up for transgender rights was our failing as a community. We need to continue to educate our elected officials and candidates for office on who we are, what we need and why they should stand in solidarity with us.

Supervisor Sandoval once again showed his indifference towards the transgender community during confirmation hearings at the Board for the new panel of Police Commissioners resulting from the passage of Prop H. He attempted to block my nomination, even after I had demonstrated measurable results in the preceding year in the development of protocols for the SFPD when dealing with transgender individuals. I had been an activist on the issue of police accountability for quite some time and had the full support of those in the transgender community who work on police accountability issues. The transgender community needed an advocate on the new police commission. Additionally, I was the only representative of the entire San Francisco LGBT community being considered for appointment. If Supervisor Sandoval had been successful, there would have been no one from the queer community on the panel. In his defense, he was advocating for Latino representation on the commission. But by advocating for one minority group at the expense of another, all of our struggles for equality and human rights were weakened.

The transgender community today is more organized, better informed and has established alliances throughout the lesbian, gay and bisexual political community in San Francisco. But it’s time to re-energize our trans-specific political organization to redefine our needs and develop specific proposals to address those needs in the future. We need to have a strong, on-going, political advocacy group to compliment other organizations such as the Transgender Law Center which advocates for our legal and civil rights, SFTEAM which is a program of the LGBT Community Center focusing on transgender programs, Transgender Equality California which is a trans-specific program within Equality California, the Sacramento-based lobbying organization, and the many other groups many of which advocate for specific minority populations within the larger San Francisco transgender community. Elected officials, who try to hide from openly supporting us, block the appointment of our leaders to important commissions, do nothing to reach out to our community, even those communities of color, need to know that they will not get our endorsement or support. Our community is organized, it’s strong, it’s paying attention and it needs to ensure a place at the political table, now and for future generations of transgender leaders.

Theresa Sparks
Past Co-Chair
Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

For absolute clarity, the views expressed in this article are that exclusively of the author and in no way represent any organization, agency, club or body with which I may now or have ever been affiliated.

top

Alice Membership Form

Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
1800 Market Street PMB#18
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415-707-2010
www.alicebtoklas.org
Alice Reports Editor: Reese Aaron Isbell, M.P.P.

General Membership Meeting 2nd Monday of each month

Month of September:
Monday, September 12, 2005
6:30 PM - 8:00 PM

LGBT Community Center
1800 Market Street @ Octavia

You can now join online www.alicebtoklas.org/abt/joinonline.asp, or fill out the application below

Membership Application

Yes, I want to join the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club!

__$35 Regular
__$100 Supporter
__$250 Sponsor
__$500 Champion
__$20 Special Needs
__Other

__I am renewing my membership        __I will be a new member

__I am a registered Democrat

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address _____________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________State: ______Zip: _____________

Phone: Day __________________________Eve: _____________________________

Email: _________________________________________

Please send checks payable to “Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club” and mail to:

Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
1800 Market Street, PMB#18
San Francisco, CA 94102

top