Banning The Ban In The Beaver State

As a general rule, I guard against complacency.  Still, it's hard to greet one piece of news as if it's becoming almost routine.

Today, US District Judge Michael McShane struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that it's unconstitutional.  County clerks all over the Beaver State said they were ready to issue marriage licenses, and it didn't take long for Laurie Brown and Julie Engbloom to form the line for marriage licenses at Multnomah County court.

Oregon becomes the eighth state in which a Federal judge struck down a same-sex marriage ban on Constitutional grounds during the past year.  Things have gotten so that Judge McShane's ruling can't be dismissed over the fact that he's openly gay:  Earlier this year, in Utah, a conservative Republican judge (Robert Shelby)  issued a similar ruling.  It has been appealed, as McShane's ruling is likely to be. 

But the fact that bans can be appealed by such disparate judges means, I believe, that we'll see similar developments in other states.  Common wisdom used to tell us that same-sex marriage would become legal because more and more legislators--even ones as far to the right as Dick Cheyney--realize they have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, neighbors, friends and co-workers in the LGBT spectrum.  Such awareness has certainly helped, as well as a younger generation who's more willing to accept sexual and gender-expression diversity. However, it seems to me that any jurist worthy of the title--let alone a Constitutional scholar--realizes that there is simply no Constitutional basis for a ban on same-sex marriage.  At least, my readings of the document, for what they're worth, tell me as much.

It looks, though, like opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage are going to be busy in the Beaver State, as they have been in the Beehive State and other places in this country.

A Thorn In The Side Of The Rose City T-Girls

One thing any trans person can tell you is that there are some things that even the most trans-friendly communities and the strongest anti-discrimination laws can't prevent.

They include, among other things, plain-and-simple bigotry.  Such is the case in Portland, Oregon.  

The Beaver State passed its Equality Act, designed to protect the rights of LGBT people, in 2007.  This week, the State's Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, filed the first complaint submitted under the law.

The complaint alleges that Chris Penner, the owner of the Twilight Room Annex (formerly known as the P Club), asked the Rose City T-Girls, a group of transgender patrons, to stop patronizing his establishment.  According to them, he said he didn't want his place to be known as a "tranny bar."

Penner described himself as "shocked and baffled", saying that he's not "against gay or transgender people" and has LGBT employees.  He also says his bar has even hosted same-sex weddings and Pride events.

However, he claimed that that the Rose City T-Girls were driving patrons away on Friday nights, when the T-Girls were congregating there, because they left the stall doors open and toilet seats up in the women's rest rooms.

Investigators reported that they could find no evidence that the T-Girls were "disrupting business", as he claimed, and concluded that he did not talk to them about their behavior before barring them.

A hearing is set for 19 March.

(I couldn't help but to notice this irony: The bar owner shares the same last name with an award-winning sportswriter who came out as trans, lived and worked as female, then quietly returned to living as male and committed suicide.)

We Won't Come For What They've Built In The Beaver State

Once again, I've Kelli Busey to thank for the latest news about what's available to trans people.

She reports that in order to comply with the state's non-discrimination laws, health-care insurers cannot have riders that categorically exclude all transgender patients.  Also, the state's mandate for coverage of mental health services must also apply to transgender patients.  Furthermore, the designation of a policyholder as male or female can no longer have any bearing on the types of treatments that are covered.  So, for example, a female-to-male who is documented as male cannot be denied coverage for ovarian cancer screening.

So far, it all sounds really good, right?  Then this part will sound, at first, even better:  Insurers cannot deny coverage of treatments for transgender patients if those same treatments are covered for cisgender patients.  Therefore, if an insurer pays for a cis woman's breast reduction to lessen her back pain, it also must pay for the same treatment if it's undergone by a female-to-male transgender.  

Think about that for a moment.  It sounds good until you realize that sex reassignment procedures procedures are not done on cisgender people.  To my knowledge, no cis man has ever asked to have his genitals cut open and reconstructed as a vagina, and no cis woman has ever demanded to have an artificial penis constructed (to the extent it can be done) in place of her vagina.  Also, I don't know of any insurer that pays for cis women's breast augmentations; under the new regulations, they wouldn't be required to do so for male-to-female transsexuals.

But all of this leads to an even slipperier slope:  Insurers could still change their policies as to what they will and won't cover for cis people.  So, an insurance company might decide that it will no longer cover breast or penile implants for anyone, cis or trans.  

Somehow I don't expect to see trans people hitching their wagons to mules for cross-country treks to the Beaver State--not yet, anyway.