On December 6, the Department of Justice submitted a written Declaration claiming that Pentagon compliance with a Court's order to allow transgender candidates to apply for enlistment as of January 1 would "impose extraordinary burdens" on a military that "would not be adequately and properly prepared to begin processing transgender applicants." The Declaration, however, rewrites the history of transgender military policy and distorts the evidence, disregarding that the Court's order did not create new military policy, but only directed the military to return to its own policy on transgender enlistment as defined by the current Secretary of Defense. Three former Service Secretaries and one former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness have confirmed that the military had already completed many of the necessary preparations for the lifting of the enlistment ban by the time of the Presidential transition in January, 2017. The Declaration's assertion that implementing the Court's order will impose "extraordinary burdens" because the military "would not be adequately and properly prepared" is incorrect. The Declaration's assertion that transgender applicants for military service are uniquely complicated and difficult to evaluate is incorrect. The Declaration's assertions that recruiters will not understand government identification documents that reflect changes in gender, and are not prepared to obtain supporting medical documents, are incorrect. The Declaration's assertion that the Court's order will result in transgender applicants not receiving "the appropriate medical and administrative accession screening" is incorrect. The Declaration's assertion that "key personnel" have "rotated" into different duties, therefore setting back the pace of implementation and requiring more time, is not a reason for delay.
This study addresses a gap in Role Model Effect literature by focusing on how cisgender women candidates impact transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals' interest in running for political office. Results show support for the hypothesis that cis women candidates who campaign on issues relevant to the TGNC community increase the political interest of TGNC individuals.
Lesbietes, geji, biseksuāli cilvēki un transpersonas gadu gaitā ir kļuvušas par diskriminācijas upuriem visā pasaulē. Slikta vai nepietiekama likumdošanas un politikas īstenošana ir izraisījusi šo iedzīvotāju neapskaužamo stāvokli sabiedrībā. Lai arī situācija dažās Eiropas daļās ir mainījusies, daudzviet ir nepieciešami ievērojami uzlabojumi. Šī darba mērķis ir novērot, salīdzināt un analizēt likumus un cilvēktiesības LGBT cilvēku jomā. Uzmanība tiek vērsta uz Eiropas Savienību kā unikālu ekonomisku un politisku partnerību starp 27 Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstīm un Montenegro kā kandidātvalsti. Kopš dibināšanas Eiropas Savienībā tiek skatīts cilvēktiesību jautājums, bet pēdējo 20 gadu laikā cilvēktiesības ir kļuvušas svarīgas kā nekad agrāk. Visā pasaulē dažādas institūcijas un organizācijas cenšas uzlabot un aizsargāt vispārējās cilvēktiesības, kā arī minoritāšu tiesības. Tas, cik valstij un tās sabiedrībai ir svarīgi uzlabot LGBT cilvēku stāvokli, tiks skatīts piemērā no Montenegro, valstī, kas cenšas pārvarēt tradicionālās un morāles normas, lai veidotu labāku nākotni. 2009. gads bija pirmā reize, kad nacionālajā līmenī tika izveidota plaša koalīcija, lai cīnītos par seksuālo minoritāšu tiesību īstenošanu. Seksuālo minoritāšu tiesību aizstāvēšanu atbalstīja valsts iestādes, nevalstiskās organizācijas un starptautiskās institūcijas. Laika posmā no 2010. līdz 2011. gadam kāda nevalstiska organizācijas no Montenegro izvērtēja situāciju, kurā atrodas LGBT cilvēki, veicot pētījumus šīs minoritāšu grupas vidū un pārējo iedzīvotāju starpā, izlases kopai sastādot 1000 respondentu. Starptautiskā un Eiropas likumdošana un standarti sekoja ar to īstenošanu Montenegro, un iepriekšminētie pētījumi ir šī darba saturs. Darba 3 nodaļas sniegs secinājumus un priekšlikumus, kā uzlabot LGBT cilvēku stāvokli Montenegro. Atslēgas vārdi: LGBT cilvēki, tiesību akti, Eiropas Savienības, Montenegro ; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people over the years are victims of discrimination in all parts of the world. Lack or bad implementation of legislation and policies resulted with their bad position in societies. While situation in some parts of Europe is improved, on the other side, in some parts still a lot of needs to be done. The aim of this paper work is to observe, compare and analyse laws of human right focusing on LGBT people. Focus is on European Union as unique economic and political partnership between 27 European countries and Montenegro as Candidate country. Since founded, European Union is dealing for human rights but in last 20 years human rights begun to be more important than ever. All over the world different institutions and organizations are trying to protect and improve human rights in general and rights of minorities. How important is for one country and its society to improve position of LGBT people will be seen trough example of Montenegro which is trying to overcome traditional and moral norms for tomorrow`s better future. For the first time, in 2009 was formed a broad coalition at the national level to promote realization of the rights of sexual minorities. Promotion and support of human rights of sexual minorities in Montenegro was supported by governmental institutions, NGO`s and international institutions. During 2010 and 2011 one Non- governmental institution from Montenegro examined situation in which are LGBT people, based on survey with representatives of this group and survey among the citizens with a sample of 1000 respondents. International and European legislation and standards followed with their implementation in Montenegro and mentioned surveys are content of this paper work which trough three chapters will give conclusions and recommendations regarding improvement situation of LGBT people in Montenegro. Key words: LGBT people, legislation, European Union, Montenegro
Queerness has always been marked by its untimely relation to socially shared temporal phases, whether individual (developmental) or collective (historical). (McCallum and Tuhkanen 6) The 2017 promotional campaign that launched Season Nine of Logo's award-winning reality competition TV series RuPaul's Drag Race (RPDR) spoke directly to anxieties circulating within LGBT communities in the US and beyond as a result of the 2016 election of Donald Trump (LogoTV). More specifically, the marketing strategy asserted the programme's timely relation to an unfolding history that seemed unrelentingly bleak. For, despite candidate Trump's pledges to support the LGBT community, his administration immediately undertook actions that rolled back Obama-era advances. Trump reassigned the senior advisor for LGBT health in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), fired every member of the President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, attempted to ban all transgender people from serving in the US military (later limited to a ban on those who have transitioned), and sought to rescind workplace protections for LGBT people that had been recognised under Title VII of the Civil Right Act. As we write this Introduction in late 2018, Trump's administration announced plans to redefine gender as "biologically fixed", which will effectively "define out of existence" 1.4 million transgender Americans in the US (Green, Benner, and Pear). Sensing the growing vulnerability of queer life at the epicentre of this gathering storm, RPDR asserted its importance to American politics and culture. Prior to the airing of the season's first episode in March 2017, TV spots and online ads featured the tagline, "drastic times call for dragtastic measures", with Ru Paul proclaiming "we need America's next drag superstar now more than ever" (@RuPaul; LogoTV).
Human rights apply universally, this means that human rights are inherent in every human being, however in the 2019 candidates for civil servants selection procedure there is discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people who are not allowed to take part in the selection because they have a deviant sexual orientation. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a study to review from the perspective of human rights regarding this issue. The purpose of this study is to find a way out of the problem of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people. The research method used in this paper is a normative legal research method because of the absence of norms in this problem so that it must be studied with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the study from this paper show that the reason for the urgency of the attorney general of the republic of Indonesia in regulating the prohibition for lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people is because the prosecutor profession requires special skills so that these rules must be enforced However, after being reviewed from the perspective of human rights, the prohibition arrangement clearly violates the provisions of the 1945 Constitution. So from the results of the study, the conclusion that can be drawn to solve this problem is of course the need for the government to make an appropriate legal rule regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people so that in the future there will be no polemics. Hak Asasi Manusia berlaku Universal, hal ini berarti hak asasi manusia melekat pada diri setiap manusia, namun dalam prosedur persyaratan seleksi calon pegawai negeri sipil tahun 2019 terjadi diskriminasi terhadap kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender yang tidak boleh mengikuti seleksi tersebut karena memiliki orientas seksual menyimpang. Oleh karena itu perlu dilakukan suatu kajian untuk meninjau dari perspektif hak asasi manusia mengenai permasalahan ini. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah mencari jalan keluar dari permasalahan diskriminasi terhadap kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender tersebut. Adapaun metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif karena adanya kekosongan norma dalam permasalahan ini sehingga harus dikaji dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil studi dari penulisan ini menunjukan adanya alasan urgensi dari kejaksaan agung republik Indonesia dalam mengatur larangan bagi kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender ini adalah karena profesi jaksa memerlukan keahlian yang khusus sehingga aturan tersebut harus diberlakukan, namun setelah ditinjau dari perspektif hak asasi manusai pengaturan pelarangan tersebut jelas telah melanggar ketentuan-ketentuan yang tertuang dalam undang-undang dasar 1945. Maka dari hasil studi tersebut kesimpulan yang dapat diambil untuk menyelesaikan permasalahn ini tentunya adalah perlunya pemerintah membuat sebuah aturan hukum yang tepat mengenai kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender agar kedepannya tidak lagi terjadi polemik.
The majority of sociological research on social movement tactics and strategies has focused on how theories of resource mobilization and dynamic political opportunities affect the innovation of tactics and types of tactics used. Relatively few studies have explored the roles of institutional, cultural, and political contexts in determining why social movement leaders choose certain tactics. This research study examines lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) social movement organizations (SMO) that are pursuing institutional advocacy. Specifically, it is a comparative case study of how tactics of LGBT organizations in Minnesota and Utah are affected by contested and conservative political landscapes, respectively. The concept of political landscapes was developed and includes three core components: the institutional structure of the political system, the sociocultural context, and dynamic political opportunities. Data was collected from 16 semi-structured interviews of LGBT SMO leaders. Secondary data was also collected by examining public records, newspapers, magazines, and organizational websites. The results from this study suggest that dynamic political opportunities are embedded in the larger institutional and sociocultural contexts. In Minnesota, the combination of a more open and competitive political system and a more diverse Christian presence and ethnically diverse urban areas have resulted in the use of tactics that are much more open and direct. Specifically, LGBT SMOs in Minnesota use tactics such as only endorsing candidates publicly, focusing on building a broad bipartisan base of sponsors for LGBT legislation, working with other SMOs to create large coalitions, using a frame that is all-encompassing of movement goals, and building a large, grassroots movement. By contrast, the closed and conservative political system and a dominant religion in Utah have resulted in more private, compromising, and behind-the-scenes tactics. LGBT SMOs in Utah tactics include using both public and private political endorsements, good-cop bad-cop organizations, delegate trainings, and frame alignment with the conservative culture.
Each year, millions of Americans cast votes for specific candidates or on specific ballot measures. Each such vote generates potential "electoral evidence," the admissibility of which may be the subject of dispute in subsequent litigation. The evidence may take various forms, including the marked ballot itself, a voter's testimony regarding her vote, or her written or oral statements regarding her vote. Electoral evidence is most commonly offered in litigation over the election outcome itself, with the parties seeking to determine how certain individuals voted to resolve a close election. However, its potential relevance is not limited to such proceedings. It may also be substantively relevant in a case in which the voter is alleged to have discriminated against someone, or to prove potential juror or witness bias against a party. While election contests for specific candidates only provide insight into a voter's general political leanings that is only marginally relevant to prove discriminatory purpose or bias in most instances, votes cast in recent years on gay and transgender rights, affirmative action, religious freedom, tort reform, and abortion provide insight into a voter's views about discrete categories of persons that is far more probative of such matters. The admissibility of electoral evidence has been given piecemeal consideration in judicial opinions, but has not received comprehensive attention in any judicial opinion or in the scholarly literature. This Article is the first comprehensive examination of the evidentiary issues that arise when a party seeks to offer electoral evidence in judicial proceedings. It identifies three dangers associated with admitting electoral evidence: its trustworthiness; the individual and societal interests in protecting ballot secrecy; and the risk of unfair prejudice. It demonstrates that these dangers are addressed in a fragmentary and incomplete fashion by existing evidentiary rules. Relying on social science research about the veracity of voters in recounting ...
In Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, the candidate promised to nominate and confirm federal judges who would possess ideologically conservative perspectives. Across President Trump's first twenty-seven months, the chief executive implemented numerous actions to effectuate his campaign pledge. Indeed, federal judicial selection may be the area in which President Trump has achieved the most substantial success throughout his first twenty-seven months in office, as many of Trump's supporters within and outside the government recognize. Nevertheless, the chief executive's achievements, principally when nominating and confirming stalwart conservatives to the appellate court bench, have imposed numerous critical detrimental effects. Most important for the purposes of this Article, a disturbing pattern that implicates a stunning paucity of minority nominees materialized rather quickly. Moreover, in the apparent rush to install staunch conservative ideologues in the maximum possible number of appeals court vacancies, the Republican White House and Senate majority have eviscerated numerous invaluable, longstanding federal judicial selection conventions. Although it is comparatively early in the service of those judges whom the Trump Administration has confirmed, some jurists have already issued opinions that undermine the rights of ethnic minorities, women, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals or that make the judiciary seem equally partisan and politicized as the political branches. These developments have undercut public respect for the selection process, the presidency, the Senate, and the judiciary. Because the 133 current vacancies present an unusual opportunity, the compelling dearth of minority representation among Trump's judicial nominees and confirmees as one critical front in his administration's "war on diversity" deserves evaluation.
