My name is Einat Sapegin. I am only 17 years old, but my story and the story of my family contains more hate, more pain, and more fear than any person's story should.
My family is Jewish, and they're from the Soviet Union, where Jews faced violent discrimination, fewer chances for employment and fewer education opportunities. They had to prove that they were sufficiently non-Jewish to simply live a normal life. Still, they faced adversity. My mother was one course short of earning the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree. Her instructor was anti-Semitic, and despite having similar quality work to her non-Jewish peers, he refused to pass her.
When my mother, father and brother became Soviet expatriates and moved to Israel, they had to prove themselves Jewish enough to receive Israeli citizenship. They fought with officials and religious experts to prove themselves worthy of a homeland that was supposedly guaranteed to all Jews. After they overcame this hurdle, they had to adjust. They had to adjust with a new language, a new country, a new national identity and new people. Most difficult of all, they had to adjust to every new citizen getting a government-issued gas mask as a welcome to the country. I, as a baby, also had a gas mask. That was my
welcome into the world. They had to deal with the knowledge that my father might get on the morning bus to Haifa, but that bus might not make it to Haifa. We weren't living in poverty, but we did learn how to
stretch a shekel, with only my father working, and four people to support.
My extended family chose to go to America, following my uncle and his family at the last minute. Leaving my immediate family in a strange country with a newborn. Eventually, we joined my extended family here in America, but our troubles were far from over. My first year in America, was spent in Elizabeth, NJ, in a small, one bedroom apartment, living with with ten other people. My first years in school were spent being taunted for not knowing English. But I understood enough when a
girl told me that she wanted to crush the faces of all the Jews. I was in second grade, and the girl did not get expelled, suspended or even detention. Her seat was moved across the room, and no one spoke of the incident again. No one even asked if I was okay.
In middle school, there were teases about my weight. There was one particularly bizarre rumor of me being a hermaphrodite. But the most painful, was my coming out to someone I thought was close and trust-worthy, but somehow, everyone knew within two days, and it led
to isolation and general middle school torment.
The reason why I'm telling you this, and not reasons why you should support the marriage equality bill legally is because I'm sure you're aware of the law. I'm sure you know that everyone should have equal protection under law and that the law should apply to everyone the same way. I'm sure you know what the Constitution says.
But you didn't know my story. My story is one of hurt and pain. I have come from too much discrimination and I have experienced too much hate for my new country, for my government and my elected officials to tell me I am not good enough. My story is also the same story of so many GLBTQ people. Dates, names, and places are different, but that's trivial. We have all experienced bigotry.
We are done. We are done having to prove ourselves good enough. We are done asking people to deem us worthy of acceptance. We shouldn't need a special seal of approval. The fact that we are citizens and humans
that are capable of love should be enough. We should not have to stand here and plead and convince you to give us the same rights that you innately have.
No one should have to go through a process to prove themselves worthy of rights that everyone else has, but discrimination will never end as long as the government allows it. Call it a civil union, call it a domestic partnership, but let's call it what it really is-- prejudice wrapped in politically safe convention. If you really thought we were
equal, you would not support anything but marriage. The fact that a government had to create and invent a completely new institution just to keep gays away from straights is completely ridiculous.
I tell you now, we are worthy and we are good enough. We should not need a seal of approval, but we do need your vote. We have come through too much to be turned away and we have come through too much
to be confined to a second-class status.
Because no one should have to endure pain, because no one should have to prove themselves worthy, because we are all human, I urge you to support the marriage equality bill.
There have been many very valid arguments in favor of marriage equality - whether it be economic, equal rights, discrimination or how marriage equality opponents base their arguments on religious beliefs that have no place in determining civil law.
And while I agree with pretty much all of these arguments (some to a greater degree than others), the one that always jumped out at me - and one that my wife has pointed out time and time again - is that of flat out discrimination against an entire class of Americans based on a very random factor to use for the basis of such discrimination. One's sexual orientation is no different from skin color, eye color, hair color, religion, height, physical or mental illness or age when it comes to the arbitrary nature of this type of discrimination.
It's hard to believe that the civil rights movement is only around 50 years old, and women' suffrage is less than a century old (interestingly, New Jersey was the only state to allow women to vote for close to a 20 year period in the late 1700s). But these items do nothing to excuse the fact that New Jersey is staring at an opportunity to be ahead of the curve on marriage equality - another equal rights issue - yet we are currently looking at a situation where something so basic, something that in twenty or fifty years will be looked at the same as civil rights or women's suffrage is now, is being debated by some (including too many Democrats) as "not for now" or not really a big deal.
Now I understand that some Senators and Assemblymen (and Assemblywomen) may be doing what they think is "politically safe". But in addition to that being preposterous in most cases, it is truly reactionary thinking, and is no different from the "separate but equal" arguments that were made in the late 1800s.
Civil unions are, by definition, separate. "The same legal rights" are maybe "equal" in some respects but if someone has to explain and ultimately produce some additional "proof of civil union" when their partner is heading into emergency surgery, then how is that truly equal?
Even if there wasn't horror story after horror story about how same sex couples have to struggle for the same basic rights as those who are married, the mere fact that there is a separate law on the books for civil unions and same sex couples makes it discriminatory on the face. The additional fact that this distinction is an arbitrary one and generally steeped in religious beliefs as the basis makes it even worse - as the last I looked, it was the Constitution, not the Bible that dictates our laws. And it is a civil law that allowed me to marry my wife - not a religious law.
The same should hold true regardless of skin color, religion, hair color or sexual orientation. To do otherwise is nothing short of bigotry.
A person knows when a nerve has been hit when the person finds themselves being "twittered" with certain followers. Now I can add Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark to my list. How thrilling! How wonderful! How- mmmm!
So let's continue with the De facto segregation in Newark- Newark public schools are under State control. NJ State has de facto segregation occurring in Newark. You would think that the State would want to do something about that, wouldn't you?
However we are talking about the state where its governor appeared to want to follow in the same footsteps of what the Governors of PA and NY had tried to do by limiting/removing any proof of legitimate Native Americans from existing in the state. However, NY and PA failed miserably to accomplish that attempt and NJ will soon be joining them.
So because our Governor appears to have no qualms about removing two legitimate tribes from the annuals of NJ history and replacing them with apparent usurpers, of course NJ wouldn't want to address the apparent de facto segregation of Newark Schools.
What amazes me is that none of the liberal progressive people reading this diary seem in any way perturbed by such a revelation. If this were the 60s or 70s, there would have been such a cry of outrage that it would have shaken the walls of congress.
But there is no reaction! Nothing! De Nada! Have New Jersey's die hard liberals become politically correct rather than morally and ethically correct? Any one with an ounce of brains understands that when being "politically correct",that the masses suffer in the end!
We Have De facto Segregagtion In Newark and everyone is blithely going about their business worrying about an election.
Yes, the election is very important, depending upon which side you are on and who is your candidate of choice.
But there are thousands of children trapped in segregated schools run by the State and no one is screaming for an investigation?
I have a serious problem with the conservatives, liberals, and moderates in NJ. I am a die hard democrat but I find the fact that there is segregation being allowed to exist in NJ and not one politician and/or liberal is asking for a federal investigation kind of makes you wonder just what has the democratic party turned into in NJ?
This isn't a false statement being made. Most of the African American students in Newark are attending failing schools, while the Hispanic and Portuguese are attending better schools. That's segregation folks- You know, keeping the "blacks" down so other groups can improve?
Unfortunately, there is very little that the current Mayor can do about this as Newark has no control over their schools and this falls under the purview of the State.
However, I would suggest that Booker grow a pair of "you know what" and blaze a new trail. One where he gets before microphones and says "that the State of NJ has established de facto segregation within Newark and it must be addressed at the federal level!" That takes a certain amount of guts and courage.
That takes a Mayor who loves his city and its citizens more than he loves having a political career. It takes someone who truly believes in the "civil rights" of people to take a stand.
It may take the people of Newark, themselves, to stop the de facto segregation because it is very obvious that its elected officials appear to care more about their political futures than the future of Newark's children. But that wouldn't be the first time that parents have to rally to protect the civil rights of their children in Newark- It's happened before and it will probably have to happen again.
By the way, segregation helps to guarantee the continuation of gangs! Just thought you'd like that tidbit. Another thought. If the State of NJ is receiving Federal funds for integration of its city schools and it is receiving funds for Newark- that is a serious problem because the Federal funds are not being spent correctly.
On May 17, 1954 the Supreme Court made a landmark decision when it ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. The court case that stated (Wikipedia's easy interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... ) "by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. State Laws which established separate schools for black and white children were denying black children the right to an equal education"
As a result of the above ruling, education in America began its journey in addressing integration in all public schools regardless of where those schools were located.
According to: 88.01.03: School Desegregation and Prejudice in the United States Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute: School Desegregation and Prejudice in the United States by Mary Ellen Leahy http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curr... "In 1974, Federal District Court Judge Garrity found that the Boston, Massachusetts School Committee was implementing a systematic program of segregation affecting all students, teachers and schools. The Court imposed the remedy of mandatory busing. This order created chaos and social upheaval in the city of Boston. "
Every few years new milestones would be made guaranteeing that integration continued throughout America. School districts bus their students within their districts to maintain integration so that the schools represent their total student population. Some districts actually integrate based upon race and religion to maintain a truly integrated system so that children of all backgrounds mingle and mix together.
However, the question arises is how integrated are our Urban schools in New Jersey?
I have no idea as to what is happening nationally, but I have a pretty good idea as to what is occurring in New Jersey. As a Special Education Advocate I have had the opportunity to work with some of the Urban districts; most recently in Newark, NJ.
I have been representing four Native American children. What I have experienced from the regular education to their Special Education would have stunned anyone else who had never run into the workings of inner city schools.
Newark is a very interesting City. It is comprised of African Americans, Hispanics, Portuguese and a sundry of other minority groups- with a speckle of Caucasian sprinkled in somewhere.
The problem with Newark is that their schools are racially and ethnically imbalanced. In essence Newark practices de facto segregation. You have schools which are basically comprised of children of Hispanic origin attending one school, African American students attending another school, Portuguese children in another school, and the splattering of other ethnic and cultural groups scattered throughout the district. Native American children, regardless of how many times the administration is told that they are Native American are told they are Hispanic, African American and basically denied recognition of their heritage.
However, that's another diary. Right now, Newark needs to end its defacto segregation and begin bussing their students city wide to effectively integrate their school system.
It is unacceptable in today's society, that there should be a school system where their schools are not racially and ethnically balanced. The fact that most African American students are attending the failing schools in Newark; while children of other racial and ethnic backgrounds go to the "better" schools, should immediately cause outrage in a progressive society such as New Jersey.
You have Hispanic principals with Hispanic children and African American Principals with African American children and the cultures do not mix on a grand scale.
The State of NJ needs to integrate Newark schools by bussing the African American students to the Portuguese and Hispanic schools. The Portuguese students need to be divided up and sent to the Hispanic and African American schools and Hispanic students sent to the Portuguese and African American schools. Neighborhood schools/SLTs must end in Newark because not only is it a violation of integration, but depending upon which school the child attends, will determine the quality of education that child receives. Mixing the populations of the children guarantees an end to de facto segregation. That's Integration! Something that Newark is in great need of.
Also, isn't there something about Federal monies going to districts for integration? What happened to Newark? Why wasn't it ever given Federal monies for bussing for integration? If they received it, where did the money go?
(This story can also be followed on www.secretnj.com)
If you take a bus route that was one zone from the irvington/newark border to north arlington and split that into 2 routes, you increase the cost and commute time for me. Force the routes to go though penn station and you get
1 bus goes from irvington to penn station
1 bus goes a short hop from penn station to kearny then north arlington.
Now if i moved from irvington to kearny but still worked at a hospital in newark , my upscale reward is a more costly 2zone monthly pass.
It seems to always come down to toilets for some people.
People like Assemblyman Wannabe senator Mike Doherty (R-Knuckledragger) and Asw Alison Litell McHose (R-Crazytown) who today announced their intention to introduce a bill requiring the Legislature to inform parents of school children who visit the State House of the Legislature's Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy.
Yeah. So the NJ Law Against Discrimination has been amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression - ooooh I'm getting vewy scawd! - in employment, housing, insurance, and (wait for it ....) public accomodations. And that follows the NJ Superior Court Appellate Division, to whit:
It is incomprehensible to us that our Legislature... would condone discrimination against men or women who seek to change their anatomical sex because they suffer from a gender identity disorder.
I don't know how even the most throwback of our legislators could argue that people shouldn't have employment opportunity, or be able to buy a house, or insurance. It's not defensible. So, they don't even go there. They go for what they think will light up parents by playing to their worst fear that something will happen to their little kids: Trouble in the bathroom. Bad people near little Ali or Mikey's pee pee. When all else fails, try to equate people with child-molesters.
I bring this matter to your attention because the Legislature often plays host to busloads of very young school girls who have a need, as children do, to use our toilet facilities.
Boom. There it is! Now, standing aside for the moment - and um, really, really far away from - Doherty's and McHose's fascination with the bathroom, let's take a moment and talk about what our children actually have to fear when they get on that yellow school bus and take a field trip to watch how a bill becomes law.
Jump with me, and I'll show you what your kids really have to fear when they visit the State House:
The WSJ's law blog has an update on the discrimination suit in which a 54-year-old Wal-Mart employee from California named Betty Dukes alleged in a discrimination claim that she was denied the training needed to obtain a higher-paying job because of her sex.
In early 2004, the US Department of Justice sued the borough of Bound Brook for engaging in systematic housing discrimination against Hispanics. The borough and the Justice Department settled the lawsuit out of court shortly thereafter; the settlement required the borough to pay a $30,000 fine and up to $425,000 in damages to victims of discrimination and to implement several policy and administrative measures to ensure future compliance with the Fair Housing Act. City officials' discriminatory housing practices cost the average Bound Brook family $185.
Yet one Bound Brook councilman still hasn't given up trying to drive as many Hispanics out of the Borough as he can. Yesterday, Republican Council President Jim Lefkowitz introduced a measure which would require renters to prove to their landlords that they are not illegal immigrants. Fortunately for residents Bound Brook, Lefkowitz's proposal didn't get very far. The borough's Republican Mayor, Carey Pilato, opposes the ordinance, making it impossible for Lefkowitz to pass it without support from at least one Democrat on the evenly divided council.
Bound Brook voters will have a great chance to dump Lefkowitz this fall. Lefkowitz and fellow Republican Margaret Lyons will face Democrats Jean Mangino and Lorraine Call for two borough council seats, including one open seat, this fall. Incumbent Republican Paul Hasting is resigning today and will not be running for re-election. If Democrats succeed in taking just one of the two seats, they will hold a veto-proof 4-2 majority on the borough council.
Rob Andrews Leads Historic Hearings on Transgender Discrimination
Andrews' opening statement and Diane Shroer's statement with some red head in the background
Last Thursday I led a contingent of folks from Garden State Equality to attend the first ever Congressional hearings on transgender employment discrimination! The hearings were extremely insightful and for those that actually paid attention, the stories of blatant discrimination against loyal, patriotic and hard working quality professionals was simply mind boggling! For me it was especially satisfying since I played a small part in getting the parties together to enable this, and for the third time in my short political advocacy career, have a Congressman tell me he would take the lead on something and then do so - and do it very well! If for no other reason than holding these hearings, Sub Committee Chair, Congressman Rob Andrews would be deserving of great praise for saying he would and then for doing so!
But he did it so very well! What is impressive is that and he and his staff worked with terrific organizations, NCTE (National Center For Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, ACLU, National Center for Lesbian Rights as well as state organizations such as Garden State Equality. The quality of our witnesses and the preparation given to the members of the Subcommittee reflected a high level of professionalism.
I hope you read Jason Springer's post which has the video in which Cong. Andrews slices and dices the Harvard educated lawyer for the religious radical right wing and exposes their argument as pure and simple ugly bias. Rob Andrews became a hero to many an equality loving person! I also very much appreciate that he made mention of me and Angie and Lily who were with GSE
Rob Andrews pressed Lavy on his claims that forcing religious employers to hire transgender workers would be like "forcing an Orthodox Jew to eat pork." Andrews asks whether an Orthodox Jew with a law firm could refuse to hire a Catholic. Lavy is forced to respond in the negative. Andrews then presents a series of similar scenarios - should a pacifist be allowed to discriminate against a Vietnam vet? - and Lavy just looks at him blankly, speechlessly. Andrews is killing him right now and eloquently making the point that the "religious conscience" argument does not hold up to scrutiny. I wish I could type faster or had video! Because this is DELICIOUS. The overflow room is rapt.
But that was only part of the story, and I think the rest of the story needs to be told.
Indeed I was filled with pride to be from NJ with 3 New Jersey Congressmen playing an active positive role at the hearings, especially since only 2 were on the subcommittee. Say what?
The morning started off with a quick meeting with Congressman Rush Holt and some of his senior staff. Rush, from the first time I met him, he has "gotten it" and he never ceases to impress me as well as accord respect.
We then had a formal and productive meeting with Congressman Andrews NJ-1 and his staff prior to the hearings and followed his staff to the committee hearing room. Seeing the long line of people outside queued up for seats we followed his staffer where we waited in the witness room with the witnesses and folks from the national advocacy organizations. (VIP treatment) That was an education seeing the folks behind the scenes that prepped the witnesses and provided education for the Congressmen.... and to see what organizations actually did the work and which took the credit! Special thanks to Becky Dansky the Task Force Federal Legislative Director for her great work with the committee and personal help in untwining my neck pendants so I could look good for the camera when it was focused on Colonel Shroer!
Labor and Education Sub committee Chair Rob Andrews was amazing and he is now a Vice Chair of the newly formed House LGBT Equality Caucus. That caucus was formed as a result of the public outcry to the botched management of the ENDA legislation that was watered down and mutilated (aka SPLENDA) against the will of all but one LGBT advocacy organization. One of the leaders against that SPLENDA was committee member Rush Holt NJ-12 was and continues to be a champion for full LGBT rights and is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus. Rush Holt made a very positive statement, but had to leave early for his own subcommittee hearing. Rush was my first Congressional Hero... "Rush rocks!"
The surprise was Cong. Donald Payne, who was a member of the overall committee, but not Andrews subcommittee, who was there for the proceedings. He asked to speak and was positive and productive and made a passing reference to our GSE meeting last fall in his Newark office as we "educated him Jersey Style". I think I glowed! That was impressive and if we can get his leadership on this as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), it would help insure success in the next Congress.
One of the problems was that the CBC was not behind transgender inclusion, especially some members in the South. I made sure I introduced Angie to him as she is a constituent, and said to him that when we are in Denver, I would introduce him to Marisa Richmond, an African American transwoman who is a Clinton delegate from Tennessee. (Yeah, and she is a Harvard educated college professor and grassroots activist)
Although the reporter didn't mention me, I introduced her to Lily who told her story that proved to be a nice counterbalance to distorted article and I think helped Andrews.
It was good day! The next afternoon Congressman Rush Holt called me, apologized for leaving early, and we did a post mortem, we agreed the hearings went as well as possible. YAYY!
"Who would have thought that in the year 2008, when the odds are good that our next president will either be a woman or an African American, an effort to ensure fair pay for everyone in our society would be blocked in the United States Senate? It should never matter whether you are a man or a woman, what you look like, or how you worship when it comes to getting equal pay for equal work. A woman gets paid 77 cents for every dollar a man does. The glass ceiling might be a little bit higher than it was--but it's still there.
"Senate Republicans have to explain to the American people how they can support this type of discrimination and how they can deny fair wages, particularly as many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck in the midst of this economic tailspin."
The bill is blocked despite 56 positive votes. By the way, this is not even new policy, the bill would close a loophole created by the conservative Supreme Court last year. Pay discrimination is already illegal, but the Court says if you don't find out about it right away, you have no recourse. Quite a trick by Scalia and friends.
Without political courage from our leaders, cohesion within the progressives and (most importantly) support from straight allies, gays and lesbians will be relegated to the back (or middle) of the bus for a long time.
When the State Supreme Court ruled last fall that gay couples deserve the same rights as everyone else in the state, the legislature's awkward response signaled something different. Instead of changing a couple of words in the statues, the legislature created an entirely new class of relationships, called civil unions, and needed 60 pages to detail how they are just the same as marriages. On paper anyway.
The results were so predictable and every week we learn more about the utter failure of this law. The Star Ledger reports that UPS is the latest company to interpret the civil unions law as a green light to discriminate against employee Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier and her partner Heather Aurand:
United Parcel Service's decision to deny coverage to a Toms River couple boils down to a single word: New Jersey law does not call them "spouses." [...]
In its letter denying coverage, UPS said it does provide health benefits to its employees' spouses, including spouses of the same sex who are married in Massachusetts. But it said New Jersey's decision to recognize same-sex relationships as civil unions rather than marriages tied its hands.
Despite being governed by federal law, UPS chose to extended health care coverage to married couples in Massachusetts. That is the power of words. No good corporate citizen wants to be seen as discriminating against their employees. But there's no such pressure to do the right thing in New Jersey, as David Buckel, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, explains:
"The Legislature said: You folks aren't worthy of marriage. That has an impact. If the New Jersey Legislature would just take back the invitation to discriminate, UPS would do the right thing."
And that's not just a gay rights lawyer's spin. The letter from the UPS explicitly states the same:
In its letter, UPS said the New Jersey Legislature, in enacting the state's civil union law, "did not go as far as Massachusetts and afford same-sex couples the ability to marry. Had the New Jersey Legislature done that, you could have added Ms. Aurand as a spouse under the plan."
The letter concluded that "New Jersey law does not treat civil unions the same as marriages."
Through their actions, the legislature - naively or intentionally - created an innately unequal subclass of residents and a loophole you could drive a UPS truck through. It's time to close the UPS truck loophole.
A lot can happen in five years. As people take the opportunity today to reflect and remember what happened on 9/11, we at City Belt thought it was important to remember some things that happened that day that just might not fit within the mainstream press' themes of heroism, unity, and courage in the face of disaster. It's important for us not to utilize only selective memory when we remember 9/11 -- as a people, we need to remember it as fully and truthfully as possible -- warts and all.
Leaving aside for the moment the impossibly obvious fact that the real Whoopi Goldberg and a Cher look-alike have absolutely NOTHING in common insofar as their potential to offend – at least on a political level – (I’ll take real Whoopi over a Cher-a-be any day) — and that Ms. Legriede’s issues re: the Cher impersonator at the LBGTI caucus was based solely and entirely upon her own personal discomfort with men who look fabulous as women – let’s look at WHY being so disrespectful to gay, lesbian, transgendered, intersexed and bisexual Democratic Voters is such a REALLY bad idea for the Democratic Party.
I’m referencing a 1994 poll, since the question at hand is whether one Cher look-alike at a NJ political event two years before 2008 can skew the entire country into another four years of Republican rule.
A disclaimer: Nearly 8,000 GLBT people completed the annual Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census study this summer (2004). “Drawing a true random sample of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is highly problematic," said Dr. Beth Barnes, fellow researcher of the original GLCensus survey, and now a consultant to the project and Director of the School of Journalism & Telecommunications at the University of Kentucky. "The GLCensus approach of providing an anonymous Internet-based means of expressing opinions is not projectable to the entire GLBT population in the U.S., but does represent the largest single respondent panel from all 50 states and provides a snapshot of the GLBT voter pool."
What the pool says in brief is this:
88% of GLBT respondents are registered to vote
9 out of 10 GLBTs will cast their votes to Kerry
Kerry’s strength grows in gay and lesbian households as age and income increases, and with those who are partnered, legally coupled or married.
(Sounds like a good reason to get behind marriage equality and PUSH, doesn’t it?)
New Jersey’s public officials are allowing discrimination to spread as rapidly here as in any other blue state in America. As we await the New Jersey Supreme Court decision on marriage for same-sex couples, you may surmise I'm referring to marriage inequality. But this weekend, Blue Jersey readers, I'd like to talk to you about a different discrimination emergency – that which our state's transgender community is facing. Employers are refusing to hire our transgender citizens, even firing them, without fear. Unlike one-third of the United States, New Jersey has no statute protecting transgender citizens from discrimination.
You don't have to look far for victims. One of them is progressive leader Jacqui Charvet, who spent her entire life in New Jersey, never wanting to live anywhere else, until discrimination recently forced her to move thousands of miles away. Jacqui was an active member of Garden State Equality and had been communications director of the Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey, the state's transgender organization. She was as devoted to progressive activism in New Jersey as they come.
By profession, Jacqui was and remains a computer technician and web designer. When she began her job search in 2002, she applied to companies across the state. As she received rejection after rejection, some employers were painfully honest: They would not hire Jacqui because she is transgender. It didn't matter that she has impeccable credentials, state-of-the-art knowledge and one of the warmest, most engaging personalities imaginable. Employers could not get past their own prejudice. One potential employer sneered right in Jacqui's face: We won't hire you because we're looking for a real woman.
Jacqui's stack of rejections piled up into the hundreds, as did her days of not having a job. In fact, years passed without Jacqui's being able to surmount New Jersey's discrimination emergency against the transgender community. She was unemployed in 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006.
After all those years of pain, Jacqui finally found a job earlier this year – in Florida of all places. Imagine that: Jacqui was able to conquer discrimination by moving from New Jersey, which we at Garden State Equality call The State That Doesn't Hate, to Florida, the State That Doesn't Rate on any progressive scale. The biggest loser is New Jersey itself, now experiencing a brain drain with the loss of Jacqui and other qualified transgender citizens who have had to leave the state. Adding insult to injury, Jacqui's got Jeb Bush.
