want to change this. on.movement is going it never stopped. we are campaigning for the right to drive. for us, the right to drive is -- because women are not supposed to drive. ofre showing we're capable driving a end in the driver seat of our own destiny. announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer:, members of the lgbt community talk about your experiencing fighting for same-sex marriage and community rights. >> welcome to our fifth annual health form. this is special for us. we're doing a number of wonderful rings celebrating the

fifth year of our program. not the least of which is this incredible powerhouse panelist will put together. the topic is urgent right now. if you are not familiar with our forum, this is our public outreach mechanism. we do this every year with the start of our annual summer program. students in the cohort are here in town from all over the country and many times all over the world and this is our way of sort of reaching out to the public to let them know who we are and what we do. our program is a graduate certificate program and our andion is to train medical mental health professionals in empathyder sense to quality of care for og bt people.

people. we thought there might be something to do here, a number of key things happened so we started the wheels moving. years later.ive if you know anything about academia and what it takes to keep program launched and going, five years is really special so i am proud of that. i am fed of our new class and alumni. in collaboration for just a moment. i would knew class members of the class of 18, stand up. there we go. yes. thank you. ] pplause >> i'm not going to exaggerate by saying this is one of the best groups of students we have had yet and that is not just blowing hot air. also have some graduates in

the house who are wonderful. can i ask you guys to stand up for a second? tom, adam, the you are. [applause] >> so, for those of you have come to the form before you know that we usually do this down the street at jack morgan at it from. this is a special year, we've added on another event this year. oftead of this being sort our big fundraising event we have very special performance by margaret cho. lobby. in the she has graciously agreed to do performancencert for our program and that is thursday night. you can certainly get your tickets. there are a handful of vip tickets left. our good friends in our

numeral will be hearing and he will greet the crowding and he will be at the event as well. [laughter] -- -- >> as your lawyer, you should remind people that margaret work ist cho's not safe for work. we asked her about her performance and she said her performance in washington, d c, would be her sickest yet. the politics of disgust and what is disgusting about politics. so there you go, thursday the 13th. we can help you get tickets or you can go to tickets and the tickets are there.

tonight is in direct response of the topics of last fall, november 2016 or at least that is why this is salient. we are in a social and political environment which is normally what we did not expect to see that in very real ways, potentially distressing to the progress we face and the very health of our population. so tonight we will list the many successes of lgbt community specifically in the field of marriage. we need to acknowledge these successes that they are not enough. we have a lot more to do but we can learn from them.

christ things we face are things like the bathroom laws -- we have things to face. heard by theill be supreme court at me next session. that is something to pay attention to. we need to think about not only paying -- employment, housing, making sure to protect. it is my leisure to introduce each of the panelists. i will name them quickly. then we will spend about three minutes each talking about what is relevant to this conversation. the cases involved in, legislation involved in and then

we will direct a few questions. we'll have plenty of time for q&a. there will be a microphone. questions first of all, to my left former acting solicitor general under the clinton administration and author of many a make his briefs i'm sure he will tell you about thea cosponsor of broughton act that marriage by the case to the state of maryland. sandy and chris were co-litigants in a proposition eight case. they have a book out called "level on trial." is candace from

north carolina. and hadender educator the pleasure of meeting the former north carolina governor and having a conversation about hb-two. [laughter] >> in the lead plaintiff obviously in brazil versus hodges, the culminating case --t gave marriage the law made marriage the law the lead in the united states and he, too, has a book and i believe they are working on a film about your experience. and marty on the end. the national field director at the human rights campaign and he efforts for in the marriage rights. i want to welcome our panel.

[applause] will go back to the end and i will have the each of you spend two or three minutes telling us more about your case. >> thank you. it is great to be here. it is hard to imagine that while we have marriage equality in our country, it was only 13 years ago when we did not have marriage anywhere. so when we give about the success of the lgbt writes movement, what we're facing now, we have to remember how far we have come in a relatively short amount of time. inad the fortune of working massachusetts after the state supreme court and after massachusetts ruled in favor of equality and gave the legislature to six months to do

it it needed to do to enact marriage equality in 2004 so the 2003 anding came in they give the legislature six months. i was brought on board as the first person hired to help prepare that state to defend that decision because the legislature was going to do everything it could to have a conversation and perhaps amend the state constitution. so we had six months to defend two decision and another years because in order to amend the constitution of massachusetts you have to do it twice, once in the general election and then again before you can amend the constitution so you had to half years to defend marriage equality. like,nk about what it was it was really a really tremendous battle for our movement. most americans were not paying attention. most lgbt people were not paying

attention but that is where ground zero was in massachusetts. that was a battle. what we learned there, the lessons learned and the successes and failures that really led down the pop for how we're going to proceed. focusing on passing legislation in the state legislature or fighting against something in the state legislatures and getting involved in legislative election to make sure we elect our friends and oppose our enemies. building the political muscle of the lgbt bt -- community and changing them hearts and minds of americans. was in massachusetts where we lead the fight to begin with. where our first success was and where we did not know for going to have massachusetts or not and miraculously, how quickly it spread. the victories, court victories, ballot questions. really ultimately won on the ballot, especially in the 12

wherefore states one marriage at the ballot. year.-one miraculously. whoever thought it would happen in one election year? we came far. we learned lessons. i was fortunate to be on the ground in massachusetts, vermont, new york, many of the states where we had these battles and i look forward to the conversations about how to move the ball forward and some of the lessons learned. >> thank you. i thought was never an activist. i was with my late husband john, almost for the entire 21 years we are together we never thought we would marry. it did not seem like a possibility because we lived in ohio, and ohio is one of the states where they prevent same-sex marriage. things started to change for is for a good reason, john was 2011.sed with als in june you know, when the person you love is diagnosed with a

terminal disease there is only one way this is going, it makes you start inking about things more seriously than maybe did previously. we had talked about marriage of the is but for us, getting married and having it only be symbolic was not something where ruling to do. we wanted it to mean something. we wanted it to be legal and have the governments a calming is, you exist. he was diagnosed with als and 11 them by april 13 he was completely bedridden and i was his full-time caregiver. forad at home hospice care about five hours week but i took care of him. that is what you do when you love someone about a lot. only didto be 13, not the case come out but that was also the supreme court decision on the winter case was struck down part of the defense of an impromptu,nd unplanned moment i just leaned over and hugged and kissed john and said, let's get married.

how to getto forgot this dimon to another state. we decided maryland because they did not require both people to appear in prison for a marriage license of by virtue of charging flying witht and john san, we got married on the tarmac of the airport. that is all we wanted to do, simply get married. five days after we got married we were introduced to a civil rights attorney who said, you dies, -- wehen he had not thought about that. ohio would've recognized our marriage in maryland but that was an upshot -- abstract. in ohio, ohio will not issue relates to first cousins or

couples. but if first cousins or underage got married another state and moved to ohio, ohio would immediately recognize that marriage so that was part of our argument. daysn in federal court 11 after we got married then we ended up in the court of appeals with five other cases from kentucky, ohio, and michigan. you know how it turned out. so, that is my story. [applause] >> ok. well. oh there we go. ok. wow. tough to follow. so, first i just want to say, like high martini. like hightops. [laughter] >> a hand also,

similar to you i have never thought of myself as an activist or an advocate or and educator or any of the other thing stated in my bio or included on my website. i did not repent. [laughter] that.id not wait write that. i never thought i would make a difference for women of color by blending in, being successful in my corporate endeavors and getting an education and doing all of the things that people think we just cannot do. that to me was just how i was making an impact and then all of andkind of guy thrown -- then all of that kind of got pregnant by this. a tornado came through.

its name was helpful to an with who went fromarty someone i did not know to being someone who i thought of this -- i textedke guru him more than i texted my husband. and, in quality of north carolina -- they all contacted me and said -- candace your story is amazing and we also think you could be a great person to come down here and tell your story and i said sure, of course, i don't mind doing that. in, i did. and then jack griffin said, let's go for a walk. i said, ok. where we walking two. the governor's office. ok, why? [laughter] >> in and i blinked my eyes and

next thing i know i am walking into his office with about 5000 news cameras at our backs as we went over the threshold. we spent about 30 minutes talking to him and telling him that i am a north carolina citizen, i am transgender, how this will affect me and affects my life and i walk out of there and everyone is asking questions and i'm like -- what is it such a big deal? like cnn.ght on my picture. and i was like, hey. the only transgender person to have that with the governor. and i was like, wait i am the only one? and them coming into our state in taking over a mistake, think martin probably feels like they were there so much. really helping us in coordinating and working with, you know, constituents all of the state and helping to educate

people and show people ways in which they could help him, you hrc, ehc, a lot of other people's health, we were able to un-reelect the first incumbent north carolina governor in history. [applause] >> and, depending upon if you live in virginia or north carolina that is a big deal since we're the first date. the first state. from that moment on i got a lot of attention and people started noticing me and i said, let's take advantage of this and be visible. i think that america needs to actually just have someone in front of them in uncomfortable moments and say, hello i am transgender. what do you want to know?

i took advantage of every opportunity. i have been given so many blessings. the able to go and be with joan jett and heart on their twitter. i was like, what am i doing? --plause], laughter [laughter] blanchett.with kate i am name dropping because that is so surreal. this is my life now. i get to travel all over the world and talk to people about my life, which i thought was basic. lending in. through doing that, i realized that people within the lgbtq community and outside the lgbtq community have a of misconceptions. a lot of false notions of what transgender looks like, what it means to be. what we go through.

one thing it has in for me which is what made me feel passionate and then i will shut up, about --ing to do this, is [indiscernible] -- i remember going to connecticut with them so they could get legally married. mom.ng marriages recognized. but i remember how much that hurt that i was able to marry my yearsder husband five before my parents marriage but mine was recognized in north carolina. that hurt because these people paypaid for -- these people for my transition. supported me, raised me.

what do i deserve to have the government recognizing me what my parents don't? something i've learned is that we have to be congratulatory with ourselves when we talk about magic quality. legally, we have it. socially we still do not have marriage equality because when people talk about marriage equality they took about gender they still try to the about gender in this very narrow female--- they still understand very little about humanity, sexuality, gender. when we are about marriage equality they sometimes lump transgender in, sometimes they remove us. we have to really make sure people understand we have got the legal stuff, but we still have social work to do educating our population on who we are what we look like and what our needs are. i will shut up now.

[applause] hi, i grew up in california i was a i came out when freshman in college owes 18-years-old. i was really happy to know that about myself but i also knew i lived in a state where i would never be married and i would never have children. that is what it seemed like to me at that time. i am a lot older now. i was fortunate many years ago to follow love asante, 18 years ago. at work where we spent a lot of time. and, when we fell in love we also recognize there was the same limitation in california that there was when i was a freshman in college. but we wanted to try marriage anyway. we were in love. we each had two sons. we are wanting our family, building a home and a life and we wanted what everybody in our neighborhood and family had. the right to choose. the most important choice you

make us an adult, the person you will spend your life of. we thought it not would not be legally recognize we're good on the path. said,ose to sandy and she great. had we did that? we started figuring that out but it was the very same year that avenue some, who was mayor san francisco, through the doors open of san francisco's city hall and told couples they can come to city hall and be married so even though without will get married in august and have our friends and family there we could not miss the chance to get married legally, at least it seemed like there was a transfer to be legal, we went to the school and got her kids, one of them is in the audience tonight, we went to city hall, got inside, we were married on the steps of city hall and san francisco but if you months later, in fact just a few days later we received a letter saying it had been rescinded. those are legal. you're not married. he is your $30 check back for the marriage license.

over, done. it was not ever because states were fighting really hard or marriage in quality prior to that and since then. you have heard about maryland, ohio, the other states. california really hadn't taken on the fight yet and what happened instead of a grass roots effort was a legal effort. legals got together in the city and county of california -- san francisco and started to play with the state of california about its constitution. eventually those layers can be up. they got to the california supreme court, a will was made that made marriage equality legal in california the 2008 election. and number of people in california were very unhappy about that so number of critical, right-leaning political people decided to run a campaign called prop eight. yes, i and other words, take away the right to marry which seems like it is an odd thing so it was confusing on purpose.

they won the very same day the 44th president was elected. what follows is the next legal fight. our fight. the one we did not ever know we would really be in because all we ever try to do is raise our bes, and be a family and married. and the voters took that away from us. the fact that they took away a right that had just been given those towhat attracted our case and a historic trial. sandy, do on a time of the second half of that? >> yes. hi, everybody. i'm getting to see some folks i got to see earlier today when i was participating in a panel talking about the federal government's role in advancing lgbt issues. and i work for the federal government right now. so it was really interesting and a pleasure to do. so once chris and i got involved in the case with the proposition 8 case in california, we went on an amazing adventure, truly. some people here actually participated in that with us.

we sued the state of california in federal court. so we sued the governor of california. the governor of california incidentally was chris' boss because she was a gubernatorial appoint e, the director of a state agency in california that worked on early education and health issues for young children. so when perry sued schwarzenegger, she sued her boss. but that wasn't the weird thing. the crazy thing is that we went to the court and we expected to have a series of court dates where we would have a ruling based upon briefs being submitted. we expected to have a fairly passive role in that process. but in fact what the judge so brilliantly did, especially looking back, judge walker in the ninth district decided to ask for a trial. and he said to the court, full presentation of the facts. and that was a really -- that was a major turning point. that had not been done before. there hadn't been a trial in federal court on the issue of marriage equality.

and we indeed became involved in this trial. now the trial, of course, involves a lot of participation of different people, including us. so we went through depositions and became very much embroiled in presenting our case as the individuals that we were, working closely with ted olson, david boies, and a slew of lawyers. it was completely amazing strategy that they employed because they had the four plaintiffs, chris and i and two gentlemen from southern california. but they took every issue that we brought to the table, every instance of discrimination and how discrimination impacts us, whether it's our children, our family, our health, our financial well-being, our emotional well-being, how we feel or don't feel politically empowered. and they brought other expert witnesses into that courtroom to provide the data and the research that backed up every single thing that we said. so if chris talked about what it was like to grow up in bakers

field and know she was gay and be worried about being discriminated against by a teacher in high school, they brought in an expert witness who would talk about that very thing from a research perspective. so it was a great opportunity for many individuals in the research and academic community to bring for the their work that typically just doesn't get this kind of an audience. be impactful in a court setting. we had the overwhelming number of expert witnesses and the other side really had a hard time finding expert witnesses who were willing to come into court and present their evidence, because as we all found outal the way, there really isn't a lot of evidence that supports discrimination. there just isn't. and as david boies said, the court is a lonely place to lie. when you walk in front of this court and sit in front of me, you better be prepared to tell the truth. and he in fact was able to eke the truth out of the other side. we called them the other side. it's like "star wars." by his amazing cross examination of those witnesses.

and in fact on a couple of occasions, bringing those witnesses to our side with his incredibly expert questioning. so somebody who had walked into that courtroom, intended to talk about why they felt like discrimination was best for children, that it was best for children to have same-sex parents, that was one of their fundamental kind of constructs. he was able to with a series of questions eventually bring that witness to say, actually, the most important thing for children is to have parents who love them and parents who are parenting -- people who are parenting children are able to do so more effectively with the support of government for their relationship. you put those things together and the next thing you know you have a witness saying, actually, we will truly be more american the day that we have marriage equality. that actually happened in a courtroom that we got to witness. absolutely amazing. so chris and i participated in a three-week trial in san francisco in 2010. in january, some months later in

august we got a ruling in favor of us. so in other words, we won. which is amazing. findings of fact were a brilliant strategy, and in fact those findings of fact and that ruling became incredibly instrumental moving forward with many other states. we had a number of appeals going through in california and federal court, a couple of odd detours to the california supreme court. ended up at the united states supreme court in 2013. the same day as doma. and had our hearing there in front of the judges. and in fact we did win the same day that doma won, we won on standing. so it's a great thing to win the case. winning on standing wasn't -- didn't give us the big national win that we had hoped for but it gave us a very important win in california, won 69% of the state's population, set the stage to move forward. so thank you. [applause] >> my name is lee cliffinger and

i'm proud to represent the people of south and southeast baltimore city in the maryland house of delegates in the 46th legislative district, the fighting 46. it goes from butchersill to brooklyn, from canton to curtis bay. if you haven't visited, you you really should. that psa was for live baltimore and visit baltimore, so that's fine, they'll be happy with me now. this is my second term as a member of the house of delegates. in my day job i'm a state's attorney in arundel county, which is annapolis, city of annapolis and the area north and south of there where i prosecute domestic violence cases and serious felony property crime. again, i got elected in 2010 which was a pretty incredible time in maryland on this issue. we had actually at that point suffered some setbacks.

but we could start to see the way forward. in 2006, two incredible people who i consider great friends and have been incredible advocates on this issue in the state of maryland, geeta and lisa. geeta dean and lisa poliack. were courageous, some of the courageous people who stepped forward in maryland to try and have our ban on same-sex marriage overturned. through the courts. they were not successful. court of appeals in maryland turned them down 4-3. in 2009, the attorney general doug gansler issued an opinion that started to move the ball forward to us and moved it forward just a pinch by saying that it was a nonbinding opinion, but that in his opinion the state of maryland could recognize out-of-state

marriages. so we started to move forward a little bit. then in 2010, the lgbt caucus doubled in size in maryland from three to six. we elected more lgbt members of the house of delegates. we had a new member of the house of delegates who actually came out on the floor in 2011. who took that very courageous step and very important step. with seven of us, we began to share our stories. we began to share who we were. and because of that, again, we kept moving forward. in 2011, we had the bill that would allow for same-sex marriage in maryland and we fell a little bit short. and it was painful. we had a debate on the floor of the house after the bill had

passed the senate. nobody thought it would pass the senate in 2011. then all of a sudden here we were. and we were short. we were short about five or six votes. and we got together. and we said, all right. we're not going to take this vote today. we're going to ask the speaker to hold it back. and we're going to redouble our efforts for next year. and because of the support of organizations like hrc -- and i want to recognize marty rouse for everything he's done, he did in the state of maryland to help us all the way through this process. we were able then to come back in 2012. and it wasn't easy in 2012 either. we made this pretty exciting vote. weren't quite sure what was going to happen. on the day of the vote. we knew we had a solid 70 and we needed 71. and the story, and if -- mr. speaker or the speaker's staff,

if you're upset for me telling this story, i'm sorry. but we managed to get a 71st vote. and that was great. and we were moving it forward. what we didn't know that is we actually already had a 71st vote. so we actually ended up with 72. because the speaker was not as familiar with the text messaging function on his phone as he might have been. but we were able to get the 72 votes because a group of legislators from across the state who were in districts that were marginal stood up and said, we're going to vote for this. and they were given a pretty common out. look, we're not quite sure that we're going to have the votes, it's okay if you've got to vote red or vote no for your district. it's okay. they went into the speaker's office. and they had the courage to say,

no, we're going to do the right thing and we're going to vote so that everyone has the opportunity to get married in maryland. so we passed it. and we patssed it in 2012. the governor signed it. again, i shouldn't understate the support of the governor's office that year. i got to be the house leader in 2012. working on the bill morning, noon and night. being in the meeting right before that meeting with those legislators from marginal seats where the question was asked, do we really want to put this vote up on the board again? do we want to sink people's feet in concrete where if they vote no now it's going to be harder to flip them? and we decided that we wanted to see this forward and we wanted to get a vote. and i think it was in no small part because of the relationships that we had and that we built in the legislature that we brought the vote over the line. our opponents weren't done.

they took the legislation to referendum. and so we had to fight a referendum campaign in 2012. and i got to be on the steering committee for that. and i knocked on more doors than i thought was ever possible. and we won. we won when even some people who were advocates on this issue said we shouldn't put it on the ballot. we shouldn't do it. we shouldn't go out there. they were concerned that we weren't going to do well with people who were catholic, with people who were african-american. they were concerned -- they had a different concern depending on the day of the week. but with the support of the governor, with the support of let me fors all the way across the state -- i should say, i should have mentioned delegate ben barnes who was there from the very beginning. senator matt olino who's now running for governor. he just -- tireless advocates on this issue all the way across the chamber. we were able to get 52.5% of the

vote in 2012. and with that, we were able to kind of break through on that issue and make a huge difference for so many people. and in some ways that was an important step as we then took another step in 2014 when we passed legislation that added gender identity and expression to our anti-discrimination law in 2014. that was legislation that, again that senator matt olino worked very hard on, i was the house leader on, but there were leaders all over the chamber on that legislation, including the floor -- one of the floor leaders on the bell, delegate pena melnick from over in college park. so we've been able to accomplish a lot in maryland. and we've been able to secure

those rights. but we do look around the country. and we look at what's going on in the federal government. and it gives me pause. and it makes me wonder. and so we have to continue the work. and we have to continue electing people who are lgbt. we have to continue to push these issues forward. and we have to do it every single day. so i forgot to mention that i am the sole member of the bear caucus. and it's that way -- well, and thank you very much for that. i think we're the only bear caucus. when i say we're, it's really just me. i became chair of the caucus. [laughter] it was a tough election. but we pulled it out.

but it's building relationships. it's getting to know people. it's letting people know what's important to you. what's important to your families. and what's important to our communities. and by doing that we continue. and we continue to make this a more just country. and that has to be our goal. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> what does it take to bring about profound social change? that is a question that was debated throughout the decades of battle over gay marriage. are you going too fast? are you going too slow? should you proceed about

litigation? should you seek legislation? should you wait and run candidates for public office? should you attempt ref. renda? stepping back from it i think the answer is, all of the above. i think that's what we really learned. when marty rouse and his colleagues began the litigation over marriage equality in the state of massachusetts, i think there was an enormous chorus of, it's too early. if you brought that as the first case today, in 2017, there would be the same chorus, that it's too early. someone always has to be too early. someone always has to be too early. and i think what we saw unfold in the litigation in california is that the litigation itself had its own effect on the courts and the judges. it created a national dialogue.

and whether votes would have been there the day before the suit was filed -- by the time it unfolded, it had generated its own momentum. you know, i think a major turning point was two decades ago when the supreme court struck down criminal laws that made it a felony to engage in homosexual acts. and what the court did in that is that it rejected the state of texas' justification that we the state of texas believes this is immoral. and the court said, that's not a public interest of a kind the government can assert. and they took that off the table. so that by the time that chris and sandy and their great lawyers brought their suit, that's off the table. that's what it's really all about. so the defenders of the restrictive marriage laws were in the position of those french academics who try to write novels without using the letter

"e." they couldn't say, simply because we say so, that's why it's bad. they had to show concrete evidence that it was harmful rather than helpful to children to have their parents married. and that is why i think the fact that there was a criminal trial, it was an enormously successful venture. judge vaughn walker, the trial judge in california, wrote this magnificent opinion, sweeping across the board. and the state of california with jerry brown as attorney general and arnold schwarzenegger as governor decided not to appeal judge walker's decision. and 30 days after the decision came down, i wrote a piece for "slate" saying that the great california gay marriage case is over, and gay marriage won. because no one else has standing -- no one has standing to interfere with anybody else's

happiness. but it was the fact that they won that victory and the fact that the court accepted the standing argument in the supreme court that you secured marriage equality in one of the largest countries in the world, california. and that led to, along with the doma decision, as a result of that pair of victories, lower courts across the country started striking down marriage laws and marriage started happening. and one of the most powerful forces known to man took effect. the normative power of the actual. the normative power of the actual, when people saw it actually being done. then it began to have this enormous effect on the judges. and by the time tim bergenfeld in his case with the supreme court, the court was fully ready then. but every step in the process was essential.

and i think we have too seldom, because they're all so cheerful and positive, jim and chris and sandy, it's really hard to be a plaintiff in a case of worldwide publicity. hard on them and hard on their families. and i want to thank you all for the courage for what you did. >> wow. we have some amazing experiences. and these stories are just amazing. the normative power of the actual. that's -- you've told me that before and that got in my head and i was thinking about it a lot. i remember right after -- right after jim's case was handed down and we won, and as i recall it was announced a little bit earlier than we thought it would be. it was announced on a friday, which was the anniversary i

think of windsor. rather than on the following monday which when we thought it was going to be. so people kind of got nuts and i got a media call and i ran down to the television station and they asked the question, why? why did this happen? how did it happen so quickly? someone has to do it too early. and what's -- what's sort of resonating for me here is that with marriage, there was this very, very dramatic turn. ten years previously, something in the area of 65% or 75% of the american population thought that it was -- was against same-sex marriage. we did a flip in a very short period of time. and my feeling was that everybody knew somebody who was gay, who wanted to be married or should have been married. the personal stories just like the ones you hear here came out. and that gives us, you know, the normative power of the actual. so thinking moving forward, and marty, i'm going to go back to

you and have you start on this. what similarities do you see -- you know, starting in massachusetts, and you've been working on this moving forward -- what similarities do you see in all of these cases regarding marriage? and you know, will this give us some sort of purchase in making progress moving forward? marriage is something that, you know, everyone can sort of agree, it's for lack of a better term a sexier topic than, for instance, employment or health or housing or things like that. do you see something we can really pull from these cases moving forward on the remaining agenda, like public accommodation and housing and job discrimination and gender? >> it's a great question. i would say that what was so evident from the beginning, and it's actually -- we talk about massachusetts but we have to go then, vermont, even hawaii. it was really the power of

personal stories. and bringing not just talking about the rights and benefits and protections needed in the discrimination, which is very, very important as you heard in legal cases. but just the personal stories of individuals and the power of love. it really is that simple. and everyone understood that. and so going forward in state after state, making sure that we were to bring forward couples. when you talked about the power of the actual, i couldn't help but think about may 17th, 2004. the first day of marriage equality in our country in massachusetts. how every moment of that first wedding of hillary and jewelry goodrich from what they wore, how their hair was done, how they walked, what food was served, what type of material was going to be thrown in the church, who was going to speak. everything was choreographed because we knew television stations and newspapers all over the country and all over the

world were going to see for the first time the power of the actual. we knew that governor romney did not want that day to happen because he knew that once people saw what it was, that it wasn't scary. and it was something that everybody understood and everyone had an immediate connection to. and that was an amazingly historic day, and it was well planned and choreographed for a reason. as we move forward the lessons are there. every single thing we do as a movement, and other movements do, you have to make sure that it's about the personal stories. if we cannot connect ourselves, if there is no kansas cox talking to governor mcquery and new hampshire stories coming forward, north carolinans would not be accepting of transgender people today. that's our future. our future is making sure we are visible, making sure we tell our stories and how we tell our stories because we just want to

live our lives freely and openly. it's in some ways so simple and sometimes we think about this too hard but it is the power of telling your own story to your family, which for lgbt people is difficult, and telling it to your legislature, telling a story in court and just telling your story to everybody and once we can do that, that's how we will win. so that step forward is going forward in congress now trying to pass federal protections and trying to pass the equality act in congress. we need to show the real harms that exist in states across the country because there are no protections and we need to show the future and that if we do have these protections people in america will be safer and more secure. we're finding the stories from wyoming, florida, alaska, maine. that's the power that we have and the power that makes sure that we bring it altogether. if we can do that successfully, eventually the politicians, they know that we're right.

their politics plays in all of this. the marriage equality fights were about elections. we need to make sure we flex our political muscle and do that as well. it's the personal and making sure we flex our political muscle. >> speaking of choreography, when the district judge in north carolina following the victories in hollingsworth and refused to state the order, the front page of the raleigh news and observe had two north carolina deputy sheriffs were the first to be married. and that made an enormous impact. >> candace, i'm interested to hear your firsthand experience because you are on that edge

right now of, you know, turning opinions and making people understand your personal story. how are you being received by, you know, not only people you know who are friendly but, you know, when you go into not so friendly environments, do you feel like you're getting anywhere with having them understand your story and your -- you know, what you're up against? do they feel any sort of empathy? >> i always like to tell everybody, i wish i could give you dramatic and say that where i go is awful and people shout things. they don't. what i find myself having a lot of struggles with is that my -- my story, my work, unlike some of the other cases here, hinges a lot on the aesthetics. i -- the way i physically look, that is -- when we're talking about my issues, it's not

people's concepts, it's not god's law, it's literally what we look like. i have a lot of acceptance, and that's really not fair because people look at me and say i represent transgender much in the way they look at candace keane, janet mox and say, we represent transgender. we are representatives of but we are not a model. we're not what transgender should be should be or what it should look like. that's something i struggle with. people accept me but when i tell them, oh, but wait, there's more, they kind of shut down. they're like, i thought i was so good.

i accepted you when you walked in the room but now you want to tell me that there's variance in this gender spectrum? and i'm like, yes, yes. and that surgery is not a prerequisite and that identity is something that's personal and it can manifest itself in many different ways and when i start having conversations, that's when the roadblock starts to happen and you see that wall go up. and you see them say, i can accept you and i can accept a transgender person if they look like you, act like you, talk like you, dress like you and fit into my image of what if a man were going to emulate a heteronormative middle class white woman because that's what i've been described as by people. that is offensive. that is for me what is offensive. it's not the tranny, the freak, you're doing so good, candace,

because you fit the mold of what we think is good and acceptable in america. and i'm like, great. so you don't accept me for me, you accept me forfeiting something that makes you feel comfortable and something that is familiar to you and you think that i am actually trying to be that instead of you recognizing that i am trying to be me, not your image of what's right. is that all? i'm sorry. i apologize. >> candace, one thing i want to say to everybody is that it's important to realize how candace is perceived and received in north carolina today, but what was just as important and sometimes more important was the poise and the grace that candace has, and when she's on tv, that she has been able to bring more transgender people forward in north carolina, all across the

state, and so it's important to have someone come forward who is -- you people can be proud of and relate to, and that has made youemendous difference because- people can be proud of and relate to, and that has made a tremendous difference because now legislators all across north carolina can't say there's no transgender people in my state district, in my house district. people have come out all across north carolina and to a large extent because of candace and how she is all over the television in north carolina representing so well reporters all across north carolina know you and nationally now, and that has really helped make a difference. and so, as transgender issues come all across the state, we now have many more people coming forward and being open about who they are and opening doors for others and that is one of the key reasons why we're being so successful, not just in north carolina but the u.s. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> and i do just want to touch on -- i'm sorry.

thank you. i'm crying. -- that -- the fact that we are still having conversations about me helping to make it easier for transgender people all over the country to feel comfortable coming forward, going to their legislators and outing themselves in areas that we never once perceived being possible. the fact that we still have panels in which we're talking about equality within lgbtq community, that is what drives me. it is not my personal experiences. it's something that i put down because i believe that my voice does not speak for me, it speaks for the collective we that is lgbtqia, everybody, and i

believe that my fight, every -- every success, every step forward that i make is one that is made for all of us, for all americans. not just trans, not for just lgbtq, that's what drives me. it's a -- you know, it's wonderful that we get to have these conversations, but it's just a reminder to me of how far we have to come that we still have to have panels in which we talk about our very unique stories and talk about the very real pain that we've all experienced, and that's something that's very real and tangible and in our lifetime. so the amount of work we have ahead of us far surpasses the gains that we've made. okay. that's it. [applause]

>> let me play devil's advocate in a bad way here and talk to -- and to be a party pooper here. does not a large section of our populus already think we have all the rights we need? do they not think they have everything or worse yet feel like they should take it back and -- you know, they've got a little momentum. we've got sort of a scary situation where they are trying to pull us back. maybe i can direct another thing to our two lawyers in the house. you know, how real is the danger of, you know, us losing what we've made from a legal standpoint? where are the dangers? what's real? >> i think it's very substantial. i think we have a court that is poised to be more and more expansive view of what constitutes a religious objection, ever more

differential as to what counts as complicity in other people's supposed sense, a court that is willing to allow those who have economic pow jerer in the name -- economic power in the name of religious liberty to impose their religious views on other people through their economic power, whether you're the owners of hobby lobby and object to contraception and therefore don't want your employees to have the standard coverage for it or whether you're people in the commercial world that want to resist serving customers. i think the fact that the supreme court granted for next term this master piece case that -- this masterpiece cakes case that steve mentioned, a case they didn't need to take because it doesn't even raise the hard question about forcing someone to express themselves

artistically in a way that they don't want to. that's a hard question. let's assume that you can say i'm not using my art to express an idea. that's not this case because the baker in this case wouldn't sell any cake to a couple who was going to have a marriage between same-sex partners. and so the smartest people that i listen to say, this is a really surprising case because this is like the auto repair man saying i'm not going to change your tire if you're heading off to get married. the state enacts nondiscrimination laws. the idea that there's a widespread discretion. -- widespread exemption is part of a process. we have to be quite concerned that there will be an ever expanding category of exemptions. and we have draft executive orders from the current administration that would have a very expansive view of what

corporations can do to claim their religious exemption from any discrimination principle. so i think luke mentioned it in his opening remarks. it's, i think -- i think we have to be on guard and not throwing rice at the nuptials and for getting about what may be happening in the workplace and otherwise. >> i don't see this gender to -- i don't see this in the that we are going to have an interaction with the panel and the audience. i just want to know for clarification, is that going to be a possible chance that that's going to happen? because in my mind, in my mind as a transgender woman of color living in washington, d.c., it's wonderful to have a panel to have a discussion about the things that we really, really need to be talking about, but it is also just as important to me that we have an interaction with people who live in the

community, who are living their lives as whatever they are and who see marriage equality in a manner maybe not like the panelists. because to me women of color in this city are struggling to survive in how they're going to survive with their partner, how they're going to pay their rent, how they're going to get jobs and how their job training that people need to elevate themselves is not on the top of the priority list. i'm very passionate. i'm 62 years old and i've been an advocate for the majority of my life for a number of issues, and what really bothers me is we get these good-feeling pams where we and forums sit down and talk and we never engage and most of the time what really, really disturbs me, we look to the audience and the audience is a trickling of the people who need this conversation. so i'm here as a person representing african-american transgender women of color who

have become silent or silenced because -- not because marriage equality isn't important but because that has been moved at the bottom of the list. health care is no longer a primary issue. quality health care for transgender women of color is not a primary issue. skill building is not a primary issue and housing is no longer a primary issue, and until we start engaging that conversation with the conversation that we are having about marriage equality and until we start becoming mobilized around those issues along with marriage equality, we are just talking. >> one of the things i've learned from steve's program, and i will put this to candace, is the enormous economic burden that the transgender community has faced, enormous. it's not just about acceptance of sexuality. enormous economic consequences.

i think, steve, we did this when you did the program on transgendered people. >> yes. absolutely. >> yeah, i know. and first, i just want to say thank you so much for coming and applaud you for being able to say how you felt compassionately - how you felt and speak passionately because i'm like that's -- that's not easy so thank you for that so much. [applause] and it had me thinking because it kind of tied in with -- on the question that was asked of -- you know, in the possibilities of overturning things in that it raises a very real fear and -- or especially trans women of color, you know, such as us.

that fear is made even more so real when we think of all the things that we could lose because, if you can easily strip you of your marriage license, then what's to stop you from taking my right to vote as an african-american back? i haven't had it for that long. and then as a woman, taking that away from me. i mean, for that matter, let's just go ahead and put slavery back in action. we had it longer than we haven't had it. if we can talk about taking things away, then we need to talk about the fear. but when we're talking about the fear, it's imperative that the people who are experiencing that fear, the people who are actually in the line of fire are the ones that are actually being

uplifted and being held up. and i know that that's something that we as a nation have struggled with, not just for trans women of color. i mean, the black pride matters movement is taking place because people are saying, we are not being uplifted and held up. our voices are not being heard. you do not seem to understand what we're facing. it's wonderful to talk about me meeting with the governor, but what's not talked about is the financial struggle that my husband and i experience, my car being repossessed that i worked so hard for because i lost my job with fighting hb2. that is something that is important for people to know because i didn't have that network to rely upon. i don't focus on it because to me i'm like what i've been given back is fine, you know? i have a lovely car now, but

those stories are the ones that we don't want to focus on. we don't want to know what's wrong, and i think the reason we don't want to know what's wrong is because we're still struggling to say, how can we make it right? we like to fix the problems that we already have the solutions for. gay marriage is easy to solve because we already have marriage. we don't have to define marriage, even though that's what they said they were trying to do or redefine. no, we're not. we know what marriage is. we are simply ensuring that everyone experiences it. now we are stepping into this new frontier of gender identity, gender expression and equality when it comes to that. and so i appreciate what you said because that is important. i think it's just really hard for us to tackle, and it's hard for me as a trans woman of color

to say how do we express those stories, those experiences? because in doing so we want to say, how are we going to fix them? and unlike california where you had a proposition to fight, you know, unlike coming out on the legislative floor or fighting with the governor, we are fighting for equal recognition and equal rights as african-americans. we are talking about equal rights as women, and we are talking about the ability for one to define themselves as being them. i don't need you to define me. and those are harder things for us to be able to offer solutions. it's simple and yet it's hard because we do not know how to address the individual mind set of people.

i don't know how to make you think of me as being an equal when you don't think of black people as being equal. and that is something that affects all of us, and i think that that is the underlying fear that we're talking about, that if you can get rid of one thing, you can get rid of me completely because everything about me is a civil right, equality movement, walking and breathing. i'm very fragile. >> to candace's point and to the speaker's point -- by the way, we will do that very shortly. many of you may be familiar with the national center for transgender equality. they've just published their second large study, the big one, 23, 24,000 participants. very well-documented. there are many stories in there. but these are not isolated cases. this is very, very real. across the board in terms of health, violence against the

community, lack of access to care, unemployment, addiction. it's -- it's -- it's overwhelming, and they did a very good job in this last study with demonstrating how intersectionality, the intersection of race, sexual orientation and gender are far worse in the colored cumulative -- communities of color than for others. and it's severe. and even in the district f koeof columbia,district of where we have a very, very progressive city, it's hard to find a municipality that's more progressive on issues, we have very disturbing cases of violence against transgender, women in particular and women of color very much in particular. and that's something we really have to struggle with and work on. and i'm going to ask actually

jim, chris and sandy, since your cases have resolved as they were, have you felt or has there been any alliance or have you -- has there been connection between, you know, the marriage movement and your roles in that as leaders and icons in making connections with the trans community and sort of getting gender identity issues more to front? >> i know for me, whenever i speak, whenever i'm at an event it's very important for me to talk about our transgender community. for me it comes down to this simple concept. every kid deserves the right to be who they are without a -- without apology and without fear. every kid who experiences that, we have work to do. for me, i did my own personal journey of growth with transgender community. up until two years ago if i knew a transgender person, i didn't know it.

and i've had the great fortune to become friends with quite a few transgender people and that experience has changed me. i've learned. i've grown. i've changed as a person because of that. it just goes back to what we've talked about so many times, the way we change hearts and minds is by telling our stories and by helping people who are afraid of a group or afraid of a type of person, the way we change that attitude is by showing them we are no different. we want the same things you do. we want to wake up. we want to live our lives the way we want to. we want to be the people we want to and we are no different. that's how we change the attitudes is really just by the people. i think about the marriage fight now. andas been two years now

the world is not come to an end. i think we need to remind people of that, the people who were against marriage equality and may still be against marriage equality. help them understand nothing has changed other than other people have the ability to partake in that right, in that beautiful thing of marriage. and that's what we have to help people understand is that we're not asking for anything different. we are asking for exactly what you experience, what you benefit from. we want the same things. so for me, i always talk about transgender community and i always focus on our kids because if a kid can't grow up happy and safe and healthy, then our kids can't do that. for me, it's all about the intersectionality. i talk about the transgender community. >> well, i'm an early childhood education advocate and my dying

wish is that we've reached a much better place in the country around respecting and supporting and lifting up people and letting them be whoever they are going to be and not put barriers between them and their happiness which we do all the time. the panel's done a great job of talking about it. some of the things i've been doing since being a plaintiff that aren't directly related to marriage equality at all that are much more tied to this idea that having access to a high quality, free education and high quality care if you end up in foster care are really, really critical things that we have not done a very good job of in this country. so in my capacity as a professional in this area, i've joined the national court appointed special advocates board and i'm going to work really hard on how to do something for kids that end up in the foster care system

because their family hasn't embraced them the way they are and the numbers are, frankly, appallingly high for that group of kids. and i'm also thinking a lot about the case we had and how the only people that would fight for kate were the mormon and -- fight for hate hate were the mormon and catholic church. that's who fought against us every step of the way. and there's a way in which teaching that being different is a sin has caused so much difference. it's made us all feel divided. so i'm a little bit at this sort of -- you might say an upstream and downstream solution in my post marriage plaintive role where i'm worried about the kids

who are coming into a system and already been affected and i'm also thinking a lot about how when there might be a way to help parents do a slightly better job than maybe what they're teaching them about children that are different. those have been a couple of new endeavors since being involved in the case. >> and i'll add just very briefly, yeah, i work for the federal government now in kind of a technology role, and you can't -- you can't improve services if you can't count the people. i've worked in systems where you have to make sure you are counting the people. so when you're surveying or collecting administrative data for the various programs we have in state and local government, you have to be able to identify and capture the kind of information on people whether they're trans, lgbt or whatever you are trying to follow so that you can, in fact, have that powerful data that presents a compelling story for providing services. suddenly, we know that these people exist and that data's very powerful. then another thing i think chris

and i really learned about our involvement in our case is the power of a bipartisan approach and to not look at everything as, you know, thinking about the people who believe in everything the way you do is that those people being your only advocates and allies on the solution. we were -- we think that we were successful largely, or at least in part because we had this amazing bipartisan legal team who were the lawyers that faced together in bush versus gore. because we had that team our case, our lawyer team became more credible to the public and it, in fact, helped create that public story and they helped create a public narrative that was very appealing to the broader swath of americans. there was probably no article that was more powerful than when "newsweek" had on the cover the conservative case for gay marriage. that was an amazing article, and that's where we feel like we really introduced to, you know, mainstream america that this -- there's a conservative case for gay marriage. it's a conservative value. now it's not the only conservative value.

health -- access to health is a conservative value, education, housing, economic stability. these are all things that we share. we just have to find the common ground to move forward on those issues and not always look to the friends that we traditionally think are going to work on something with us to find solutions. >> yeah. luke, i do want you to talk -- and i do want you to talk about the fairness for all marylanders act. we moved onto the gender identity and got that done. talk a little bit about that if you can. >> i want to mention one thing just to jump on to the end be of the last question very briefly and mention another critical piece and i will be he is coreescoriated when i go back to maryland. we had an enormous group of people of liberals, conservatives, people across the spectrum and that's why we were effective in winning the

referendum in 2012. we would not have been able to do it if we didn't have equality maryland, hrc to bring these groups together. and part of our challenge now in maintaining some of those coalitions, maintaining those connections, in keeping people together as we go into these difficult times and maybe re-establishing some of those connections because we have a lot of difficult issues that we're going to have to deal with in the next several years. i do want to mention the -- yeah, the fairness for all marylanders act in 2014. this was legislation that was a long time coming, and we passed it. we passed it -- i think before it -- that marriage and the referendum on marriage, i do believe myself i think that it may have made it easier to move forward on the equality of marylanders.

they were building a coalition that was very strong that was putting the pieces together, building relationships across both the house and the senate to bring people in, bring people to the table, get them on as co-sponsors to the bill and we were able to pass it in 2014. some of those coalitions were the same, some of them were even bigger in 2014, but we were able to do it because, you know, of that ongoing work where we were able to build one thing on top of another. show less text 01:22:59 >> i want to start moving to q&a. i want to make sure we have plenty of time. we're going to have a good solid 35, 40 minutes to do that. so if you have a question or something you want to say, please move to the microphone right there. while people are doing that, i

do also want to acknowledge the sponsors of both this forum and the market show coming up shortly. they've been actually very, very -- the margaret cho show coming up shortly. they've been actually very, very supportive and they've all provided something of great value. i'm going to mention them by name -- look at the program and see that they're there. gel creative, metro weekly, the washington blade, glamor. pag magazine, village heart, co-housing. compass relates at this, one washington circle hotel, claudes and a member for many years, daka beer garden, pound, nellys and drinker, bitle and rece. they've been quite supportive of us so i want to thank them. now for questions. we've got a lot of time to talk and a lot of things came up. and i know we're going to have a great conversation. go ahead. >> hi.

good evening. hello. okay. first of all, i want to talk about some things that really concern me. this country is leaning more closely to the period of not breaking down racial ties. it's become a country of the have and the have notes, the privileged and the under privileged. what is disappointing to me is we forget not too very long ago the people that were the have notes were african-american people, blacks in this country because of the disparities and civil rights laws in this nation. and those persons that we were talking about and we were empowering in those days who were struggling through the civil rights area were embarrassing to most of us because they were uneducated and they did not know how to articulate their needs and because of that, not being able to articulate, we had to go and

spend some time trying to shore people up. and this is what i'm trying to say to everybody. in mobilizing and getting together we have to take the time that we need to make people what we consider camera ready. we have become a society that is focused on what looks beautiful to us, what is pleasing to us, what we are comfortable with. the people that are being left out in our society are those who are not comfortable to us, who don't look like us, who are not pleasing to the eye and those are the people that represent real americans. and the reason why donald trump is the president today is not because there was a large number of people who did not like the direction the country was going, it's because a large number of people who are disenfranchised and marginalized were not being represented by all of us. so we share some of that blame. we share the blame that we did not reach out to those persons that are not camera ready and get them ready to go to the polls. my concern about marriage equality in the transgender community today, when we have forums like this, we look around and there's misrepresentation.

when we have panels today we always have -- and i don't mean in any way that you're a token because i think you're well representatives, but i'm appalled that it's only one of you up there. there should be more than one trans sitting on that panel. whenever you have 10 people, 11 people, you have more than one white american, more than one female and you have more than one transgender and that needs to stop. my question to each and every one of you on this panel is if we're talking about mobilizing, because one of the panelists said that he was at a period of pause, i'm actually at a period of panic. my anxiety level has gone up because i know this is the most difficult time in our lives. as a child of the '60s, remembering the civil rights

era, knowing what my mother and father went through through jim crow, i see all of that coming back again. and if we don't shake the consciousness by being more exclusive, history is going to repeat itself. you were absolutely right, how could they not roll back certain things that they could so easily roll back marriage equality. i want to ask each and every one of you panel members, how do we mobilize? how do we not only use this instrument that we used to make marriage equality a reality, how do we mobilize and be exclusive of those individuals who marriage is not at the top of their priority list? at the top of their priority list is to get off the streets as commercial sex workers, the top of their priority list is for their significant others not to be out selling drugs because

you can now get a job. how do we mobilize those people like myself who are sick and tired of seeing the same thing as usual. thank you. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> we're going to talk about another panel, okay, talk about doing one. marty, why don't you start. >> yeah. i would say hard to answer that question in three minutes or so, but i would say that starting with marriage equality, when we started out in marriage equality, it was hard to get people who wanted to get married in massachusetts and ended up getting in massachusetts to actually come forward and talk about getting married in massachusetts. so when we were fighting to protect that decision, i remember that we had to look hard to find couples that got married and to come forward and talk about defending their marriage because all they wanted to do was get married and take care of their kids.

they didn't even know who their state legislator was. this is an ongoing issue in our movement and in america. americans are not politically motivated at all, so that was a lesson learned early on, to make sure that the people that were affected were brought forward and how to bring them forward. and it was not easy in massachusetts to do that. it's hard to realize that was only 2004, but finding a married couple to come forward, bring them together to talk to their legislator about why they got married that was not easy back then to go on camera to talk about it. they wanted to watch their son play hockey. so many stories. so that is what i remember in the early days of the marriage movement. going forward now, we're fighting for the american -- to make sure that obamacare doesn't get repealed because that is very important for many people. we're fighting for the equality act which would then add housing to our civil rights laws. we're making sure that the groups that fought so hard for the civil rights acts of our country are okay and supportive

of including sexual orientation and gender which is the equality act. this has not been easy work to get these organizations all working together to make sure that we can bring everybody together at the same time. i think you raised a really good point about representation, and that's not easy. i remember in maryland, for example, luke mentions the lack of catholics, the lack of african-american support for marriage equality as the biggest fear. how do you find catholics to come forward and talk about marriage equality? that was not easy. but we found laypeople who came forward and we formed catholics for marriage equality. they called their catholic friends and said, i'm a catholic. we worked with the naacp very closely. we worked out of the naacp office in prince george's county. >> thank you. >> prince george's county about making sure that the naacp was there front and center bringing people forward, making sure there was not just one african-american person on the panel talking about marriage

equality but many people. delwin coates was on our tv ads. this was not easy and it continues to be very difficult. these are ongoing issues. we need to make sure they're addressed, but we can look right now at what legislation is being proposed in the good sense and the bad sense and we know that there is a path forward that we all have to make sure that there's diversity in many ways. we at the human rights groups are working in texas right now where the legislators are about to convene a special session to pass anti-trans legislation in a special 30-day session where they passed sb4 which is discrimination against immigrant communities. we are working together with the hispanic community in texas to make sure we're altogether. intersectionality is there. we have to work on it together. they're not easy. again, representing and fighting

for people that are not visible, that are not, as you said, the tv friendly people, we represent them and we need to make sure that we fight for them at the state legislative level, at the federal level and making sure that we continue to bring people forward and we have to continue to do so. [applause] >> you asked really vital questions, and i don't know what the answer is. i look at the lgbtq community itself. we ask for people outside of our community to be our allies, but we are not good at being allies within our community. it infewer i don't rememberur yoriates me when i hear members saying we should drop the t. it infuriates me when we're fighting for the same end result, we want equality, and yet there are organizations that fight each other. i don't know how we bring in the voiceless -- the people without a voice out in the community, the hidden people, when we as the people who are speaking up, when we can't even get our act

together and work together for those things that really matter instead of letting our egos get in the way. i wish i had an answer for that because i think that's one of the biggest stumbling blocks we have is that we don't work well as a community so how can we work outside of our community. so for me, you know, it's up to all of us, those of us who are currently speaking up, we can't stop. we have to always raise our voice and say, hey, but what about those homeless kids? what about those transgender women who are selling themselves on the streets to survive? if we don't speak up, we're all going to fail. so for me i think that's where it starts. those of us who are already part of the activist community, we've got to be louder.

we've also got to go out into the community and not stay in our offices, stay in our comfort spaces. we have to go somewhere that makes us feel uncomfortable so that we understand and we see and we look those people in the eye and say, you matter. i've gotten to know you, i'm going to fight for you. to me, all activism starts on that individual personal one-on-one basis. if we don't do it, nothing will change. so that's how i look at it and that's really how i approach my thoughts, my activism now that i am in this world. it comes down to that one on one basis. if we don't get outside of our comfort zones and recognize and value people who are different from us, what's going to change? [applause]

>> candace, go ahead. >> it's okay. okay. so, first, i'll just say it because i think that how do we do it? we start with hearing the ugly, and the ugly is like i am incredibly uncomfortable sitting up here right now, and this is what i do. i'm uncomfortable because i feel so inadequate, attorneys and elected representatives and then what's your qualification, candace? i got someone un-re-elected. >> wohoo! [laughter]

>> and then i get frustrated because i'm like, well, what's my other qualification? i went back to college and paid for it out of my own pocket and graduated from college with honors, but that's not mentioned. [applause] >> i've never been arrested. i've never done drugs. i am a catholic ironically. i'm happy to join the group. it's okay, candace. and i'm the only transgender person and i'm the only person up here with a tan. that's actually something that's uncomfortable because you now feel as though everyone is expecting you to speak for everyone who looks more like this and you're now thinking that no one up here is going to

look at you equally, they're not going to respect you, they're not going to give you the accolades that they give one another. do i sound as smart as he does? i got accepted to law school. i didn't go. you know, i liked shopping. but is he going to think i'm intelligent? are they going to think that i'm as important because i fight the political system that they work for? that is something that's real for me, and if i am camera ready and it's difficult, then of course we're not going to have other representation up here. if you're not camera ready as a trans person, if you haven't yet gone far enough in your journey that you can articulate what it is, you're not going to be up here. and let's not talk about people who are african-american, latino, native american, muslim-american, indian indian-americans, anybody who

does not look white can all tell you what it's like to walk into a room and look for the people who look like you, because that's what we do. we look for affirmation from one another when we say things. i'll admit it. i'm like, i will make -- i will look at them and say, are you approving of this? or am i saying what we -- the message we want to convey? and so instead what we have to do is we have to first stop thinking of us as them/us. and that was my message is that this really isn't about marriage equality and then how the trans fit into it. this isn't about what took place in california or massachusetts

or maryland or north carolina. it's like, we are the united states of america, not the collective states of america. we are not 50 individual states doing things, we are 50. we are a community and we are a family and we should be cohesive. and we need to stop thinking of battles as being fought and won in our very small gay for gay marriage in california. i'm like, every victory is a victory for all, and when we actually think of it like that, it makes it a lot easier for us to then recognize the people who are not receiving the benefits of those victories. it makes it easy for us to say, is this a victory if these people who are part of our community are still not? i mean, if gay marriage doesn't

matter to you, then how great of a job have we done in getting gay marriage? because what, we got it so you could be homeless? we got it so that you would engage in sex work? we got it so that hiv and aids could still be something that we are talking about and new diagnosis? we talked about marriage equality so that poverty could be very real, so that lack of access to education could be very real for people? so i agree, but i think the first step is that we stop thinking in a divisive way. we start thinking in an inclusive way. our community, we struggle. if we go, why don't we have equality? i'm sorry, don't discriminate

against me but you're going to discriminate against people? we have to stop thinking of it in that sense. we have to stop thinking of successes in these pockets of america america. we have to stop thinking of people being the first bear caucus in maryland, the bear caucus in america. that's what he is. he is an american. he is not a marylander. and so that's what he represents, and we have to think of that as being something that speaks for all of us, that is a success for all of us. i'm in north carolina, i don't live in maryland. maryland delegates do not represent me, they don't affect me, but they do affect me when we have someone say i'm a maryland delegate and i am the first and only bear caucus and i'm like, that's one of ours and that's one of our successes, and when we think of it like that,

it makes it easier because now he sees me and i see him. i don't know if that helps at all, but it was a hard question to answer so -- [ applause ] >> revolves around sometimes progress can be stopped if it can just be delayed a little bit, and picking up on something i heard sandy mention, we're not going to be counted in the 2020 census, and i'm very concerned about that. i'm concerned about its effect on us as a community as we age and i'm concerned about us as -- in the community as our children grow up. if they can't be counted, we're less significant. and i look at that in that dynamic and pose the question of what strategies do we have to lay out as a community to make sure that we are counted every

day? 01:43:31 >> go ahead. >> one thing i will say is there was a time in our history not too long ago where we did not want to be counted, where -- when aids and hiv first became a problem in our country, we did not want to be counted. we did not want to be visible. we did not want the government coming after us, so there's still a reticence in many marginalized communities not to want to be identified, and we have to be aware of that. so there's a give and take to that, the question of being counted, although i understand and know exactly why it's important to be counted on health surveys from the cdc and other places and, of course, in

the u.s. census. i would say as far as a strategy goes, we have to focus at the federal level absolutely and look at our national leader right now and make sure that we focus on the national leader, but we have to focus on the federal government in a broader sense with the u.s. senate, the house, our state legislatures, the house and our school board. just because you are not a parent doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention what happens at the school board level. so it's really just civic engagement in many ways and making sure we're available. we are not going to add sexual identity or gender on the census. we're going to take it off the aging surveys or whatever. there are many ways that we can be successful, and that's at the state level. we have strong states like california and others that had taken the lead years ago in surveys and counting and then we had friendly federal governments that had surveys that weren't counted, the state level banded

it together. all of these states that are counting lgbt people, that's now detail to see there are issues. so i would say that it's just important to make sure that we are visible, we are strategic, and make sure that wherever we are we have to make sure that we hold our elected officials accountable. any election is an important election for our community because that community could still be marginalized, too. we have to make sure that we pay attention and hold our community members accountable. >> i'm going to add a little tiny bit to that. i thought that was a great macro analysis, marty, and i'm also going to be kind of literal in my response. i believe that there are so many

things -- you know, while the federal government does have the census and that's an important count, but most services are delivered through state organizations and local organizations. the federal government is the -- you know, we kind of have the broad responsibility but when it really comes down to it, states and local governments is where the rubber hits the road. that's where programs are developed, that's where people are identified and served and that's where i think you really want to put your effort when you want to put in progress. a small example of this of working in the mental health services in alameda county. we had a campaign i participated in. it was called nothing about us without us. it was a powerful constituency group where individuals came together and said we will not have you plan services and programs for us without our involvement. it's not fair, okay, ethical and they were right, it wasn't. that became the fundamental driving force in how every dollar was spent and every program was designed.

there was a group of individuals and their voices were heard. they had voting privileges on decisions were made because nothing without them would be decided without them. that's grassroots work at play. you see it also in schools, pretty much with school board representation. ensuring that your school has a gay/straight alliance. that's important. this is where the services are actually provided. and so i think that's where we want to -- if you want to make change, that's where you're probably going to be the most impactful. show less text 01:47:55 >> spencer? >> first of all, thank you so much for being here. thank you for supporting a program that's deep in the fight and very near to my heart. you mentioned, you know, we're preaching to the choir here. david, you said it's a tough place to lie on the witness stand.

in my line of work the hardest thing we have is to get people to get on. how do we make sure the people that opposed us are the ones who were putting this off the agenda? my question especially to marty, luke, and everyone on the panel is how do we set the agenda? how do we make sure that lgbtqia issues are at the top of every talking point and not an after thought on the news cycle. i think that's the hardest thing we'll have is making sure this is a priority for most. that's my question. show less text 01:48:50 >> luke, do you want to go first? >> marty skipping the hard questions now. how do we set the agenda? we participate all the time. we participate in coalitions that bring together people, and i'm going to be shameless and plug a film that i'm working because, hey, i can.

c-span. [laughter] [applause] for five years in the state of maryland we have been working to get people the opportunity to earn sick leave, and in the last legislative session in my bill over the last three years we finally passed earned sick leave legislation with the coalition of over 166 different groups, gay, straight, all areas of the spectrum, and we did it. we passed the bill, and the governor vetoed it. so now we have to continue that coalition. we have to it. so now we have to continue that coalition. we have to continue to expand the coalition. we have to listen to the voices that aren't heard or that can't be heard or that haven't been heard. and we have to keep building this out. and the only way that you can do

that, and the only way you can get and stay on the agenda is if you are participating in the process. and i think it becomes very easy, my partner patric, will be calling me a hip krt in about 30 minutes because we sit on the phone and -- don't pretend that you don't. he's a nice person. we find it very easy to do those very few quick things on the phone. but we find it very difficult to cross the street and find out who your neighbor is. and it's that that we have to start doing. we have to get out of our bubbles. weave to get out into communities where we feel uncomfortable. and when we do that, that's news. shouldn't be, but it is. and it's part of setting the agenda.

>> i would add to this that for me at least, i would turn it around a little bit. i don't think we should be setting the agenda. i think the agenda in some ways is set. and what i mean about that is the lgbt community, we have our concerns, we definitely do. but what is facing our country and our world today whether it's health care reform, whether it's the fact we might zero planned parenthood, that's an lgbt issue, climate change, what's happening in the world, that's an lgbt issue. and we can go on and on the list. so i think it's important for us as a community to make sure we engage in the issues of the day and make sure we speak from them from our personal experience, which would include the fact we're lgbt or family members of lgbt people. so we should bring our whole bodies and selves to the

discussion. and by doing that, that's how we have the allies. by making sure immigration reform affects all of us, then we can have people realize that immigration reform, lgbt issues affect all of us as well. and that's how i would look at it. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> next question. >> hi, everyone. first of all, i want to give a heartfelt thanks to our warriors. i heard something on tv the other day that said that the number one reason donald trump won is people didn't like people who didn't look like them. the number one reason. it wasn't money, it wasn't health care. it's people who don't look like us.

and so that's been talked about all around the circle here. my dear friend, thank you. some of it seems like duh, this is common sense. what are we fighting about? so what i want to know is what's on the other side of this? what makes people so afraid? if we have gay marriage, are they afraid their marriage is going to fail? i'm from massachusetts. i packed a cow like everybody else. i was lucky enough tool find somebody with a new england patriots hat. massachusetts had health care. the world didn't fall apart. and then massachusetts had a marijuana law. go massachusetts, right? so it's an interesting thing because people are afraid of what? the unknown?

what are we afraid of? what are people afraid of? what's on the other side? i purposely let people patrol my facebook page, which is totally blown up with donald trump stuff. i say i want to hear what they have to say. so what are we fighting? why would anybody fight for equality for all? why would anybody want someone to live on the street? what are we fighting? can you tell me what we're fighting? show less text 01:54:52 >> i think there are parents telling young kids some really, maybe not entirely factual information. and they grow up in an environment where perhaps someone that runs on a really religious or conservative agenda would match with what they were told was good and right in the

world. so these early childhood, these formative years, i think, they last a lifetime. and i think when we all become adults, we don't really know where everybody came from, what state we grew up in, what are parents believed, the agenda, et cetera. but there's something really important there about how we embrace young people and create the opportunity for them to make the decisions for themselves later on versus programming them and predisposing them to thinking they're good people or bad people, that they can't figure this stuff later on. we want to give them the ability to be analytical and the ability

to make hard decisions based on who they are when they are old enough to make those decisions. i really can't -- brain structure is actually hard to undo. and the messages that are coming from churches in particular and in some cases fringes or factions of political parties are very, very negative. and i think they're penetrating into homes and affecting families and young people, and i think we have a hard time undoing that. >> what i find is where's the message, what is the the message? and water finds its own level. they're appliable, and yes they do have something at home, but they will gravitate towards what feels good. so i look at a community that says we're fighting, everybodies fighting, what are we fighting about? what if we changed our course? instead, why don't we have messaging that gets transgender people doing something good for a community? what if we show them this is what people are about, what heart centered people are about? we don't judge by the gender or your skin. we judge by our character.

>> we've got time for one more question. >> i'll try to keep this quick. i'm a junior at gw, and i'm just freaking out for all of you. thank you for being part of the community. my question is every lgbt person has a different experience. so when it comes to the issues that lgbt youths face, there are higher rates of mental health problems, higher rates of drug use, higher rates of suicide. how do we address those issues while keeping in mind the other issues of people of color and other cullinable communities? -- and other vulnerable communities face?

thank you. [applause] >> i'll speak to that just briefly. i think the way that you try to do that is to make sure, going back to the nothing about us without us kind of model, that you have those voices at the table. and what you want to do is advocate, and if you think about the mental health services examples you just brought up is to really advocate and insist you have services that are matched to people appropriately. so if you are a year woman of color and 16 years old, you might want a yearwoman of color providing you mental health services rather than a straight white man of 50. who's going to relate to you better? and those sources are out there and individuals are out there. it's just a matter of insisting you have those appropriate services for you. sometimes there can be a disconnect between the service providers we have available and the population being served. and there you really have to

advocate and push for these people to enter the professions. if we want teachers that represent the students, we need to have those teachers go through the training programs so they can have those jobs to provide that. where the service delivery happens is where it's the most important to make that match to speak to your example. so thanks. >> anyone else? we are now out of time. we're right up at 9:00. i want to thank all of our panelists because this is an amazing experience. [applause] >> thank you. and, you know, you're not leaving without getting one more

pitch. thursday night, come and see us and thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] ♪ journal"'s "washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. a report on the security of the u.s. energy grid and recent hacks to systems. in the campaign legal center discusses how your selection laws are applied to foreign nationals or governments. former u.s. ambassador to iraq

james jeffrey will talk about the significance of iraqi forces retaken that previously isis-held city of mosul. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> tonight, john q&a -- thepeaking about distribution of wealth, corruption, could get you arrested, in so much trouble. > >> her time in prison after challenging the saudi arabian rule for women not to drive. >> driving in the street in a huge country -- you can put three texases inside saudi arabia. the movement is going on. it never stops.

we are still campaigning for the right to drive. for us, the right to drive is more of an active stumbled disobedience -- civil disobedience. we show that we are able, capable of drying and being in the -- capable of driving and being in the driver seat. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. now, a look at russian lobbying efforts against u.s.-imposed sanctions. from "washington journal," this is half hour. is alina polyakova, the director of europe research at the atlantic council. she is here to discuss russia's lobbying efforts, historically and against today's sanctions opposed against them. thank you for joining us. guest:. thank you for having me host: let's get