Virginia Republican Introduces Bill Attacking LGBT Families

This from HRC...because being inclusive and having Parent 1 and Parent 2 in addition to mother and father (and therefore recognizing REALITY) is such a bad thing.

Virginia Republican Introduces Bill Attacking LGBT Families

On Thursday, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) introduced H.R. 635, the “Parental Title Protection Act,” which would require all federal agencies and contractors to use the words “mother” and “father” when describing parents on all official documents and forms. This bill is a direct attack on actions by the State Department, which we told you about last month, to make passport forms inclusive of all families by adding “parent 1” and “parent 2” alongside “mother” and “father.” In a press release, Forbes argues that “symbolism is important” and that his legislation is necessary to prevent even “subtle” changes that “undermine the traditional American family relationships that have served as the bedrock of our nation since its inception.”

Forbes’ bill ignores the reality of millions of children being raised by same-sex couples in this country. Those children deserve the same recognition and protection from the federal government that other American families enjoy. Rep. Forbes is right that symbolism is important – his bill is emblematic of a brand of Republicans callously willing, time after time, to attack LGBT people and their children in order to score cheap political points.

Kids with Two Moms or Two Dads can now fill out their passport applications accurately

I saw this in the Washington Post this morning, and the usual cast of characters are already losing their collective minds over it. But this change, which costs the taxpayers NOTHING simply represents a way to deal with the reality of our world. There ARE children with two mothers or two fathers. Those children have the SAME RIGHT as every other American to get a passport and travel. And we should be insuring that passport applications are accurate.

So thanks again State Department! I continue to be proud of my boss and the place I work serving the country!

Parent One, Parent Two to replace references to mother, father on passport forms

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 7, 2011; 11:47 PM

Goodbye, Mom and Dad. Hello, Parent One and Parent Two.

The State Department has decided to make U.S. passport application forms "gender neutral" by removing references to mother and father, officials said, in favor of language that describes one's parentage somewhat less tenderly.

The change is "in recognition of different types of families," according to a statement issued just before Christmas that drew widespread attention Friday after a Fox News report.

The announcement of the change was buried at the end of a Dec. 22 news release, titled "Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements," that highlighted unrelated security changes.

The new policy is a win for gay rights groups, a vocal and financially generous Democratic voting bloc that has pushed for the change since Barack Obama began his presidential transition in late 2008. The decision follows last month's vote to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which gay leaders consider one of their biggest victories in years.

Fred Sainz, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, called the news "a positive step forward for all American families. It was time that the federal government acknowledged the reality that hundreds of thousands of kids in this country are being raised by same-sex parents."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, blasted it as reflecting the "topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness."

"This is clearly designed," he said in a statement, "to advance the causes of same-sex 'marriage' and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

He called on Congress to take action.

It was not immediately clear whether a similar change would be made to all federal documents. But after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced in 2009 that partners of gay American diplomats would be eligible for benefits accorded to spouses, the rest of the U.S. government followed suit.

In 2000, Clinton was the first wife of a president to march in a gay-pride parade, and as secretary of state she has advocated on behalf of gay rights. In a speech in June she said the United States "was elevating our rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons."

Rosemary Macray of the State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs shrugged off complaints of political correctness and described the switch as an unremarkable bureaucratic tweak.

"Really, there have been so many changes in the last 10 or 15 years with reproductive technology and the like, and so this is why it is important for us to accurately reflect families in these applications," she said.

The DS-11 form is required of first-time passport applicants and children younger than 16. The change will go into effect Feb. 1 and will be part of an already-scheduled revision of passport forms, Macray said.

"It's not going to really involve any expense to taxpayers," she said.

U.S. Passport Application Should Reflect All Families

U.S. Passport Application Should Reflect All Families

by Dana Rudolph

I got my seven-year-old son a new passport yesterday. I think I impressed our town clerk by putting down every piece of needed documentation right before she asked for it. Completed form, notarized document from his other mother consenting to the passport (since she was working and couldn’t be present in person), photos, original birth certificate, court order stating that we were both legal parents.

You want people who are on top of their documentation? Look for same-sex parents.

“We have to travel with this all the time, anyway,” I told the clerk, pointing to the birth certificate and court order. She shook her head in sympathy.

The only thing I hadn’t completed in advance was the place on the form where it asked for my son’s “Father’s Name” and “Mother’s Name.” Since he doesn’t have a father — but rather two moms and an anonymous sperm donor — this was a bit of a stumper.

I’m used to such wording, of course. Most forms we get from schools, doctor’s offices, and the like still have it, even here in Massachusetts, although some are starting to adopt the broader “Parent” and “Parent.” Usually I take matters into my own hand when needed, crossing out “Father” and writing in another “Mother.”

Passport agents can be picky, though, and I know crossouts are frowned upon. The town clerk was sympathetic, however, and made a special call to the main Passport Agency in Boston to see what to do. The answer was indeed to cross out “Father” and “Mother” and write in “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”

No big deal, perhaps — but my son was standing there with me noting how this Very Important Piece of identity documentation did not acknowledge the existence of his type of family.

The fact is, the Department of State under President Obama and Sec. Hillary Clinton has been one of the leading federal departments in terms of supporting LGBT rights. It has said it will provide equal benefits to the same-sex partners and to opposite-sex spouses of foreign-service employees sent abroad, including diplomatic passports. Not only that, but a person in a legal same-sex marriage can now apply for a new passport using his or her married surname, and a transgender person can change the gender listed on his or her passport based on certification from an attending medical physician, without needing gender reassignment surgery.

I therefore urge the State Department to continue this positive trend and revise the passport form to say “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” It remains accurate, but is more inclusive. Not that it is really arduous to cross out a word and put in a new one — but for our children who watch us do it, it is yet another reminder that our families are often marginalized. Allowing for the possibility of different types of families on a form like this also reminds people that we exist and that our presence is recognized by the State Department.

It may be a small change, not up there with employment nondiscrimination or marriage equality — but because it is small, there seems little reason not to make it happen. It would be another sign of acceptance — and perhaps a reminder to other agencies and businesses to revise their forms in the same way.

Diplopundit on Ambassador Harty's "connection" to the passport flap

Diplopundit also has a good take on the "connection" of Ambassador Harty to the passport flap, including a good explanation of what we, as public servants, can and cannot do in terms of campaigning for elected officials. I have quoted the entire post because it is well worth reading.

The Public Servant and the Internet Beast

Right after the news of the passport breach at the State Department hit the web the night before last, conspiracy aficionados had a field day online. The Huffington Post did a brief news update on its site quoting an MSNBC news item and citing “Mora Hardy” as the person who was in charge of the passport office when the breaches occurred. There was not much on the report; it was approximately 250 words (it’s not online anymore and has now been replaced with this) but it did mention that “Mora Hardy” was am ambassador appointed during the Clinton administration and left readers to draw their own conclusions from what was still breaking news. And that they did, quite unfairly towards a dedicated public servant. Tsk! Tsk! Did not even bother to fact-check her name.

One post alleged that Paraguay where Ambassador Harty was posted from 1997-1999 was a “prestige post” given to political contributors. According to the CIA World Factbook, Paraguay’s economy had rebounded between 2003-2007, but on “a per capita basis, real income has stagnated at 1980 levels and most observers attribute Paraguay's poor economic performance to political uncertainty, corruption, limited progress on structural reform, and deficient infrastructure.” Paraguay is far from Paris, and has a GDP of $4,000 but that’s not really relevant, is it? It is a foreign country that sounds exotic, it must be a prestigious post, never mind that it has a 10% hardship differential and a 10% cost of living allowance bundled with it. Another alleged that Ambassador Harty is a Clinton supporter and implied that she must be involved. After another post indicated that Ambassador Harty had retired in February, still one more poster, alleged that she must have seen this coming, that’s why she quit her job at 49!

I spent some time reading through the online posts and came away with the realization that the regular American public has no idea how the State Department works. I have never seen such ignorance and such great willingness to believe everything so quickly without any supporting facts. I understand that this is the price we pay for the 24/7 barrage of information that comes with technology but isn’t this quite disturbing? Do we think so lowly of our public servants that we cannot afford them the courtesy of waiting until the facts are in before drawing virtual blood? The feeding frenzy reminds me of sharks feeding, really!

Just for clarity - Ambassador Harty was a career Foreign Service Officer; she earned her “stripes” within a very competitive organization through hard work. You can read more information about her career in the State Department here and here.

Her impending retirement was announced in November last year, but her actual retirement did not occur until this past February. She was a career Ambassador, a rank equivalent to a General in the military. She was not only well-respected but also genuinely liked by the people who worked for her.

As for those “prestige” assignments given to political contributors – those are the non-career ambassadors, political appointees nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate. For historical context, I refer to U.S. Diplomacy which states:

“Until passage of the Rogers Act of 1924 all ambassadors (then generally called “ministers”) of the United States were non-career political appointees. However, since the Second World War the great majority of those positions have been filled by career FSOs. In recent years approximately 70% of U.S. ambassadors come from the ranks of the professional Foreign Service, while the other 30% are from the private sector. Nominations of non-career ambassadors are made by the White House. Career officers are nominated by the White House upon recommendation by the Department of State.”

Foreign Service Officers (our diplomats) are commissioned by the President of the United States. Since Ambassador Harty joined the State Department in 1981, she must have been commissioned by President Reagan. She continued her career within the State Department through the administrations of Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2. But there’s nothing odd about that; all our career professional and civil servants continue working for Uncle Sam regardless of which party occupies the White House.

I must also add that Foreign Service Officers like all Federal employees are precluded from engaging in political activities under the Hatch Act. Federal employees may not-

* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches
* collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
* distribute campaign material in partisan elections
* organize or manage political rallies or meetings
* hold office in political clubs or parties
* circulate nominating petitions
* work to register voters for one party only
* wear political buttons at work

The penalties can be a 30-day suspension or removal from office, so folks are extremely careful about that just as we are careful and mindful of all the rules and regulations that govern our lives inside and outside the office. If you are thinking about the Bill Clinton passport flap in 1992, please bear in mind that the culprits then were political appointees not career professionals.

CAA comments on attempts to "smear" Ambassador Harty

Consul-At-Arms commented on my earlier post about attempts to connect Ambassador Harty to this passport nonsense. I am pleased, and not surprised, that he also agrees connecting her to the issue is absurd.

Attempting to "smear" recently-retired A/S Harty as some sort of Clinton machine operative is a dishonest and dishonorable attack on a distinguished American diplomat whose only declared loyalties have been to the United States itself.

Disclaimer: As a consular officer myself, I have been, at great remove, under the supervision of former A/S Harty since the retirement of her predecessor, Career Amb. Ryan, until the end of February of this year when she retired. And in the course of my duties I have met A/S Harty on three-or-four occasions, in three different cities in two different countries.

A/S Harty began her Foreign Service career long before former Pres. Clinton was in office, as evidenced by being at a senior enough rank during his administration that she was appointed an ambassador, even to Paraguay. This is something like assuming everyone promoted to general or admiral during the years of that administration is also a Clintonista of some stripe.

Don't Make Assumptions

The following is from Patterico's Pontifications. He is right that folks should not be assuming anything about this issue. I have pretty good reason to believe at this point that it really is a case of curiousity killed the cat.

Don’t Make Assumptions About the Passport Flap

Regarding the flap over the passports, the Washington Times reports:

The State Department last night said one of the persons responsible for the inappropriate behavior was employed by an information technology firm headed by one of Mr. Obama’s foreign intelligence advisors.

Of course, this doesn’t establish that Obama was behind the snooping — and people are finding tenuous connections between the two firms and each one of the candidates. Just something to keep in mind: we don’t know who’s behind this yet.

What Their (And Your) Passport Files Contain

The following is from DIPNOTE, the State Department's official blog. It explains very well what is in the file of any person who has ever applied for a passport (if you never had a passport, then you don't have a passport file).

We received many questions from the press and the public, several on this blog, about the information contained in a person’s passport file.

This entry details exactly what information can be found in a passport file. You may also view a Policy Podcast video featuring Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy that discusses "Passport Data Security." View Video Full Text

Generally, after the State Department issues a passport, all personal documents are returned to the applicant – the only document kept in the Department’s passport file is the passport application. Passport files do not contain travel information, such as visa and entry stamps, from previous passports. Almost all passport files contain only a passport application form as completed by the applicant.

Download the actual passport application forms at:

Application for U.S. Passport or Registrations

Application for U.S. Passport by Mail

The application form asks for the biographic information needed to determine if the applicant qualifies for a U.S. Passport, including:
* Applicant’s name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, social security number, marital status and mailing address and previous passport number if applicable.
* Applicant’s physical descriptors like height, hair color and eye color.
* Names and place of birth of the applicant’s parents.The application form also asks for optional information that helps us to deliver applications on time, and to contact a citizen in case of an emergency:
* Occupation and employer of the applicant and contact information for the applicant as well as his or her emergency contact. (these have proved invaluable in contacting next of kin when a US citizen dies or needs assistance abroad).
* Travel plans as completed by an applicant on the form would be in the record. (This is valuable in getting the passport to the applicant on time.)

In complex circumstances, for instance if there are grounds to suspect possible fraud or if a person born overseas claims citizenship by virtue of having an American citizen parent, we may need additional evidence to review the applications, and we keep this information in the passport file with the applications.

Passport Kerfuffle

Consul-At-Arms has a good commentary on the Passport Kerfuffle, what it is and what it isn't.

In order to do their jobs, people have to be able to access these systems. They also have to be trained in using the systems. People are a very curious flavor of primate and, naturally enough, the first thing they do, often before they can be warned against doing so, when they're first given access to this system is test it with a name they know. Oops. Their first impulse is to treat the database as a sort of Google, often inputting their own names or those of family-members. This is not nearly as sinister as the former FBI agent with all the terrorist connections who was doing the same thing with the FBI's investigative databases.

"What's truly ironic, again, is that this is yet another instance where the State Dept. is pilloried for being a political tool of the Bush administration, totally in thrall to its neo-con vision of world domination. Right. As if. In virtually the same breath, the Foreign Service usually gets chastised for being insufficiently supportive of the national objectives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. What's that noise? Oh, that's my irony-o-meter resetting itself. It does that whenever I pay attention to the news. "

I recommend reading the whole post.

Seriously...

The Huffington Post had a conspiratorial take on the information released today that the passport files of Obama, Clinton and McCain had been breached. Huffington notes that there is a "Clinton connection" to the story in that Ambassador Maura Harty, the recently retired Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs, was Ambassador under Bill Clinton. And Huffington's readers have responded that she should be investigated.

That is really reaching.

The incidents did not happen while she was Ambassador. They did not happen while Bill Clinton was in office. In fact, Hillary's was accessed first, in 2007.

Clearly, accessing the files is wrong. All of us who have undergone consular training know that we are only supposed to access Americans' passport files under certain very specific circumstances.

My suspicion is that there was no malicious intent on the part of the contractors, who have been fired or disciplined. My guess it they accessed the files out of curiousity. No less wrong, but certainly less conspiratorial. But I guess that would be boring to those who are looking for vast right-wing or vast left-wing conspiracies. (Maybe this is a vast centrist-wing conspiracy, since the files of all three top presidential candidates were accessed!)