Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

172 and counting


By Adam Bink

We now have 172 video Testimonies submitted for the Dustin Lance Black challenge, for which the deadline is extended until July 4th. The contest is meant to showcase stories of equality to move hearts and minds. Lance will pick three of the most compelling stories, pack up his camera crew, and fly to wherever they are from to film the stories for TV. In some states, like Tennessee, where their elected officials just finished stripping LGBT residents of any possible rights and are on their way to “don’t say gay”, that may mean the first-ever TV advertising showing gays in a positive light. And we’ll begin the process of repealing that law.

One story I wanted to highlight today comes from Nina in Phoenix, mother of 3, living with her partner, and dealing with the challenges of medical staff who just don’t understand. One of the reasons we fight for full equality. Click here to watch this amazing video.

Click here to submit your own Testimony. The quality of the video isn’t critical; the quality of the story is.

Why story do you, or your friend, family member or colleague, have about equality?


  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  June 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    I'll think about submitting a story. Not sure if mine will be as compelling, though, compared to others'.

  • 2. RainbowWarrior  |  June 20, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Oh, Tennessee… I wish I didn't have to be so ashamed to call it my home state (or sometimes so frightened to live here). 🙁

  • 3. David Henderson  |  June 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    I find it interesting that the situation Wisconsin found itself in, with the attorney general not defending the law and the governor hiring private attorneys to defend it parallels nearly exactly the situation with the US Attorney General not defending DOMA and the US House hiring private attorneys to defend it.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (Or should I say, "What's good for one goose is good for the other goose"?)

  • 4. Steve  |  June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    But remember the screeching from the religious right when that happened with DOMA. Typical hypocrisy

  • 5. Kate  |  June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Re today's SCOTUS decision is favor of Wal-Mart against the women employees as a class action, is it true that Ted Boutrous is WAL-MART'S attorney????? Our Ted Boutrous????

  • 6. Ann S.  |  June 20, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Kate, it is indeed the same Ted Boutrous. Perhaps he's as conservative as Ted Olsen. Or perhaps he wanted the chance to take a case to the SCOTUS. Hard to know.

  • 7. Bryce  |  June 20, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    I have to say, I am a feminist, I have a graduate degree in Women, Gender and Sexuality studies, and I am dedicated to womens' rights. That said, I would have voted in the majority in this case.
    Boutrous taking this case doesn't mean he dislikes women, but rather that he just wanted to advance the right argument. And I think he did.
    The lawyers for the women were saying that Wal-Mart granted too much leeway to their employees, allowing them to discriminate, and then (in the SAME answer to the SAME question) said that they had too much influence in who the managers chose to hire. And when it was pointed out, the attorney had no answer.
    Remember, Wal-Mart v. Dukes is not about whether discrimination happened, but rather whether it was right of the lower judge to allow all of the women into the same class. There were 1.5 million, who held different positions, had different experiences, and the judge said "these women are nearly identically situated, so I am going to let them argue as a class." That decision was wrong, and Ted Boutrous was right to argue it. It doesn't indicate his thoughts on gender equality (or lack thereof). It just means that he is a good lawyer.

  • 8. the lone ranger  |  June 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    I completely agree with you, Bryce. When I first saw the headline on CNN this morning, my first thought was: "another crazy SCOTUS decision". But after reading several sources in more detail about the case, I'd say your comment hit the nail right on the head… the original 1.5M class was not necessarily only representative of women who were harmed by Wal-Mart, and the Supreme Court decision was unanimous. I'm sure the lawsuit could be filed again, with a smaller class where each individual can document personal discrimination, and it's quite possible it will ultimately be successful. The most unfortunate aspect of this case is the slow pace that all the litigation took.

  • 9. Ronnie  |  June 20, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    = …… ; ) …Ronnie

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!