Home

The special meeting of the Council in June included a period of time for a full discussion about the siting issues, the effect of state laws on the local environment for meeting attendees, and issues of discrimination affecting members attending the meeting.   The following are items raised in discussion (though not necessarily adopted as the basis for any Council conclusions) :    

• There exist fundamental principles of recognition of same-sex families.  Non-recognition by law is tantamount to a negation of identity, presents an unsafe existence on a daily basis, and risks exposure to arbitrary state power. 
  
  
• There is a distinction between state Constitutional and statutory provisions. This is particularly relevant in those contexts in which state Constitutions can be amended by popular vote.  States with Constitutional amendments restricting same-sex marriage tend to have passed Constitutional amendments by popular vote (and such amendments cannot be overruled by the state supreme court). They may not fully represent all states where citizens have strong negative feelings about same-sex relationships.  Southern states, for instance, are more likely to allow Constitutional amendment by popular vote than Northeastern ones. 
  
  
• Priority attention should be given to those states that are severely restricting recognition of domestic relationships legally recognized elsewhere, irrespective of whether the restriction is cast in Constitutional or statutory language.   The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund notes there are presently 19 such states.  
  
  
• Private legal protections such as medical powers of attorney or living wills are available in New Orleans that permit related or unrelated individuals to provide medical advice for each other.  Some Council members noted that because of health privacy laws, they have employed such documents generally for care of family members, such as a parent, and one member of the Council reported doing so for his/her opposite sex spouse.   These documents must be obtained independently of existing partnership or marital status. 
  
  
• There exists a trade-off between boycotting a location to pressure it to change and going there to engage on the issue to call for change. Lambda Legal has not called for a boycott and encourages engagement, as have local LGBT residents in New Orleans and local members of APSA. 
  
  
• It was noted that few members raised the issues of costs of moving the conference as part of their feedback in reference either to relocating the New Orleans meeting or for staying.  Cost should not be a consideration for the Council in formulating policy against discrimination and about rights. 
  
  
• There exists a broad array of individual rights and potential discrimination that are relevant to APSA members attending APSA meetings.  Negative policies in some states and cities toward undocumented persons, denying their identity, are salient to many of APSA’s meeting attendees.  The treatment of citizens of New Orleans following Katrina is another.  APSA needs a flexible policy that can remain open to all relevant issues. 
  
  
• APSA’s Annual Meeting is a way to bring issues to the attention of local residents and engaging with local communities.  We should bring this discourse to New Orleans.  We should engage with state and local officials and with the community.
  
  
• Boycotts impose a cost on those who adopt discriminatory policy. Engagement is not something that the Association should ask of members when engagement involves meeting with people who have opted to discriminate against you. 
  
  
• Louisiana law is a matter of public policy and for APSA to boycott in opposition to state law would fundamentally change the character of the Association.  The safety issue in New Orleans does not appear to rise to a level that overcomes this paramount defense of the character of the Association. 
  
  
• The issue is one of intersecting forms of discrimination, that turn up in almost all states and that do not conform to any one grouping of states.  Some states, for instance, are restrictive on language use.  Furthermore, undocumented residents are specifically targeted as a population for discrimination in many localities and states   If APSA responds to one group, we will continue to be pressed by other groups, with increasingly limited ways to respond or places to meet.  
  
  
• Only in the US could one expect an Association to have a conversation of this sensitivity, complexity, and breadth in addressing rights and purpose.   And the American philosophy of pragmatism may be what must guide us.  We will not reach all the answers at one time and our attentiveness to the issues should be on-going. 
  
  
• Whatever steps we take to boycott the city or to attend and engage with the city -  will convey some measure of ambiguity and require some trade-off.   The issue is how you most effectively convey opposition.   We should go, and be clear why we are going, to seize the opportunity to speak on the issue, and to be open to the other issues of inequality that concern us.