…………

(This first part was written by Ann Landers.)

What is maturity? Maturity is the ability to control anger and settle differences without violence or destruction. Maturity is patience. It is the willingness to pass up immediate pleasure in favor of the long-term gain. Maturity is perseverance, the ability to sweat out a project or a situation in spite of heavy opposition and discouraging set-backs. Maturity is the capacity to face unpleasantness and frustration, discomfort and defeat, without complaint or collapse. Maturity is humility. It is being big enough to say, “I was wrong.” And, when right, the mature person need not experience the satisfaction of saying, “I told you so.”

Maturity is the ability to make a decision and stand by it. The immature spend their lives exploring endless possibilities; then they do nothing.

Maturity means dependability, keeping one’s word, coming through in a crisis. The immature are masters of the alibi. They are the confused and the disorganized. Their lives are a maze of broken promises, former friends, unfinished business, and good intentions that somehow never materialize.

Maturity is the art of living in peace with that which we cannot change, the courage to change that which should be changed – and the wisdom to know the difference.

……………

What else is a part of maturity?

Relief from a sense of pessimism about life and feeling unloved, which causes us to attack those close to us when we are frustrated.  Mature people have the ability to give and receive love, because they are emotionally mature enough to validate themselves and then be vulnerable to others.

An awareness that boundaries are important, and through experience recognizing where they are necessary and desirable to maintain long-term relationships.  An ability to respect the boundaries of others as part of their autonomy.

An interest in both giving and receiving, which improves the lives of those we care about.

The ability to recognize reality and act effectively in response to it. 

The ability to rely on ourselves, to visualize and set goals and achieve them through our own effort.  The ability to think abstractly and to see things on different levels and from different perspectives, including ourselves.

Knowing what methods of learning work for us, and using those skills every day.

The ability to organize and communicate our thoughts effectively.

The ability to plan consistently, and to manage our lives with enough foresight and preparation so that we can improvise or be a little bit flexible without everything falling apart.

An important component is the recognition that our emotions are not reality–they are just feelings, and we have the power to act on them as we wish, to hold onto them or to let them go. 

Avoiding the self-destructive and misleading temptation to compare the way we are feeling inside with the way others are behaving on the outside.

The ability to think about the values that are important to us, and understand the principles we need to live by in order to shape our behavior so that we function effectively and honor those values.

The recognition that true self-esteem comes from behaving consistently with our principles and our internal sense of authority over ourselves, and not from outside validation or a sense of pleasing an external authority.

The ability to accept frustration and change one’s approach, or move on with one’s life, when continuing on the same course will not help.

The ability to appreciate life’s positive experiences, enjoy them, and learn from them.  The ability to accept responsibility for one’s role in negative experiences, and learn from them too.

…………..

As we know and accept ourselves better, and hone our abilities and character, we can take maturity’s biggest step: fully recognizing that we are part of a larger community, and that our actions and words have an effect on others, whether we intend it or not.  Human society is interdependent, and the quality of our society depends on the quality of our relationships with each other.  In order to reach our potential intellectually and socially, we must recognize that we have attitudes and prejudices, and that our identities, values and beliefs have been shaped by our upbringing, the social culture we live in, our own choices and experiences, and the way that others have interacted with us based on their attitudes and prejudices.  We then see that other people have attitudes, identities, values and beliefs that are different from our own, which we must respect and even encourage if we are to function interdependently as empowered people.  We cannot truly be healthy people until we live in a world filled with healthy people who respect each other’s right to self-define and discover the mystery of our own lives.  To get there, we must see people as individuals, not stereotypes, or our interactions will be ineffective.

As we mature, we have a sense of our own development over time, and the development of others, and we begin to recognize that our worldview can expand and our attitudes can change.  This offers us a greater sense of competence and happiness as we overcome the desire to feel certain about everything, and learn to tolerate ambiguity and the existence of multiple possibilities and unexpected surprises that might change our understanding of the world around us.  The more mature we are, and the more we know ourselves, the more we desire to work in conjunction with others to achieve more than we can on our own, and to pursue solutions that benefit everyone.

In looking at ourselves, we must remember that maturity is not an all-or-nothing proposition.  We continue to mature throughout our lifetimes.  Once we become aware of the desire for maturity and curious about it, we learn to see ourselves, tolerate ourselves, then accept ourselves, with tolerance and acceptance of others happening almost simultaneously.  This allows us to better understand our true needs, likes and dislikes, and lets us set more realistic goals that are independent of others’ perceived expectations.  Once we can do that, we can seek balance in our lives among work, family and friends, realistic and idealistic thoughts, and needs and wants.

A quiet sense of peace and self-confidence emerges.  We know ourselves as worthwhile people, and the good deeds we do need not be announced to others.

………………..

Sarah Palin Announces Support of Federal Ban on Gay Marriage
by Jonas Oliver | Article Date: 10/20/2008 10:17 AM

On the heels of creating a ratings bonanza for Saturday Night Live which gave the show its best numbers in fourteen years, the Christian Broadcast Network aired an interview with Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin that is unlikely to leave many in the LGBT community laughing. In the interview with CBN’s David Brody, Palin expressed her firm support of a federal marriage amendment that would exclusively define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

“I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”

-from SheWired.com

Because this is legal protection that our state really needs.

Yes, there are a lot of amazing and strong and successful people out there who identify as transgender–they are tremendous role models of empowerment who have broken barriers created by the social construct of gender.  Authors, mayors, actors, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, activists… people from all walks of life.  These individuals make our society stronger.

However, studies, surveys and individual stories all show that a huge number of gender non-conforming people experience widespread discrimination.  They suffer and struggle because they lack social and institutional supports.  We’re talking 40% unemployment rates and 50-60% poverty rates here.
 
Including here in Connecticut.
 
From teenagers to the elderly, far too many transgender people fall through the social cracks into homelessness, poverty and cultural marginalization because their expression of their gender does not conform to society’s expectations of how men or women are supposed to act.  Medical care facilities, educational institutions, youth group homes, sex-segregated housing accommodations, homeless shelters, even prisons…transgender people are routinely segregated, isolated, treated as second-class citizens, or simply denied services in each of these settings, because people don’t know how to support them, and don’t take the time to learn how to recognize and confront the prejudices that are causing the problem.
 
Meanwhile, people who do not identify as transgender are also afraid to violate the rules of gender presentation, lest they be stigmatized as “transgender” too.  (As if that should be a stigma at all.)  Our concept of appropriate gender roles and behavior runs deep, and it limits our options in life as to how we feel safe expressing ourselves.  So it’s an oppression that affects all of us, and this law would protect all of us.

That’s why we’re asking people to volunteer to make phone calls and go door-to-door, whenever they can make time.  Volunteer on election day.  Help elect candidates who support LGBTI rights and the “gender identity and expression” anti-discrimination language on November 4th, so they will support us during next year’s legislative session.  (Training materials for doing this work are available, and we’ll be coordinating the efforts.)

 http://hoppylegs.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/thoughts-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-the-connecticut-marriage-decision-now-is-the-time-to-support-gender-identity-and-expression-anti-discrimination-laws/

…………………….

I. Our history here in Connecticut keeps on getting better.

There is a sense of pride right now in the Connecticut lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, and among its many allies.  After fighting for many years in many social arenas, the legal status of same-gender-loving people has taken another tremendous step forward.  We have won same-sex marriage here in Connecticut.  As we celebrate our newly-won marriage rights, and continue our fight for the right to express our gender and identify our gender as we see fit, let’s look at some of the developmental highlights in our state law:
 
In 1991, anti-discrimination laws were enacted making it illegal (and in some cases, criminal) to use someone’s sexual orientation as a reason to deny them private employment, a state license or charter, credit, housing rental or sale (except rentals in owner-occupied single-family houses or apartment buildings of four units or less), full access to public accommodations, education, state employment, state programs and benefits, and state contracts.  (Religious institutions and ROTC programs were excepted.)
 
In 2000, the state enacted hate crime laws making it illegal to intimidate or harass someone by threatening to, or succeeding in, injuring them, assaulting them, or destroying their property on account of their actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
 
In 2000, the state also changed its adoption laws to allow both individuals who share parental responsibility for a child to adopt that child, as long as no outside person still has parental rights.
 
In 2000, the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities made an agency ruling that state sex discrimination laws should be interpreted to include protection against discrimination on account of gender identity and expression.  (That decision has never been tested in a court of law, and some employers have chosen not to respect it; though it was a significant victory, it would be much stronger if it were enacted into law, as we have been trying to do for several years.)
 
In 2004, the state legislature expanded the hate crime laws to criminalize intimidation or harassment on account of “disability” and ”gender identity and expression.”
 
In 2005, the Connecticut legislature passed laws recognizing the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions that would give them “all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law” as do spouses in a marriage, becoming the first legislature to take that step without being ordered to do it by a court. 
 
And now, here in 2008, our state Supreme Court has honored our right to marry by deciding the case of Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, where they struck down a state statute that defines ”marriage” as “the union of one man and one woman.”  The official release date of this case is October 28, 2008, when it will take legal effect.
 
These are all tremendous victories, but they are steps along a path.  We still have a lot of equality to fight for, and battles to wage if we’re going to maintain the gains we have already achieved.
 
……………………….

II. About the marriage decision…
 
Whether or not you would choose the institution of marriage for yourself, becoming legally empowered to marry is a momentous victory for Connecticut’s LGBTI community, its allies, and the organizations that work so hard to fight for LGBTI equality.  It’s also one step in a more widespread fight for equality for LGBTI rights around the world.  Many commentators have talked about what a beautifully written decision the Kerrigan opinion is, one well worth reading.  I agree with them.  But it is not alone. As we often say in the social justice movement, the Kerrigan decision stands on the shoulders of other legal decisions.  Decisions like the California and Massachusetts marriage holdings, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas recognizing the right of consenting adults to engage in intimate sexual conduct (declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional), and earlier, civil-rights-era decisions recognizing the right to marry someone of a different race and the privacy-based right to contraception use in the marital bedroom.  The Kerrigan holding also draws power from work done in other fields, like psychiatry, psychology, sociology, the political arena, the media, and social justice education.  As we celebrate the decision, we might start thinking about how this decision can be used to impact other issues that affect the LGBTI community here in Connecticut.  Issues like HIV prevention and education, access to culturally competent medical treatment, and a broad range of discrimination that affects people with non-traditional gender identities.  Who will stand on Kerrigan’s shoulders?
 
Also, will this help move our federal goverment toward repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse recognition of other states’ same-sex unions, and requires the federal government to recognize only opposite-sex marriages in applying federal legislation like IRS tax laws, social security laws, health care laws like Medicare, and pension laws like ERISA?  Because of these policies, same-sex couples are still denied benefits.  Right now, only the three marriage states, plus Rhode Island and New Mexico, DON’T restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman (though New York will recognize marriages from other jurisdictions, and the situation in Iowa is unclear)–so there is still a lot of work to do on state and national levels, even in places that allow civil unions or domestic partnerships like New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.
 
It’s not just the outcome of Kerrigan that matters–it is also how the Court reached its result: by holding that the same-sex-marriage ban violates the equal protection guarantees of our Connecticut state constitution.  That part of the Constitution says, ”No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, or physical or mental disability.”  This constitutional language may not mention sexual orientation, but the Court read it broadly because it was designed to embody the strongest human rights principle that the drafters of that Constitution could put forth in 1965, when it was written.
 
The four justices who joined the majority opinion (plus one of the three dissenting justices) took official notice of something long-apparent: gays and lesbians have historically faced severe discrimination in our society, and still do, despite some recent progress.  They took notice that this discrimination has nothing to do with the ability of gays and lesbians to perform and contribute to society, and it took notice that sexual orientation is an essential and deep component of a person’s identity that no one should have to change.  These are important concepts.  They tell us that any state law that singles out out gays and lesbians for differential treatment must now be studied closely to ensure that it is substantially related to an important and legitimate government purpose, instead of being a product of historical prejudice and stereotyping.  This higher standard of scrutiny has only been applied to the category of “sexual orientation” once before–in the California marriage case.  It creates a very solid foundation for future attempts to protect equality, and hopefully it will start a trend in other states.
 
Surely, other aspects of a person’s identity that are deep-seated and essential should also be protected under this reasoning–a person’s gender identity, for example.  There is a long and clear history of discrimination against people whose gender identities and gender expression don’t match traditional expectations based on their assigned birth sex, and that oppression is not related to their individual abilities to contribute to society.  There are places in Connecticut law that deny equitable treatment to gender-variant people (for example, by denying insurance coverage for medical treatment related to gender reassignment procedures), and places in the law where the right to maintain and express your gender as you see fit ought to be specifically protected, instead of the law remaining silent.  Maybe this decision will help us move those rights forward as well, in conjunction with our efforts at the legislature.
 
With respect to the ban on same-sex marriage, opponents of marriage equality argued, “what harm does the same-sex marriage ban do, if we have civil unions?”  In the United States, the right to participate in the institution of marriage has long been recognized as a vital, personal civil right and a core human relationship that is “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”  Because marriage carries with it a status and significance that the new institution of “civil union” does not possess, the Court majority decided that funneling homosexual couples into non-marital unions did harm to those couples.  After all, both opposite- and same-sex marriage involve two partners who want to enter into an officially-recognized, long-term family relationship with the same rights, privileges, obligations and responsibilities.  The Court was persuaded that including same-sex couples in marriage would not weaken the institution, but would instead strengthen it by affirming its importance.  Same-sex couples would no longer be relegated to “less-than-married” status, which undermines the value and validity of their relationships with each other and their children, and encourages people to think of them as second-class citizens.
 
“Separate but equal” never seems equal, does it?  It’s always about a power differential, some hierarchical class of citizenship.  The civil rights movement was born out of a segregated society that evolved from slavery and race-based oppression; the laws may have changed some in the last 50 years, but even today black families still earn less than white families, and have far fewer resources on average in terms of inherited wealth.  About one in eight prisoners WORLDWIDE is a black male incarcerated in America (and twenty-five percent of all the world’s prisoners are American).  And then there’s sex…boys and girls start separating themselves by gender when they are still pre-school aged, once they have begun to be aware of gender differences and internalize gender roles.  They learn to derive their sense of competence from being able to skillfully play along with society’s gender expectations. Once they’ve bought into the categories, they grow up, and enter a society in which women earn 76% of what men earn, are objectified physically in the media, are devalued more as they age, are more prone to depression, and are expected to behave in supportive rather than assertive roles, which often translates into women becoming victims of violence, especially in intimate relationships.  Sadly, we categorize people by gender so fundamentally that we don’t know how to treat a person when they step outside these roles.  Our internalized sense of oppression or superiority around gender creates a negative emotional response to ambiguity.  So, people are ostracized when they don’t obey the gender roles that have been defined by our culture.  Those who learn to conform with the system also become enforcers of the system, unless they make an effort to fight it.  (Ironically, studies show that people who internalize rigid gender roles are more prone to psychological distress than those who are more flexible.  It is in people’s interest, therefore, to learn to be flexible with themselves and others.)
 
Opponents of same-sex marriage also argued that the Court should leave the law intact because gays and lesbians have sufficient political power to change the law through the legislative process, without court involvement.  (One of the dissenting justices found this argument persuasive.)  The majority of the justices held, however, that having some political power doesn’t change the fact that gays and lesbians have a long history of being oppressed based on an intense and pervasive social prejudice about their sexuality that has no bearing on their ability to participate in society.  How pervasive is this anti-gay prejudice?  The very same Connecticut civil rights laws that protect people from discrimination on account of sexual orientation also include language that says the laws shouldn’t be read to imply that the state “condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle,” or authorizes its promotion or teaching as an acceptable lifestyle in educational institutions.  The Court didn’t miss the underlying message: that this acts as a state-sponsored disapproval of same-sex relationships, which undermines the legitimacy of those relationships, weakens the effectiveness of the anti-discrimination laws, and perpetuates feelings of inferiority among the people they’re supposed to be protecting.  To its tremendous credit, this is something the Court was not willing to stand for, and it stepped up.
 
We were reminded that our laws and traditions give constitutional protection to personal decisions that relate to marriage, contraception, procreation, child rearing, family relationships, and education.  Relying on the words of our U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence opinion, our Court described these kinds of decisions as “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy… At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.  Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state.  Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
 
Please think about that.  Freedom is about finding your own meaning in life, and having the opportunity to explore its possibilities.  That includes the right to love the way you want and to be the person you are–to express yourself in whatever way seems most natural and true to your human spirit, as long as no one else’s right to do the same thing is being compromised in the process.  If that concept of mutual empowerment doesn’t include everyone, it’s meaningless, because sooner or later our own freedom will be jeopardized by the oppressive mindset we are allowing to exist in society.
 
Our Supreme Court confirmed that the intimacies of a physical relationship are often an expression of a deeper personal bond, even if they include sexual acts that aren’t intended to produce offspring.  The right of two men or two women to have such a relationship is protected by the U.S. Constitution whether or not others find their sexual contact immoral or objectionable.  A history and tradition of discrimination, meanwhile, does not carry any legal weight if there are no sound reasons for that tradition.  That includes marriage discrimination.  “Times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress…even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask fairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.”
 
That’s another way of saying, we have to learn to recognize our own privilege as members of a dominant group (we all belong to a variety of different social groups at any given time), and listen to the experiences of those whose opportunities are restricted by oppressive laws, traditions and customs.
 
In the end, the state of Connecticut could not find any sound reasoning to justify the statutory ban on same-sex marriage, so the Court ruled that the time for marriage equality had come.  “Our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice.”

Bravo, Justices Palmer, Katz, Norcott and Harper.  Well said.  But this isn’t an end…like marriage itself, it’s a beginning.  Hasn’t the time also come to say that all persons are entitled to identify and express their gender in the manner that seems most natural to them?  Are we ready to accept that, and fight for that, so that transgender people won’t continue to face eight times the unemployment rate of the rest of the population (unemployment rates in the transgender community have been measured anywhere from 35% to 70%), with 60% earning less than $15,000 per year, and grossly disproportionate youth homelessness, undereducation, and HIV-infection figures, not to mention complications or outright exclusions that result from difficulties placing transgender people in sex-segregated facilities like group homes, school dormitories, prisons (where they often wind up deteriorating in solitary confinement), and homeless or domestic violence shelters?  Or does our conventional understanding of gender roles need to be maintained “just because it’s always been that way?”
 
I think you know the answer.  It goes right back to the importance of protecting the right to define our own meaning and existence as we explore the mystery of human life. 

…………………………….
 

III. Next steps

a) You can take a step to protect same-sex marriage a reality by voting “no” to a Constitutional Convention (Question 1 on your ballot). By voting “no,” you will be protecting our state constitution from attempts to add in a “direct voter initiative” that would circumvent our representative democratic governmental system, and give citizens of our state the ability to take away rights they don’t favor for cultural or religious reasons by a simple majority vote.

A “direct voter initiative” could jeopardize civil rights laws and outlaw or restrict same-sex marriage, abortion rights, contraceptive availability, affirmative action, laws that protect transgender people, health care and educational services for vulnerable parts of the population (for example, immigrants), and parole availability.  It would also allow voters to directly decide whether they should cap property taxes and cut teacher pensions–issues that are part of a complicated budgetary system, and can result in unforeseen consequences if people are able to address them in isolation.

Very few of these direct ballot initiatives have been used to create more rights (the only examples I’m aware of are the uses of the referendum procedure to allow cancer and HIV patients to grow marijuana for medical use, and the use of the initiative to allow terminally ill cancer adults the right to obtain lethal drugs for themselves).  Basically, the state constitution becomes the target of constant amendment efforts, requiring the expenditure of lots of money and time on campaigns and advertising.  That is part of the reason why the public elects legislators–so we don’t each have to do this individually, and face proposed constitutional changes every year.  Groups who are ideologically motivated (often religiously motivated) are well-organized nationally and financially, and can get lots of votes out, which is why having a “direct voter initiative” would help them restrict civil rights.  This approach to constitutional change most often results in majorities restricting the rights of minorities, which is pretty much the opposite of what a constitution should be about.
 
Here is some more information, from the official “Vote No” website. http://www.ctvoteno.org/

Of course, there are other arguments to be aware of as well, in terms of the kinds of changes a constitutional convention can make to substantive rights and to the structure of government generally. The best thing to do is make sure you educate yourself about this vote, and educate others around this issue as well.

b) Also, if we value the spirit of the Kerrigan decision, we should also take it upon ourselves to insist that other barriers be broken down, so that everyone can share in the benefits and responsibilities of society.  This includes amending Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws to make it illegal to deny someone access to housing, employment, credit, education, public accommodations, state licenses and services, etc., on account of their gender identity or gender expression.  For some, it is a matter of dignity and inclusion, and for others, it is a matter of survival and access to basic resources.  There are a lot of amazing and strong and successful people out there who are transgender–they are tremendous role models of empowerment who have broken barriers created by the social construct of gender.  Authors, mayors, actors, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, activists… people from all walks of life.  There are also thousands upon thousands of gender-nonconforming people out there who are suffering and struggling, because they are unable to find the institutional and social supports they need to help them develop into strong, empowered citizens. 

As Jerimarie Liesegang, the director of the Transadvocacy Coalition (www.transadvocacy.org), writes, “We need to impose upon the dedication you showed to Marriage Equality to share this energy with the trans community to assure we achieve Transgender Equality in ’09. Two years ago we nearly passed the Trans inclusive anti-discrimination bill with nearly unanimous bi-partisan support.  However we fell short in the final days of the session for a variety of reasons. We cannot allow this to happen in ’09 and over the next few months we will need our community and our allies to work with us: to talk one on one with their legislators, to hold house parties, to partake in our lobby days, to visit, call and write your legislators, to engage your loved ones and friends in the Trans Equality movement, and many other steps to assure that we can truly say: Marriage Equality in ’08, Transgender Equality in ’09!”

Please remember that it takes a lot of support to make positive social change.  For those of you who really care about protecting human rights, now is the time to get involved, if you aren’t already. Help build support for socially progressive issues, such as the gender identity and expression anti-discrimination law, in the legislature by supporting candidates who support us.

Join me and other supporters of LGBTI rights in volunteering for some of our supportive candidates in close races and make a difference.  There are opportunities for phone banking, for going door-to-door and canvassing voters to identify support, and for volunteering on election day to help get voters to the polls and coordinate information.  The November 4th elections are approaching fast and many candidates who have or will support Transgender Equality NEED YOUR SUPPORT.

If you’re wondering what to say to your legislator if you get the opportunity to talk to him or her personally about gender identity and expression, you can go to this link and click on “HB 5723 Q&A” and “HB 5723 Information Sheet” for some background and talking points: http://transequalityct.org/.

Here is a list of pro Trans-Equality candidates running for State Representative or Senator.  This list of pro Equality candidates can be found by going to this address.  http://www.lmfct.org/site/PageServer?pagename=LMF_PAC  Not all of these races are competitive, though some key ones are listed below:

• Sen. Mary Ann Handley, 4th District, Bolton, Glastonbury, Manchester, Marlborough
• Art House, 8th District, Avon, Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, Granby, Hartland, Harwinton, New Hartford, Norfolk, Simsbury, Torrington
• Duane Perkins, 24th District, Danbury, New Fairfield, Sherman
• John Hartwell, 26th District, Bethel, New Canaan, Redding, Ridgefield, Westport, Wilton

• Rep. Jason Bartlett, 2nd District, Bethel, Danbury, Redding (district overlaps with Duane Perkins and John Hartwell)
• Brett Eisenlohr, 17th District, Avon, Canton (district overlaps with Art House)
• Rep. Bryan Hurlburt, 53rd District, Ashford, Tolland, Willington
• Edward Krumeich, 151st District, Greenwich
• Matthew Lesser, 100th District, Durham, Middlefield, Middletown
• Jason Rojas, 9th District, East Hartford, Glastonbury, Manchester (district overlaps with Sen. Mary Ann Handley)
• Christopher Wright, 77th District, Bristol

• Voter registration forms and Absentee ballot applications in English and Spanish may be found here, at the Secretary of State’s website: http://www.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=415810 
• Polling places may be located here: http://www.vote411.org/pollingplacebystate.php

Lists of Connecticut candidates for public office may be found here:
http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/CandOfficeTitle.aspx