Valenziano has been advocating within the company as a member of the team seeking to establish a GLBT affinity group within United Health Group.

And, last month, Valenziano became an advocate in another venue, leveling a complaint against United Health with the state of Illinois.

The 55-year-old lesbian cancer survivor from Buffalo Grove, Ill., is alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, gender and perceived disability in a complaint filed in early June with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.

Valenziano, a telecommuter with United Health, alleges her workplace trouble began last spring, after she was assigned to report to a new manager, whose praise for her performance ended after their first face-to-face meeting in Orlando, Fla.

After that meeting, Valenziano said her supervisor at the time began to make off-hand remarks about her older staff members; to ask other employees about her personal life, especially about her partner; to inquire about her health and whether she was up to the job.

The working relationship became strained, and last fall Valenziano was assigned to different administrative duties with her grade lowered to Grade 28 from Grade 29.

Valenziano turned to Chicago attorney Betty Tsamis, who specializes in employment law. “We were working to handle it internally,” Valenziano said.

But the situation escalated.

This spring, Valenziano said she unfairly received a negative annual review that was followed by a contradictory largest-ever bonus, $5,000. Then, after receiving the bonus, Valenziano said she received notice that she was being placed on a “corrective action plan” — corporate-lingo for probation.

“They left me no choice but to file a formal complaint,” Valenziano said. “We’ve struggled with this for over a year.”

United Health spokesperson Jeff Smith said he could not comment on the complaint because it is a legal matter, but he emphasized that the company has a “strong policy against discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.”

While declining comment on the complaint, Smith cited United Health’s high rating — 95 percent out of 100 — with the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and its partnership with AARP on senior programs.

“Our company also takes a strong stand on its employment practices for diverse age groups,” Smith said.

Tsamis said the company may have employment policies that earn it good marks with nonprofit groups, but that doesn’t mean its management adheres to the policies.

Through the IDHR complaint process, Tsamis and Valenziano are hoping that United Health will participate in mediation and agree to establish a GLBT affinity group, as well as sponsor companywide diversity training.

“We want to make LGBT employees feel as if the environment is safe there,” Tsamis said. “Right now, this is not a safe environment.”

Inside Illinois Schools: The Experiences of LGBT Students surveyed 206 Illinois students about the level of harassment they receive in school, how much they skip school for being harassed, and how their grades are affected by this harassment.

The report showed that 89 percent of Illinois LGBT students experienced verbal harassment based on sexual orientation in the past year, 43 percent said they had been physically harassed and 21 percent said they had been physically assaulted.

“While we applaud Illinois for being one of only 11 states to pass a law that explicitly protects students from bullying and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, Inside Illinois Schools shows just how much work still needs to be done to make sure LGBT students in Illinois are safe in school,” GLSEN Executive Director Eliza Byard said. “GLSEN is hopeful Illinois will continue to address this pervasive problem.”

Read the rest of the GLSEN report here.

The bill is still alive, if barely: it can be passed anytime in the next two years.

It doesn’t really surprise me that the bill hasn’t moved this year. Despite neighboring Iowa’s fantastic move to full marriage equality, Illinois’ state legislature had other things to worry about, thanks to the corruption scandal surrounding Rod Blagojevich.

But let’s pause for a moment to consider this: Illinois is Obama’s home state. Obama has said – emphatically – that he is for civil unions, not marriage. And that he wants equal legal rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Why didn’t Obama lobby for the bill?

Why didn’t he say in a speech something like: “My own great state of Illinois is working now to further the equal rights of gay couples. I hope they pass the current civil unions bill.”

Why didn’t he call his former friends in the legislature, where he was a state senator, after all, and encourage them to do the right thing?

If he’s not for equal marriage – and he’s not (he prefers gays and lesbians to have “separate but equal” status instead) – why isn’t he trumpeting the recent passage of domestic partnerships in Nevada, or partnerships in Washington state?

Easy. It’s the same reason he hasn’t moved on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military ban (which the majority of Americans support) and why he likely won’t issue a supportive statement on the Uniting American Families Act that’s hitting Congress today.

Gays and lesbians are not his priority. Which is why the only “accomplishment” his administration could claim in proclaiming the White House’s support for Gay Pride month was this:

“I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration.”

Except – ooops – the Advocate reports that this isn’t true. President Clinton nominated Roberta Achtenberg as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity  and  Bruce Lehman as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, both within his first hundred days.

The White House’s response?

“President Obama remains the first president to have openly LGBT candidates confirmed by the Senate during the first 100 days of an Administration.”

OH, so he had a friendly Congress, so he was also able to get them confirmed quickly.

Call me crazy, but that doesn’t seem like “fierce” advocacy to me. And his silence on our issues means that the people of Illinois will need to keep waiting.

The bill was approved by a House committee on Tuesday as the California Supreme Court released its ruling upholding a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The Illinois legislation, called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, would ” provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage.”

“[T]he current marriage law is discriminatory and harms same-sex couples; and there is no compelling interest or rational basis to deny same-sex couples those benefits,” the bill’s description says.

The bill also makes it clear that no church would be required to perform or recognize same-sex unions.

Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the bill’s sponsor, said he is not yet certain the measure has enough votes to pass in the full House.

Time is against the bill. The current session of the legislature ends on Sunday.

Two years ago, a civil union bill introduced by Harris died when the session ended; conservative groups already have made it known they will fight the new bill. They’ve already begun work to push for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that they hope will make it to the ballot in 2010.

A Mormon bishop in Illinois earlier this year called for a massive campaign against civil unions. In an e-mail to members of his church, Bishop Chris Church urged Illinois Mormons to call their local legislators and tell them to oppose the bill.

Although Mormons make up only a small percentage of Illinois churchgoers, they have become increasingly vocal in recent years.

Bishop Church’s e-mail claimed that civil unions would “empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise.”  It went on to also claim that “it will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores.”

The e-mail raised the concerns of national LGBT civil rights groups.  The Mormon Church was instrumental in the passage of anti-gay measures in a number of states.

It was heavily involved in the Proposition 8 campaign in California, a voter-based initiative that prohibits same-sex marriage in that state, a similar constitutional amendment in Arizona and the defeat this year of a package of LGBT rights bills in Utah called the Common Ground Initiative.

The House Youth and Family Committee approved the bill 4-3.  The closeness of the vote suggests the measure could be in for a rough ride in the House.

Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the bill’s sponsor, believes he has enough votes.

The legislation officially is called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act and would ” provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage.”

“[T]he current marriage law is discriminatory and harms same-sex couples; and there is no compelling interest or rational basis to deny same-sex couples those benefits,” the bill’s description says.

The bill also makes it clear that no church would be required to perform or recognize same-sex unions.

Two years ago, a civil union bill introduced by Harris died when the session ended and conservative groups already have made it known they will fight the new bill. They’ve worked to push for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage they hope will make it to the ballot in 2010.

A Mormon bishop in Illinois has called for a massive campaign against civil unions. In an e-mail to members of his church Bishop Chris Church, of the Nauvoo, Illinois urged Mormons to call their local legislators and tell them to oppose the bill.

The e-mail claimed that civil unions would “empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise.”  It goes on to also claim that “it will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores.”

The e-mail raised the concerns of national LGBT civil rights groups.  The Mormon Church was instrumental in the passage of anti-gay measures in a number of states.

It was heavily involved in the Proposition 8 campaign in California, a voter-based initiative that prohibits same-sex marriage in that state, a similar constitutional amendment in Arizona and the defeat this year of a package of LGBT rights bills in Utah called the Common Ground Initiative.

Earlier this week the LDS Church’s National Public Affairs Office in Salt Lake City issued a statement that said the e-mail was not part of a coordinated effort by the Mormon Church but an isolated act. Still, it did not rule future involvement if the civil union bill appears to gain support in the legislature.

“As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage,” the LDS statement said.

But the Utah-based denomination has not ruled out becoming involved in the issue in the future.

The e-mail, sent to at least one LDS ward in Illinois, was authorized by Bishop Chris Church of the Nauvoo, Illinois, 3rd Ward, and was sent out by that website’s ward administrator.  

It urges members of the church to call their local legislators and tell them to oppose the bill.  The e-mail claims that civil unions would “empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise.”  It goes on to also claim that “it will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores.” 

The e-mail raised the concerns of national LGBT civil rights groups.  The Mormon Church was instrumental in the passage of anti-gay measures in a number of states.

It was heavily involved in the Proposition 8 campaign in California, a voter-based initiative that prohibits same-sex marriage in that state, a similar constitutional amendment in Arizona and the defeat this year of a package of LGBT rights bills in Utah called the Common Ground Initiative.

The e-mail prompted the Human Rights Campaign to issue an alert to its members.

“It is irrefutably clear that the LDS Church is fighting an anti-gay crusade throughout the nation, targeting any form of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community,” said Bruce Bastian, a member of the board of the Human Rights Campaign and former member of the LDS Church. “Church leaders want nothing more than to do their hateful work in secrecy, but the time has come to shine a light on their insidious efforts.  If the LDS Church won’t tell the truth, we will.”

But Thursday, the LDS Church’s National Public Affairs Office said the e-mail was not part of a coordinated effort by the Mormon Church but an isolated act. Still, it did not rule out future involvement if the civil union bill appears to gain support in the legislature.

“As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage,” the LDS statement said. 

“The Church has not taken a position on any legislation currently being considered by the Illinois State Legislature. The Church did not send an e-mail to its members in regards to House Bill 2234, although a false report to the contrary has been circulated. An e-mail was sent from a local Illinois church leader to his congregation — one of 129 congregations in the state — who was free to express his own views.”

The bill is slated for discussion Tuesday in the Youth and Family Committee and a large number of gay and lesbian couples are expected to pack the committee room.  But even Harris admits it will be tough to get the measure to a vote in the House.

Two years ago, a civil union bill introduced by Harris died when the session ended and conservative groups already have made it known they will fight the marriage bill. They’ve work to push for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage they hope will make it to the ballot in 2010.

The marriage bill, officially called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act would “provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage.”

“[T]he current marriage law is discriminatory and harms same-sex couples; and there is no compelling interest or rational basis to deny same-sex couples those benefits,” the bill’s description says.

The bill also makes it clear that no church would be required to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

The legislation currently has four co-sponsors. Harris said that he hopes that even if the measure fails to gain traction this year, the debate will help advance it in the future.

In 2007 Harris’ civil union bill, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act passed the House Human Services Committee but then languished until the session ended in January.

For more than four decades, Illinois has permitted individuals who have gender confirmation surgery to change the gender “marker” on an original birth certificate.

The Department of Vital Records, however, recently started interpreting the law to provide this option only if an individual has the surgery by a United States-licensed physician. This creates an unnecessary and unfair burden for the growing number of persons who select a surgeon from Europe, South America or Asia, according to the ACLU of Illinois.

Both of the women in the lawsuit filed Tuesday opted for their own reasons to have their gender confirmation surgery in Thailand. The women are represented by the ACLU of Illinois.

The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, argues that denying these women – and others who face the same situation – the ability to secure a new, accurate birth certificate not only creates everyday challenges that are unnecessary and dangerous, but it is antithetical to the advice of medical experts who recommend that persons who transition their gender identity ensure that all aspects of their lives reflect that gender identity.

“I am a woman and I have identified as a woman since early childhood,” said Victoria Kirk, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

“After making the difficult decision – with the advice and support of my physician and a therapist – to have surgery to conform to this identity, it was disheartening to learn that the State of Illinois would not issue a new birth certificate that recognizes me as a woman simply because I elected to have surgery overseas.”

The lawsuit notes that a birth certificate is a fundamental document for any individual, and having a birth certificate that accurately reflects one’s gender is critical. An accurate birth certificate is important not only in those situations where an employer may require a birth certificate to start a new job, but also – especially under REAL ID proposals approved by Congress – may be necessary in the future to secure identification to drive a car, enter a federal building or board an airplane.

Like Kirk, the other named plaintiff, Karissa Rothkopf was careful in selecting a surgeon for her gender confirmation surgery. She said she reviewed credentials and patients’ reviews of professional surgeons in the Untied States and across the globe, and communicated with the surgeons and their staff about their techniques and recommendations for her particular surgery. Additionally, she said she consulted heavily with her own physician and her therapist.

In the end, she decided that the Thai surgeon she selected offered the safest and best option for her.

“My surgeon was the best option – the best medical option – for me,” said Rothkopf. “My choice of surgeon should not affect my ability to get access to an accurate, current birth certificate.”

“I do,” Burris said with a grin as Vice President Dick Cheney administered the oath of office to the former Illinois attorney general who takes Obama’s place as the Senate’s only black member.

More than a week after his colleagues were sworn in, Burris was seated without objection or a roll call vote, even though Majority Leader Harry Reid had said senators would have their voices heard on whether to accept his appointment.

Reid smiled broadly and applauded as Burris received a standing ovation from his new colleagues and accepted handshakes and congratulations from Republicans and Democrats alike. Later, the senior senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, was throwing a reception in his new colleague’s honor.

It was a warm welcome that contrasted sharply with last week’s treatment, when Burris showed up on Capitol Hill to be sworn in with his colleagues, only to be turned away by Reid and Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. They argued that Burris’ appointment wasn’t valid under Senate rules.

But as the scandal-scarred Blagojevich watched, Burris dug in and the two Senate Democratic leaders ultimately relented under pressure from Obama and rank-and-file Democrats who worried that the episode was distracting from more important matters and putting the party – and the president-elect – in a bad light.

The action sets the stage for a Senate trial on whether he should be thrown out of office for corruption and abuse of power.

House members found evidence that the two-term Democrat had abused his power, including improperly spending tax money, adopting programs without legislative approval and violating state hiring laws. He’s denied wrongdoing.

The House began impeachment proceedings after federal authorities arrested Blagojevich Dec. 9. He’s accused, among other things, of attempting to sell an appointment to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat for political favors.