In his State of the Union Address, President Obama took a pivotal step towards repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Approximately 16 years later, this repeal is far overdue.
It was in the middle of the speech, in one clear sentence, that America was reminded of a federal law enacted in 1993 that rips at the fabric of our nation’s core belief in liberty and equality. President Barack Obama set a timetable to end the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy passed during former President Bill Clinton’s tenure. “This year -- this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.”
Our troops have been in active war since 2001 – defending the United States and promoting the values of our nation. It’s simply hypocritical to send American troops to fight and often lose their lives in the name of freedom and equality, yet threaten their military status by asking them to conceal a part of their identity. Repealing this federal law would be a big step towards improving the civil rights of our nation and recognizing that being gay does not determine one’s courage, passion or work ethic.
This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case ofBush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.
"If the Democrats don't enact marriage equality now, after years of telling us to wait, wait, wait, it will cause a huge schism between the state Democratic Party and not just the gay community, but the entire progressive base," he said. "And it could change the political landscape of New Jersey permanently."
If you live in a nearby state, we can use your sweat equity. Garden State Equality has a half dozen offices including in the Philly and NYC burbs. If you're far away, call your Jersey connections. Who doesn't have one or two? Tell them then why it's important to you that that they call their legislators. This is time sensitive so hurry!
As is the tradition every year with the HRC national dinner, a lot of bitter criticism comes out about the group. I debunked the "they haven't done anything" argument last week. Today I want to write about a segment of the gay community whose influence we must all fear: the Rich, White Gays (RWGs).
You see, many in the LGBT community (examples here, here and here) have criticized HRC as a group made up entirely of RWGs, and that we should dislike HRC, their money, and their support because of the RWGs. In fact, the HRC headquarters was actually vandalized yesterday for the same reason.
Allow me to do my best to disabuse you of the notion that HRC, via the scary RWGs, are destroying all of Gayopolis (h/t Queer as Folk):
1. Corruption. In any discussion of financial support leading to certain policies, there should be an A->B argument, such as Max Baucus takes millions from insurance companies->his doing their bidding in Congress. Is this the case with the RWGs and HRC? Has HRC been particularly dismissive of poor LGBTers, or people of color, or lesbians/bisexuals/transgender individuals? It doesn't seem that way. Here in DC alone, I regularly see HRC's support everywhere in the community for non-RWGs, financially sponsoring everything from Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League brunches to the Mautner Project, an organization focusing on lesbian health. They also were the only LGBT organization to purchase sponsorship at Netroots Nation last year. These are all organizations whose constituencies are predominantly some or all of the characteristics of non-rich, non-white, non-gay male.
Legislatively, last time I checked (aside from the T issue in ENDA, which I and many others supported as a strategic measure), HRC hasn't been pushing legislation that only benefits, rich white gay men.
2. Financial support. Like with its support of SMYAL and the Mautner Project, lots and lots of organizations rely on HRC for financial support. HRC also puts tens of thousands into political support- in direct contributions, sending staff, and other ways- into political campaigns, like the 2005 Maine non-discrimination ballot initiative, this year's Maine marriage campaign, Referendum 71 in Washington, Prop 8, electing LGBT members of Congress, and more. Yet I know many people who cheer HRC's contributions to non-profits and political campaigns turn around and make the RWG argument.
But is this different than anywhere else? Many foundation boards are entirely rich and white. Many individual donors who give money in LGBT politics are rich, white and gay. Should the money be rejected because of the race and class from which it comes?
I also view HRC as a kind of aggregator for donors. Is it better there be no HRC Dinner at all, where non-profit executive directors go principally to get access to the RWGs to get additional direct financial support? Is it better for a non-profit like SMYAL to not get any money from HRC, and for its tiny staff to spend even more time and resources on development work, rather than helping underprivileged youth of color?
3. Hypocrisy. At the same time folks trash HRC's RWG demographic, they celebrate RWGs. Bruce Bastian is a classic example. Bruce, a Utah native and former Mormon missionary, co-founded WordPerfect and is on Fortune 500's list of richest people in the country. He is widely respected as one of the most inspiring and generous donors in the LGBT movement. I see praise heaped upon him in many quarters, as I should.
Bruce has also given millions to HRC. He is on the HRC Board of Directors. I went to the HRC Dinner last year, where he was the guest of honor, feted and given an award.
If anything, Bruce is the Rich White Gay incarnate, but he is praised, while the organization doling out his money to causes we all hold dear is demonized as "you're rich, white and gay, so you suck!!". Huh?
4. Diversity. In a perfect world, every foundation and political action group and non-profit would be a mix of races, classes, and colors. I would hope that HRC and lots of other groups are more diverse- economically, racially, and in terms of sexual orientation. That's not the case, and I don't think that will ever be. So why are we making race-based and class-based attacks on organizations that support the rest of the community? It's not like HRC is the only one. I live in DC, one of the gayest cities in the country, with a majority-black population. Yet I go to events all all the time- benefit galas, LGBT performing arts, sporting events, political group meetings, bars, you name it- that are almost entirely middle-to-upper-class, white and gay. I have friends who tell me the same in other cities. Yet I don't hear the kind of vitriol thrown at the sponsoring institutions like I do HRC.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the financial makeup of the LGBT community, but I don't think the class, economic, and sexual orientation structure of HRC- or the other events I mentioned- is because they're some kind of racist, classist, LBT-hating group. I think it's because there aren't exactly tons and tons of rich LBTs or people of color, particularly POCs who are "out". Is this HRC's fault?
And a greater amount of HRC's programming- like this Ya Es Hora program- involves HRC Steering Committee partnering with local volunteers to help low-income Hispanics apply for citizenship. One colleague related how the Houston chapter volunteers were nearly all people of color, and split male/female with one transgender individual. HRC has also had several female executive directors and diversity within its staff and board.
---
Again, I wish organizations were more diverse in many ways. I was not happy there was a lack of diversity in local DC planning meetings for the National Equality March. But I don't get why hurling criticism at those that aren't, and can't do a whole lot about it, and do a ton of good, accomplishes anything.
Like the "they haven't accomplished anything" argument, the RWG criticism of HRC isn't entirely grounded in reality or fairness. I don't think HRC has done everything entirely right, but if you're going to make a criticism, at least do it in the interest of good faith, not for the sake of finding a mean adjective to slander them with.
Welcome to Jesse, who is managing the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign.-Adam
Thanks for the opportunity to post at OpenLeft and thanks to everyone who contributed to send Adam Bink to Maine to help us fight the right wing effort to repeal our state's new marriage equality law.
Adam made an important point in his post, An Interconnected Movement. It's easy to silo issues and to view the Maine campaign solely as an LGBT campaign. But, it's more than that. It is about generating momentum for the progressive movement.
I am managing the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign in Maine, but I don't come from the world of LGBT activism. I'm a straight ally who believes strongly in equality for all. This is the fourth time I've run a state-wide campaign, including Kerry-Edwards in 2004 and the re-election of our Governor in 2006. Those were both very important, but I think this campaign has the most potential for national significance.
Maine was the first state to have its same-sex marriage law pass the legislature and it was a huge moment when Governor John Baldacci signed the bill into law. In Maine, we have a process called the "people's veto," which allows citizens to challenge legislative enactments through referendum. The anti-gay forces, funded by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Focus on the Family, the Catholic Diocese of Portland and the Knights of Columbus formed a campaign to overturn the new law at the ballot box this November 3rd.
Our opponents hired Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the same firm that ran the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign in California last fall. They are running the same campaign they ran in California -- literally. This week, the Yes on 1 campaign began running an ad that was virtually identical to an ad from the Prop. 8 campaign. You can see both ads here. The one difference is that the Mainer, Charla Bansley, in their ad is actually a well-known anti-gay activist who is the local leader of Concerned Women of America. This summer, she delivered her anti-gay message at a teabagging event, which showed one more time, as Adam noted, "The conservative movement is very interconnected."
The same cast of characters is running the same campaign in Maine that succeeded in California. But, we're not letting them get away with it this time. We've got an aggressive paid media campaign underway - and we're rebutting their message of lies with paid and earned media. One of our state's more conservative newspapers called one of their ads "baseless."
More importantly, we've been developing a very strong field component. As most politicos know, referendum campaigns, especially those in off-year elections, are won or lost in the field. And, the people working on our campaign know how to get-out-the-vote. In Maine, no one does it better than the folks who are working with us.
In Maine, the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign has to win - and we need help.
We have to win in Maine not only to secure full equality for Maine's same-sex couples, but to help shut down the conservative agenda.
In addition to sending Adam to Maine, you can donate to our campaign via OpenLeft's very own ActBlue page. Help us make sure we have the resources to keep our ads on the air. In a small state like Maine, every little bit helps. I call it a "cheap-date" state.
Also, you can join Adam in Maine through our Volunteer Vacation Program, which begins the first week of October. People from all over the country are coming to Maine to be full-time volunteers on the ground in targeted towns for one week. We'll provide the housing for anyone who can get to Maine. Our friends over at Travel For Change are helping arrange travel and are more than willing to help you sponsor another volunteer if you can't make it yourself, including taking your donated airline miles.
At the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign, we've been very appreciative of the support from progressives around the country. This is about marriage equality in Maine, but it's about much more, too.
On Monday, August 3rd, there was a candlelight vigil for the victims of the shooting at a support group meeting for LGBT youth at the Agudah LGBT community center headquarters in Tel Aviv. Hundreds of people gathered in Dupont Circle in Washington, DC at sunset. You can download the event press release in pdf format.
Pride Month has come and gone, Gentle Reader, with no comment from this desk.
It's not that I'm in some way insensitive to the subject; instead it's more of a desire, once again, to stay off the beaten path.
And in that spirit, I do indeed have a story of Gay History...but it's not from the Summer of '69...instead, this story was already well underway before the Summer of '29.
So put on something très chic and let's head on over to Harlem...at the time of the Renaissance...because it's time to meet Gladys Bentley.
by Cody Lyon
Today's America is markedly different than it was when I was growing up in 1970's Alabama. While much among us has changed for the better, especially in the realms of official equality and social justice, mean-ness, as my Grandmother would have called it, still runs rampant throughout our society. One need only go online and read headlines from across the country that detail economic inequity, corruption and acts of brutal violence that have in many ways numbed our souls. Clearly, the biblical Golden rule that would have us do unto others, as we would do unto them, is still an afterthought, perhaps forgotten by many.
Compounding the daily litany of horror stories is a constantly arriving stream of evidence that we've all been living on borrowed dimes, that excess and corruption have run rampant in our financial foundations, that thousands have died in wars sold on misinformation and elements within our government are still under the influence of powerful self serving interests. All accounted for, then pondered, one worries about how best to change the direction of what some might call a wayward ways.
Perhaps too you wonder how best to change the minds of those still infected by narrow thinking, where self interest, misconstrued messages and fear distort calls for teaching tolerance, acceptance and respect in schools. Instead, you watch as those messages get spun as radical, sinful or part of some greater 'sexuality' associated agenda. It becomes further frustrating when you know those calls are in fact based in hope and faith that with each passing generation, decency becomes a mantle by which to live life, a community connected, where the goal is to treat one another with respect.
And, then, hopes for the future become further frustrated as a headline reaches out grabs you, saddens,enrages, and then, sets you back.
According to published news reports, this past Monday, an 11 year old Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover went to the top room at his family's home in Springfield, and hung himself. Reportedly, his Mother had said that he made this tragic decision after enduring the taunts and bullying by other children. His Mother says she'd plead with school officials at the New Leadership Charter School, where he'd tried to make friends to intervene. But instead, he was made fun of for his clothing, called "gay" and threatened with physical harm. He would have turned 12 on April 17.
The Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, a national education organization that seeks to ensure safe learning environments for all students, says that Walker-Hoover is the fourth middle school aged child's suicide linked to bullying this year. GLSEN says a vast number of children who suffer at the hands of bullies, often encounter anti-gay taunting and often, physical violence. As most adults outside liberal enclaves in the North east or West coast know, being openly gay is sometimes not an option, unless one is truly brave. And, as research shows, society's often quiet acceptance of intolerance trickles down to children, where gay or fag is often the insult de-jour, often meant to inflict the ultimate in hurt and pain.
No doubt, it's a cruel world out there and kids will grow into adults who will encounter 'mean-ness' throughout their lives in one form or another. And certainly, calling on kids to stop calling one another names might be seen as, interference by adults, maybe even some sort of censorship by PC elitist forces that are out of touch with the more harsh realities on the ground in many communities throughout America, a land where bullying is the last thing on anyone's mind right now. But, perhaps the tragic death of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover should give us all pause. As we ponder this sad news, maybe we ought to ask ourselves a question or two.
If we are to truly reconcile the tremendous positive social changes we've seen since my childhood with the contradictory rot of corruption that has permeated so much of our society, should we not demand that our future generations prepare for future challenges in institutions where respect, tolerance and the Golden rule is just that, a rule that is enforced? Does an adult demanding that a child treat his fellow child the way he or she would want to be treated smell of radicalism or part of an agenda? This is not about asking anyone to accept anything other than human decency.
Back on the day Open Left launched, I produced a piece called The Self-Identified Progressive candidate, which looked at how often Democratic candidate websites used the term "progressive." My basic theory was that "if you can't say it, you can't do it." In other words, unless a candidate was willing to as measly self-identify as a progressive, the most popular ideological term in America, it was unlikely s/he would be willing to stand with progressives in more politically important situations once s/he becomes President.
Here is an update on that post, but with a twist. In addition to the number of times each candidate self-identifies as a progressive on his or her website, here are the number of times the word "bipartisan," is used...
Chris went on to compare how frequently Republican candidates used "conservative" vs. "bipartisan" and not surprisingly they were far more eager to be ideological.
I followed up Chris's diary with one of my own, which combined those searches with "Social Security," to see how much this imbalance carried over, both by individual candidates and overall between the two parties. The result was "Social Security And The Ideology to Bipartisanship Ratio". I decided to expand this survey, and cross-check with a number of different terms: Iraq, "terror" and "terrorism," immigration, "health care," "global warming," "climate change," abortion "gay(s)" and/or "lesbian(s)," and poverty. The results of my study are presented in table form, with brief commentary, on the flip.
