The other day I wrote a piece about how the Gutierrez bill on immigration reform does actually contain provisions that affect LGBT people in a significant way. Specifically, the provisions related to a pathway to citizenship, the DREAM Act, and immigration detention.
In response, commenter filler wrote two comments (I condense here to summarize filler's argument and the points I want to look at, but feel free to go here and here to read both comments and responses):
It seems to me that the points you list don't actually help LGBT people--they help immigrants, some of whom just happen to be LGBT...
It's the equivalent of saying that food stamps are pro-LGBT because some poor people are LGBT.
It's like saying that military spending is pro-LGBT, because LGBT people are defended by the military too, all while ignoring the fact that LGBT individuals aren't allowed to serve in the military.
I think that's an entirely fair point, but there's another aspect to this, and it got me thinking a little bit about how I classify legislation as significant towards the LGBT community or not.
On December 1-2, foreign ministers and other officials from the 56 states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) - a conflict prevention organization bringing together states from North America, Europe, and the former Soviet Union - met in Athens, Greece for the annual ministerial meeting. A Decision on "Combating Hate Crime" was one of a dozen or so decisions adopted by ministers on issues related to security, democratization, and human rights.
Some very good news today- hate crimes protections for the LGBT community is on its way to the President's desk. The Senate voted for cloture on the defense authorization conference report and then passed the full report with the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act attached. The cloture vote was 64-35 with Hatch absent, and our side picked up Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, Voinovich and Lugar. Feingold voted no for reasons related to Afghanistan.
I wrote awhile back about complaints in the LGBT community around how hate crimes was done, that it is attached to the defense bill. I debunked that at the time, but want to emphasize that when the President signs this, not only will it get some good press to Americans who don't know about its importance, but will do a lot of good for the LGBT community. In the end, with a crowded plate for Congress and advocates, the most important thing is getting as much done as possible, and we can check this off our list.
And a special congratulations to Judy Shepard, who has been fighting this long, long fight since 1998.
Inspired by KT's Special Comment at Burnt Orange Report this week, I have one related to hate crimes.
So this week I heard from Barney Frank's office that the defense authorization bill would soon be voted upon in the House. The House already passed one version, H.R. 2647, but the approved Senate version (S. 1390) contained an amendment expanding the definition of hate crimes to protect the LGBT community. So, they are in conference. Frank was urging leaders in the LGBT community to ask activists to call their House member and support the passage of a bill with hate crimes protections in it.
In response, I heard a lot of disgust that this was the way hate crimes was going to be done, and a lot of selling-our-soul talk because a defense bill authorizes, well, military activities. I saw exactly one e-mail go out asking LGBT activists to call in support- from the Stonewall Democrats- and no blog posts or any other kind of organizing. Meanwhile, our opponents are organizing against it.
I wrote a little bit previously about a lot of grumbling in the LGBT community that why aren't our issues being voted on now now now, what good is a Dem majority and President, etc. etc. Now, after the Dem leadership and Frank have acted on hate crimes, the new griping is that it isn't done as a stand-alone bill. Seriously.
Okay, let's look at how this shapes up.
To the Democratic leadership, there are a lot more pressing issues on the agenda, and if we're holding our breaths for a stand-alone hate crimes bill to be the very next thing on the agenda, or even considered this year, we'll be waiting quite awhile. In a time when every community has been waiting eight years to finally have a chance to move on an issue, there is a very crowded line. Passing it via the defense bill is the swiftest way to achieve this, and a chance I don't want to give up.
The Senate takes forever to do anything, and is going to be at it on health care for the next month at least, then probably spend another several weeks voting on cap and trade, and the defense bill, and who knows what else that is of greater priority to the leadership and most Americans.
Re whether a D majority means anything, there's an expectation out there that you can just pull stand-alone bills up and vote on them like flipping on a light switch when you have the majority. Doesn't work that way. Politics gets in the way, the fact that the Senate takes forever gets in the way, and frankly, so do more pressing issues, like getting the economy out of the trash heap, which took up a lot of debate time earlier this year. Republicans also get in the way- I thought by now DC would have a vote in Congress, until the Republicans attached a horrid amendment related to guns. Such is life.
This, to me, emphasizes the importance of taking the chances when we get them, and this is a chance.
For those who complain this is selling your soul to the devil or whatever, go read the bill. It covers everything from salaries of military employees to mental health care for their family members to establishing a voter registration office on military bases to buying staplers at the Pentagon. That's the reason the Senate version passed with 87 votes and the House version with 389. And that happens every year. You're conflating Bush's $87 billion for Iraq request with bills such as this. So your decision to pick up the phone or not will not mean more or less war. It could means no hate crimes protections if that amendment isn't included.
The only plausible objection I could see is that if hate crimes is passed as a stand-alone will, it will make some headlines "Congress passes equal protections for gays" "Obama: gays deserve the same protections", etc. If it passes this way, somewhere buried in paragraph five of the story on the defense bill will be "Attached to the bill was an amendment..." So it won't get the attention it deserves. To me, this isn't worth waiting another who knows how many months, not to mention the real-life consequences, if we opt not to do it this way.
So this insistence on wanting it done as a stand-alone is absurd. Please do contact your member. I'd rather have a defense bill that will pass anyway do some good for the LGBT community.
I know I've written a bit on how I felt about Ted's passing, and I'm sure you've read and seen many others. But I just I had one more thought I wanted to share.
The more I thought about it today, the more I realized something. He came damn close to passing a lot of other legislation, too. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in 2006 (it passed with a filibuster-proof majority in 2006, but didn't pass the Republican-led House). The Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act, on which he was the lead sponsor along with Gorden Smith, which has passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate (it's currently moving). The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, too, which should pass in the next year. And that's just this decade- I'm sure I'm missing others in the past, please leave others you know of in in the comments. It's like Jack Nicklaus, who came in or tied for second in seventeen different majors. It's remarkable, but it goes overlooked among all his wins.
The other thing I thought about, in part inspired by HRC President Joe Solmonese's tribute, is that he also helped to stop a lot of bad from happening. Most people think of Robert Bork, which was a huge victory. I'm also thinking of, as Joe pointed out, stopping Jesse Helms' efforts to effectively force HIV+ individuals to live like sex offenders, or from using taxpayer money to fund programs designed to stop the "spread" of homosexuality. I learned that in 1994, he took the lead on defeating a proposed amendment requiring written parental consent before unemancipated minors could receive condoms or other contraceptives through any program that receives federal funds. This helped stop the spread of HIV and other STDs among both gay and straight youth.
Because so much of EMK's legacy focuses on his gigantic legislative achievements, we forget that he led the efforts to defend program after program from Reagan's cuts, and even dragged himself down to DC last summer to vote against Medicare cuts to doctor reimbursements, something that moved so many Republicans they switched their votes enough to make the vote veto-proof. These things, I think, are important to remember, too.
If you'll permit me to share one personal thing, it's that his passing makes me feel a bit the same as I did about LeRoi Moore, a founding member and longtime woodwind player for Dave Matthews Band (I'm a huge fan). As I wrote this morning, EMK inspires political activism in me, while LeRoi inspired music in my life. After LeRoi tragically died from complications relating to an ATV accident last summer, DMB opened nearly every show for the rest of that summer's tour with their epic song, Bartender. I think because it fits so well. It touches on the themes of death, remembrance, and legacy, and it moved me a great deal last summer. I listened to it on the way home tonight after I met up with another former EMK intern to talk about him, and found myself feeling the same way. It's a dark song with an uplifting, moving part right at the middle, and then a pennywhistle solo that makes you feel like there's hope even after all the mourning. The lyrics mean a lot in the context of his passing, too.
I posted a particularly great live version below, I hope you'll take a listen. Lyrics are posted here.
Senator Kennedy's prolific career spanned nearly five decades, during which he authored more than 2,500 bills in the U.S. Senate. Several hundred have become public law. This fall we hope to add yet another bill to that distinguished list - the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
In a week, President Obama will travel to Moscow to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The agenda items of the summit in Moscow are of course numerous and complex, but it would be a mistake to let human rights concerns get lost in the mix. High among those concerns is the troubling rise in hate crimes in Russia, the government's inadequate response to this trend, and increased harassment - including at times murder - of human rights defenders. These and other outstanding human rights issues could make Russia a far less reliable partner in addressing economic, security, and other issues.
What happens when you combine a Democratic fundraiser in North San Diego County, a homophobic right-wing neighbor disturbing the peace, and the San Diego County Sheriffs? Apparently, one BIG, nasty mess! Here's the original TPM story:
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a fundraiser for Francine Busby, who previously ran for the deeply-Republican Fiftieth District and came close to winning in the 2006 special election and subsequent regular election, was raided by sheriffs after an unnamed neighbor made a noise complaint. Busby now calls it a "phony" noise complaint, and the article says that multiple neighbors said there was no great noise at all.
Here's the twist: The fundraiser was hosted by a lesbian couple, and shortly before the sheriffs came a particular neighbor had shouted anti-gay slurs at the assembled crowd. "It was a quiet home reception, disrupted by a vulgar person shouting obscenities from behind the bushes," Busby says.
As one neighbor told the paper: "We didn't hear anything until the sheriff came, with eight patrol cars and a helicopter."
And yes, the new developments are becoming more sordid by the minute. Details after the flip...
On May 30, 29-year-old Raul Flores and his 9-year-old daughter Brisenia Flores were shot to death, purportedly by a group of far-right anti-immigrant activists who broke into the Flores home by posing as police officers. On Friday, Shawna Forde, anti-immigrant activist and Executive Director of the Minutemen American Defense, (MAD) along with accomplices Jason Eugene Bush and Albert Robert Gaxiola were arrested on two counts of first-degree murder and burglary charges related to the Flores murders.
We are living in unsure times, filled with drastic transitions that shift our perspectives from day to day. In one sense, immigration is about groups of people shifting in size and moving from place to place. It is also about the formation of new groups, how we live through the transitions, and who we are on the other side. For this week's Immigration Wire, I'd like to look at how different social groups are dealing with issues related to immigration-and all of its accompanying cultural shifts.
People have noted for some time the curious phenomenae of conservatives attracted to Barack Obama. At Salon, Joe Conasan's article "Why conservatives love Barack Obama" carried the subhead, "Clinton haters who think the Illinois senator can beat Hillary support him now, but their affection will fade if he gets the nomination." The irrational exuberance of Hillary hatred seen before the New Hampshire primary certainly reminds us of how potent a force such hatred remains, not just within the official conservative establishment, but among its Versailles enablers as well. Still, that's only part of the story.
some conservatives, in particular, can't wait to bum rush the current crop of media-anointed black leaders out the door.
"The big losers, two big losers tonight are probably Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton," George Will observed after the Illinois senator swept the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week.
The Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, Mr. Will said, were "representative of those who have a sort of investment in the traditional and, I believe, utterly exhausted narrative about race relations in the United States."
Conservative radio host Bill Bennett said Mr. Obama "has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. And, this is a breakthrough."
Page's reference to "media-anointed black leaders" is bizarre, of course. Jackson ran for President twice. In the 1988 primaries, he got over 7 million votes, won ten states and went to the convention with over 1,200 delegates. Sharpton ran in 2004, and repeatedly confounded expectations with his cogent arguments in the debates. This comment by Page is indicative of how, even when he's questioning what white conservatives are saying about black political issues at one level, he's buying into their assumptions at another: Jackson and Sharpton don't really represent the black community, according to the subtext that Page has casually endorsed. They are "media-anounted black leaders." (Unlike Obama?)
Although I've been extremely negligent in my Jena blogging, I assume most of our readers are acquainted with the basic outlines of the situation. If not, Color of Change is a great place to start. I was moderately hopeful that some good would eventually come out of this - but so far it seems to have kicked off a series of copycat noose incidents. The Southern Poverty Law Center is reporting organized online efforts by white supremacist groups to encourage followers to hang nooses in their communities, among other things.
First, there was an incident in Alexandria, LA (about 40 miles from Jena) where an unnamed 16 year old and 18 year old Jeremy Munsen were arrested with two nooses hanging from the back of Munsen's pickup truck. The 16 year old told police his family was in the KKK, and that brass knuckles and unloaded rifle found in the car belonged to him. Then, 4 nooses were found at a high school in High Point, North Carolina. The nooses were found hung from the main flagpole, in a parking lot, and (two) hung in a tree at the front of the school. Also, there were the two nooses at the Coast Guard Academy. One was left in the bag of a black cadet in July, the other in the office of an officer who conducted a race relations training.
Up here in the North, it's a similar story. Outside of Chicago, an unidentified student drove to Warren Township High School with a noose hanging from his rearview mirror. Worse yet, people are trying to excuse it, using a variation on the same ludicrous excuses we're hearing from those down South.
"A child who lives in Chicago may not understand the real implications of what they're carrying around, like a [Confederate] flag or a noose," said Peggy Riehl, an early childhood development expert with the Chicago Metro Association for the Education of Young Children. "They may not have the real experience that children in other communities that may have seen what that means."
I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that. The Confederate flag, maybe. Maybe they saw it in on the Dukes of Hazzard or something, but a noose? It might be marginally more believable than kids in Louisiana or North Carolina claiming that, but either way, we're deep into the realm of ridiculous excuses here.
This morning brings the unwelcome news that my current home state of New York is continuing the trend. A noose was found hanging in a Long Island police station.
"It's astonishing to hear something like this is happening in Nassau County in 2007, especially in Hempstead Village," said John Nedd, president of the Nassau County Guardian Association, a black police officers' group.
Corey Pegues, a New York City police captain and the president of the Long Island chapter of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, said members believed the noose may have been directed at a high-ranking Hempstead police official who is black.
I wouldn't go as far as astonishing, but it is absolutely disgusting. I don't have much to say about all this, beyond noting the obvious - racism is real, it's lurking just under the surface in my community and yours, hanging nooses is an implicit threat and everyone knows it, and the hardcore racists out there will think racism is acceptable unless we say otherwise, loudly. You can add your voice by signing the Color of Change petition, or donating to the Jena 6 defense fund.
First, the good news. On Thursday the Matthew Shepard Act passed the Senate with a 60 vote (filibuster proof) majority. Every Democrat voted in favor of the legislation, as did both independents and nine Republicans: Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Gregg (NH), Lugar (IN), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH), and Warner (VA). In case you were wondering, that means Craig (ID) voted no, like he always does when it comes to legislation that would protect him gay people. No word yet on whether Bush plans a veto. Additionally, ENDA is poised to pass the House for the first time in the 30 years since its introduction.
Unfortunately, there is also some not-so-good news. This year transgender inclusive language was added to ENDA. Yesterday the gender identity provision was dropped to ensure passage of the bill, a move that was opposed by all the major gay rights organizations. Barney Franks issued a statement explaining the decision. It's very long, but I've excerpted some relevant sections:
"We are on the verge of an historic victory that supporters of civil rights have been working on for more than thirty years: the passage for the first time in American history by either house of Congress of legislation declaring it illegal to discriminate against people in employment based on their sexual orientation. Detracting from the sense of celebration many of us feel about that is regret that under the current political situation, we do not have sufficient support in the House to include in that bill explicit protection for people who are transgender. The question facing us - the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice - is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we'll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today.
… "Leaders in the GLBT community, who strongly support the inclusion of transgender, now acknowledge that this would be the case - namely that the transgender provision would lose - so their proposed alternative was simply to withhold the bill from the House altogether.
"That is, their recommendation was that the Speaker simply announce that she was not going to allow the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to come up at all. I believe that would be a disaster - politically, morally, and strategically. While their reason for this would be the debate over how ultimately to achieve transgender inclusion, the impression that would be given to the country was that Speaker Pelosi, the first Democratic Speaker in thirteen years, and a lifelong strong supporter of LGBT rights, had decided that we could not go forward on what had been the major single legislative goal of gay and lesbian people for over thirty years.
…
"First, I would note that since I first became a legislator thirty-five years ago, I have spent a lot of time and energy helping enact legislation to protect a variety of groups from discrimination. In no case has any of those bills ever covered everybody or everything. Antidiscrimination legislation is always partial. It improves coverage either to some group or some subject matter, but never achieves everything at once. And insistence on achieving everything at once would be a prescription for achieving nothing ever.
I'm enough of a pragmatist to see Frank's point, but I still don't feel like celebrating. In my little (younger, urban, predominately lesbian) corner of the LGBT community, the distinctions being made in the bill don't really make a lot of sense. The boundaries between the lesbian community and transgender community (at least in my world) tend to be pretty fluid and in day-to-day life the distinction is not always salient. So it's hard to work up too much enthusiasm for a bill that will leave a lot of people out in the cold, and my sense is that those who remain unprotected will be those who are most vulnerable to being fired from their jobs in the first place. So thanks, but no thanks. Apparently Rep Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) (the only other out LGBT member of Congress) feels the same, as she has dropped her co-sponsorship of the bill.
