Since I was a child he hounded me. She stalked me. I was bullied, intimidated, tormented not by a single person, but by a throng of thoughts. Why did another child, adolescent, nay adult ever bully me. What was it about me that kept me safe from harm or a persecutor's pointed proclamations?
On all continents individuals and their families are forced to flee their homes on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While all refugees are vulnerable, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) refugees face particular challenges in accessing assistance and asylum procedures. They also experience instances of violence as a cause of flight or while in countries of first asylum. Human Rights First (HRF) highlighted many of these challenges earlier this month in a policy paper presented at a Roundtable discussion convened by the UN Refugee Agency - UNHCR - on Asylum Seekers and Refugees Seeking Protection on Account of their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. HRF's paper includes a comprehensive set of recommendations directed at UNHCR and States.
Human Rights First welcomes the statements issued after the Roundtable by the U.S. Department of State and UNHCR on the need to improve protection of LGBTI refugees.
In its statement, UNHCR recognized that laws which criminalize same-sex relations in many countries - whether they are enforced or not - pose difficulties for LGBTI refugees, and that these refugees face heightened risks of discrimination in urban settings and refugee camps. In response to these concerns, UNHCR stated it will revise its policies to recognize the particular vulnerabilities of LGBTI refugees, dangers that exist at every stage of the displacement cycle. UNHCR's Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Ms. Erika Feller, also reiterated UNHCR's commitment to undertake this task during the Agency's Executive Committee meeting held last week in Geneva. Similarly, UNHCR called upon states to recognize the needs of people persecuted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The United States welcomed UNHCR's efforts in this area and acknowledged that LGBT individuals "face serious threats in countries of asylum, where they may be isolated and reluctant to seek help." The U.S. went on to positively affirm that "ensuring LGBT refugees receive the protection and assistance to which all refugees are entitled is a priority." In addition, it stated its commitment to support UNHCR as it integrates LGBT issues into its protection policies and tools, including the Age, Gender and Diversity Framework. This is used by UNHCR and its partners to identify priority needs and corresponding responses.
These statements are consistent with a number of recommendations put forward by HRF in its policy paper presented at the UNHCR Roundtable. The paper, and Human Rights First's related press release, urges that LGBTI refugees be recognized by UNHCR as persons with specific needs, and that UNHCR issue practical guidance to ensure LGBTI refugees are able to access services, support and asylum procedures on the basis of equality and with dignity. Many of these points also follow recommendations presented by a number of refugee protection and gay rights groups to the U.S. Secretary of State in March.
What happened in Geneva this month was a significant step forward in the effort to better protect and serve the needs of LGBTI refugees, but more work is needed to ensure implementation of reforms on the ground. In the coming months, HRF will continue to both monitor progress toward this end and will continue to advocate for safeguards to protect LGBTI refugees.
While Americans grappled over the military’s contentious “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in court last week, the Argentine Senate passed a bill last Thursday legalizing gay marriage and allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
Arguments for and against the don’t ask, don’t tell policy regarding LGBT members’ service in the military, began last week Tuesday in a California federal court. The original lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the rule was filed in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans – a Republican group that supports gay rights.
There are a lot of interesting conversations going around among some LGBT colleagues of mine regarding Elena Kagan's sexual orientation and the contours around it. I'll list a few below with some thoughts.
How the White House and lead supporters will respond to more reports surfacing about a Kagan partner. If you recall, right-wing blogger Ben Domenech posted a rumor that Kagan had a long-time partner and that this was well-known in Harvard circles. The White House responded to this so angrily a spokesperson used the phrase "false charges", which smacks of a crime. If there is one thing have I no doubt about with this nomination, it's that right-wingers- or even some LGBT activists- will spend the next several weeks digging up former girlfriends, one-time relationships, friends and neighbors reporting a woman accompanying her inside her apartment late at night 23 years ago, etc. etc.
Advocates have to be careful in responding to this kind of news, and to avoid "false charges" type of language. What a better response should say is that Elena Kagan's personal life is no one's business but her own, and certainly has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy. She is entitled to a right to privacy just like any other American.
Whether or not it's in the interest of the LGBT community to "out" Elana Kagan. Some have argued that an out lesbian nominee for the Court would do wonders for the movement purely from the basis of respect accorded a Supreme Court nomination by the public. Others say if Kagan being outed would become the issue of the nomination and if she is defeated on the basis of that, it would deal a major blow to the cause. I tend to take the middle of two views. First, with the exception of what is known as the Barney Frank rule on outing anti-LGBT hypocrites, I don't believe anyone has any business outing anyone else. I can't say people have a right to privacy and they deny them that right any more than John Cornyn can say he has nothing against gay people while having a 100% anti-gay record. Second, it's true that an out nominee would send a strong, pro-LGBT message. What that needs to be balanced against is the issue raised on the prospect of a nomination being defeated. If Kagan is confirmed and comes out in later years, when she has been on the Court for some time, I would argue that this would be positive for the LGBT community- no differently than Elton John or the NBA's John Amaechi coming out as already-respected individuals. Perhaps less so than an open nominee, but there is more than one kind of progress.
That Kagan possibly being a lesbian should be considered an element of support from President Obama to the LGBT community or not. One friend of mine criticized the President for nominating a "closeted" lesbian. That's definitely off the mark, but what I would say is that while it's fun to read tea leaves and speculate on whether this is a "bone" thrown, this stuff will really all be judged years from now, e.g. when Kagan comes out and Obama writes about in his memoirs. For now, she should be treated as any other nominee is treated with respect to private life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
STATE BLOGS
