leliorisen

Blog will restart in July

2010-06-14T16:44:00.000-04:00

An explanation, since I obviously have not posted in a while. Additionally, there was a gap of time that passed, before I even got my last post in.

I am moving this month, after a dozen years in the same place. Additionally, I have had some major changes (albeit exciting ones) in my professional life. Because of this, the last couple of months have had me pre-occupied, and I have not been able to devote the time I need, or want, to my glbt blog.

I will be fully in my new place by the end of the month. So, I will not be starting new entries until the beginning of July. When I do, it will be accompanied by a facebook and twitter presence.

Thanks for your understanding.

Hate E-Mail From Uganda

2010-05-09T20:27:00.006-04:00

First of all, my apology for the long drought between postings. I have a lot of change going on in my life, including the fact that I will be moving next month. I needed to attend to other things. I am hoping to be posting more regularly.

Recently I received correspondence that I find very disturbing. It is serious enough that I plan to share it with certain leaders of the glbt community that I think need to see it. There are other options I am considering as well. I found this very troubling, as it hints at a genocide of our brethren in Africa.

I am not going to post the e-mail address of the author, or his name. However, I will pass it along to those who need to know.

This was written to me because the author obviously saw my postings of support on the GayUganda website.

The e-mail speaks for itself: All spelling errors have been left in.

Lelio,

You are the kind of people I wish we could lay our hands on in Uganda.

Luckily enough for you ,you are out of reach!

I read your post on some website encouraging gays in Uganda to go on practiscing their crazy and dehumanising ways and much as I was angered,I have decided to keep calm since we have a solution to the gay problem in Uganda that we are quietly working on.

We have a number of formwer gays who are collaborating with us to see to it that we cleanse our land of the stain that is Gays and lesbians and the like-transgender!

We have already taken a few of them out of action but this is just early days for us as we continue to trail more of them.

So you can continue encouraging them from the safety of wherever you are but you should know that we are also preparing ourselves and we shall deal them a decisive blow little by little and before long,our beloved country will be free of those who go against nature.

Warn them all because many of them have already heard from us already and some of them have experienced what we are capable of!

Anti Homosexual Coalition
Kampala

Taking Baby Steps On 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

2010-03-26T21:53:00.003-04:00

Considering that we are the only major Western nation that doesn't allow gays to openly serve in the military, the incremental posturing towards finally ending the bigotry known as "don't ask, don't tell" is getting to be intolerable.

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced how the policy was becoming less restrictive.

For one thing, hearsay would no longer be permitted. What's truly incredible was that, up until this announcement, it was.

Additionally, now a senior officer has to approve of the ouster.

Considering how backwards America is on social issues, I do realize that this is reason enough to cause us to genuflect at the altar of America's military industrial complex and beat our breasts while thanking them for the crumbs.

Ah, the crumbs, indeed.

While the leadership of certain glbt advocacy groups, like HRC, continue to behave as expected (wow, Mr. Solmonese, how perceptive to have a comedienne, Kathy Griffin, serve as the HRC poster girl for ending DADT....are you kidding me?), there has been some good press calling for an end to this inanity.
(note: I slightly edited the above paragraph to single out Solmonese, specifically, not HRC as a whole. There are many in HRC, and similar groups, who work their tails off for the glbt vommunity. I do not doubt their sincerity, integrity, or commitment, for a moment. However, I do not think that leaders like Solmonese are reflective of those that do much of the legwork. Sometimes those in power lose sight of the message, in their pursuit of access.)

For now, let me just single out a piece in today's Oregonian.

In her op-ed, Elizabeth Hovde, who bills her column as "political writings from The Oregonian's columnist just right of center," writes:

Forgive gay and lesbian members of the military if they aren’t having a celebratory drink this weekend to toast new Pentagon rules that make it more difficult to kick them out of their jobs. The changes basically amount to a decree that snitching on a gay soldier won’t be enough to get the gay soldier booted. How kind.

Congress was able to pass health care reform, but 1993’s misguided “don’t ask, don’t tell” law stands.

Hovde adds:

There is nothing common sensical or decent about telling gay and lesbian service members, “Continue to keep your mouths shut, but we’re going to decrease the chances that you get caught.” This simply continues the insult of telling people who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way for the rest of us that their service is only welcome if they agree to keep secrets, limit the information they give about the people they share their lives with and so on. (Can you imagine telling a straight soldier he shouldn’t mention his wife in a conversation?)

She ends her piece with:

Let’s stop tweaking a bizarre law, repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” now and work out the discomfort that doing so might bring some other members of the military.

And that is it, in a nutshell. Unlike soldiers in the rest of the world, our military leaders believe that American troops are just not grounded enough to be able to cope with sharing living quarters and showers.

Can't believe that's the issue here?

It is so much the issue that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway (above) did the execrable. In an interview with military.com, this lightweight actually said if DADT were lifted he would not force straight marines to bunk with gays.

Can anyone imagine a military officer making similar comments during the period when the military was being desegregated?

Sort of makes one want to vomit up stars and stripes.

British Op-Ed Gets It Right On Gay Prom Flap

2010-03-21T13:38:00.005-04:00

You didn't need to read a blog focused on glbt issues to follow what was going on with Constance McMillen (above).

McMillen, a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi, sought to bring her girlfriend, a sophomore at the same school, to her senior prom.

In a nutshell....she asked the school in advance...the school said no, the prom was for same-sex couples only...the ACLU was brought in and a lawsuit began...the school cancelled the prom and urged parents to hold a private affair, which they are doing. McMillen and her date are not welcome at the private party.

Ellen DeGeneres stepped in and, to her credit, donated $30,000 to McMillen's scholarship fund.

A relatively quick search of the internet will reveal just how much anti-gay hatred remains in America.

What I wanted to focus on here is the way that such backwards attitudes are perceivd in other Western countries.

Elle Gray has written a terrific piece in Great Britain's Guardian titled, "School proms uphold straight privilege."

It should be noted that Gray is a black woman, who knows her Mississippi history. She writes:

The region in which this story is unfolding adds another contextual layer. According to an ACLU attorney, student complaints against "anti-gay" prom policies are especially prevalent in the US South, home of "more conservative" attitudes towards sexuality. In Mississippi, just last autumn, another school refused to publish a yearbook picture of a lesbian student in a tuxedo. The South is also home to conservative attitudes towards race; McMillen's situation is akin to that of other Mississippi students who find themselves confronting segregated proms well into the 21st century.

Those more conservative attitudes are rooted in a southern fascination with its past, a mythical "Old South" in which people who were not straight, white, and propertied had no social place. Many southerners have held tenaciously to this view, mounting resistance to challenges to the status quo. High schools in the South are often places in which these battles are fought on a small scale. After a court order forced my rural high school to desegregate in 1970, it would eventually hold off-campus proms. However, "tradition" meant that students did not intermingle across the colour line and quickly left to gather for their own separate (in terms of race) functions.

She adds:

The school district's response to McMillen's request indicated their intent to fall back on old southern practices: "It is our hope," they wrote, "that private citizens will organise an event for juniors and seniors." The prom cancellation is reminiscent of tactics from at least a half-century ago: rather than integrate public pools, parks, and schools, southern municipalities often closed them. Sometimes, in lieu of closure, they turned over such accommodations to private enterprises. In defiance of school integration orders, they opened private schools and segregation academies. Such acts allowed them to continue de facto segregation long after de jure segregation was outlawed.

The entire excellent column can be accessed here.

Monserrate Goes Down

2010-03-17T18:40:00.002-04:00

Hiram Monserrate, disgraced former New York State Senator, lost his bid to win his seat back in a special election yesterday.

Monserrate, pictured above (discussing the size of his genitalia, one might speculate), one of 8 Democrats who helped to defeat gay marriage legislation in New York, had been expelled by the State Senate after receiving a msdemeanor assault conviction, in the beating up of his girlfriend.

However, in his effort to win back his seat, Monserrate had aligned himself with pious, homophobic clerics who had no problem endorsing Monserrate....after all, the Bible does say that women need to be subservient to men....or wind up needing stitches (apparently).

Happily, this bigot was only able to find 27% of the electorate stupid enough to vote for him, in a 3-way race.

Democrat Jose Peralta won, with over 65% of the vote, while the GOP candidate, Robert Beltrani, had barely over 7%.

Does this help glbt fortunes in the Empire State? Yes.

Perralta is a former State Assemblyman who voted in favor of gay marriage on 3 separate occasions.

Reflecting on his defeat, the day after his loss, Monserrate told the New York Times;

“A lot of this reaction is based on just ignorance, on not knowing the facts, not dealing really with the issues...There’s a lot of emotional hysteria out there.”

If anyone knows how to hysterically display one's emotions, it is the convicted abuser Hiram Monserrate. Those who voted for him have no shame.

1 down....7 enemies to go.

Hiram Monserrate: Sleazeball Gay-Basher Extraordinaire

2010-03-10T18:11:00.002-05:00

Back in December, disgraced New York State Senator, Hiram Monserrate, was one of 8 Democrats who defeated the gay-marriage bill in the Empire State. Last month, this political low-life was expelled from the Senate.

However, like bacteria that continually adapts, he is back. Yes, he is seeking to elected again!

How is he trying to win? By courting the homophobe vote.

According to The Gothamist:

Hiram Monserrate has found one constituency that will stand behind him as he tries to fight his way back into the state Senate—people who don't like gays. Thanks to his vote against the same-sex marriage bill, the former Queens legislator has won the support of Corona Rev. Ricardo Reyes. "I have seen a generation sunk down by the gay community," Reyes told the Queens Village Times. "If we vote for a gay marriage situation ... we are sending our children to practice something against the Bible."

Obviously, this preacher likes men who abuse women...like the way Monserrate brutally beat his girlfriend...because the Bible tells us that women should be subservient to men. Or else!

Recently, the New Yorker ran a blog post titled, "Is Hiram Monserrate Just Running Against Gay People Now?"

I am not a big fan of glbt advocacy groups in New York, so I am surprised that they are actually taking Monserrate on.

According to the New York Times:

...the political action committee, called Fight Back New York, is prepared to raise and spend in the high six figures range in the State Senate races this year, according to people involved with the committee.

Financing and organization will come, in part, from some of the most politically sophisticated and financially powerful gay rights advocates in the country. Tim Gill, a philanthropist and former software developer who has backed many gay rights initiatives nationwide, is a major player, along with some of his top associates and donors to his causes.

“Politicians who deny gays and lesbians basic equality should be thrown out of office, starting with convicted criminal Hiram Monserrate,” said Bill Smith, an adviser to the committee and deputy executive director of the Gill Action Fund, Mr. Gill’s political organization, which is based in Denver.

The committee will start going after Mr. Monserrate, who was convicted of assaulting his female companion in a confrontation that left her requiring more than 20 stitches, by mailing fliers this week to voters in his district. The flier shows still frames of a surveillance video that shows him dragging his companion, Karla Giraldo, through the hallway of his apartment building in Jackson Heights, Queens. He was acquitted of a felony assault charge by a judge, who convicted him of misdemeanor assault.

If this convicted abuser, and virulent homophobe, wins, it tells us more about the voters in his his district than we probably need to know.

Virginia Attorney General Tells Universities To Allow Anti-Gay Discrimination

2010-03-07T10:54:00.001-05:00

It was bad enough that the new Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, rescinded anti-discrimination protections against gays who worked in state government, as one of his first official acts.

Now, pouring fuel on the fire, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (pictured) has issued a letter to the state's colleges and universites, putting them on notice that they cannot have their own policies protecting gays from discrimination.

I realize that America is the most backwards of Western nations on social issues, but Virginia seems to be setting entirely new standards for bigotry and hatred to thrive.

Please reward the anti-gay stance of this regressive state with a boycott on travel there.

The Courts Have Already Derailed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

2010-03-07T10:29:00.001-05:00

As I have previously written, while I feel that the primary argument for lifting the ban on allowing gays to openly serve in the military is the global model (essentially, all of our Western allies allow it, without incident), there is also a legal precedent.

While it has gotten very little mention in the press, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-year old ruling, has already redefined the flawed policy, putting the onus on the government to prove their theory on the alleged destruction of unit cohesion.

From an AP story posted on Saturday:

The 2008 ruling, while largely overlooked, would force the military to apply a much higher threshold in determining whether a service member should be dismissed for being gay.

The government declined to appeal the ruling by the three-judge panel, which leaves it standing as law in the nine states covered by the court. That means gay military members at bases in the West technically have greater protections than their colleagues across the world.

......At issue is a ruling in the case of an Air Force major from Washington state (U.S. Air Force Reservist Maj. Margaret Witt, pictured above) who was dismissed from the military after she was found to have been in a lesbian relationship.

The court ruled that for a gay service member's discharge to be constitutional, the military must demonstrate that the firing promotes cohesion or discipline in the unit.

Considering that, in the military of our allies, allowing gays to serve openly has been a non-factor, this ruling forces the government to prove the lie that they have been pushing for over 15 years.

And they can't.

To get a clearer picture of the impact on this ruling, and how it is now effecting decisions currently being made, regarding DADT, click here.

The Paradox Of Gay Marriage In D.C.

2010-03-02T11:47:00.001-05:00

One would think that minority groups who have faced serious oppression would be allies in the fight for glbt civil rights.

Unfortunately, it has been the perception that blacks are more opposed to gay marriage than the overall population, by a significant margin. This has been supported by various polling (for example, 70% vs. 49% in California, in exit polling done for the 2008 election).

It does not help that 2 of the hotbeds for global homophobia happen to be Africa and the Caribbean.

It's not as if we didn't have powerful friends from the African-American civil rights movement. Coretta Scott King was a very vocal supporter of gay rights.

However, as we have seen in New York, with Democrats like Shirley Huntley, sometimes those that are most eager to repress the rights of the glbt community are people of color. As somebody who has visited many of the online forums, I personally have seen many passionate arguments from African-Americans that dripped rage that gays even perceive this as a civil rights struggle...as if our pain could not possibly compare to their experience.

Much of the hatred directed at gays comes from the black churches, who do not see the perversity of justifying bigotry with the Bible, when that was what was used to justify keeping blacks enslaved, and second-class citizens.

So, why is D.C., where the majority of the populace is black, about to embrace gay marriage, when states like New York and New Jersey, have been unable to counter homophobia?

I didn't bring up Maine, because if D.C. left it to a popular vote, it would probably go down to defeat.

However, legislators in the 2 states I mentioned couldn't get it done, but the local officals in D.C did.

There is a great AP story on this, which suggests it was all about the approach taken and the way the message was targeted. The essence is that it is very important to take the initiative and pro-actively court the African-American community to help us in our fight.

Rather than summarize it, I suggest reading it in its entirety (it is not a lengthy article).

You can access it here.

Maryland To Recognize Out-Of-State Gay Marriages

2010-02-27T13:22:00.010-05:00

Maryland is the latest state to show progress on gay marriage.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler (pictured), on Wednesday, has declared gay marriages performed outside the state as legally valid. This means that, if Gansler's directive is followed, all Maryland state agencies will afford married gay couples in the state the same benefits that straight married couples receive.

What this means is that Maryland has, in effect, rejected DOMA. It also means that, while gay marriage is not yet able to be performed in Maryland, if a couple gets married outside the state and returns, their union will be recognized.

According to Thursday's Washington Post,

Gansler, a supporter of legalizing same-sex marriages, was asserting his authority as the top legal adviser to state agencies to answer a question that experts say had been left unclear by Maryland law. He was responding to a legislator's request that he issue an opinion.

The attorney general's opinion unleashed a torrent of emotions from both gay rights advocates and those opposed to same-sex marriage, adding a potentially explosive issue to election-year politics in Maryland. It is likely to be quickly challenged in court, Gansler acknowledged.

Also, from that edition, for any people who still think that Democrats have our back, note this:

His opinion is certain to have political implications. Democratic leaders in the state's General Assembly appear to have little enthusiasm for making same-sex marriage a marquee issue in the 2010 elections.

Hmmm....where have we heard that before?

Washington Post Editorial supports decision

Today, an editorial in the Washington Post came out in support of the Attorney General's decision:

The Attorney General of Maryland does not have the power to legalize same-sex marriage; the legislature almost 40 years ago determined that "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this state." His opinions do not carry the weight of law; only legislative pronouncements and court rulings do.

What he can do is provide an authoritative reading of what the law commands. That is what Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) has done in concluding that same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions may -- and should -- be recognized under Maryland law. In the process, he has produced a legal compass that should be followed to provide overdue equality for gay and lesbian couples in Maryland.

The editorial concludes, as follows:

Mr. Gansler's opinion and the possibility that gay couples in Maryland may soon be able to marry in the District are welcome developments. But they are no substitutes for permanent protections in Maryland itself. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) should direct state agencies to begin applying the attorney general's advice immediately.

Considering that, for the most part, Democrats will hardly be embracing glbt issues, with the mid-terms happening later this year (and with Democrats in serious need of a spine), this development is rather encouraging.

Miss Beverly Hillbilly

2010-02-25T11:22:00.008-05:00

Here we go again.

In the latest quest to get the Carrie Prejean award for California's hottest homophobe, Lauren Ashley, who gave herself the title of Miss Beverly Hills, without any pagaent being held, has just suggested that God wants gays dead.

~~Lolita~~ Ashley, who is a contestant for Miss California 2010, because she passed an interview, had her comments posted at the entertainment section of the Fox News site called "Pop Tarts."

Interestingly, when Fox News updated the story today to express the outrage from Beverly Hills residents that this bimbo is supposed to represent them, they took down Ashley's most incendiary comments.

I was able to access the original, from a cached version found at Google.

Here is what the ~~porn~~ beauty queen wannabe had to say about gays:

"The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.' The Bible is pretty black and white," Ashley told Pop Tarts.

"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

Yes Lauren, suggesting that God wants gays murdered is indeed a pretty stern warning. And phrasing it the way you did is also a stern warning to you....that brain cells are precious....and you need to salvage the healthy ones that remain.

Then there was this:

But with the Miss California Pageant still months away, and Ashley already echoing the views that got Prejean in trouble last year, is she concerned that she may ruin her chances of taking home the tiara?

"That isn't really the issue. I have a lot of friends that are gay, and ... I have a lot of friends who have different views, and we share our views together," she said. "There's no hate between me and anyone."

I suppose this is just another way of saying....'I have friends who God wants put to death, but, personally, I could never get my hair and nails done without them.'

She even made comments about how pre-marital sex is awful and how her body is a temple of God. It reminded me of Mimi Rogers discussing what led up to the dissolution of her marriage to Tom Cruise.

I guess Fox must be feeling quite uncomfortable about Ashley's comments, because, as I wrote, you can't find them up on the website anymore.

What you find, in its place, is how the bad people of Beverly Hills are upset about how their name has been co-opted by this piece of trash:

"The City of Beverly Hills today denounced statements made by Miss California USA contestant Lauren Ashley, the self-described Miss Beverly Hills. Ms. Ashley resides in Pasadena and is currently a contestant for the Miss California USA title. She does not represent Beverly Hills in any capacity," the city said in a news release issued Wednesday. "The City of Beverly Hills strongly condemns Ms. Ashley's recent statements and has contacted pageant officials to determine ways to formally prevent any beauty contestants claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills in the future."

A representative from the City Council told Pop Tarts that the mayor and the entire council were very upset by Ashley's comments and the council will decide whether or not to take the issue up with the Miss Universe Organization, co-owned by Donald Trump and NBC.

State pageant director Keith Lewis said all applicants are interviewed by a representative from the organization and if successful they can then choose what city they wish to represent in the quest for the Miss California title. But despite the Beverly Hills City Council's desire to have the pageant structure changed, Lewis said, "the incident has no bearing on Miss California USA or the way the pageant will be conducted in the future."

"I would love for the City of Beverly Hills to have their own preliminary pageant to determine a representative," Lewis added. "But until then, this is the way Miss Universe runs it and this is how it is done in other states."

I don't know about you, but the way I see it...a potential, new Fox anchor is born.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath On Repeal

2010-02-24T10:54:00.002-05:00

Maybe I am too close to this story, but I am seething over the latest comments from military 'leaders,' who have been commenting this week on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I am even angrier about advocates in Congress and the press, who don't challenge the blatant abuse of truth that these homophobes, and their political enablers, put forth.

Specifically....this is the type of quote that drives me nuts. From the New York Times:

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years,” General Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”

Let me get to the greater point first...the blatant fallacy. There will be NO impact on readiness and military effectiveness. NONE. There is no need for a study to investigate something that has no grounding in reality.

How can we be so sure that readiness and 'unit cohesion' will not be an issue?

Well, let's see....Great Britain has done it. So has France. And Germany. Even Australia. Israel, too. Nothing happened to troop morale in any of those nations. Are we to believe that American men are just so hypersensitive that they would break out in hives at the thought of showering with their fellow gay soldiers (which they do now, anyway)?

And to that absurd second point about 8-1/2 years of wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are being set up to be endless occupations. As far as I know there is not even a formal declaration of war. What are these people talking about? The "War" on Terror? That Orwellian device is going to keep us in a perpetual state of war and these generals know that.

However, even if we buy that argument, how can we dispute the fact that Israeli soldiers, who should probably be more concerned about the state of their military than anyone, hasn't had any issues. And this from a country where Orthodox Jews are as virulently homophobic as the right wing of any religion?

One would think that this prime falsehood would be easily shot down, right?

So, why the Hell are our advocates in Congress, or reporters themselves not challenging this assertion openly?? As I wrote. It drives me nuts.

And now, it just keeps getting more annoying, because these same military homophobes are now saying that even placing a hold on expulsions, which is now being floated by Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is also unacceptable to them.

Personally, I have had it with America's backwardness on every single social issue. We are so behind other Western nations that it's frightening. We are backwards on health care....global warming....and every single glbt issue.

Sadly, given his track record on gay civil rights matters, I think we have a better chance of seeing Armageddon in 2012, than we do of seeing President Obama stand behind his promises to end this insanity.

BBC Article Takes On Growing, Religious-Based, African Homophobia

2010-02-23T11:54:00.001-05:00

Excellent article at the BBC today over the growing anti-gay climate being spread through much of Africa.

We are sometimes quick to attribute this homophobia to a less-civilized mindset, yet, the BBC story points out that some of the worst offenders have the West to thank:

Homosexuality is illegal in many African countries - particularly Arab North Africa and those with a British colonial past such as Kenya, Uganda and Malawi.

British colonial legislators outlawed "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal".

It is that law which Uganda is now proposing to strengthen, from a 14-year sentence to prison to life.

The article quotes Monica Mbaru (pictured), from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, who attributes the rising anti-gay tide to the role of religion in Africa, and indicates,

...many African leaders and communities remain hostile to gay people because of pressure from religious leaders.

"Our politicians have great respect for religious leaders and are careful not to disagree with them, especially not on homosexuality," she says.

"So they pretend that homosexuals do not exist or that they can be 'cured' and communicate this message to the community."

You can read the full article here.

Stopping Gay Marriage Not A CPAC Priority

2010-02-22T11:33:00.003-05:00

The CPAC convention has produced some interesting results.

While the news media is generally reporting that the biggest news from the convention was that Ron Paul is the CPAC-ers #1 choice for president, the conservative blog Hot Air has an even more interesting tidbit.

Apparently stopping gay marriage is not a top priority. In fact, it is right there at the bottom, along with not wanting to reduce health care costs (there is a bizarre correlation in that, somewhere, I'm sure).

Click on the above picture for a larger (and clearer) view.

Thanks to Joe. My. God. for highlighting this.

Ugandan Anti-Gay Pastor Showing Gay Porn In Church

2010-02-18T20:51:00.006-05:00

Uganda has officially entered the "Twilight Zone."

According to the BBC, Ugandan Pastor Martin Ssempa, one of the leading proponents of that nation's proposed new anti-gay legislation, has shown gay pornography in his church to bolster his case.

Seriously. You can't make this stuff up. We are talking about the showing of gay porn to families. C'mon, this is positively surreal.

Then there is this, from the USA Today blog:

Pastor Martin Ssempa defends his screening of the porn to 300 church members Wednesday night by telling the BBC, "We have to educate ourselves about what homosexuals do.

I guess there weren't any copies of "Will & Grace" available. Or "Brokeback Mountain," for that matter.

The BBC site added this gem from Ssempa, "In Africa, what you do in your bedroom affects our clan, it affects our tribe, it affects our nation."

He neglected to add how gay Ugandans are now getting screwed by their countrymen.

Fortunately, this has woken up others to just how unfathomably daft these religious loons have become.

Monica Mbaru, from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, apparently made the following comment to the BBC, "I think we are dealing with someone who needs medical help,"

Well.....yes. It would seem that way.

As the BBC reports:

Noma Pakade, from the African gay rights group Behind the Mask, accused the pastor of perpetuating violence by his anti-gay campaign.

"Showing pornography in church in the presence of minors is twisted homophobic propaganda, where homosexuality is equated to paedophilia and pornography," she told the BBC.

Maybe Tim Burton should do a documentary on this. It would be the perfect follow-up to his upcoming "Alice In Wonderland."

The Advocate Raises Questions About HRC

2010-02-16T23:05:00.002-05:00

The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld (pictured) has just put out an online video that directly questions the relevance and effectiveness of HRC, and President Joe Solmonese, in particular.

The article is titled, "What Happened to 'Yes We Can?'" and makes clear that gay activists want to know of Solmonese "what gives?"

While I have not written extensively about HRC in this blog, I have been on record, at blog sites such as AmericaBlog and firedoglake, as being highly critical of Solmonese. After becoming friendly with a woman in my bowling league, who is both extremely passionate about glbt advocacy and very involved with HRC on a local level, I am now very careful to not smear the entire organization because of my dissatisfaction with some.

As a glbt activist in my own rite I know how easy it is for us to cannibalize our own over policy differences. I also know that there are many advocates and pundits in the community, on both sides of this debate, that are enamored with their own sense of importance and relevance. It seems to go with the territory. And it is why I prefer to take things case-by-case.

The HRC's 2 prime detractors in this piece are a man I greatly admire, Act-Up founder Larry Kramer, along with AmericaBlog's John Aravosis. Kramer is especially harsh and blunt. When you get to the article (which I will link to below) you can see from what Kramer says about Solmonese, in the comments section, that there is no love-fest going on.

I initially got motivated to going back to my glbt activism, and away from my progressive blogging (where I foolhardishly blogged very successfully on Barack Obama's behalf during the campaign, under the pseudonym 'scootmandubious'), by reading some of Aravosis's posts about the glbt community's total disconnect with Obama.

I thought I was going a little crazy in my fairly rapid disillusionment with the man that I worked, in my own small way, to help elect. I was glad to read that others shared my views. I had a brief correspondence with Mr. Aravosis a decade ago, from the days of my glbt newfeeds, which I used to send to subscribers via e-mail, so I was pleased to see how far he had come with his AmericaBlog. He has always been good at positioning and defining himself and his politics. I tend to agree with John on many issues, though not all.

Meanwhile, I had always been very suspicious of glbt advocacy groups. Actually, outside of Rev. Mel White's Soulforce, the SLDN and NGLTF, I am not particularly impressed with any of the others, for various reasons.

It was understandable, when the GOP ran things, that we would have a hard time scoring legislative victories. So, even though I had been critical of the HRC's efforts, I understood the reality of the result.

The inaction under Obama is inexcusable to me. Just as it was inexcusable under Bill Clinton...the man who gave us DADT and DOMA.

I will leave it at that for now, but watch the video. Where is the anger on Joe Solmonese's face? Where is the outrage? This is a point Mr. Kramer makes and he makes it elffectively. Solmonese actually looks bored. Aravosis is a bit more diplomatic, but raises valid points.

It is not a hatchet job, since Eleveld gives Solmonese more than enough time to defend himself.

Reading the Advocate's comments section, it is clear that the HRC has work cut out for itself. The commenters are extremely critical of Solmonese.

Is it fair criticism? Watch the video and decide for yourself? Personally, I think it is.

You can access the piece here.

Michael Douglas And Matt Damon Are Lovers

2010-02-16T00:14:00.001-05:00

Don't you just love titillating headlines?

Actually, this headline is correct if I add....in the new upcoming Liberace bio-pic.

Yes, Douglas and Damon are set to co-star in the film version of Liberace's life story. I am hardly thrilled.

Look, I know that a film like this would probably never get made if it didn't have star power, but what straight men are gonna be flocking to a movie about Liberace (pictured above, decked out in his trademarked slaughtered animals) to begin with?

Remember the scene in "Longtime Companion," when one of the principles described portraying a gay actor on screen as the career kiss of death? He was obviously referring to what happened to the stars of the soaper "Making Love."

Well, times have changed.

With Sean Penn nabbing an Oscar for playing Harvey Milk and Philip Seymour Hoffman getting his for playing Truman Capote, gay roles are now considered de rigueur for serious straight actors seeking major awards. Heath Ledger should have probably won for "Brokeback Mountain."

With all the gay actors out there (no comment on anybody else who appeared in "Brokeback Mountain"), one would think that maybe one of them would have better insight into what made Liberace tick, no?

It is hard to imagine that homophobic Hollywood would ever cast an openly gay man in a straight, romantic leading role, although closet cases often get the parts, which is what makes this hypocrisy so annoying.

However, if you want to read more about the upcoming Stephen Soderbergh-helmed flick, skedded for a 2012 opening, go here.

Happy Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T09:51:00.005-05:00

I saw this at firedoglake today and had forgotten just how much I absolutely love this scene from "Lady and the Tramp." It is one of my 2 favorite romantic moments from animated films.

So, I thought maybe I should post the other one too.

I will close my Valentine trilogy with one of the best gay love songs you will ever hear.

To show you just what a mush I am....and how utterly off-the-wall ....here is my other all-time romantic, animated movie favorite. I actually get misty each time I watch this. No joke.

It's the final scene from "The Nightmare Before Christmas."

Enjoy!

I wanted to include one last Valentine's Day video. I do hope to get married someday (of course, the challenge is finding that special person to marry!) and, if I were to think of one song that I would want as a wedding song, I'd have to select the following, which gives me the same chills now, as when I first heard it.

It is "What More Can I Say," from my all-time favorite musical, "Falsettos," and is sung, in this version, by the same actor who did it on Broadway, and who also performs it on the cast recording, Michael Rupert.

This version was found at You Tube and was from a performance that Rupert did in Los Angeles in 1994, with his original co-star Stephen Bogardus. It doesn't get sweeter than this, though how his partner still sleeps at the end is beyond me! ;-)

Accuracy In Media's Kincaid Endorses Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' Bill

2010-02-11T13:18:00.004-05:00

I have blogged in the past about the proposed new legislation in Uganda that would, among other things, execute gays for engaging in sexual behavior and incarcerate citizens, including reporters, for not reporting on those one knows to be gay. This, in a country where it is already a crime to engage in same-sex activity.

While some in America have chosen to be vocal about this obscene bill, others are actually demonstrating their utter lack of a moral compass by being apologists for the Ugandans and excusing it. And then there are the most repugnant of all....

Now, a pundit for a right-wing media watcher, the erroneously-named Accuracy in Media, actually endorsed the Ugandan bill, portraying the Ugandan government as the victims.

Last week, Cliff Kincaid wrote a column titled, "Uganda Confronts 'Loud-mouthed Homosexual Lobby.'" In it, Kincaid blames the bad press on alleged "homosexual activists," such as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Capeheart of the Washington Post, and writes:

Uganda not only suffered under the murderous dictator Idi Amin, but revolted against a homosexual pedophile King Mwanga in the 1800s, a period in the country's history that is not well-known. The result was the establishment of National Martyr's Day on June 3 in honor of the Christians tortured and killed by Mwanga.

Showing disdain for Uganda's sovereign right to chart its own course in domestic and foreign affairs, the "gay rights" lobby has mounted an aggressive strategy to undermine the government of Uganda and threaten the cut-off of foreign aid if the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda is passed. All of this may have something to do with the fact, as AIM has disclosed, that billionaire George Soros, a major financial backer of the Democratic Party and the "gay rights" movement, has been funding efforts to promote homosexuality and legalized prostitution in Uganda and throughout Africa. The Open Society Institute of Soros calls these activities "the rights of sexual minorities" and "sex work."

This entirely perverse article concludes with quotes from Charles Tuhaise, the CEO of a Ugandan Christian organization. Christian CEO? In other words, one who makes his living off of religious ignorance and bigotry.

Tuhaise told AIM that Uganda needed the support of conservatives from the U.S. but that there is an obvious problem in America itself. He explained, "We sometimes wonder why Americans are not rising up to stop many shocking things happening there, like the predators who are luring children into dangerous sex rings and destroying their lives...In Africa we think of the welfare of the community and we care what is going on in the neighborhood, because whoever takes over your neighborhood has got your kid, too."

In case the subtlety has evaded anyone, Kincaid suggests that killing gays is a good thing because, as Kincaid keeps hammering home, homosexuality supposedly equals pedophilia. His last paragraph suggests it would be a good thing for America to have similar antipgay laws.

The article made my blood boil, so I was relieved to see Media Matters for America rip Kincaid a new one.

On Tuesday, Terry Krepel cited the AIM column, writing:

In fact, one of the offenses of "aggravated homosexuality" that would warrant a death penalty in the bill is being a "serial offender," which the bill defines as "a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences." In other words, if you were convicted of previous homosexual behavior -- or even one of the "related offences" such as "failure to disclose" homosexual acts or "conspiracy to engage in homosexuality" -- and were convicted of it again, you could be put to death.

While there has been much discussion of amending the bill, it has not yet been amended. So as the bill currently stands, despite Kincaid's insistence, mere homosexual behavior is a capital offense under the bill, meaning that it will, in fact, "kill the gays."

There are other things Kincaid doesn't mention -- for instance, the fact that the bill applies to Ugandans not living in the country. He's also quiet about another inconvenient fact: In Uganda, HIV has historically been spread mostly through heterosexual or mother-to-child contact.

It seems that, when it comes to his own writing, Kincaid doesn't believe in fulfilling the promise of his employer's name.

You can read the entire Media Matters piece here.

I would like to thank Mr. Kincaid, for saving me the trouble of finding the link to the Ugandan Embassy.

If you would like to express yourself to the Ugandan Ambassador click here.

Brendan Burke Killed In Auto Accident

2010-02-10T17:14:00.004-05:00

After reading an ESPN story this past November on how Brendan Burke was helping to combat homophobia in sports, I posted on my blog about him.

I was impressed how the then 20 year-old, openly gay son of a legendary NHL executive, was breaking down barriers. John Buccigross had just written a piece on how the Miami University student was serving as student manager of his university's ice hockey team and opening a dialogue about gays in the world of sports.

Yes, he wasn't a player, but he was the son of hockey royalty and his openness and candidness about his sexual orientation are a big deal in a country that still doesn't allow gays to serve openly in the military, for fear of such inane things as community showers.

Burke was viewed with nothing but respect by the Miami players. That there was a need to even feature a story like this at our nation's most pre-eminent sports website was revealing.

Sadly, Burke was killed in an automobile accident in Indiana on Friday. He was 21. His burial was yesterday.

Buccigross has written an equally eloquent piece about Burke's passing. He ended his tribute by speculating about all the things Burke could have accomplished over his next 21 years:

I would have hoped he would have become a teacher and coach at some point; lighting people up with his glow would have been best utilized on the young. He would have indelibly inspired, shaped and motivated kids with his energetic words and actions, and led with a kindly light amid the encircling doom of adolescence and young adulthood.

Burkie would have been the all-time favorite teacher of hundreds of students. He would have written books, spoken at conventions, probably run for local or state office, started a blog, been a guest on television and radio, and probably become well known for many things. But teaching would have been his core strength because his strength was his quest for intimacy. His light was a spotlight ... on you.

And so gently grasping his right arm at the wake and hoping for one beam of light, it dawned on me. Yes, Brendan was a star, but he blazed because he found a little gleam in each of us. If his memory enlightens anything in us, it is this: CONFIDENCE.

A terrible loss for the Burke/Gilmore family and Brendan's friends? Unspeakably and unquestionably. But thank goodness they got the first 21 years, the 21 years friends and families treasure most because the team is almost always together and at its most intimate.

But Brendan Gilmore Burke's death is an even bigger loss for the people in the future who would have known and experienced him just once or on a daily basis. I feel the loss the most for these unknown faces. Because during the next 21 years, they will never see the light.

Read the full tribute here.

Once again, I would like to recommend sending Mr. Buccigross a thank you for helping to make the late Brendan Burke's life even more meaningful, and letting the world know about the man he was. You can e-mail him at john.buccigross@espn.com

Anne Hathaway Ditched Catholicism For Gay Brother

2010-02-10T12:18:00.004-05:00

If her turn as Jake Gyllenhall's disinterested wife in Brokeback Mountain didn't make her a heroine in the glbt community, some new revelations about her family will.

According to an interview in the British GQ, Hathaway, and her family, left the Catholic Church because of her brother's homosexuality.

The full transcript from the interview is not online, though it is being excerpted elsewhere.

From New York magazine:

Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay.

"The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out," she tells the magazine. "Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?"

As the article mentioned, Episcolpalianism didn't exactly work out for her either, but apparently, that wasn't the result of institutionalized homophobia, which the Catholic Church is the embodiment of.

Iowa GOP Rebuffed In Attempts To Roll Back Gay Marriage

2010-02-10T12:00:00.006-05:00

Iowa Republicans failed yesterday to start a process of banning gay marriage through a state constitutional amendment. This means it will be at least 4 years before it could come up for a vote in the state.

According to an AP story, found at the Chicago Tribune,

The Republican lawmakers tried procedural moves to pull measures out of committees and force a vote, but they couldn't get enough votes in either the House or Senate.

"There are a lot of folks out there who say they support traditional marriage," said House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, "This is an opportunity to back that up."

Once again, the frauds that inhabit the GOP set up a false argument. Allowing gay couples to marry has nothing to do with the 'support' of traditional marriage.

Democrats control both chambers in Iowa. As opposed to allegedly progressive states like New York and New Jersey, Democrats in the Hawkeye State actually are in sync on pro-glbt issues. In fact, the only House Democrat to side with the Republicans was Rep. Dolores Mertz of Ottosen. That should be remembered when it comes to re-election time.

In case there is any doubt, as bad as the Democrats have been, the GOP absolutely disdains gays and is intent on using gay-friendliness as a reason to vote against a candidate in 2010. It is a strategy that they proclaim proudly. Note the following laughable excerpt from the Tribune report:

Some Republicans said they'll now focus on using the Democrats' vote against them in November elections.

"While our bipartisan effort fell short of gaining the 26 votes needed to proceed, the voters this November will have an opportunity to decide if they are content with the continued Democratic obstruction and inaction," said Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton.

Is there an Alice in Wonderland quality to all this empty rhetoric? It sure would seem so.

The GOP has been successful in defeating gay marriage at the polls, with help from some key Democratic constituencies. Will they succeed in doing the same in Iowa? Not likely.

From Box Turtle Bulletin:

Last year (Republicans) made several attempts at getting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment up for a legislative vote and were unsuccessful. They chortled that Democrats would be sorry come election time.

But as it has turned out, running opposed to gay marriage has not proven to be a winning strategy. To their surprise, Iowans couldn’t care less about stopping gay folk from marrying. Literally.

The Des Moines Register conducted a poll of Iowans asking, “The state Legislature can address large and small issues during the course of the session. For the following issues, please tell me if you think the issue does or does not deserve the Legislature’s limited time.” Banning gay marriage did not make the cut; only 36% thought it was worth the time discussing.

Not only was it not deemed worthy of legislative time, of the six issues that Iowans were questioned about, addressing gay marriage concerned them the least. Iowans were more concerned about payday loans and puppy mills than they were about whether same-sex couples married.

It looks like the red meat that the GOP thought they had for their fanatical right-wing base is in short supply.

News Coverage On DADT Starts Improving

2010-02-07T12:25:00.003-05:00

While there are still major problems with reporting on "don't ask, don't tell," as I have referred to in recent posts, I am seeing more and more improved coverage. Not just in news reportage on the subject, but in recent editorials and op-eds.

Here is a sampling of some recent pieces.

Ken Adelman, former Reagan arms control director writes that there is one essential reason for lifting the ban, in today's Washington Post,

The British, Australian and Israeli militaries all now have solid experience with open gays in uniform. Their forces don't suffer in performance; the gay service members there don't seem to upset the straight members much. And U.S. forces, though far greater in numbers, don't differ culturally or functionally too much from their colleagues in these militaries.

Exactly! It is what I have been writing all along. If the chief argument is fear of destroying unit cohesion, why has this never happened in the military of our allies, who allow gays to openly serve? There is no good answer to counter this.

The Christian Science Monitor references that piece, and adds another point I have been stressing:

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a 2008 Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993. That included majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats and independents.

That article, by the way, talks about the inevitability of repealing DADT, but suggests that it won't happen soon, because the GOP is trying to score points with social conservatives. Sadly, that may be accurate.

Some Op-Eds and editorials to check out, include the following (click on the links provided):
Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune
Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial
San Jose Mercury-News editorial

The above sources are just a few of the many pieces that can be found, offering support for the lifting of the disciminatory ban. I expect many similar pieces to be published in the coming weeks.

It's about time.

Progress On Ending 'Dont Ask, Don't Tell'

2010-02-03T19:34:00.002-05:00

Some sanity seems to be returning to the proposition of repealing "don't ask, don't tell."

In a major move in the right direction, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen (pictured above), told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the ban on gays should be lifted.

The Wall Street Journal, reporting on the story, said that Adm. Mullen felt that the policy "could be eliminated without harming military morale, recruitment or readiness."

Considering that this has been the experience of all of our Western allies, that is a logical assumption.

Adm. Mullen went further, echoing President Obama:

"It is my personal and professional belief that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Ding-ding-ding.....someone in the military upper echelon actually gets it.

While the WSJ story does not mention our allies, it does refer to the fact that a poll last year showed that nearly 70% of Americans supported lifting the ban.

Of course, the GOP, because it is politically opportune for them to do, unanimously are seeking to demonize gays, pretending that the policy is actually correct. This effort is most examplified by John McCain....a man who still thinks that we live in the 60s, when gays were subect to shame and incarceration....when gay men in a CBS documentary had to be filmed in darkness, so that their identities could not be revealed. That is the world McCain inhabits.

Now that his wife and daughter have become gay advocates, McCain feels the need to beef up his social conservative cred, as he is being challenged by the even righter-wing in his own re-election bid.

What DADT reporting SHOULD look like

An article I found today, from Canada's CBC, summarizes the type of reporting that is seriously missing in this country:

The point is, the U.S. remains just about the only Western nation that still officially denies what most of its allies consider a basic human right: The ability to serve as a gay or lesbian soldier

Not that gays and lesbians don't serve. Tens of thousands do, and unknown numbers are fighting and dying in the aforementioned battlegrounds right now.

Let's be clear about this: Homosexual Americans are risking life and limb in the service of their country and their comrades, and no doubt have been since the United States declared independence.

Then comes this zinger:

But this is America, with its deep moralistic streak, so the policy, at least since Bill Clinton instituted it in 1993, has been to pretend gay soldiers don't exist.

The military doesn't ask, and as long as gay troopers don't admit to anything, everything's jake. Unless some third party rats one of them out.

In that case, regrettably, the offending GI must be discharged. Thousands have been: We honour your service, faggot. Now take a hike.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, gave voice to that double standard at a congressional hearing this week.

Just after going on about the "valiant" service of gay soldiers, Chambliss opined that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk" to the high standards of the American military.

Nothing remarkable there. It's an old Republican line.

The piece then went on to refer to the suprise of Mullen's remarks, but you get the complete different approach in coverage.

I want every Republican who opposes this policy to be asked if there are ANY reports of a negative effect of allowing gays to openly serve in the military of our allies. I want them to justify booting more than 10,000 fit soldiers in time of war, when our resources are stretched thin,

It's time for American journalists to grow a pair.

Bogus ManCrunch Super Bowl Ad Deserves Rejection

2010-01-31T15:51:00.004-05:00

Talk about your obnoxious gimmicks.

ManCrunch.com is whining because they are upset that CBS rejected their request to run the above ad during the Super Bowl.

ManCrunch is apparently not even gay-owned. It appears that the owners run a bunch of niche-dating sites like cougarlife.com.

Either way, I find this depiction of gay men to be obnoxious beyond belief. And then, to show an African-American man staring dumb-founded at 2 allegedly gay sports watchers, who suddenly go at it with each other on the couch because their hands touch?

No gay-friendly sponsor would ever put out crap like this.

What ManCrunch did, in their supposed plea to get gays outraged at CBS, is reap a lot of free publicity for themselves. That was their plan. Not positively representing the gay community.

I am glad that CBS rejected this ad.

I wish they had rejected the Tim Tebow ad for Focus On The Family, but that is another story.

This ad is an embarrassment and should cause potential ManCrunch customers to question whether the owners of the site are just using gays to fatten their wallets, as opposed to really hoping to get people connected.

Queerty has a very comprehensive piece on this as well and makes an excellent case for CBS rejecting it. You can read their analysis here.

The Problem With Media Coverage Of DADT

2010-01-30T18:55:00.002-05:00

If the media took the time to properly cover America's flawed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, the bigots (like John McCain) who say it's working just fine would be exposed for the homophobes they are.

Unfortunately, we get articles like today's useless piece from the AP. Sadly, this is the version that will make it into countless papers.

Rather than reprint the entire article (you can link to it here), let me just explain what makes the reporting so offensive.

First, the global model.

I have written about this in the past, but most Americans have no idea that the U.S., along with Turkey, are the ONLY 2 NATO countries that do not allow gays to openly serve. If outlets that reported on lifting the ban as controversial actually took the time to report that simple fact, it would make a huge difference.

Reading from the AP story:

"Lifting the ban poses some emotional questions that go to the heart of the military's command structure and the trust relationships within military units. Among them: Will U.S. troops and leaders tolerate openly gay members in their midst? And if they don't, what should the Pentagon do about it?

That question becomes absurd if the article noted that in all the other countries where gays serve openly (like Israel, for example), gays were readily accepted without any negative results.

Is someone suggesting that American men are too fragile to deal with this, unlike the military of our allies? It would seem so.

Now consider this nugget:

While his promise is being hailed as a good start by gay rights' activists, Obama is finding resistance in several corners. Some high-ranking military officers are reluctant to embrace the change while the forces are stretched thin at a time of two wars.

America has booted a number of gay arabic translators at a time when there were precious few of these specialists to begin with. Did this not compromise our troops in time of war?

And, if over 10,000 gays have already been booted (as the article acknowledges) and many more won't enlist because of the insult of DADT, wouldn't it make sense to end this discriminatory policy BECAUSE we are stretched thin and do not have the manpower we need to occupy 2 countries?

The policy, as it currently stands, dehumanizes gays and asks us to lie, if we want to serve our country.

Finally, nowhere does this article state that polling shows the repeal of DADT to have majority support from all quarters, including conservatives. If it did take the time to report this fact, it would defeat the agenda of the reporter, who has a desire to make the move to repeal seem daring and controversial.

It would be nice if reporters were a bit more honest covering the story, rather than propping up phony arguments and leaving out important facts.

Don't Ask Don't Tell...The Deal On Repeal

2010-01-29T14:55:00.006-05:00

(note: I had fully intended to do more blogging while I was in California...unfortunately, life got in the way!)

As angry as I have been with President Obama's total inaction on glbt issues, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the language he used in his State of the Union address, when he said, "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."

I did not expect Obama to include these words in his SOTU and he offered a specific timeline, "this year." I am slightly more hopeful that the repeal may actually happen.

Here's why.

First, it is a bit of a no-brainer.

The chief argument against allowing gays to serve openly in the military is that it would destroy unit cohesion.

At the time this argument was raised, in the mid-90s, there was not much empirical evidence that we could call up to absolutely refute it. But times have radically changed. As of today, the only other NATO nation that does not allow gays to serve openly is Turkey! Gays serve alongside straight soldiers in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Israel and many other nations. And the sky has not fallen.

The argument about the proposed detriment to the military has been proven to be a fallacy.

Additionally, in polling, even among Conservatives, a solid majority supports an end to the ban. So, Obama is hardly ahead of the curve in asking for DADT's repeal.

Second, the loss in Massachusetts, where 22% of Democrats voted for the Republican, made it clear that Obama is in trouble with his party's base.

As long as Rahm Emanuel is Chief-of-Staff, the Obama administration will never be friendly on glbt issues. The promises Obama made in 2008 were merely to grab an influx of gay dollars and campaign footsoldiers, and get himself elected.

Everything Obama has done, to this point, makes it very clear that he has no intention of getting behind gay marriage, which will insure that we will maintain 2nd-class citizenship status.

Repealing DADT, which has majority support, would be relatively risk-free, and would allow him to still make a pitch for glbt dollars and support in the mid-terms and beyond. And yet, how many times have we heard Obama make empty promises and not deliver? It would be easier to count the solitary number of times he actually kept his word.

Though it was buried at the end of the SOTU, the fact that he gave a timeline made me feel that it was a legitimate pledge.

Not so fast

However, looking at reaction in the past few days, it appears that maybe Obama's pledge was just another empty promise.

Consider:

1) As the Joe. My. God. blog pointed out...a bad sign was sent when the military Joint Chiefs of Staff (pictured above) stood stoically, not applauding, as the president delivered that line, which drew general applause from others.

2) Yesterday, on MSNBC's Hardball, WaPo's Eugene Robinson said that he had information from a WHite House source that the repeal would not be undertaken this year. From AmericaBlog:

Robinson and NBC White House Correspondent Savannah Guthrie were talking about the President's commitment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell with Chris Matthews. As to whether or not it's really going to happen, Guthrie said: "The proof will be in the pudding. Is this something they try to move forward with with all deliberate speed. Are they going to slow walk it? So, I think in the coming days and weeks we'll know how serious they are about it." That's exactly right. We'll know soon.
Then, Robinson added, "What I heard this morning from somebody at the White House was probably not this year. But, maybe we would be hearing from military brass at some point."

3) Finally, an article in today's NY Times, says the repeal is "not imminent." Observe this gem:

Officials said they were pressing ahead with one of the more controversial items Mr. Obama laid out Wednesday night: repealing the policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

Senior Pentagon officials said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had been in close discussions with Mr. Obama on the issue and would present the Pentagon’s initial plans for carrying out the new policy at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

Changing the policy requires an act of Congress, and the officials signaled that Mr. Gates would go slowly, and that repeal of the ban was not imminent. And it could be a hard sell for the president, even among Democrats; Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, on Thursday restated his opposition to repealing the ban.

To that, I would like to ask, what would make a proposal with majority support, a policy enacted by virtually all of our allies, "controversial?"

It is just a further indication of how seriously out-of-touch America is on social issues. When it comes to policy matters affecting gays, America is closer to Arab and African nations, than it is to Western countries.

Obama is now on record as working to repeal DADT this year. Let's see if this will be the latest promise to not be followed with true advocacy and, ultimately, become another promise broken.

Because of the president's past track record, I will believe what he says only when I see it followed up with action.

The Prop 8 Trial

2010-01-19T16:32:00.003-05:00

As I wrote in my last entry, I am currently in California (and will most likely be heading here to live in a few months). I was not able to blog as much as I wanted to during the week I have been here, but I should have a much easier time getting posts in this week.

Rather than play catch-up on the Prop 8 federal trial, currently underway here, I will just pick it up from the most recent developments.

Before I get to that, I do want to send a note of alarm. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against allowing cameras in the courtroom was a very bad sign. By a 5-4 vote, justices bought into the argument from the right-wing, that they risked harassment if the trial was televised. It could very well be this same majority that further codifies anti-gay discrimination in America. There is a reason to be very concerned. For more on this element of the story, click here.

This week has, so far, featured testimony from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who for the past couple of years has favored gay marriage over civil unions. This represented a change of policy for Republican Sanders. He indicated that the impetus behind the change was the fact that his lesbian daughter had to go to Vermont to wed, noting “My daughter deserves the same opportunity to be married in front of friends family and coworkers."

Additionally, according to the San Jose Mercury News,

Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts professor, and plaintiffs expert, has outlined four conclusions she's reached on Proposition 8's impact in California, including a "substantial economic harm" to same-sex couples denied the right to marry, as well as damage to California's overall economy. She also will testify on research that there is scant demographic difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples, and no evidence same-sex marriage harms children.

Live Blogging The Prop 8 Trial

There are 2 excellent sites to check out, if you want to follow this trial live.

My favorite progressive blog site is Jane Hamsher's excellent Firedog Lake. Access their live blog on the trial here.

The San Jose Mercury News is also live blogging the trial here.

Uganda Appears To Be Backing Off Of Anti-Gay Legislation

2010-01-13T22:48:00.003-05:00

The president of Uganda is now giving indications that issuing new punitive measures against Ugandan gays might seriously damage that nation's foreign relations, There had been earlier reports that Uganda was preparing to back off of their demands for the execution of gays, under certain circumstances.

As I have pointed out in this blog, and has also been addressed by other outlets, merely switching the penalty to life imprisonment (with rehabilitation) is not an option. Additionally, incarcerating Ugandans for not reporting fellow countrymen they know to be gay is unacceptable.

The Guardian quotes president Yoweri Museveni (pictured above) as saying that the anti-gay legislation has now become a

"foreign policy issue."

"When I was at the Commonwealth conference, what was [the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper] talking about? The gays. UK prime minister Gordon Brown ... what was he talking about? The gays," said Museveni.

America is apparently entering the fray finally, following the lead of Europe:

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, had also called him to express strong concerns about the proposed law, he said. "It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests."

Yeah, some principles.

As, The Guardian reported, American right-wingers have much to answer for:

The final impetus for the proposed legislation came after a conference hosted last year by three controversial US evangelists who claimed that homosexuality was a curable habit and warned of the danger of the international gay "agenda". The evangelists have since, however, criticised the severity of the punishments in the proposed law.

Criticised the severity of the anti-gay legislation? As if any punitive measures would be okay?

I guess the fact that Uganda already crimializes homosexuality isn't good enough.

Access the full story here.

(note: I am in the L.A. area for the next couple of weeks, but I will be reachable via e-mail. I will be able to continue to blog from here.)

NY Post & NY Daily News Make Gays Irrelevant

2010-01-08T11:59:00.008-05:00

2 New York tabloids demonstrated this morning why it is so easy for Democratic politicians to not take the issue of gay civil rights more seriously.

Back in the early 90s, when I first came out and began my glbt newsfeeds, I focused on the way that newspapers covered glbt issues. I did this, recognizing that what people read each day in their local paper went a long way towards shaping their perceptions on glbt issues. The same holds true today.

One of the main reasons that attitudes towards gays have been gradually improving and evolving over the years is that there is generally far fairer coverage than there was 20, 30 and 40 years ago. Look back at pre-Stonewall coverage and one can see how far we have come.

Yet, we still have a long way to go.

New York City employs 10s of thousands of New Jerseyites, who make a daily commute in, before trekking back to the Garden State. Many of these workers are gay. There is a reason that New Jersey stories merit extensive coverage in the 2 big city tabloids.

Yesterday, there was a highly significant vote in the New Jersey Senate that effectively confirmed the 2nd-class status of New Jersey's gay citizens, as gay marriage got defeated 20-14 in the state Senate.

Here is how both local papers covered it:

Both the Daily News and NY Post used a very abbreviated Associated Press story (no local reporters) and each relegated the story to the shortest space possible.

In the Post, the story was buried on page 11. Ironically it was about 1/10 the size of a feature on Ellen Barkin's busted heterosexual marriage, which was above it. Actually, Barkin's picture was 5 times larger than the gay marriage piece.

Flirting with disaster

The Daily News (pictured above) was slightly better, in one way, and far worse, in another. At least they put the story on page 3, which showed some sense of the vote's importance.

What made the coverage so offensive? The Daily News headline: "N.J. ends its flirtation with gay marriage bill."

Ends its 'flirtation?'

This is a civil rights issue, but the headline writer at the Daily News makes a mockery of this with a lead-in like that.

If we want to be taken seriously, we need to make sure that the news outlets that cover issues vital to us do the same.

No Jersey

2010-01-07T20:38:00.002-05:00

It has been a year into President Obama's neighborhood and we are running backwards on progressive issues and, especially, on glbt issues.

Gay marriage was defeated in the New Jersey Senate 20-14, with 5 brave Senators choosing not to vote.

Please note that 6 Democrats voted against gay marriage and 3 did not vote. They are our enemies. 2 Republicans voted in favor of gay marriage. There is a reason I am no longer voting the party line and am now an Independent.

Here is a link to the roll call vote.

There is now going to be a Republican Governor, who has vowed to veto any gay marriage legislation that would come before him. We cannot get a simple majority, even when Democrats are in power...so how can we expect to override a veto?

The focus is now turning to the courts.

There needs to be some serious strategizing and planning going on. Now.

For more coverage on the story, select from among the following:

The New York Times
The Newark Star-Ledger
Reuters
NBC New York

Most Absurd Gay Comparison...Ever

2010-01-07T13:14:00.004-05:00

I was reading an article in the Ugandan daily, The Monitor, this morning. The article, titled "Foreign press hits Uganda over gays," was a fairly straightforward account of international condemnation of Uganda's proposed new anti-gay legislation. The piece referred to the NY Times editorial condemning Uganda, as well as the governmental response, dismissing the critics.

However, what really caught my eye was the only comment that was printed (as of this post, at any rate). It contains the most outrageous gay comparison I have seen, thus far. From a reader named Pembe01:

I am willing to take a pay cut to accommodate the foreign aid we may lose.Someone please remind the West that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other allies of theirs reject homosexuality. Do they hold Uganda to a higher moral standard? If homosexuality is a right, why not cannibalism. I should be able to decide what I eat, right?

Gays are being equated with cannibals?

Well, if we are talking about glbt politics in America I can understand the comparison.

But seriously, this country suffered Idi Amin...and they still have a multitude of citizens, like this poster, who just do not understand the concept of treating others with simple human decency.

Washington Post Editorial Rips Uganda

2010-01-06T21:04:00.005-05:00

The Washington Post, in an editorial to be published on Thursday, slammed Uganda for its proposed anti-gay legislation.

As I have been reporting on, in this blog, even if Uganda were to eliminate the death penalty option, as an alleged concession to Western complaints, the bill would still be horrific and unacceptable. Thankfully, The Washington Post gets it:

If it is approved, the gay people of that nation would be subject to life in prison. This retreat from the death sentence originally proposed should neither be celebrated nor considered a concession by the government in response to pressure from the United States and other nations. The proposal is barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations.

Exactly.

The editorial correctly adds:

The law would apply to citizens or permanent residents of Uganda, and would cover behavior both in and outside that country. The measure would turn neighbor against neighbor by requiring those with knowledge of a gay person to report them to police within 24 hours or risk three years in prison. A seven-year jail term awaits the Ugandan who "aids, abets, [or] counsels" homosexuals. And anyone convicted of "aggravated homosexuality," which could mean someone who is HIV-positive and is intimate with another person of the same sex, could "suffer death."

I suppose it wouldn't even matter if the hiv-positive person was practicing safe sex.

If this legislation passes, civilized nations need to respond with sanctions. We allow such barbaric behavior to go unpunished, to our shame.

The Washington Post seems to agree.

New Jersey May Sked Vote This Week Legalizing Gay Marriage

2010-01-05T19:23:00.004-05:00

(signs from a pro-gay marriage rally in Trenton from November 23, 2009)

Even though we apparently do not have the votes in the New Jersey Senate to pass gay marriage, it's been announced that it will be put up for a vote this week.

The effort is a last-ditch attempt to pass gay marriage before the Governor-elect takes the reins on January 19th. Incoming GOP Governor Chris Christie has indicated that he would veto any gay marriage legislation that came to his desk, so a simple majority would not cut it in future votes.

The results do not look encouraging, as Reuters reports:

The outcome is uncertain, but local media reported on Tuesday that backers of the bill do not have the 21 votes necessary to win Senate passage.

Christie's victory in November has made some lawmakers wary of supporting the controversial measure, and little time remains to convince legislators whose votes are unknown or undecided, observers say.

If the bill fails in the Senate, the proposal could lie dormant for several years.

The reason for bringing up the bill now? According to Senate president Richard Codey,

"Given the intensely personal nature of this issue, I think the people of this state deserve the right to a formal debate on the Senate floor."

Personally, I am all for a vote. Given that it would be nigh impossible to pass this during Christie's tenure, why not find out who our supporters are and who our enemies are?

Just like in New York, those Democrats who choose to vote against gay marriage can look forward to aggressive primary challenges and lack of financial, and other, support from gay constituents and our allies.

BBC Puts Execution Of Gays Up For Discussion

2010-01-03T13:49:00.004-05:00

While reading a story out of Kenya today, on the proposed anti-gay Ugandan legislation, I came across something disturbing that happened a couple of weeks back.

As the East African reported on a House of Commons debate, which termed the proposed bill "abhorrent," the article noted,

The debate followed sustained criticism for the BBC, which posted a comments section on its website asking whether homosexuals should be killed.

The Bill proposes the death penalty for any HIV positive person who takes part in a homosexual act, and life imprisonment for anyone convicted of the “offence” of homosexuality.

More than 600 people posted their views. While some agreed that gay men and women should be killed, others were appalled that the debate was being conducted online, terming it as “disgusting”.

Yes, 'disgusting' fits.

I went to that BBC site, where the dialogue is now closed, and learned that, of 633 comments, 188 were published and 207 were rejected. I assume the remaining 238 were consigned to some sort of BBC purgatory.

You will be happy to learn that most people, at least among the entries published, did not favor our demise.

The most 'recommended' response, from 'Robert, UK,' had this to say:

Isn't it strange that the Ugandan parliament doesn't suggest the death sentence for corruption? Political corruption in Ugandan causes far more misery than gay men.

And I wonder how many of those politicians secretly have homosexual feelings?

This is obscene, hypocritical, prejudiced nonsense. It is something from the Dark Ages.

Other popular posts condemned those who suggested that, while they did not like the proposed law, Brits should stay out of Uganda's affairs. That prompted this popular reply:

I'm pretty sure it was our business when Hitler started killing people because of their race, and rightly so. If Uganda starts killing people because of their sexual orientation, then it's very much the world's business.

One poster said that even the mere suggestion of ignoring the bill,

is as immoral as the execution. I guess we had no right to criticise the holocaust?

Here are a couple of the anti-gay comments that were published (one can only imagine what hatred was filtered out):

"The West is quick to berate and undermine anything African...as barbaric or primitive. The West presents its culture as universal--using terms as human rights, universal freedom, global war on terror etc.The assumption is that other societies can only become civilized if they abandon their cultures and embrace Western ethos. Behind this agenda there is race, racism and racialism.On the surface, it appears to be just homosexuality but there is a deeper meaning. Get rid of this vice Africa."

"What other treatment should anyone else prescribe for anyone who knowingly gives a disease with death sentence to their innocent victims?"

"I fully endorse the legislation intended to protect the culture and traditions of Uganda. What we should understand that much as people have their rights, these rights should not be exercised at the detriment of the society in which we live.

"Remember that Uganda (and by extension Africa) has a unique tradition which needs to be protected by the influences of Western culture which seem to corrupt the morals of our generation."

The original piece from the BBC can be found here.

For many, it was the actual posing of the question that is most infuriating. We do not have forums questioning whether slavery was just, or if inter-racial marriage is acceptable. How can there be any justification for a respected news outlet to even put the question up for discussion.

The BBC, under intense criticism, responded with this explanation from their editors:

The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.

We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.

If Uganda's democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.

We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.

This issue has already sparked much debate around the world and understandably led to us receiving many e-mails and texts. We have sought to moderate these rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa."

Sorry BBC. That did not fly with me. I am glad that the House of Commons saw fit to take your 'coverage' on.

The only good that I see coming of this is the fact that it made more people focus on what Uganda was trying to do.

However, there are better ways to get that accomplished.

Malawi & Uganda: The Religious Right's Wet Dream

2010-01-02T12:35:00.006-05:00

Much of my blog for the past month has concerned the persecution of gays in a couple of African nations, Uganda and Malawi.

One reason I think it is important to cover this story in America is because it shows what happens when Christian fanaticism is allowed to shape governmental law, and when hate-filled brainwashing is allowed to permeate the populace.

These anti-gay statutes are not unpopular. They reflect the messages that have been willfully pumped out, not just from African preachers, but from imported American evangelicals, who are just as shrill in their anti-gay condemnations.

In the same way that people could profess Christianity and cite the Bible to justify slavery, Bible verses continually get taken out of context to justify the demonization of homosexuality.

I thought it would be illuminating to just show one batch of comments from a recent article in the Malawian newspaper, the Nyasa Times.

The article, "Rights campaigners says Malawi should legalise same-sex marriage," concerned comments from the head of the (chillingly named) Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation. (note: campaigner is the British term for 'activist.')

I linked to the story so that you can read it for yourself. While the story is not as horrible as the comments that follow it, it certainly is not exactly supportive of gay civil rights and makes some skewed points.

What I wanted to highlight today was the 'comments' section, so you can see what Malawian citizens think of gay civil rights. It should remind you of the same kind of hate you might see in an American forum on a conservative site, after an article on gay marriage. That fact is scary, in and of itself.

While America is behind the Western curve on glbt issues, at least we now have some protections in place. There are no longer anti-sodomy laws, for example.

More gays are out, as well, breaking down many of the old stereotypes. Visibility is an important weapon in fighting homophobia. Just ask Dick Cheney.

However, because of the rabid homophobia of American religious activists, we still deal with much anti-gay hate speech, anti-gay violence, and deprivation of full civil rights.

Thanks to a couple of decades of generally positive articles in newspapers on glbt issues, combined with positive media images, we now have a much better balance in America between pro and anti-gay speech. According to polls, the younger the individual, the more inclined the person is to support glbt civil rights. But it wasn't all that long ago that one would be hard-pressed to find a positive word about homosexuality.

African attitudes about gays is America just 40 years ago, before Stonewall. Today, in African newspapers, you will not find many stories, or reader comments, that speak out against the hate, though there are a few.

I want you to see these comments, because, in many ways, it shows what happens when religious zealots are allowed to unleash their hate speech, without much to counter it.

If we do not fight the religious right, and keep them in check, then our future will look more like Malawi and Uganda, than Denmark and Sweden.

Here are some selected comments. I will provide the link to both the story and comments section at the bottom of the page.

anastazia says:
Homosexuals will always defend thier pals. Dont be surprised with the lawyers they too are in it. I was just looking at the photo of fischer Kondowe and was imagining that there is some man out there admiring him for sex. Oh! God forbid!!!

Tom says:
For once I commend the reformed Malawi Police for taking appropriate action. To say the least, what were those homosexual fellows trying to prove when they fully knew that it was illegal to do so in the country? Malawians should be extra careful. How many people could profess to be truly homosexual? Some of the fellows are made to behave like that just because of economic benefits that they can get from the predator.

I recall sometime back in my college days when I was invited to a party organized by the big people at a Company that I worked for during the holidays. That party was only attended by men and I knew something was not right. One man came to me and started caressing my beard and my side whiskers then he went on to touch me where no one dares not to. I pulled his hand off and asked to be driven home. I do not know what happened to the other young men who were there but I would not be surprised if in this present age they turned out to be brides. At least I escaped that entrapment and am now married to my beautiful wife.

Vernon A.D says:
Man was created in the image of God and after His likeness. Man’s standard and reference is the Bible. The only opposer of the Bible as God’s word is ONLY Satan and his team of fallen angels. Human beings who support the fallen angels will work against the Holy book (Bible) also. No wonder some support Satan while some support God and His word in the Bible.
God is for multiplication of human beings on earth while the Devil is for no multiplication and condons same sex marriage.

Chipapwiche says:
Rights campaigners say Malawi should legalise same-sex marriageRights. Thank you so much for coming up with this proposal. My appeal! Before legalising same-sex marriageRights, or whatever you call it, can we legalise chamba first becos its smoked by so many people among us! Can we legalise all the sins committed by people because they are committed within us! I thought you learned people could assist driving our people the right way but alas! look at what you are asking the country to legalise. The same-sex whatever was there before the Bible was written, why was it not accepted in the Bible? You rights whatever groups, why are you there? What is a right? All the rights were already given to us by God. If He did not include same-sex whatever, how dare you? Watch out! there is another life after this one with so many human rights.

Ex Hon says:
No way Hosea. We Malawians will not accept legalisation of homosexuality in our country, because next they will be asking for beastiality (sleeping with animals) as a birthright. Let them (Europeans) first legalise Marijuana as our birth right then we will talk, but never accept homosexuality. We cannot be responsible for the Sodom and Gommorrah.

Mbonga says:
Its not about using GOD to oppress other people, it is GOD Himself who designed the laws of nature. Just read Gen 1:27-28, it is clear that God created man and woman for a special purpose of companionship and reproduction. You can also read Genesis 2:24 to understand more. On the surface, homosexuality behavior should be recognised as sinful becoz it violates God’s original plan for heterosexual monogamy.
Read Leviticus 18:22 to understand that any form of homosexuality is a sin before God. Also read Romans 1:27-32 in the new testamant.
Homosexuality therefore is a consequence of rejecting the creator order, no wonder God gave laws to the Israerites on how to deal with all perveted people who indulge themselves in homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13).

You get the picture.

To read the article, and all the comments, go here.

Outrage In Malawi

2010-01-01T15:14:00.006-05:00

Earlier, I reported on the celebrations in New Hampshire, after gay couples were officially allowed to marry in that state, beginning today.

Last week, in an act of courage, a gay couple in Malawi had a symbolic marriage ceremony, and have now been arrested.

Tuesday, Reuters South Africa had this to report:

Two Malawian men were arrested and charged with public indecency, police said on Tuesday, after becoming the first gay couple to marry in the conservative southern African state where homosexuality is illegal.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza publicly wed in a symbolic, traditional ceremony on Saturday.

"We arrested them last night at their home and charged them with gross public indecency because the practice is against the law," police spokesman, Dave Chingwalu, told Reuters.

Homosexuality is banned in Malawi and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Today's news, courtesy of The Guardian, is even more grim:

The first gay couple to marry in Malawi face a humiliating medical examination aimed at proving they have had sexual relations, it emerged today.

How scary is it for the couple? Consider the following:

The men have denied all the charges against them, but remain in custody pending an application for bail on Monday.

Supedi said he had not yet had opportunity to ask them why they had chosen to make such a public stand.

"I think maybe they regret it," he added. "Chimbalanga was happy and normal in court, but Monjeza seemed very worried and was crying. Perhaps he did not know it would go this way."

As he was sent back to prison, Monjeza hinted to reporters at the court that he might consider calling off the marriage.

"I am sad I am going back to Chichiri prison," he said. "The conditions are terrible there. People are exaggerating this thing. I may just as well dissolve this marriage."

Chimbalanga refused to speak to journalists, other than to accuse them of writing "stupid" things.

The Guardian also noted that Malawi may be more inclined to recognize gay civil rights, due to an alleged 25% HIV rate among gay males, vs. an overall 12% rate of infection. However, the persecution of this couple would seem to dispute the fact that conditions for gays are going to get better anytime soon.

As bad as conditions are for gays in Muslim nations, it appears the focal point on gay oppression currently is located in Africa.

New Hampshire Gay Newlyweds Usher In New Year

2010-01-01T13:43:00.005-05:00

Happy New Year everyone!

Starting off the new year on my blog with some positive news...gay marriage is now legal in New Hampshire.

I thought it was rather cool that USA Today had a story today titled, "New Year's newlywed gay kiss may be sign of 2010." The kiss (pictured above) was between 1 of 15 couples that had their marriage made legal at the capital statehouse in Concord, just after midnight.

Legal on the state level, that is. There are still no federal protections in place. Further, DOMA means other states have the discretion of invalidating the legality of their union, should they move.

Local Coverage To Check Out

Below, I am providing links to 3 state papers. Don't just check out the articles, but read the forum comments, as well. You have the option of registering, and adding your own thoughts to the mix. Please do.

Nashua, New Hampshire, had nice coverage from the local paper, on a local couple's wedding, complete with photo. Click here to read.

The Concord Monitor, while not affording it prime story status, did have a good piece here.

The notoriously conservative Manchester Union-Leader had very short, cursory coverage here.

GOP Candidate Accused Of Possible....Gayness!

2009-12-29T11:50:00.004-05:00

It is almost 2010 and America, the laughing stock of the western world on social issues, has just descended into the surreal.

As a variety of sources are now reporting, Andy Martin, seeking the GOP nomination for the Illinois Senate seat, has started running a political ad about the current frontrunner, Rep. Mark Kirk (pictured above), suggesting he might be....hold your breath folks...GAY!

According to the Chicago Sun-Times:

Martin’s source? Statements some conservative Republicans made on a radio show saying they have heard “rumors” that Kirk is gay.

“Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a ‘solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual,’ ” Martin says in the ad. “Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals. Mark Kirk should tell Republican voters the truth.”

A homosexual club? That conjures up images of the Village People chanting Y-M-C-A.

Meanwhile. CBS News is reporting that the state GOP has put out a statement, officially condemning Martin for the attack:

"His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech, which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party," the statement said. "Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican Candidate by the Illinois Republican Party."

Don't ask

An interesting aside...Kirk is a naval intelligence officer. If he comes out, the Obama administration will have to let him get booted out of the service.

Ah, the delicious irony.

Argentina Site Of 1st Latin American Gay Marriage

2009-12-28T19:13:00.005-05:00

While Mexico City recently achieved notoriety for being the first Latin American locale to legalize gay marriage, the nation to host the first gay wedding, oddly enough, is Argentina.

The AP is reporting that, "Gay rights activists Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre (pictured, from left to right, in the above AP wire photo) were married in Ushuaia, the capital of Argentina's Tierra del Fuego state, in a ceremony witnessed by state and federal officials."

The couple originally had plans to wed in the capital of Buenos Aires, but mixed court rulings prevented that. However, since the Argentinian Constitution does not expressly rule out gay marriage, it is left up to city and state officials. In this case, the state of Tierra del Fuego authorized the wedding to take place.

Meanwhile AFP reported that the couple were legally married after Ushuaia Governor Fabiana Rios overruled a civil registrar who initially refused to wed the couple.

According to the AP story, a positive sign is that, "an official representing the federal government's antidiscrimination agency, Claudio Morgado, attended the wedding in the city of Ushauaia and called the occasion 'historic.'"

Somehow, I do not see the Obama administration sending a representative to help cut the cake, in the event that DOMA gets lifted.

Reuters coverage noted the HIV-positive status of the couple, who first tried to wed on World AIDS day, but were thwarted by a court order, necessitating the change of locale to southernmost Argentina.

While efforts to derail gay marriage in the United States are jointly championed by Mormons, evangelical Christians and Catholics (with the approval of Orthodox Jews and Muslims), in Central and South America the opposition is primarily from the Catholic Church.

Whatever Happened To The Emerald City?

2009-12-28T11:52:00.003-05:00

(note: I initially posted this in a comments section at Crooks & Liars, after a piece on Timothy Geithner. Considering the hands-off nature of the Obama administration on glbt issues...in fact, on any progressive issues, it seemed apt)

We had a progressive Democratic president and ample majorities in both the House and Senate.

I saw a scarecrow...and a cowardly lion...and a tin man.

And you were there...and you...and you...and you...

And then I woke up.

And the voice said..."but you are in that wheelchair Blanche. You are."

Talk about waking from a dream and landing smack dab in the middle of a nightmare!

GLBT News Briefs: Iowa, D.C. and North Wales

2009-12-27T18:45:00.004-05:00

Here is a roundup of some glbt stories that are making news this weekend.

Iowa

The Associated Press in Iowa voted the April state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage as the #1 story of the year in the Hawkeye State.

Meanwhile, anti-gay opponents are planning a rally on January 12th to start a process that will try and overturn gay marriage.

Unlike in California, or Maine, Iowa requires approval of the state General Assembly, before the question could be brought to the ballot, which is what gay marriage opponents are seeking.

Washington D.C.

Stand Up For Marriage, D.C., a leading anti-gay marriage voice in the nation's capital, is creating quite a stir, by placing ads on metrobuses that are lobbying against the recently passed legislation allowing gays to marry.

The ads read "Let The People Vote On Marriage," and were obviously created to submit the civil rights question to a majority vote.

While the D.C. glbt community are not happy with the bus ads, groups such as the ACLU have come to the defense of the ads as a free speech issue.

As I posted on a Washington Post forum on the subject, I suggested some of our advocacy groups can put the money they raised to good use, by creating ads to counter the ones that are currently being used by those who seek to deny us civil rights.

The African-American Washington Post columnist that I responded to, Colvert I. King, was bemoaning the fact that gays apparently had a problem with free speech. While I support free speech and proposed a counter ad campaign, I also questioned whether he would have felt the same had the rights for blacks to vote, or the end of slavery, been subjected to majority vote.

(note: for reference, since I cannot link to it, my forum comment was posted at 4:22PM on 12/26 in the comments section)

North Wales

From North Wales, comes news that hate crimes are up to about 1 per day, on average over the past 3 years, prompting a police crackdown.

While the majority of crimes were racial in nature, there were 166 homophobic incidents and 7 attacks on transgendered persons during that same period.

There is currently a discussion in North Wales about possibly imposing tougher penalties on hate crimes, in particular for crimes against the glbt community.

Merry Christmas To Our Gay & Lesbian Troops

2009-12-25T11:32:00.004-05:00

Thank you to our gay and lesbian troops who not only serve this nation selflessly and put their lives on the line, but also risk being tossed out of the military if they ever reveal the truth about who they are.

Thank you for keeping silent while those around you share their longing for wanting to see their loved ones at the holidays. I understand why you have to be careful about expressing that.

Thank you for feeling it important enough to give of your lives to this nation even though you know that you are treated like a second-class citizen, with no federal protection for your loved ones, and with the knowledge that they may be shut out if something happens to you in battle.

Thank you for your bravery and courage in the face of war from without and war from within.

Have a very Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and Happy Kwanzaa, and know that there are those of us who will never stop fighting for your right to be treated with basic dignity and respect.

(note: I discovered the above ribbon sticker at Cafe Press. If you would like to contact that person to get one for yourself, link to the address here.)

The Pope Praises Uganda, Ignores Anti-Gay Bill

2009-12-24T15:11:00.003-05:00

Pope Benedict XVI recently sent a commendation to the Vatican's Ugandan envoy that completely ignored impending anti-gay legislation.

At an audience with Francis K. Butagira, the new ambassador from Uganda to the Holy See, the Pope had this to say:

Diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Republic of Uganda continue to offer many opportunities for mutual assistance and cooperation for the spiritual good and welfare of the people of your nation. Likewise the climate of freedom and respect in your nation towards the Catholic Church has allowed her to be faithful to her proper mission. The fruits of cooperation between the Church and the State, especially in areas related to development, education and healthcare, are widely recognized. Indeed, such a solid foundation should promote personal integrity, justice and fairness in local communities and hope for the whole nation, both among those who govern and among the general population, and should be an important factor in stability and growth.

It was not as if the Pope was painting a rosy picture, because he writes the following:

The campaign of violence in the north of the country has devastated large areas. The tragedy for the local populations is clear for all to see. Some have had their childhood shattered and have been forced to commit deplorable crimes; there has been extensive destruction of property; widows and orphans are living in dire poverty; and many displaced persons are still unable or afraid to return to their villages and fields. It is understood that this situation has improved to some extent and I hope that the lack of security will finally be replaced by a stable peace and prosperity for the sorely tried people of the area.

Now check out the next passage and see what is left out:

It is only through the establishment of justice, reconciliation and solidarity that true and lasting peace and stability can be achieved. I assure Your Excellency that Ugandan Catholics, in living the values of the Gospel, wish to serve their fellow men and women in the promotion of deep-rooted reconciliation and peace. The Church will also continue to work for justice for all, accompanied by the fervent prayer that such a precious gift may become a reality for all citizens, without regard for ethnicity, region or creed.

You'll notice that 'sexual orientation' was not a consideration.

The Catholic Church has a history of treating pedophilia by priests as something that could easily be ignored and made invisible.

Now they are doing the same, when it comes to the oppression of gays, lesbians and the transgendered.

Is anyone truly surprised?

Uganda: Killing Gays May Not Be 'Helpful'

2009-12-23T17:40:00.006-05:00

A report from Reuters South Africa indicates an alleged 'softening' of proposed new Ugandan, anti-gay legislation.

This is what apparently passes for more compassionate hate:

Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo told Reuters that the revised law would now probably limit the maximum penalty for offenders to life in prison rather than execution.

"There have been a lot of discussions in government ... regarding the proposed law, but we now think a life sentence could be better because it gives room for offenders to be rehabilitated," he said in an interview.

"Killing them might not be helpful."

Considering that 'cures' for homosexuality in America in the last century included shock treatments and lobotomies, this is indeed chilling.

But, hey, a lifetime of incarceration is supposed to be more humane?

Reuters reported that Buturo still believes that homosexuality was a "moral perversion that must not be allowed to spread"

There is a vast amount of homophobia in Uganda that would force gays to remain closeted, for safety reasons alone. According to Reuters, just yesterday, "anti-gay protesters marched through the streets of the capital Kampala, shouting slogans and waving placards."

Additionally, there is no word that one of the proposed legislation's more draconian measures, incarcerating Ugandans (including journalists) for not reporting people they know to be gay, would be excised from the proposed law.

However, as of now, "serial offenders", and those who commit "aggravated homosexuality", will have the possibility of death replaced with the prospect of living a lifetime in hell.

I'll have more on this as the story develops.

(note: the above AP photo came from a 2007 Ugandan anti-gay rally, asking that the government enforce their anti-gay laws, already on the books, and demanding an American reporter be deported for writing on gay issues in the Ugandan daily, The Monitor.)

Let's Not Forget D.C.

2009-12-22T18:05:00.004-05:00

I should have posted on this when it happened, but since I posted on Mexico City I did want to acknowledge that in D.C., lawmakers also approved a gay marriage bill by an 11-2 vote.

The bill was signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty on Friday.

Congress can overturn the measure, but only has 30 session days to do it in. With health insurance legislation taking up their time, there is hope that this will not be blocked, though the religious right-wing is doing their best to see that it is.

The Windy City Times has the latest update here.

Mexico City Passes Gay Marriage Bill

2009-12-22T17:56:00.003-05:00

We can't seem to do it in New York or New Jersey, but today, Mexico City became the first locale in Latin America to pass a law legalizing gay marriage.

The vote was not close, it passed by a nearly 2-1 margin, 39-20.

Enjoy the coverage above from AP.

Traitor #3: Shirley Huntley

2009-12-21T13:28:00.007-05:00

New York State Senator Shirley Huntley (pictured above) is the 3rd member of the gang of 8 Democrats that helped defeat gay marriage in New York.

As it happens, one of my teammates in my bowling league is Detective Tom Verni, who is also the NYPD Community Affairs Citywide LGBT Liaison. Tom also lives in the Queens district that Huntley represents.

Tom happened to mention that he sent correspondence to Senator Huntley about her vote, which she has, thus far, ignored. In his correspondence, he commented about how he and his partner, Huntley's constituents, were affected by her vote. As of last week he told me that he was trying to contact her a second time. I will see him tonight and get you the results of that effort, along with any relevant correspondence. (update: Tom notified me she still has not responded)

Huntley's wikipedia entry tells us that she,

is a New York State Senator, first elected in 2006 to represent parts of Queens County, including Jamaica, South Jamaica, Springfield Gardens, Laurelton, South Ozone Park, Broad Channel, and Lindenwood. A Democrat, she defeated former Senator Ada Smith in the Democratic Primary. She is the Ranking Minority Member of the Investigations and Government Operations Committee. She serves on the Education Committee, the Higher Education Committee, the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Committee, and the Transportation Committee.

Huntley presently resides in Jamaica with her husband Herbert Huntley. They operate a maintenance company known as Huntley Enterprises.

It should be noted that in the 2008 campaign questionnaire that she filled out for the 504 Democratic Club, on the question of who she viewed as local community leaders, she listed 6 people...5 reverends and 1 bishop.

Poor Senator Huntley

Senator Huntley, on December 7th, sent out the following release, regarding her anti-gay vote:

Senator Shirley L. Huntley On The Marriage Equality Legislation
In the recent days since the 12/2/09 New York State Senate vote on the Marriage Equality legislation I have received calls and letters both in favor and against my decision to vote against the legislation. As a result, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my vote.

I firmly believe that my vote against the Marriage Equality legislation reflects the wishes of the vast majority of my constituents. With that being said, I also firmly believe that any decision on Marriage Equality should, ultimately, be made by the people of New York State, not the Legislature. I would fully support a referendum to allow the people of New York State to decide the issue.

The State of New York is diverse and its citizens will often disagree. I applaud those of you who have questioned my position in a civilized manner. However, to those few of you who have been insulting and even threatening, I will not be bullied. We cannot and should not advocate for tolerance only when it benefits us. Again, we should allow the people of the State of New York to decide the issue of Marriage Equality.

Interesting that she never responded to a civil letter from a highly-regarded gay constituent. Even more interesting that an African-American would suggest that civil rights issues should be subject to a popular vote. Had that been the case on racial issues, where would African-Americans be today?

Additionally, regarding her comments about her constituents being against it...why then, as the Queens Tribune reported, did all the state assembly members of her district vote for it?

As for only advocating for "tolerence, only when it benefits us," what on earth does that mean? We are not seeking 'tolerance,' we want civil rights for ourselves and families.

Other interesting Huntley votes

We need to oppose Huntley in the primaries. In her last primary she was up against a fellow anti-gay politician.

Some things to keep in mind come the next primary:

In 2007, Huntley was 1 of only 8 to oppose legislation that would require convicted sex offenders to undergo psychiatric treatment and supervision.

In a 2008 bill to find affordable housing on Long Island (not an easy task), only 9 voted against, yet helping the poor was not a concern to Huntley. She did not vote.

A 2008 bill to cap annual property tax increases (in New York, the taxes are almost intolerable in many communities), only 20 Senators voted against. Huntley was one of them.

A 2008 bill to repeal the internet sales tax for items bought from New York retailers, passed 44-18. Huntley was one of the 18 who wanted New Yorkers to have to pay the tax.

Access her entire voting record here.

There is political ammo to be used in a primary fight. Let's use it.

Anjelou's plea

Back in May, Manhunt reported the following:

In an attempt to convince Shirley Huntley to support marriage equality, Maya Angelou gave the New York Senator a call.

"I would ask every man and every woman who's had the blessing of having children, 'Would you deny your son or your daughter the ecstasy of finding someone to love?' To love someone takes a lot of courage. So how much more is one challenged when the love is of the same sex and the laws say, ‘I forbid you from loving this person’?” Angelou asked the Senator.

Even though Huntley is a fan of Angelou's poetry, she was unmoved by the statement. “If they gave me a million dollars, tax free, I just wouldn’t vote for it,” she said.

Additional contact information

You can access Sen. Shirley Huntley's facebook page here.

All of Huntley's contact information can be found by linking here.

Keith Olbermann Puts The White House and Senate on Notice

2009-12-16T23:52:00.007-05:00

Earlier Wednesday evening, Chris Matthews said something so foolish I could have caught a bunch of flies...that's how far down my jaw dropped, leaving my mouth agape.

Matthews started badly enough, by being thorougly snarky and nasty to Dr. Howard Dean who he berated for what Matthews saw as demagoguery, because he didn't get his way. We have been treated to a batch of progressive senators speaking out against Dean, which made me wonder where was this acrimony when it came to Lieberman? Nelson? Bauchus? And Barack Obama?

Matthews has no clue how deep Dean's sentiment runs. He would learn with in an hour, as Keith Olbermann devoted a special comment to it.

Matthews brought on insurance company darling, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. She was the personification of a talking point and scolded Dean in her comments. Unfortunately, Landrieu tried to rewrite history by claiming that Obama never campaigned for a public option. Dean called her out on the blatant lie.

That part was bad enough, Matthews' lowest moment, and what showed his true agenda, occurred when he examined Obama's very bad poll numbers. The GOP had always been solidly against him, so there had to be another reason his numbers had dropped.

Matthews, clearly being clueless in the current politics of the Democratic party, actually had the audacity, and stupidity, to proclaim that Obama's numbers were so bad, because he is seen as too far to the left. He gets paid to deliver moronic assessments like that.

Thankfully, after about 5 minutes or so, Chris Todd finally said that Obama's plummeting numbers specifically got worse because of a defection from the left...his base.

Matthews response? Nothing.

Worth Waiting For

Markos Moulitsas, mobilized his website behind Dr. Dean's assessment. As did Firedog Lake, AmericaBlog and some other promninent sites. 2 major unions are considering the question as well.

And yet, after kissing Lieberman's ass, the White House and some key Democrats tried the politics of personal destruction on Howard Dean. They now know just how many of us he is speaking for.

You can hear Keith Olbermann's Special Comment (below) for yourself. It is well worth waiting for. He captures my sentiment exactly. Much blame is here to go around, but it all gets down to Barack Obama's lack of leadership. Now I am of the mind that, as Senator Russell Feingold said today, the president got the plan he wanted. I truly believe that as well. This is a great deal for the insurance companies and big pharma. It is not the way to get true health care reform.

If this bill contains a mandate, with no cost containment to prevent the 30 million new insureds from getting fleeced, it will be an unmitigated disaster. Some of the incremental gains can be stomached, but the way it stands now, as has been said by several influential pundits today, it turns into a huge bailout for insurance, and it threatens many with fines for refusing to get fleeced.

The mandate is immoral and must go.

Olbermann was courageous and even said he would refuse to buy insurance, if forced to.

But, listen for yourself. Olbermann gave every progressive a reason to be proud. I am sure it made Dr. Dean smile. If I were Obama, on the other hand, I would be livid. Good, let him stew. Maybe he'll eventually do the right thing.

I doubt it, but it ain't over til it's over.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'm Deserting The Dem Party that Deserted Us

2009-12-15T00:07:00.012-05:00

Word today that Democrats are not even going to expand Medicare, because Rahm Emanuel allegedly pressured Harry Reid to accede to Lieberman's demands, is the final straw.

The New York Times and other outlets are reporting this concession to Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, he of the insurance company blood money, had actually endorsed such a strategy with Medicare, 3 months ago. But now, this grandstanding publicity hound is relishing making Dems twist in the wind,

Problem is, Lieberman has the tacit endorsement of the White House. Obama has done no behind-the-scenes lobbying...no arm-twisting, except in the case of Emanuel reading the riot act to Reid that the Senate Majority leader needed to kiss Lieberman's lying ass.

This is the bill Obama wanted. As was the defeat of the drug re-importation bill. What a sell-out that was.

It's over. Obama has fully morphed into a ruling moderate Republican...on glbt issues...on Afghanistan...on health care reform...on placating big pharma...the list goes on and on.

The man has lost his base. I can't think of many former Obama supporters who plan on actively supporting him, going forward. I no longer trust or believe his flowery rhetoric, because he never follows it up with action.

I will be working on my own plan for 2010. Identify progressives and challenge the Blue Cross Dems in the primaries. If the incumbent still manages to win, check the social record of the GOP opponent. In certain districts (NY 23rd) it is worth voting for an enlightened Republican over a Dem. Too many Dems vote like Republicans anyway.

What Obama and the Democrats have shown us is that the majorty means nothing when you stand for nothing. I get the distinct impression that Barack Obama is quite enamored with himself and likes to listen to himself speak, but his actions NEVER match his lofty words. The man has proven to be an empty suit.

I will say this, with the fiasco about to begin in Afghanistan and insurance companies about to get a major windfall by forcing more people to now face their draconian rates and policies, the GOP has an excellent chance of taking back at least one of the houses of Congress in 2010.

Maybe Obama and the Democrats will grow a set by then, but by then it will be too late to accomplish anything.

Recently, Obama graded his performance, thus far. Stupefyingly, he gave himself a B+.

He had the B partially right. My grade for him is BS. Mirror that grade for the House. As for the Senate, an F will suffice.

Stories with the latest, disheartening coverage, can be found at:
The New York Times
USA Today
The Wall Street Journal
and the Washington Post.

Houston Elects Openly Gay Mayor

2009-12-13T01:04:00.003-05:00

Annise Parker has become the first openly gay mayor of the nation's 4th largest city.

Parker won the race for mayor of Houston with 53.6% of the vote, according to the AP.

After her opponent, Gene Locke, conceded, Parker said,

"This election has changed the world for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Just as it is about transforming the lives of all Houstonians for the better, and that's what my administration will be about."

As the Associated Press noted,

The election battle leading up to Saturday's balloting was marked by fierce campaigning and anti-gay rhetoric.

Parker is a lesbian who has never made a secret or an issue of her sexual orientation. But that orientation became focus of the race after anti-gay activists and conservative religious groups endorsed the 61-year-old Locke and sent out mailers condemning Parker's "homosexual behavior."

The AP story closed with this interesting tidbit:

Houston, the country's fourth largest city, is predominantly Democratic and about 25 percent black and one-third Hispanic. About 60,000 of its 2.2 million residents identify as gay or lesbian.

View the story here.

The Observer Blames Americans For New Era Of African Anti-Gay Hate

2009-12-12T21:42:00.005-05:00

Great Britain's The Observer took aim at right-wingers in America, blaming them for helping to make much of Africa virulently homophobic.

Simply check out the headline and sub-heading for the story:

Anti-gay bigots plunge Africa into new era of hate crimes

Uganda is likely to pass a law within months that will make homosexuality a capital offence, joining 37 other countries in the continent where American evangelical Christian groups are increasingly spreading bigotry

That is one powerful statement.

The reference to hate crimes made me think they were referring to anti-gay violence, but it seems that is the term they are using for the state-sanctioned, criminalization of homosexuality. That is a fairly heavy-duty comment.

Regarding the proposed anti-gay Ugandan bill, The Observer states:

...many suspect that it was outsiders who inspired this bill in the first place. In March, Bahati met several prominent anti-gay US Christian activists who attended a conference in Uganda where they pledged to "wipe out" homosexuality. The conference featured Scott Lively, (pictured above), president of California's anti-gay Abiding Truth Ministries and co-author of The Pink Swastika, a book claiming that leading Nazis were gay. Also there was Don Schmierer, on the board of Exodus International, which promotes the "ex-gay" movement, believing people can change their sexuality and be redeemed. The third extremist evangelical to attend was Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is linked to Richard Cohen who believes that psychotherapy can "cure" homosexuality.

Bahati's bill was drawn up within weeks of the conference, but it has only just begun to cause waves within America's powerful evangelical community. Legalising killing gay people has triggered a bad press for the bill.

That part of the story has been getting covered, but the piece then examines the judicially-codified homophobia that is spreading across the continent. Notice this harsh assessment from British glbt activist, Peter Tatchell,

"The right-wing are losing the battle in the US, so they are exploiting the poverty-stricken developing world. The response of the Commonwealth is pathetic. Of the 80 countries who criminalise same sex-relationships around the world, over 40 of them are in the Commonwealth – where is the concern for human rights?"

America may be homophobic, but...

There is a factual error in the story. In the initial edition, they write:

It is not just Africa where homophobia is rife – Iran and Jamaica have seen homosexuals imprisoned and attacked and many American states have laws against sodomy.

I contacted the paper to let them know that, while we may have homophobes in America, individual state laws against sodomy were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. I would be surprised if I was the only one to write them, and I assume they will revise that paragraph.

Otherwise, it is a story well worth your time.

It can be found here.

A Ugandan Lesbian Speaks Out

2009-12-12T13:53:00.010-05:00

Even when things appear incredibly dark, there are those who rise up to the challenge and lead, even while risking their own personal safety in the process.

Such is the case with Val Kalende. A rare case of an out gay person in Uganda, who is not only willing to be interviewed, but photographed in a Ugandan paper, as well.

The Monitor, a Ugandan daily, printed the story of her and her lover, pictured here. Her partner, who only 2 months came to America to study, has part of the picture blacked out, because she is not out to her family. Considering other information that was provided to the paper, I would think that enough of her face shows to probably identify her now.

As the proposed Ugandan legislation currently stands, both of them have serious reasons to be afraid.

Some interesting revelations

Kalende had some revealing things to say.

On going for HIV tests with her partner (in Uganda, it is considered primarily a heterosexual disease):

...asked by a counsellor if her partner had been using a condom.
“In my mind, I was like, ‘Dude?’ I felt useless. He was giving me the wrong kind of counselling. I wanted to tell him: 'The lady you see there is my girlfriend,'"

On wanting to bond with her closeted partner's mother:

“My partner is not like me,” Ms Kalende, the only child of her father and mother, offered. “She’s not yet brave enough to be open, because she doesn’t want her family to know. I can’t approach my mother-in-law and tell her I am in love with her daughter. It would give her a heart attack.”

On her reasons for speaking out:

...midway through her interview with Saturday Monitor, Ms Kalende seemed to remember her lover’s words, asking: “How is this [interview] going to help me?” Then, moments later, she found her rhythm, saying firmly that “she was doing it for the whole LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community”.

Most chillingly, on her future safety:

“Even with the existing law, things have never been this serious. I don’t know if things will ever be normal for us. Tell me, what will happen to us?”

Kalende was referring to existing laws, which already have criminalized homosexuality.

As the interview reported early on, Kalende had already been harassed, due to her appearance:

Ms Kalende’s standard attire --- she is comfortable in a pair of denim jeans and does not wear skirts at all --- turned her into a favourite target for the boda-boda cyclists, once upsetting her so deeply that she had to report her tormentors to the authorities.

You can access the full interview here.

The voice of anti-gay hatred

Anti-gay hatred did not have to be exported to Uganda. It is already there. I will devote a full column in the near future, consisting entirely of reader comments from this same paper. It should be noted that The Monitor will, and does, print comments from readers in other parts of the world that condemn their sanctioning of bigotry and hate.

Kalende's story is too new to have comments attached to it. For now I will leave you with a few that appeared in a story less than 2 weeks ago. If you look at any of the stories the Monitor has written on gay issues, you will find the same exact thing. Actually, you will often find worse.

Keep in mind, these comments are actually moderated:

Yasin cheptai said at 12/01/2009, 00:40
I say no no no no to homosexuality in our mother land Uganda. No No is enough whoever is a gay guy or supports it should leave this country .we hate you gays and we shall continue hating you.

nakitende said at 11/30/2009, 11:15
i still strongly stand by the nortion that weakening of child's or an adult's anal sphincter muscle through forceful anal intercourse is not a human right

walter amey said at 11/30/2009, 04:17
I strongly support the the case of a law criminalizing gay activities. its a serious crime against nature and humanity. Rwanda has my support in this. The western nations are trying to destroy the world with this human right sermons.

John said at 11/30/2009, 13:54
What ever these so-called developed nations tell us, Uganda should not bow down to their pressure.....take those rejected homosexuals and lesbians to your own countries to populate your vast countries! We do not need such people here.

Nowhere is it spelt that Commonwealth organisation should include homosexuality as one of its major objectives- whether social, developmental, scientific...

Please our elected members of Parliament, be proud and vote that law whether these europeans want it or not. They can not turn our country into a breeding ground.

UPDATE: There is a blog, which I am now adding to my links, called GayUganda. The blogger has a terrific story about what it felt like for members of the gay community in Uganda to see The Monitor headline a story like this...seeing the paper being sold on the streets had a definite impact.

Reading that blog will provide an invaluable insight into the lives of the Ugandan lgbt community. Additionally, they definitely need our encouragement and support.

Time Magazine Ties Americans To Ugandan Anti-Gay Legislation

2009-12-09T21:06:00.011-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's one thing for Rachel Maddow to make the connection, Time Magazine is another story.

Time's Zoe Alsop is sure to rattle some high-profile cages, with a new story, featuring the disturbing headline, "Uganda's Draconian Anti-Gay Bill: Inspired by the U.S."

The proposed legislation, initially has called for the execution of gays. It is now being reported that the death penalty is apparently going to be removed from the bill. However Ugandans could face years in prison for merely 'attempting' to commit a consexual homosexual act. Others, including members of the Ugandan press, face years of incarceration simply for not reporting about people that they know to be gay. Additionally, convicted homosexuals now may face forced conversion therapy. Lobotomy, anyone?

Meanwhile, according to Alsop,

The bill has an American genesis of sorts, inspired to a large extent by the visits of U.S. evangelicals who are involved with a movement that promotes Christianity's role in getting homosexuals to become "ex-gays" through prayer and faith. Ugandan supporters of the bill appear to be particularly impressed by the ideas of Scott Lively, a California conservative preacher who has written a book, The Pink Swastika, about what he calls the links between Nazism and a gay agenda for world domination, which, by itself, would have raised the anti-colonial sensitivities of Ugandan society.

Additionally, Alsop writes,

One of the bill's loudest supporters is a charismatic pastor, Martin Ssempa, who heads a Ugandan campus AIDS eradication organization that is funded in part by the U.S. and who was associated with the global outreach of Southern California's Saddleback Church, run by Rick Warren, author of best-selling book The Purpose Driven Life.

Alsop adds,

Rick Warren, however, seems to be avoiding tackling the subject directly. Although he cut ties with Ssempa, the popular preacher released a statement to Newsweek saying, "It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." That position irks the Rev. Kaoma, who is an Anglican pastor with the Archdiocese of Boston. Warren, he says, has immense influence among Uganda's political élite, counting many parliamentarians, including the country's First Lady Janet Museveni (who is reportedly close to Ssempa), among his friends. "He eats with them, he knows what goes on, they respect him," said Kaoma in a conference call. At the very least, Warren could get his purpose-driven nation to reflect on the purpose of this severe piece of legislation.

[UPDATE] Faced with a barrage of criticism, Warren has now chosen to speak out publicly against this proposed law. The Joe My God blog has the text and video.

'Family' ties

Rachel Maddow, on Wednesday night, continued to focus major coverage on this. Her guest, Harper Magazine contributor Jeff Sharlet, has authored a book on the tentacles of The Family, an international, right-wing religious organization with enormous political clout. Sharlet shared some information, suggesting that Ugandan members of The Family have been behind this proposed law from the time of its first formulation and prominent American members of the fellowship, at the very least, have done nothing to stop its progression.

As was reported on Maddow's show, the proposed anti-gay bill was proposed at a Ugandan prayer breakfast, by a Ugandan member of The Family.

While it is being reported that there is a schism on this going on within that religious clique, there has been no willingness to interfere, as is now being alleged, with Ugandan affairs. As Maddow pointed out, they didn't have a problem interfering when it came to railing against condom distribution in that country.

Meanwhile, progressives in Iowa have now challenged their Senator, Chuck Grassley, who is very close with Uganda, to speak out on this to Ugandan officals. He has yet to show a willingness to do so.

Guess who's coming to breakfast?

Maddow's biggest bombshell was the fact that the Ugandans who have introduced this legislation are quite possibly going to be attending an upcoming February prayer breakfast in the Capitol, where President Obama will be speaking.

I'll keep you posted with future developments on this, including a look into some of the Ugandan papers. If you want a real education, just read some of the comments in their daily papers. Backwards, and extreme, religious-justified hatred don't nearly begin to describe what some of these Ugandans believe. Reading their vicious and ignorant comments is like taking a nightmarish leap back to a highly uncivilized time and place. In Uganda, the clock has stopped.

And this from a nation that suffered the violent excesses of Idi Amin.

Rachel Maddow Ties Ex-Gay Movement To Ugandan Legislation To Execute Gays

2009-12-09T00:41:00.004-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is an abhorrent move afoot in Uganda that would go so far as to execute people for being gay and incarcerate those who refuse to report the gayness of others.

On Tuesday, Rachel Maddow devoted quite a bit of time to the issue, including linking politicians such as Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley to the legislation, as well as pastor Rick Warren and ex-gay opportunist Richard Cohen.

Maddow's interview with Cohen is a must-see. It is a lengthy piece, but well worth your time.

I also recommend you go to her site here and select the video segments entitled "the story behind 'curing' gays" and "no comment from Grassley on anti-gay bill."

At her site you will receive more links and info about this story. I will be covering Uganda, and that disgusting legislation, in a separate, future blogpost.

Traitor #2: Darrel Aubertine

2009-12-07T19:06:00.016-05:00

Darrel Aubertine, Democratic state senator representing northwestern upstate, New York, was one of 8 anti-gay legislators to vote to deny gays civil rights last week. He is the second one I am targeting, as I make a case against them, one-by-one.

Senator Aubertine, pictured above, apparently is willing to vote against Democrats in many venues. In fact, today, an editorial in the New York Daily News is taking him to task for refusing to allow farm worker's rights in New York to even come up for a vote.

That bill, supported by 90% of Democrats, and enough Republicans to pass, would have remedied some appalling working conditions, as the editorial stated,

New York farmhands work without the right to form unions or bargain for better conditions. Or take a day off. Or collect overtime or qualify for disability or unemployment insurance.

As it happens...Aubertine is a farmer, albeit a homophobic farmer. He does not want those who work for him to have those rights, so he has singlehandedly prevented the bill from even coming up for a vote. Not only that, he would not even allow, as the Daily News put it, "a watered-down compromise," to come up for discussion. And his fellow Democrats let it happen.

Gays are not the only Democratic constituency this man betrays. His blocking of union-building legislation should allow us to align with organized labor to plan a primary defeat.

And how telling is it that the Dems want him in Congress. This man was actually the leading choice to run against Dede Scozzafava, in NY's 23rd district (which was won by another right-wing Democrat). He declined. According to Politico:

Aubertine's decision is a blow to Democrats, who viewed him as a particularly strong candidate who could flip McHugh's ancestrally Republican seat to the Democrats. Because of his conservative views on social issues, he had cross-over appeal in a state legislative district that was solidly Republican.

Do we need any more reminders about why our money should not be going to the DNC and the DLC? Scozzafava was far better on glbt issues than the Dems, in this case. It is why our money and support should be apportioned on a case-by-case basis only.

This is a Democrat who sorely needs to go down to defeat come re-election.

He represents a rather conservative area, bordering Lake Ontario, which includes the cities of Oswego, Watertown and Ogdensburg. He is also chairman of several state senate committees, including Agriculture and Energy & Telecommunications.

To contact Senator Aubertine, via an online form, point your browser here.

His generic page on the New York Senate website is here.

Oswego's main paper is the Palladium-Times. You can access their contact page here. One needs to register to make comments on their site, and this is one of those registration processes that is far more intrusive than most, but it may be worth it to do so. Just go to their opinion section and you'll get to the registration link.

Watertown's daily paper is the Watertown Daily Times and is accessible here. The paper's contact information is here. You can respond to columns and editorials in their online edition after a simple registration process.

The Ogdensburg Journal has been referred to as one of the worst American media outlets by members of the Mondo Times, and you can't submit letters online, but here is the link to where you can send letters the old-fashioned way.

Let's Start With Addabbo

2009-12-05T13:19:00.004-05:00

After 8 Democrats (4 from the borough of Queens) in the New York State Senate were responsible for defeating gay marriage in New York, I have decided to target all 8...one at a time.

Let's start with freshman Queens Senator Joe Addabbo. His vote was especially damaging, because, alphabetically, he is second on a roll call. His defection at the onset set the stage for a betrayal.

How is this a betrayal?

Let's start with the fact that Addabbo got significant glbt financial support.

According to Queerty,

Despite supporting gay rights while a member of NYC's City Council, and despite receiving the maximum $9,500 campaign contribution from Gill Foundation creator Tim Gill, and despite scoring major financial support from the Democratic State Senate Campaign Committee (which LGBT donors dumped cash into), Addabbo was a "no" vote.

A report from NYPIRG's Bill Mahoney reaveals that Addabbo was the 4th leading recipient of glbt dollars. By his count,$23,000 was raised for Addabbo, so that he could spit in our faces.

Why we need to be better activists

Most revealing about Addabbo, who supported glbt civil rights while on the city council, and who had no problems taking glbt money while campaigning, are his declared reasons for voting 'no.'

From the Queens Chronicle:

Addabbo said he simply voted to reflect an emerging consensus within his district. Of the nearly 400 constituent letters and calls received by his office, approximately 73 percent had urged the senator to defeat the bill.
“I voted no because that’s what my people want. I will always stand by my people — that’s my job,” the first-term senator said. “This past Saturday I was at Woodhaven Library and two residents made it their business to sit down with me and talk about their opposition to marriage equality It’s clear that my residents are not for it.”

Forget the fact that recent polling showed that New Yorkers favored same-sex marriage 50-44, or that it was morally the right thing to do. Senator Addabbo was able to use the fact that anti-gay forces lobbied him more effectively.

This is where we need to change the equation.

I bowl in a large gay bowling league. When a fellow bowler a couple of weeks back asked for people to see her so that she could tell them how to lobby their state senators to vote for the bill, she got hardly any reaction. Out of 34 teams of 4 bowlers each, maybe 1 or 2 responded. This is shocking, but hardly surprising.

If we want full civil rights we need to start looking in the mirror and beginwith the reflection we see.

In that spirit, here is information on contacting Joe Addabbo to let him know how you feel about his vote. He thinks that New Yorkers do not want gay marriage. Let's prove him wrong.

His Facebook page
District Office 159-53 102nd Street Howard Beach, NY 11414
E-mail: addabbo@senate.state.ny.us
Phone: 718-738-1111

New Jersey May Vote On Gay Marriage Next Week

2009-12-04T21:48:00.005-05:00

According to a report at NJ.com, a New Jersey Senate committee will consider a gay marriage proposal on Monday, with the possibility that the full chamber will vote on it by the end of the week. If this vote then gets passed, gay marriage in the Garden State could happen by Christmas.

This is important to do now, since the New Jersey governor-elect, Republican Chris Christie, has vowed to veto any gay marriage legislation on his watch.

Meanwhile, the 'Daily Intel' column at New York magazine's online site had interesting speculation on why the New Jersey bill might be enjoying a new life:

How would a huge defeat for same-sex marriage on Wednesday create momentum for the bill's prospects, and not against them? Maybe it's the irresistible opportunity to show New York what a progressive Northeast state with balls looks like.

Meanwhile, TPM is reporting an assessment by Steve Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality:

"We're counting votes. We're not there yet in one of the houses but things have changed dramatically in the last 48 hours where the momentum has shifted our way," Goldstein said.

New York Senate Rejects Gay Marriage

2009-12-02T17:08:00.006-05:00

The New York Senate rejected gay marriage today, and the vote was not close.

The final count was 38-24. All 30 GOP members of the Senate voted against it, as did 8 Democrats. This shows a couple of things.

One, despite the disillusionment with the Democratic party these days over relative inactivity on glbt issues, this is why we can NEVER vote Republican. This was an anti-gay bloc vote, pure and simple, despite protestations otherwise by GOP honcho Dean Skelos.

Second, it is time to defeat Democrats that have denied us our civil rights. Prime among these is Ruben Diaz Sr. (D-Bronx), a despicable politician who was the only Democrat in debate to argue vociferously against gay marriage.

The other DINOs to vote against gay civil rights are, Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens), Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent), Shirley Huntley (D-Queens), Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn), Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), George Onorato (D-Queens) and William Stachowski (D-Buffalo). They must be ousted through effective primary challenges. If they survive the challenge...let them try their luck without us in a general election. A message needs to be sent.

We already have way too many moderate Republicans inhabiting the Democratic party. Let's send them packing.

Californians Looking To Ban Straight Divorce

2009-11-30T15:14:00.004-05:00

It is a story too good to be true...according to the Associated Press, there is a move afoot in California to impose a ban on divorce.

A Sacramento Web designer, John Marcotte, would like to see this become a ballot initiative in 2010.

As the AP reports:

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Unless you have a good bankroll behind you, making these petition drives successful is a huge, uphill climb:

Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

The deck is pretty much stacked against Marcotte, but the point has been succinctly made.

Often times the most truth can be found in satire, and I give this man credit for having the vision to call the hypocrites and phonies out.

You can read the full story here.

Great Coming Out Story From ESPN

2009-11-27T13:09:00.005-05:00

Brendan Burke, the 20-year old son of Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke, has come out in a very public way.

Brendan, pictured above, next to the Stanley Cup that his father won, while GM with the Anaheim Ducks in 2007, currently is a student at Miami University (Ohio), and also serves as a student manager for the school's championship hockey team.

After initially coming out to his family, he also came out to his team and has encountered fairly unanimous support.

Rather than telling the story in the first person, ESPN columnist John Buccigross pretty much tells his story for him, albeit in a very honest and compelling way.

Buccigross takes the coming out story from its genesis to where it has evolved...stressing how supportive Burke's dad and school have been and pushing the envelope by asking ex-NHL stars to join Brendan in disclosure. Along the way, questions about how a gay athlete would be received in the macho NHL are tossed out and speculated upon.

Brendan Burke wants to be the trailblazer and open the dialogue about being gay in the homophobic sports world of professional hockey. For this alone, he deserves praise and encouragement.

Read the story here.

After you read the piece, send an e-mail of appreciation to Buccigross at john.buccigross@espn.com

AP Story Reports Gay Marriage Efforts In NY & NJ Are Stalled

2009-11-25T11:57:00.002-05:00

Not a very encouraging story on gay marriage efforts in NY and NJ, courtesy of the Associated Press.

Geoff Mulvihill writes:

The state-to-state march to legalize gay marriage across the left-leaning Northeast has lost more momentum since a major setback three weeks ago at the ballot box in Maine.

Since then, legislatures in New York and New Jersey have failed to schedule long-expected votes on bills to recognize the unions in those states.

Mulvihill then uses a Maggie Gallagher quote to set up the rest of his story. As Mulvihill reported, the extremist right-winger said,

If they are unable to pass gay marriage in New York and New Jersey, combined with the loss in Maine, it will confirm that gay marriage is not the inevitable wave of the future.

The rest of the piece is pretty much spent, with gays on the defensive, refuting the allegation of Gallagher.

This was written as if everybody thought Maine would be a slam-dunk and we were all allegedly blindsided.

We were about 5 points down in the polls the day before Maine, so, for me, at any rate, the outcome was not surprising. What is surprising is that we have so many in America that think it's perfectly acceptable to leave minority civil rights up to a simple majority vote.

The one part of this report I actually found useful was the call for immediate action in the Garden state:

There's a sense of urgency in New Jersey. This month, voters elected Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine. Corzine has said he'll sign a gay marriage bill. Christie promised a veto.

As a result, activists are pushing hard to get a bill passed before Christie takes office on Jan. 19.

But since the election, key Democrats have said they don't intend to put the bill up for a vote unless they know it will pass. And so far, they say, that's not assured. On Monday, when lawmakers met for the first time since the election, the issue was in legislative limbo — not scheduled but not declared dead either.

Access the full AP story here.

Anti-Sexual Orientation Hate Crimes Up 11% In 1 Year

2009-11-23T11:24:00.005-05:00

New FBI statistics are out on hate crimes, showcasing a disturbing trend. Equally disturbing are how news organizations are covering it.

AP Version

In the story released by the Associated Press, they state:

Overall, the number of reported hate crimes increased about 2 percent from last year. These same figures show a nearly 11 percent increase in hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and a nearly 9 percent increase in hate crimes based on religion. The largest category, racially-motivated hate crimes, fell less than 1 percent.

With anti-gay legislation on the ballot in California last year, and the deliberate GOP incitement of the right-wing base, an increase in crimes against people based upon sexual orientation, should have been expected.

And yet, the AP includes their own skewed analysis:

The increases may be partly due to more law enforcement agencies reporting hate crimes data to the FBI: 2,145 agencies in 2008, compared to 2,025 agencies the year before.

Let's do the math. Hate crimes up 11%. Agencies reporting hate crimes up 5%. No it does not add up. Especially when one notes that racially-based hate crimes actually fell (which is rather startling, considering the anti-immigration rhetoric).

And, what of religion. Simply saying that religious-based hate crimes also were up would probably cause smug Christians to feel that maybe they are also under increased attack. Curious that the AP left out the most significant component of that segment, because it wasn't even anti-Muslim sentiment that was the reason.

CBS News version

For details on this, check out the CBS News account of the story:

Anti-Jewish bias accounted for 65.7 percent of the religious bias attacks; 7.7 percent of the attacks were against Muslims.

One would think that this would be a significant story, in and of itself.

But I digress.

In the CBS account, there is no mention of the huge increase in anti-sexual orientation attacks. In fact, they report it this way:

Hate crimes rose slightly in 2008, with bias-motivated attacks based on race, religion and sexual orientation all increasing, according to new data released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Didn't the actual number of race-based incidents drop slightly?

One interesting thing that CBS did, in its report, was make clear that anti-sexual orientation hate crimes are not gay male-specific. They report:

Gay men were the victims in most of the sexual orientation-bias attacks - 58.6 percent.

Why not mention the numbers of anti-lesbian and anti-transgendered attacks? My guess is because it helps to keep those groups invisible.

(Note: The picture in this blog post is that of 15-year old, African-American, lesbian Sakia Gunn. Gunn was slain in Newark in 2003 and got nowhere near the coverage that Matthew Shepard's killing received, despite her young age.)

Sometimes it is not the story that is the focus, but the way that the story gets reported. As I have done in my past glbt-activism, one of the focuses of this blog will be watching and monitoring the way glbt news is covered. We need to hold news organizations accountable for what they tell the public, because all of this matters when it comes to changing hearts and minds on glbt issues.

Source Material

Click on the following links from the FBI website for the summary, and the full report on hate crimes.

Don't Ask, Do Postpone Indefinitely

2009-11-21T10:48:00.003-05:00

AFP is reporting that a promised hearing on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," which had been scheduled for this month, has been "postponed indefinitely."

Tara Andringa, a spokesperson for the U.S. Armed Services Committee, indicated that "we do not have a date" for the hearing to be rescheduled.

I guess the return of gay dollars to the DNC will be postponed indefinitely, as well.

In a strongly gay-positive press report, compared to what one would get from an AP story, the French press agency added the following:

About 13,000 US service members have been discharged under the policy since then, and estimated costs through 2003 run at 95.4 million dollars in recruiting costs and 95.1 million in training replacements, according to the US Government Accountability Office.

An overwhelming number of Americans support allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the US military.

Think you would see a news report like that originating in America?

Not unless you were watching MSNBC.

For the full AFP story, click here.

Action Alert: Contact AG Holder On Puerto Rico Slaying

2009-11-20T14:00:00.003-05:00

Last weekend, 19 year old George Steven Lopez Mercado, a popular member of the Puerto Rican gay community, was found murdered.

According to the towleroad.com website, "he was partially burned, decapitated, and dismembered, both arms, both legs, and the torso."

Making matters worse, the police investigator suggested he "deserved" his fate, because of his "lifestyle."

I have been to Puerto Rico, since coming out, and, like many other areas of the Caribbean, anti-gay sentiment runs deep. I remember feeling a bit threatened by some local hoods that were lingering around the gay club at the beach in San Juan that I went to...they were very vocally predatory. It may have been in the 90s, but it is no secret that this is hardly a gay-friendly environment.

According to the AmericaBlog report on what the police had to say:

Here's the Spanish version of what the investigator reportedly told Univisión about the victim:

"Este tipo de personas cuando se meten a esto y salen a la calle saben que esto les puede pasar."

I speak Spanish fluently, so let me give you a rough translation:

Someone like that, who does those kind of things, and goes out in public, knows full well that this might happen to him.

John Aravosis also writes that it is time for the Justice Department to investigate, now that we have a Hate Crimes law in effect.

To sign an online petition asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate, go to the online action center that AmericaBlog set up by pointing here.

As towleroad.com reports, an arrest has been made and a "gay panic" defense has been initiated.

To follow this story at towleroad, click here.

To visit the newly created facebook page on this crime, click here.

8: The Mormon Proposition -- Coming To A Theatre Near You

2009-11-16T00:43:00.006-05:00

A documentary that passionately and forcefully targets the Mormon church for being the driving financial force in attacking the rights of gays to marry, is set to be released soon.

The movie is called "8: The Mormon Proposition," and according to an AP article, Reed Cowan, a gay Mormon, decided to make the film after the personal turmoil he experienced within his own family over the issue of gay civil rights. His own sister was a supporter of Proposition 8.

The film is still in production, but the trailer is generating a ton of hits on the net. It is very well done.

To go to the movie's official website and view that trailer, click here.

Rhode Island Governor Signals A Surprise Shift On GLBT Rights

2009-11-13T16:35:00.004-05:00

Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri, who had just recently vetoed a bill that would give gay surviving partners burial and funeral rights, has apparently signaled that he is looking into statutes that might give the glbt community a broader range of rights, similar to the civil unions statute that recently passed in Washington state.

The Governor, who is a staunch social conservative, on record as opposing both gay marriage and civil unions, allegedly vetoed the funeral planning bill because he didn't want to resolve glbt civil rights issues in a piecemeal manner.

This apparent about face has many in the glbt community scratching their heads. Either way, it looks like there will be a vote upcoming in the Rhode Island legislature to override the Governor's veto.

The story is reported above by WPRI in Providence.

For the AP take on this development, click here.

Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Bill That Allows Gays Funeral Privileges

2009-11-12T17:27:00.005-05:00

In a story that sounds like it belongs in a state from the Deep South, Rhode Island Governor Dan Carcieri has just vetoed a bill that would have given survivors of gay partners burial rights.

It was Tuesday that the Governor vetoed the bill that, according to the Providence Journal would have wound up, "giving "domestic partners" the right to make funeral decisions for each other."

This is what passes for family values?

To the credit of the Rhode Island state legislature, the bills originally passed by aq margin of 63-1 in the House and 38-0 in the Senate. Yet, still, it is apparently not definite that there will be a vote to override the veto.

About a possible veto override, the Providence Journal reported,

House Majority Leader Gordon Fox issued this statement in response to an inquiry: "Personally, I favor an override of this legislation. I look forward to meeting with Speaker Murphy and the Senate leadership in the near future to review all of the vetoes and discuss our next course of action."

If you would like to express your displeasure to Governor Carcieri, the contact page is here. It contains a form where you can e-mail Carcieri directly. It also has his contact numbers and the snail mail address.

Barney Frank vows An End To DADT In 2010

2009-11-11T18:25:00.003-05:00

Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) announced on Wednesday that repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' will be included as an amendment to the fiscal year 2011 Defense Appropriations bill. Rep. Frank told the Washington Blade that once the bill passes in 2010, that President Obama could begin issuing stop/loss orders, preventing further discharges, as of October 1.

I am one of those who believe that President Obama could issue those orders now, while the flawed policy is under review.

I've never been a big fan of Barney Frank. I think he messed with the glbt community on ENDA. And his comments undercutting the recent march on Washington were self-serving and infuriating.

Color me cynical, but the timing on this to me has everything to do with the recently announced boycott of the DNC.

This probably explained why Frank took great pains to mention that Rahm Emanuel is somehow behind this policy decision.

Whatever you say, Barney.

For the full Blade article, click here.

Kerry Eleveld also has a report on this at The Advocate.

Action Alert: Veteran's Day Letter From SLDN

2009-11-11T11:01:00.003-05:00

It's Veteran's Day, what better way to celebrate than supporting our gay brothers and sisters who serve in America's military?

The nation's leading advocacy group for gays in the military is asking for your help in writing letters to the editor. The following letter has a hyperlink that will make it easy for you to do. The hyperlink is included twice.

It was sent out today by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN):

Today, November 11, we mark Veterans Day across the country. On this day, we remember our veterans -- which include an estimated one million LGBT patriots -- and express our gratitude for their service.

As a retired Navy Captain with 29 years of dedicated service, I have seen firsthand how "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" dishonors the brave sacrifices of our service members. I will always love and respect the military, which is why I know our men and women deserve better than the injustice of DADT.

This year, let us honor the courageous men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice and renew our commitment to end DADT.

Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and make the case for repeal:

www.sldn.org/VeteransDay

If published, your letter will raise awareness about DADT and the need for repeal. A particularly effective letter can get thousands of people talking about the issue and have effects well beyond the pages of the paper.

Join us now:

www.sldn.org/VeteransDay

Thank you, as always, for your support.

CAPT Joan Darrah, USN (Ret.)

AMA Supports Gay Marriage & Ending DADT

2009-11-10T18:34:00.002-05:00

The American Medical Association gave a 1-2 punch of support Tuesday, officially calling for an end to "don't ask, don't tell," and stating that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities because gay couples are less likely to be fully covered by health insurance.

As reported by the AP, the policy decisions by the nation's largest organization of doctors, occurred during an interim policy-making meeting in Houston. It comes one day after the AMA endorsed the health care reform bill passed by the House. However, unlike that endorsement, do not expect the White House to be trumpeting, or pointing to, these new policy statements.

On coming out against same-sex marriage bans, The AP reported,

Same-sex families lack other benefits afforded married couples, including tax breaks, spouse benefits under retirement plans and Social Security survivor benefits — all of which can put their health at risk, according to an AMA council report presented at the meeting.

On the governmental ban on gays serving openly in the military, it was reported that,

Doctors who pushed the group to oppose "don't ask, don't tell" say the policy forcing gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret has "a chilling effect" on open communication between gays and their doctors.

"A law which makes people lie to their physicians is a bad law," said Dr. David Fassler, a University of Vermont psychiatry professor who attended the meeting.

We in the glbt community should find a way to thank the AMA for doing their part to help us in our struggle for full civil rights. It would be a good idea to refer to their support when we are advocating in support of both gay marriage and ending dadt.

You can learn more about the AMA at their website.

Update: New York State Senate Postpones Gay Marriage Vote

2009-11-10T13:18:00.003-05:00

The New York State Senate, still in need of 5 Democratic votes, has put off a vote on gay marriage, according to reports.

An AP story posted at a Rochester news site first broke the story at 12:22PM, and was later followed up by confirmation at the New York Times.

Democrats hold a slight 32-30 majority in the Senate.

According to the Times report,

Republicans and Democrats said that as of Tuesday afternoon the measure was still several votes short of the 32 necessary for approval. About five Democrats remained either opposed or noncommittal, meaning that Republican votes were needed to secure passage.

But not enough Republicans have committed yet to voting yes, legislators said.

Sponsor of the bill, Tom Duane, has not been able to say whether or not it will come to the floor for a vote at all, at this point. According to the Times, Duane did say he was "optimistic."

Some in the State Senate are indicating that the vote may come after the Deficit Reduction Plan is addressed, as the Times also reports.

As I learn who the 5 State Senators are, I will post them so that we can continue our lobbying efforts, as well as seeking out GOP converts to the cause.

Stay tuned.

Action Alert: Lobby NY State Senate On Tuesday Gay Marriage Vote

2009-11-10T00:25:00.002-05:00

On Tuesday, at the urging of Governor Patterson, the New York State Senate will vote on gay marriage. We only need to sway a few votes. Please join us in helping bring equality to New York's gay and lesbian couples.

There is a useful tool at the website of the Empire State Pride Agenda. There is a form feed that will allow you to get all the contact information for your State Senator so that you can personally ask them to support gay marriage.

This is the page of the action center. Just input your zip code and you will get contact information for your State Senator. PLEASE call or e-mail your State Senator asap, since the vote is tomorrow. Ask them to support gay marriage so that gays in New York are not 2nd class citizens.

Please share that site info with your friends and crosspost, because what we need right now is direct contact with the State Senators voting on this on Tuesday

No More Money For The DNC

2009-11-09T12:54:00.004-05:00

First a note about LelioRisen and this blog

Sorry I have not been blogging much here since renewing my LelioRisen 'net presence. I have been starting a new business and keeping much of my focus there. However, I have spent a lot of my blogging time posting at AmericaBlog. But now, I do plan on renewing my focus here. I have my own stories and agenda that I would like to put forth.

For the past several years, I had blogged as scootmandubious, and received a ton of hits leading up to the 2008 election. My incredible disillusionment with Obama after that election has caused me to temporarily suspend blog activity there. I have no heart to defend the Dems and Obama on anything these days.

Rather, I plan on going back to my original focus, glbt issues, which can be best served through this blog. Since I have a decade of prior glbt advocacy as leliorisen, I thought it best to use this presence.

The Petition

I have pretty much decided to leave the Democratic party and register as an independent. The one thing holding me back, for the moment, is that I want to work in the primary system to help ensure that Blue Cross DLC-style Dems are beaten by progressives at every turn. So, I have to evaluate which scenario suits me best.

But, I have made a pledge to not give another dime to the Dems and the DNC. Democrats have used gays and lesbians to tap our time and our resources and then stab us in the back at every turn.

No More.

At AmericaBlog I just signed a petition to notify the DNC that they can no longer count on me for monetary support until they follow through on promises made to the glbt community.

Under the heading "Don't Ask, Don't Give," The petitioners are asking for people to join in signing the following pledge:

"I pledge not donate to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until Congress passes, and the president signs, legislation enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)."

Please take the time to sign the petition and pass it on to others.

The link to the petition can be found by clicking here.

(note: above logo found at lonestarbear.blogspot.com)

Excellent AP Analysis Of Gays In The Military of Our Allies

2009-07-13T13:41:00.006-04:00

It was only a matter of time before the logical dominant argument for lifting 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would rise to the surface...the fact that our allies have had no problem making the transition. Today's AP has a great report that examines the successful integration of gays in Great Britain, Australia and Israel. This is then contrasted with a whole new set of bogus charges by homophobes in the American military.

Some of the highlights from the article, prominently featured today at the Washington Post website, includes the following:

In Britain, on the other hand, uniformed gay and lesbian service members marched in the annual Pride London parade July 4. Gay Australian soldiers and sailors had their own float in Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras parade. In Israel, the army magazine earlier this year featured two male soldiers on the cover, hugging one another.

It is hard to be more battle-tested than the Israeli military, where gays have served openly since 1993. The article reports,

Maj. Yoni Schoenfeld, a gay officer who is the editor of the military magazine, Bamahane, said there was little friction in the ranks related to gay soldiers.

He served as a combat soldier and as commander of a paratrooper company, and said his sexual orientation - though known to fellow soldiers - was never an issue.

And adds,

Schoenfeld's magazine has reflected the evolving attitudes. In 2001, it was shut down briefly after featuring an interview with a retired colonel who had come out of the closet. Yet this year, there was no adverse reaction to the cover picture of two male soldiers embracing.
The military also provided the backdrop for the 2002 movie "Yossi & Jagger" about two Israeli combat soldiers who fall in love on the front lines. It was a hit with critics and the public, and was even screened on military bases.

In Australia,

The lifting of the ban was preceded by heated debate, yet the change itself was relatively uneventful.

Among opponents of the change at the time was Australia's main veterans group, which later withdrew its objections.

The group's president, retired Maj. Gen. Bill Crews, said concerns about lowered morale and HIV transmission on the battlefield proved ill-founded.

"I thought there'd be a continuing problem because of prejudice that exists in parts of the community," Crews said. "I don't see any evidence now that homosexuals are in any way discriminated against. ...A homosexual can be just as effective a soldier as a heterosexual."

Regarding Britain's experience since the change occurred 10 years ago,

At the time, there was significant opposition to the change among military officers. There were predictions that unit cohesion would suffer and that large numbers of personnel would leave the military if gays could serve.

Lord Alan West, former head of the Royal Navy and now Britain's terrorism minister, served before and after the ban was lifted.

"It's much better where we are now," West said. "For countries that don't do that - I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be. It's to do with other prejudices, I'm afraid."

Lord West added that "Americans really need to make the move."

Because the global example has refuted the allegations by homophobes in the military, there is new pompous, isolationist rhetoric being provided by the bigots in charge.

The AP article features the following lunacy:

"Who's the only superpower military out there?" argued Maj. Brian Maue, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in a debate in June in Chicago. "This is hardly convincing to say, 'Ah, the others are doing it. We should too.'"

I am sure Israel appreciated hearing that. Not to mention, every other NATO member but Turkey. And further,

Maue - who says he's been speaking out on his own, not as a military spokesman - also suggested in an online forum that "an openly gay military would be the heterosexual equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms with men."

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, is alleged to have disparaged the integration of gays in the military of our allies, without offering a shred of evidence. He adds,

Repealing the U.S. ban would trigger the departure of some career service members who object to homosexuality and deter some people from enlisting.

I wonder how many similar comments were made when our military was first subject to racial integration?

The AP article refers to Pennsylvannia Rep. Daniel Murphy's leadership in trying to get DADT repealed. Murphy, a Democrat and the first Iraq war veteran to gain election to Congress, had this to say,

"I take it as a personal affront to our warriors," he said. "To say that other countries' soldiers are professional enough to handle this and American soldiers aren't is really a slap in the face."

The last word in the AP story is given to Iraq war veteran, Army National Guard Lt. Dan Choi. Choi is facing dismissal under the DADT ban. He says,

"...don't ask" forces gays who are serving to be furtive and dishonest.

"Closeting is what causes instability," he said. "It's the most toxic poison."

As for the U.S. being different from its allies, Choi agrees.

"We are exceptional - because we take the lead on things," he said. "To me, it's an insult to the idea of American exceptionalism to say we're somehow scared of gays."

Read the full article and pass it along. It can be found here.

What Gives With "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

2009-07-05T20:20:00.003-04:00

I have to admit, I am baffled.

There are 2 NATO nations that do not allow gays to openly serve. Turkey is one of them. Guess the other?

That's right, America is pretty much the last major Western nation to discriminate on gays in service. Currently, President Obama is allowing 2 servicepeople's lives to be ruined each day, as they get discharged.

It is an issue that affects America's security. In a vastly depleted military, we have booted an inordinately large number of Arabic translators and linguists for being gay. This is just plain lunacy.

In the global model, the nations that allow gays to serve openly, including Israel, have not reported a loss of military cohesion as a result of lifting their own bans.

That being the case, it undercuts the military's sole argument...that it would be some sort of grand social experiment and the sky might possibly fall. It is not an experiment...we have successful examples to point to. This is a no-brainer.

Additionally, in polling, a vast majority of people favored lifting the policy. In fact, even a plurality of Conservatives favored it.

So, what do we get now...Defense Secretary Robert Gates looking to use selective enforcement...another way of saying...humanely discriminate.

And today, Adm. Mike Mullen (pictured above), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had some more absurdist comments on "State of the Union" on CNN.

As the AP reported Mullen said:

"It's very clear what President Obama's intent here is. He intends to see this law change.

"I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.

One would think that would mean somebody is looking into how to change policy.

One would be wrong.

Mullen is actually loathe to initiate this at all. He said today,

"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said

This is the most important issue in the glbt political spectrum for me. I find it more necessary to resolve than the marriage issue and here is why...

We cannot expect to be treated with dignity and respect until we get our house in order. It is imperative to understand the stigma of DADT.

Gay self-identity cannot be criminalized, in and of itself. It is unacceptable. Here we are seeking to gain the full civil rights afforded by marriage, rights that we pay into the system to fund, and another part of government codifies us as unworthy.

DADT says that there is something wrong with the mere fact that a person is gay. DADT says that a gay person who is true to one's self is not worthy to serve their country. In fact, DADT encourages gay people to lie. What sort of value is that?

It was not all that long ago that gays were being lobotomized. Gay people are executed, solely for who we are, to this day.

The very least Obama should do is issue a stop-loss order to prevent any more gay people from being discharged, until the policy gets lifted.

The next thing he should do is initiate the dialogue so that we get rid of this policy, once and for all.

To this point, Obama has done nothing.

Former Army Secretary Says End DADT

2009-06-21T12:45:00.005-04:00

In a powerful interview with Democracy Now, the former Army Secretary under Jimmy Carter, Clifford Alexander, spoke out forcefully for ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

While the Obama DOJ filing of the brief in DOMA has gotten the most attention for glbt activists, his department's filing to the Supreme Court, defending DADT, is equally troubling.

Despite the fact that Turkey is the only other NATO nation that does not integrate gays into the military, and that there is now a demonstrable global model that proves that gays serving openly do not disrupt military cohesion (an absurd argument to begin with), the Obama folks still trotted out that argument, claiming that the policy is, in fact,

"rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

In the interview with Amy Goodman, former Secretary Alexander had the following to say:

The policy is an absurdity and borderline on being an obscenity. What it does is cause people to ask of themselves that they lie to themselves, that they pretend to be something that they are not. There is no empirical evidence that would indicate that it affects military cohesion. There is a lot of evidence to say that the biases of the past have been layered onto the United States Army.

It has several negative ramifications. One is the fact that the people who are presently serving, and that’s thousands and thousands who are gays and lesbians, they have to lie every day. It’s like asking a Jewish person to act like he or she is a Muslim, or asking a Catholic to act like he or she is Buddhist, taking their fundamental values and exchanging it for silence. A second issue is, of course, that people who would want to serve in this nation’s armed services, because of their specific orientation sexually, they will not do so because they don’t want to engage in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

What we need to have, I think immediately, is an urgency about this issue and an urgency that goes well beyond the President of the United States, but also to the Congress, because it’s my understanding that the legislation has to be repealed with other legislation. So, as I understand, in the House there is some movement in that direction, but what I do not sense is that there is an urgency about this issue on the part of Americans, whatever their particular sexual orientation might be. This isn’t really just about, obviously, gay or lesbian people. It’s about what we stand for as a country, what the military is, how we can get the best skills in that military, and that—most importantly, I think, the way we are treating people who presently have to lie about their particular sexual orientation. It’s not the way this country should operate.

Watch the above interview, which also includes Nathanial Frank, who penned "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America."

Non-deceiving gays in the military are still being discharged at the rate of about 2 per day. That Obama cannot immediately issue a stop-loss order to prevent further discharges, while the policy is under review, is unconscionable. And Obama had not even initiated steps that might someday lead to lifting DADT. What is he waiting for?

Since President Obama seems to always react out of fear of offending the right-wing, it is puzzling that, even when the majority of Conservatives polled support ending DADT, the president can't just take the initiative to do the right thing.

For the transcript of the above interview, click here.

Fallout From Obama's DOJ DOMA Brief

2009-06-16T21:15:00.002-04:00

I am pleasantly surprised to see some solid pushback to the recent Obama DOJ filing of a brief in defense of DOMA.

Initially, it appeared that the Obama team thought it could defuse the growing rage by sending out various people to attempt to indicate that they were obligated to present a vigorous defense of DOMA. That strategy was seen most clearly by some people who were vigorously posting in the forums at John Aravosis' Americablog, which, to John's credit, was the flashpoint for the pushback.

Then, there was the patronizing, and totally unacceptable response from the leading openly gay person in Obama's Cabinet, John Berry. Mr. Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, told the Advocate's, Kerry Eleveld, regarding an alleged comprehensive agenda on glbt political issues,

"Now, I’m not going to pledge -- and nor is the president -- that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration – our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure."

Let me translate this...'nothing may happen in the next 4 years, but if you help us get re-elected, we have a real shot at having our issues get addressed in the next 8.' Oh, and 'thanks for playing.'

The Reaction

First, after surprisingly little initial reaction outside of Americablog, steam picked up rather quickly.

On Monday, Rachel Maddow was front and center on the story with John Dean, who indicated how unfortunate the wording of the brief was and how, as a result, Obama may actually be forced to act sooner on DADT. Both Maddow and Keith Olbermann covered the story today.

Today, the New York Times had a powerful editorial on the subject, chastising Obama for, what they called "A Bad Call On Gay Rights."

The Times editorial began:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

And added,

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

Even the HRC, hardly known for stirring the pot, felt moved to react angrily.

However, most chilling to Rahm Emmanuel and the Obama braintrust, was the fear of losing fundraising dollars. To that end, a growing boycott against an upcoming Democratic Party fundraiser featuring VP Joe Biden has apparently produced a few crumbs from the administration.

In a hasty, last-minute leak, sources have let it be known that tomorrow, President Obama plans to announce that same-sex partners of federal employees will soon be entitled to benefits. Obama allegedly plans to announce his decision in the Oval Office.

No word yet, on whether or not Obama plans to also extend those benefits to uncles who are in relationships with their nieces.

Former Clinton Staffer Speaks Out On Obama

2009-06-14T17:02:00.003-04:00

Former Bill Clinton staffer Richard Socarides (pictured) has just penned a fine essay on John Aravosis' Americablog, which explains why President Obama did not need to have his Justice Department prepare a highly-homophobic brief in defense of DOMA.

For those who may not be aware, the DOMA defense from Obama's team included language that compared gay marriage to incest and said the government could not afford the cost it would allegedly incur if gays were allowed to marry. For those who would like to follow that story, Americablog is as good a place as any for comprehensive coverage.

Socarides, ironically enough, is the son of legendary homophobe Charles Socarides, who championed the lie that gays could be cured by therapy.

There seems to be a concerted effort from the White House to put out talking points, suggesting that Obama's DOJ had no choice but to vigorously defend DOMA. Some have even gone so far as to trash Mr. Aravosis' blog and accuse him of stirring up hysteria and over-reaction

In his blog post, the younger Socarides wrote:

I was...troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

Socarides continues:

I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.

From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.

Further:

Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration’s lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff’s had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.

I am not suggesting that it is easy to get the DOJ to agree not to defend a law on the merits, because it is not. Someone has to be aggressive and make persuasive arguments to the president. Someone on a staff level has to believe strongly that it is the right thing to, not defending DOMA, and be willing to push hard. But it is doable. It does happen. It is one of the reasons the president needs to appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality (as I and others have previously urged).

Again, I recommend your visiting Americablog to read the full essay and read the ongoing coverage.

I know, during Pride month, various glbt groups ask for your donations and support. This year, to make sure your dollars are actually counting for something, ask them what their response to this DOJ filing was. I also would highly recommend on witholding all future dollars and support to both the Presidend and the entire Democratic Party until we actually see that they see gay people as a constituency that actually matters.

Up to now, all Obama has done is throw gays under the bus. And nobody is holding him accountable.

Let's Try This Again

2009-06-14T11:18:00.004-04:00

The following is the text of a comment I posted at The Atlantic earlier today:

I was a glbt activist voice online in the 90s and early part of this decade. One of the reasons I pulled back is that I thought glbt interest groups were not consistent and were more interested in access, and cocktail parties, than change.

My biggest gripe with the 'gay rights establishment' was the hypocrisy over who they officially chose to mourn, and get angry about. Matthew Shepard was the death that galvanized everyone. That was correct to do. But what about Sakia Gunn (pictured above), the 15-year old African-American lesbian murdered in Newark in 2003? What about Steven Goedereis, a 29-year old man, murdered the same year Shepard was? His 2 teen killers alleged that the victim came onto him. It was the same old 'gay panic' motive, which was not supported by evidence and turned out to be a blatant lie. This man was targeted, and stomped so badly that blood shot up to an overhang. At the highly publicized trial, not one representative from a glbt organization could even be bothered to attend. I remember Mr. Goedereis' surviving partner contacting me and thanking me for being the only one that seemed to take an interest in the case.

Where was the outrage for the other victims of gay hate crimes, some of which made national headlines, but garnered no publicity, unlike Shepard. What about the murder of African-American gay man, James Byrd, who was dragged from the back of a truck? No, the only one worthy of the glbt collective anger was Matthew Shepard. But then, he looked like the people you would see in the glbt magazines. I found it disheartening, to say the least.

In the interim I have focused more on progressive politics in general, in another incarnation, I had been an avid blogger for Mr. Obama. I have seen how well that turned out.

It was Pat Buchanan's Culture Wars speech that first caused me to come out and become an activist. It is the current President's DOJ brief on DOMA that makes me realize that maybe glbt issues should be back in focus.

At the moment, I do not have any cocktail parties to distract me from speaking out.