Queer Justice League

2009-11-23T10:54:00.003-05:00

We Don't Need a Leader
by Billy Glover

Once again we hear voices saying, after the recent March on Washington, that the glbt community/movement needs a "leader." This seems to me to indicate a total lack of understanding of how this movement has been so successful in going from a single closeted organization in 1950, and a single lgbt publication in 1952 to the thousands of organizations and hundreds of publications and resources that we have today. The only question we should be asking ourselves is why there are so many glbt people who are unaware of just what this community and movement does have. There is lack of communication among the various elements.

It must be said that anti-gay bigots seem to know more about what is going on in this movement than we do. It is doubtful that many of us have actually thought about all the resources we have. I urge everyone to take a look at Gayellow Pages, the print verison or online version (gypages@gmail.com). Each group or publication is so busy trying to do the job it chose to do that they do not know what others are doing. It may be good that today we can have specialized resources, much as medicine now has "specialties," but we then face the same problem medicine is facing, a lack of general physicians, since everyone wants to "specialize" and have more influence.

But the reason we have been so wildly successful is that mostly we have all worked for the main purpose of gaining our civil/equal rights. Only in the last decade have we started specializing in having organizations for each of the areas, thus we have Lambda Legal and National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAD, etc (as well as the ACLU) to work on legal issues. We have organizations for religious work, such as Dignity, Affirmation (Methodist and Mormon), Kinship (Seventh Day Adventist), etc. We have an organization working for youth, GLSEN, and there are groups for each profession; medicine, anthropology, law, journlism, etc.

And while most of our lgbt newspapers and magazine try to give coverage to all of our areas and groups, they don't always seem to do a good job. It seems that many editors and journalists think that we want to know more about the latest celebrity to come "out" than we do about what activities are going on in our community. How often do papers cover our libraries/archives? Do we know of the glbt book clubs? and the travel articles seem to think we would not want to know where the local gay center is in major cities, but only want to know where the closest bar and bathhouse or cafe is. We don't need a lgbt guide to tell us where a local museum is, general guides do that.

And too often when an issue is in discussion, a "specialized" group says they are not interested in it but only in their little domain-as if a religious organization has no interest in gay bars being attacked by police, or a legal organization has no interest in films that are pro or con.

There are a few efforts to get us informed on coverage of glbt issues. Daily Queer News (dailyqueernews@yahoo.com) tries to give us links to what is in the news that we should be aware of. For entertainment news there is Coming Out Support Weekly (onqyb@aol.com). There are others. But if we don't know about these resources they can not help build communication and cooperation within our movement. And thus the hundreds of good leaders working in various organizations, local and national, will not be able to support each other.

Celebrate our diversity. There is no competition among us except to se what we can all do to educate ourselves and the public on the truth about homosexuality. There is no reason to oppose a "march' or say we must only work on a federal/national level or that we must attack an organization that has chosen to work on only one aspect.

We must practice what we preach. We have to acknowledge that there are really gay Republicans as well as Democrats. That some of us are members of PLAGAL and are pro-life, while many of us are pro-choice. There are those who are allies and work with PFLAG, many of whom have lgbt children. And there is COLAGE, for children who have glbt parents.

There is no reason those who fear the lies of the religions can not work with those who choose to stay in the religious community and try to bring about better understanding and change.

We can be proud, of each generation that has added to our work, from the founders of Mattachine, ONE/HIC and DOB in the 1950s to those at Stonewall, and those who did the various "marches" and those who join us each day. THOSE WHO MARCHED will someday be pioneers. We are all pioneers, and we must have done something right, we are slowly but surely changing the world.

2009-11-03T05:57:00.001-05:00

October 3, 2009
New York Times

Your Money

The High Price of Being a Gay Couple

By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD and RON LIEBER

Much of the debate over legalizing gay marriage has focused on God and Scripture, the Constitution and equal protection.

But we see the world through the prism of money. And for years, we’ve heard from gay couples about all the extra health, legal and other costs they bear. So we set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number — a couple’s lifetime cost of being gay.

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s. So we gave the couple two children and assumed that one partner would stay home for five years to take care of them. We also considered the taxes in the three states that have the highest estimated gay populations — New York, California and Florida. We gave our couple an income of $140,000, which is about the average income in those three states for unmarried same-sex partners who are college-educated, 30 to 40 years old and raising children under the age of 18.

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not.

Our analysis is not exact science. Not every couple would get married if they could, and others would not want to have children. We also made a number of assumptions based on average costs, life spans, state of residence and gender.

Our gay family is made up of two women living in New York State in a committed partnership that lasts 46 years, until the first partner dies at age 81. We ran two sets of calculations: in the one that turned out to be our worst case financially, one woman earned $110,000 and the other $30,000. In our second couple, both partners earned $70,000. We started running the numbers when both were age 35.

We received assistance from Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, who performed our tax analysis, which required simulating more than 900 income tax returns, in part because we followed the partners for 50 years. We also decided to run all scenarios across the three states so that the results would not be skewed by different state taxes. We’ve outlined all the detail in a workbook linked to the online version of this column.

As for the emotional costs of living with these added complexities, they can’t be quantified. Frederick Hertz, a lawyer in Oakland, Calif., who works with same-sex couples, likens heterosexual marriage to being in the car pool lane. “Being part of a same-sex couple, it’s always stop. Wait. Pay a toll,” he said.

Harvey Hurdle, who lives in Philadelphia with his partner and their young son, said he was reminded of the disparities every time his Social Security statement arrived in the mail. “It’s pretty insulting,” he said. “It says your spouse would get this much. And it’s like, ‘Oh no he won’t!’ ”

Health Insurance

In our worst case, the lower earner’s employer did not provide health insurance and her partner’s employer didn’t cover domestic partners. So the lower earner had to buy coverage on the private market, while the higher-earning partner provided coverage for herself and the two children. All this cost the gay couple $211,993 more than their heterosexual married counterparts, who were able to take advantage of the higher-earner’s family coverage.

In our best case, health coverage cost the gay couple $28,595 more. We assumed both gay partners were eligible for employer-provided coverage. The higher-earner’s employer also provided domestic partner coverage, which covered her partner for the five years she stayed at home. When she returned to work, she used her own employer’s insurance.

Even though the couple paid nearly $29,000 more in premiums than an identical heterosexual married couple, it was cheaper than using domestic partnership coverage throughout because of the onerous tax implications, according to Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center. A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums, according to Todd A. Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits department of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

Social Security

All our hypothetical individuals started collecting Social Security when they were 66. Same-sex couples are not entitled to a variety of Social Security benefits, including spousal benefits (heterosexual spouses can receive up to 50 percent of a spouse’s benefits while the spouse is alive, if they are higher than their own); survivor benefits (surviving spouses can receive their deceased spouse’s benefits in lieu of their own, if they are higher); and a flat death benefit of $255.

In the worst case, the gay partner who earned $30,000 could not receive higher spousal benefits or survivor benefits from her partner’s much higher earnings record. Nor was she entitled to the death benefit. In total, the gay women collected $88,511 less in Social Security than a similar heterosexual couple. Some couples might try to buy life insurance in an attempt to replace the benefit.

In our best case, when the gay partners had largely identical incomes, neither was at a huge disadvantage because they ended up with about the same monthly benefits. So the only extra benefit a heterosexual married couple received was the $255 death benefit.

Estate Taxes

Heterosexual married couples can transfer an unlimited amount of assets to each other during their lives and at death without paying estate taxes. Everyone else, including married same-sex couples, must pay federal estate taxes on amounts that exceed the 2009 exemption of $3.5 million. Many states also levy their own estate or inheritance taxes, though same-sex couples may be shielded from those in states that recognize their unions. Our couple lived in New York, where the estate tax exemption is $1 million. And though New York recognizes marriages performed elsewhere, that recognition does not extend to state income or estate taxes.

In our worst case, the gay partner who died first in 2055 left an estate that exceeded the state’s threshold by $171,528. That meant a tax bill of $43,378, according to Ron L. Meyers, an estate-planning lawyer with a significant same-sex clientele at Cane, Boniface & Meyers in Nyack, N.Y.

Meanwhile, their identical heterosexual counterparts owed nothing.

The gay couple in our best case had a smaller estate, in part because they were careful to title their home as tenants-in-common, so only the deceased partner’s half of the home was taxable. The estate didn’t exceed the federal or state threshold. So they owed nothing.

Childbearing

Two women who want to have a biological child together need sperm to do it. They may need to purchase sperm from a bank and use a medical professional to inseminate one of the partners. There are also adoption costs.

The worst case here totaled $40,000. It included 12 months of sperm and insemination costs, but the big wild card was the possible need to move to a state where same-sex second-parent adoptions were legal. While this may seem extreme, couples often do it, according to Joyce Kauffman, a lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., who has worked with many of them. We estimated a minimum of $20,000 for this cost, including real estate brokerage fees to sell a home and moving costs.

In the best case, there might be no cost at all: the couple could use sperm from a relative of the partner who isn’t bearing the child or from a friend, inseminate at home and take their chances with free legal forms on the Web. Ms. Kaufman does not recommend such a cavalier approach to vital documents.

The cost for men to have a biological child would be much higher if they used a surrogate.

Pension

We assumed that one partner, in both best and worst cases, received a small pension. In both cases, the partner with the pension plan died first.

Employers do not have to provide survivor pension benefits to a same-sex spouse, but many do anyway (which would put our best case at $0). In our worst case, however, the higher-earning partner died first and did not work for such a company. So the surviving partner got nothing. A similarly situated heterosexual surviving spouse would receive $32,253 before dying herself several years later.

Spousal I.R.A.

You generally need to earn income to contribute to an Individual Retirement Account. But heterosexual married couples can contribute up to $5,000 annually to a spousal I.R.A. for a nonworking spouse. Stay-at-home gay partners, however, cannot make these contributions. So they end up with smaller retirement accounts.

We assumed that all the couples would have either saved 7 percent of the stay-at-home parent’s previous year’s salary, or $5,000, the maximum contribution. So the gay couple with one partner who started out earning just $30,000 would have saved less (had she been legally able to) than someone earning $70,000. In both cases, that five-year gap in savings early on in the partners’ lives haunted them later because they weren’t able to benefit from decades of compounding returns.

The couple with the lower-earning partner at home ended up $48,654 behind by the time that partner died, assuming she invested in a portfolio mixed equally between stocks and bonds that returned 5.94 percent annually. The surviving spouse from the gay couple with equal incomes ended up $112,192 behind.

Tax Preparation

Instead of filing one joint federal tax return and one state income tax return, same-sex couples must file two sets of returns. In both best and worst cases, those couples paid an additional $12,300 in tax preparation fees over the 46 years they are together.

Financial Planning

Even married same-sex couples are encouraged to create a number of documents that try to replicate the protections and rights of heterosexual marriage because their unions are not universally recognized. In the worst case, our gay couple spent $5,500 more than their heterosexual counterparts on their additional paperwork. That included a revocable living trust, which is more difficult to contest than a will, and what is known as a pour-over will, which ensured that anything left out of the trust would be included. They also each set up financial powers of attorney, health care proxies, living wills and a domestic partnership agreement.

In the best case, our couple didn’t spend any more than a prudent heterosexual couple would. Both couples created two wills, financial powers of attorney, health care proxies and living wills.

Income Taxes

Married heterosexual couples with two working spouses with similar incomes often pay more in federal taxes than if they remained single because of the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than they would have been in if they filed as singles. But some couples — especially those with a wide disparity in income or with a stay-at-home parent — usually pay less when they file jointly. They benefit from what’s known as a marriage bonus.

In our worst case, where one gay partner earned $110,000 and one earned $30,000, the couple paid $15,027 less in taxes over their lifetimes than their heterosexual counterparts.

Though the gay and heterosexual married couple had identical salaries, the married couple collected more income in retirement — a direct result of their marriage status — and thus owed more in taxes (though they still benefited from the marriage bonus). For instance, the married couple collected higher Social Security spousal benefits and survivor benefits, pension income and income derived from a spousal I.R.A. The gay couples weren’t entitled to any of these benefits.

In our best case, where the partners each earned $70,000, the gay couple paid $112,146 less in income taxes. “That is the marriage penalty rearing its ugly head,” Mr. Williams said.

Gay City News Endorses Thompson

2009-10-21T16:13:00.002-04:00

The Campaign That Has Not Happened
Published: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:24 PM Gay City News

LGBT supporters of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg cite attributes and achievements valued by other voters –– his compelling personal story as a business builder, the city’s continued success in driving down crime, the curb on indoor smoking in public spaces, an ambitious focus on greening the city.

Many also single out his advocacy for marriage equality. The mayor has made several high profile appeals to the State Senate this year to approve the gay marriage bill already adopted by the Assembly. On October 1, Bloomberg recounted for a group of gay supporters how he had, that day, called the top Democrat and Republican in the Senate and told them, “This is our number one priority.”

That’s heady stuff –– as the mayor spoke, the crowd came alive with applause and spirited shouts. There is real value in the public debate in the cumulative suasion of leaders like the mayor.

The problem is that Bloomberg’s actions regarding gay marriage have been at sharp odds with his laudable words. A disjunction between words and deeds are unfortunately all too common in the mayor’s LGBT record.

In 2005, at the same time the mayor decided to appeal a Manhattan district court judge’s pro-gay marriage ruling, for the first time he announced his support for marriage equality and pledged to lobby Albany to secure that right. That December, he told Gay City News, “When I say I’ll do something, I’ll do something.”

Yet since that statement, Bloomberg has contributed nearly $3.4 million to support the state Republican and Independence Parties, the bulk of those dollars directly funding State Senate Republican incumbents, at a time when that party’s majority refused to bring marriage equality to a floor vote. A $1.2 million Bloomberg contribution to the Independence Party last year was used to support the three most stridently anti-gay Republican senators. The mayor’s support for one of them, Frank Padavan of Queens, helped him squeak out a victory over Democratic City Councilman James Gennaro, a vocal supporter of equal marriage rights.

It’s fair to note that there are marriage equality opponents among the Senate Democrats, too, and that even after gaining the majority last November, their party did not deliver a floor vote. But it’s a good bet that had Gennaro and perhaps another Democrat or two prevailed in 2008, the two disgraceful senators who this past summer crippled a body riven by a 32-30 split would not have had their opportunity. The best information available to Gay City News indicates that without that disruption, Senator Thomas K. Duane would have gotten the marriage equality vote he seeks.

The more salient question, though, as we face November 3 is what the mayor can do to deliver Republican votes to bring the bill to the Senate floor, and on that point Bloomberg’s comments simply strain credulity. On September 17, Bloomberg told Gay City News that he “suspected” he could deliver Padavan and Brooklyn’s Marty Golden, who have both backed up their outspoken opposition to marriage equality with legislative and legal maneuvering. When the two senators’ offices were called to learn what the mayor had done to lobby them on marriage, Golden’s office did not respond. Padavan’s director of public affairs said Bloomberg had done nothing.

At an endorsement meeting on October 9, the mayor acknowledged that Padavan was not “gettable,” this time simply alluding vaguely to “upstate Republicans” whom he might bring around. Bloomberg may be, as he says, the “main funder” of the Senate Republicans, but the upstate incumbents have not accumulated the political debt that a Padavan has, so where is the mayor’s leverage?

Since the last election, Bloomberg has continued his support for the Republican and Independence Parties, donating about $500, 000, money that could return the GOP to the Senate majority in 2010, a perch from which they have consistently opposed gay marriage. Our community cannot afford that risk.

On other key LGBT issues, the mayor also talks a better game than he has played over the past eight years. He frequently mentions the continuing decline in AIDS deaths in the city, yet fails to reiterate his long-since discarded 2003 pledge to cut new infections in half. Six years later, by the city’s own data, infections remain resistant to reduction among gay and bisexual men, with transmission actually rising among young men, particularly men of color.

Asked this month why he has neglected more aggressive AIDS and condom education in the public schools, Bloomberg likened the question to divisive social debates such as evolution versus creationism. But the mayor is a world-renowned public health advocate, and he would never countenance the schools backing down from a science-based evolution curriculum. Why then did his all-star health commissioner, Thomas Frieden, now the head of the federal CDC, say, when discussing a new AIDS curriculum under development, “I don’t know that we will be able to achieve everything that you would want or I would want.”

That’s politics, not progress.

The mayor’s record on AIDS education stands in stark contrast to the positions championed by his opponent, City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., when the Democrat served as School Board president in the late 1990s.

Elsewhere, we can see where politics has trumped progress on issues the mayor now trumpets. Just weeks before the election, Bloomberg named a commission to study the issues facing LGBT homeless youth, pulling in many of the leading advocates. But in each of the four years since the City Council began appropriating money specifically targeting this vulnerable population, the administration has refused to incorporate into its budget the funding critical to providing the beds that still number only in the dozens— intransigence that City Council Youth Services Chair Lew Fidler described as “almost cruel.”

Asked earlier this year about the false arrests of gay men in video stores throughout Manhattan, the mayor insisted questions be directed to Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. Two weeks ago, Bloomberg said, “I’ve asked Kelly about it,” but then added, “I’m not so sure he’s doing an investigation.”

Mike Bloomberg is a CEO of a mayor –– he attracts top talent and empowers them with important missions. But some smaller issues, especially those that are thorny –– homeless LGBT youth, gay men falsely arrested –– never make it onto his radar, and other important questions –– marriage equality and AIDS education –– take a back seat to political imperatives, whether helping out GOP friends in the State Senate or letting his schools chancellor overrule his health commissioner.

Bill Thompson has a longer and stronger suit on LGBT rights issues. On every issue that the mayor claims bona fides, the comptroller was there first and holds a more unambiguous position. His advocacy for workplace fairness –– through shareholder resolutions aimed at companies in which the city pension funds invest –– has led to nondiscrimination protections and equal partner benefits for LGBT workers at nearly 75 major corporations. That is a significant accomplishment that had helped reshape American business well beyond the borders of New York.

Given Thompson’s record, it is unfortunate that the mayor has made the divisive argument that the comptroller is laying low in this campaign on the question of marriage equality in order to pull out his African-American base.

But Thompson’s limited campaign funds –– Bloomberg is currently outspending him more than 16 to 1 –– has given him a very small window for snaring public attention; unfortunately he has not used it to best advantage. It is certainly appropriate that the Democrat emphasize an issue that disturbs many New Yorkers –– the mayor’s machinations last year that allowed him to run for a third term. But “Eight Is Enough” is simply not enough of a public reassurance for voters during anxious economic times.

We have known Thompson throughout his tenure as comptroller, and have taken a favorable measure of the man and his core principles. Recently, we had the chance to sit down with him for an hour to discuss the current campaign. While his record, we believe, makes him the superior candidate on LGBT issues, we have been disappointed that his campaign has not built on his animating beliefs to better articulate a vision for steering the city at a time of great potential but also severe fiscal stress.

The mayor’s unfettered personal spending on his own campaign does real damage, but the victim is not Bill Thompson. The real losers are the voters of New York, who deserve real debates on questions for which neither our elected officials nor our somnambulant city press corps are providing clear answers.

During this campaign, we should be addressing the intractable problem of HIV transmission.
Bloomberg ought to explain why he brags about how few people live on the streets compared to other large cities, even as the census of families living in city shelters breaks records.

Thompson needs to convince voters that he has concrete ideas for smart and tough-minded stewardship of the city budget when resources are severely reduced. Both candidates must address, in detail, how they will balance the budget in a climate of falling city revenues and uncertain transfer payments from a state in even worse shape. It is easy to talk about new programs, but voters need to hear the specifics of how each candidate will go about cutting programs or increasing revenues in this brutal fiscal climate.

On the question of policing and crime prevention, how do we balance the need for public safety with the NYPD’s appalling rate of stop and frisks–– pegged at more than 600,000 a year, the vast percentage of them people of color?

The city deserves debate about whether vacancy decontrol has canceled out the progress on building new affordable housing.

Elections are about making choices, no matter how dissatisfied we as voters may be about the responsiveness of candidates to our desire for informed debate. Mike Bloomberg has not convinced us that he and his Republican allies will put the needs and aspirations of the gay community ahead of politics. LGBT New Yorkers are looking for a leader and advocate in City Hall. We urge a vote for Bill Thompson.

EVENTS PLANNED IN RESPONSE TO HATE CRIME IN QUEENS

2009-10-15T21:35:00.005-04:00

Queens and all of New York City say

NO MORE!

Join Us in Support Hate Crime Victim Jack Price

Stand With Us Against

Anti-Gay Violence & Homophobia

In response to the violent beating of openly gay 49-year old Jack Price

by two men outside of a convenience store in the College Point neighborhood

of Queens early Friday, October 9th, two events are planned:

Friday, Oct. 16th, 3pm
Education Outreach at Flushing High School in Flushing, Queens

We'll be distributing information about LGBT issues and speaking to students.

Directions: Take the 7 train to Main Street and walk up to Northern Blvd;

cross the street; the school is a huge brick building. Meet us at the front gate.

By bus: Take the Q14, Q16, Q17 or Q44 to 35th Avenue. School is on the corner.

Take the Q25/34, Q65, Q67 to Main Street.

Walk along Main Street toward Northern Boulevard.

Saturday October 17th 2pm.
March and Rally in College Point
We'll be marching down College Point Boulevard from 20th avenue until 14th avenue.
and then holding a rally at nearby Popenhusen playground. Speakers TBA.
Directions: Take the 7 train to Main Street and then the Q65 bus from Roosevelt and Main Street to 20th ave.
Please bring signs without wooden sticks, banners, friends, and your best self.

--
These event are endorsed by Generation Q/the Queens Community House, the Queens Lesbian and Gay Pride Committee, the Jewish Center of Jackson Heights, St. Pat’s for All Parade, Astorians United Against Hate Crimes, Gay Peruvians of the Americas, the Long Island City Alliance, the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens, Las Buenas Amigas, Integrity NYC, Western Queens for Marriage Equality, the Anti Violence Project, Campaign to Stop the False Arrests, Queer Justice League, the International Socialist Organization, Carmen’s Place, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Project Reach, Make the Road NY.

Kramer says "This is not Freedom"

2009-09-22T16:07:00.003-04:00

"We must never forget that everything we have won can very quickly be taken away from us. We have seen this time and again. Presidents come and go ignoring us. This president is no different. Once again he is not doing it for us and once again we are letting him get away with it. This President is another loser for us and I predict he will remain this way."

"We must remember that we do not have the freedom to marry, to inherit, to adopt, to share our health insurance, to learn about our history in our schools. To learn that our two greatest presidents, Washington and Lincoln were gay. We do not have the freedom to live as straight people have the freedom to live. We do not have the freedom to have our bars not raided by police and officers beating us up with such fury that we land in hospitals."

"We have not learned to fight back with the same fury with which they fight us. You do not get more with honey than with vinegar. There are over one thousand benefits from our government that straight couples get that we are denied. This is not freedom. This is not equality. America’s Bill of Rights says we are meant to be equal."

LARRY KRAMER
REMARKS AT DALLAS GAY PRIDE CELEBRATION
SUNDAY, SEPT. 20, 2009

Cleve Jones Urges Pressure on Representatives to Repeal DOMA

2009-09-15T12:40:00.005-04:00

Dear Friends:

It has been over 30 years since my friend and teacher, gay rights activist Harvey Milk, was assassinated. Today, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have won limited rights in a handful of states, but we are still second class citizens throughout the United States.

Harvey once said, "It takes no compromising to give people their rights."

This morning, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a bill in Congress to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." If passed by the Congress, Rep. Nadler's legislation would be a real step forward in the march for full equality and we applaud his efforts, but LGBT people must stop settling for compromises and half measures.

Send a message to your Representative demanding full equality now!

Equal rights are not a "gay" issue. They are about our shared human rights: safety in our schools and jobs, equitable healthcare and housing, and protection for our families, to name a few.

Like all other Americans, LGBT people are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Free and equal people do not compromise, and that's why we're marching on Washington next month with one simple demand: Equal protection for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states. Now.

Please ask your Representative to co-sponsor this legislation as an important first step, and remind them that there are no fractions of equality.

When Harvey spoke at Gay Freedom Day at San Francisco City Hall in 1978, he invoked the words of the Declaration of Independence: "All [people] are created equal. No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words."

No more compromises. We are equal.

-Cleve Jones

2009-09-10T09:00:00.001-04:00

Momentum Builds at Mobilization for Metro NY Meeting at LGBT Center

2009-09-09T15:52:00.008-04:00

NYC LGBT Community REVS UP for March On Washington –OCTOBER 10-11, 2009

Diversity was the hallmark as a remarkable group of activists, from high school students to veterans of the famous ACT-UP Cathedral days, and everyone in between, joined in coalition to deliver NYC to DC on October 10-11th.

After affirming the purpose – Full Equality Now -- news was delivered about the flurry of buses already organized with r/t options starting at $20, and others with hotel packages. Participants then swung into action to coordinate a range of activities including media, flyering, fundraising, and organizational outreach. The mood was exhilarating as strangers leaped to coordinate cross-organizationally.

A highlight was the unveiling of a new banner by Gilbert Baker - the originator of the Rainbow Flag – that captured the spirit: Equal « Justice « Under « Law. Drawn from the west pediment of the Supreme Court Building – but derived originally from the 14th Amendment – this Constitutional Principle is the movement’s greatest legal promise, and the activists holding it – the next great political force.

A new website – www.equalityNYC.org – is being launched any moment with all the information needed to launch from NY and arrive in DC fully prepared to deliver the demand for Full Equality Now! There are opportunities for everyone to plug in – this is a grassroots revolution – by the busloads. Come check it out and join the March at www.nationalequalitymarch.com.

Podcast of National Equaity March Organizer Kip Williams

2009-09-08T23:16:00.007-04:00

Bilerico's Alex Blaze Interviews Kip Williams - Director of the Equality Across America

The Best Advocacy Advertisement on Marriage Equality!

2009-09-08T14:09:00.002-04:00

Hattip: Marriage Equality Ireland

Rainbow Sash Movement Schedules Christian Service on Saturday Before National Equality March

2009-09-08T09:05:00.002-04:00

Ecumenical Prayer Service for LGBT Rights In Washington, DC for the March On Washington

The Equality March on Washington is an opportunity for Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Catholics to say no to homophobia that would deny us our most fundamental rights. The Rainbow Sash Movement (http://www.rainbowsashmovement.com/) is calling for an Ecumenical Prayer Service to be held outside of the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle at 11AM on October 10, Saturday the same weekend as the march.

After the Ecumenical prayer service members and supporters of the Rainbow Sash Movement will enter the Cathedral for the noon Liturgy wearing Rainbow Sashes. This is a symbol of self identification, and to remind our fellow Catholics that our human dignity counts, and that we will no longer be invisible in the face of hierarchal homophobia.

Archbishop Wuerl of Washington DC has shown that he is insensitive to heritage of homophobia that is alive and well in Church as exampled by his recent actions in opposing Gay Marriage.
The Rainbow Sash Movement will no longer be silent because this will only embolden other Catholic Bishops to further distort the debate around Gay Marriage and further dehumanize the intrinsic worth of each Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender person.

Our letters and words of love are meaningless unless we are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who promote not only our human rights but also our civil rights such as Equality March On Washington. For further information or to get involved please email us at contact@RainbowSashMovement.Com.

Long Live the Everyman

2009-09-08T08:57:00.004-04:00

Cleve Jones: The Man Behind the Curtain
Bil Browning Editor-In-Chief of The Bilerico Project
From Huffington Post - 09.02.2009

I had the opportunity to meet veteran activist Cleve Jones Sunday during his recent visit to Chicago. Bilerico Project readers left questions for Jones in the comment section and sent in more via Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail, and I did the interview on their behalf. The response was overwhelming.

I read the questions from my iPhone to keep their voices intact. It was their interview, so I simply asked what was submitted and tried to get through as many questions as possible. We'll be paraphrasing the questions in the videos, but there will be a full written transcript of all questions and answers soon.

This isn't the interview I'd have done, obviously; Projectors' questions ranged from supportive to almost hostile. Instead, I wanted to share my reflections about meeting Jones and spending time watching him interact with Chicago activists -- a prologue, if you will, for the Q&A we're prepping.

One outstanding impression was simple and all encompassing. Cleve Jones is no gay God; he has feet of clay.

I've met many of the LGBT big wigs through the blog -- heads of big national organizations, entertainers, and lifelong respected activists I can only hope to emulate. With the exception of my first time meeting Kate Clinton, I'm never really starstruck or, honestly, in awe of their Super Queer powers.

For all the massive egos and self-importance, they're people just like you or I. They put on their socks one at a time like everyone else.

The Man Behind the Curtain Is Just a Man
We met Jones at a Join The Impact Chicago meeting held in a young straight couple's home. By the time we arrived, the official meeting had ended and people were milling about and socializing. Jones was in the back yard swinging the couple's tow-headed toddler up in the air and smothering him with kisses.

Many people only know Jones because of the movie Milk, but he stands out in my head because of the AIDS Quilt. I've sewn panels for the Quilt; I have friends and a former lover who's lives are represented on a small square of fabric decorated with my needlework and tears. Most of the young activists in the home's yard, however, knew the veteran activist solely from his relationship with Harvey Milk as portrayed on the big screen.

Both glimpses of Jones' life, however, are simply shades of the entire man. As with anyone who's dared to step into a leadership role within our community, he has been both praised and denigrated. I was there to ask him Projector's questions, but I also wanted to satisfy my own curiosity about which role was more accurate -- Wealthy Dilettante or Super Gay.

Maybe I imagined something more Christ-like. Would I walk into a half circle group of wide-eyed acolytes worshiping at the feet of their chosen celebrity? Or perhaps I expected yet another older activist who'd survived the AIDS crisis and insisted on being held in high esteem for the length of time he'd outlived his friends and peers.

Instead of a wannabe demigod, the man I met was entirely human. He laughs often, smokes cigarettes, talks too much and stops to play with children. He is charming, middle-class and disorganized.

Who Speaks For the Everyman?
It becomes quickly obvious that the diverse group of young people weren't hanging around to idolize a celebrity activist; they were there to learn how to effectively organize their community. The group didn't want fundraising pitches or bumper stickers; they wanted knowledge on how to change the world. They meant business.

They're not your usual armchair activists that make a small donation to a national or state-level group and click a mouse button a few times a year to send an e-mail to a member of Congress. They're opinionated, racially and gender diverse, and active in many progressive issues. They also feel alone and unsupported by the community in general.

These young men and women don't feel connected to the national movement. Some of them don't feel like they're a part of their local equality organizations either. They shared their frustrations at local community members lack of motivation and team building.

They're radicals looking for a slot to slide into; they have a role to play in the fight for justice but it hasn't been clearly defined. These future leaders are fending for themselves. They're not connected to the power brokers and LGBT old guard who tend to be more cautious and calculating.

Who speaks for them? They do.

Enter Cleve Jones

Like the young activists, he's not wealthy, he's not on a first name basis with all the members of the queer royalty, and he's not a professional political wonk -- either inside or out of the LGBT community. He's a labor organizer now who helps to negotiate union contracts for hotel staff and other workers.

Jones is over 50, not in the best health, and still seems a little in shock at both his recent celebrity status and the vociferousness of some of the attacks launched his way after he became the march's public face. His years leading the NAMES Project hardened him to the challenges of working inside the LGBT community, but his decade out of the spotlight allowed him to recharge and refocus.

His experiences -- whether the time spent at Harvey Milk's side, his years as the head of the AIDS Quilt and the subsequent battle for control of it, or his semi-retirement to the California desert -- have shaped Jones into the gay community's Rodney Dangerfield. He's always been around, wears his heart on his sleeve, talks constantly, and gets no respect from the establishment.

"My only gift worth anything is my ability to talk," he says and the truth of it is soon self-evident. "There seems to be an overwhelming belief that I'm fabulously wealthy and hang out all day by the pool with celebrities and gay leaders. I don't. They say I'm trying to position myself to be the new gay leader, but I'm not. I just want our community to see us we're entitled to equality. We don't have to ask for our rights; they're in the Constitution."

Jones, with all of his flaws and baggage, is not King of the Gays. He's an everyday foot soldier with name brand recognition.

Like the group of young people meeting in Chicago, he feels the need to step forward and demand equality on his own timeline instead of a pre-determined time table established by Gay Inc. He doesn't feel the community has reached out to those like him and isn't willing to wait for the crumbs the establishment drops occasionally -- like cocktail parties at the White House -- while stalling on issues of importance like employment and housing protections, Don't Ask Don't Tell, or relationship recognition.

Accepting Responsibility For Our Own Leadership
As more and more members of the LGBT community grow impatient with the slow advances we've gained, the ranks of disaffected - and imperfect - activists will continue to swell. This ragtag army of eager volunteers are straining at the leash society has put around their necks.

They're not satisfied with incrementalism and platitudes. Promises without end do not interest them.

America's sea change on LGBT rights hasn't happened in a vacuum. The call to "come out" has been answered and LGBT people are regularly portrayed in the media, given positions of authority, and accepted by their families and friends without prejudice for who they are.

Harvey Milk started the clarion call to come out. Thousands of us have continued that mantra and the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

One man's idea has turned into the largest benefit the LGBT community has ever had. A man who smoked pot, had multiple sex partners, and tilted at windmills pointed us in the right direction despite his flaws and inconvenient timing for the power establishment.

Is it the right time to have another march on Washington? Of course not. There's never a "right" time; there's always going to be a reason to stick with the status quo.

There will never be a gay Martin Luther King. Even Harvey Milk was a simple man who stood up for his own rights and ours. There is no LGBT royalty.

It's just us. If we want what we're entitled to, we have to demand it. We have to stand up and challenge authority and tradition. We can't count on allies and celebrities to do our work for us.

When we have the full equality to which we're entitled, it will be because of the work of the average, the poor, and the flawed. It will be achieved by the work of the many and the everyday citizen.

And Cleve Jones, for all his flaws, is one of us. He has feet of clay -- as do we all.

The King is dead. Long live the Everyman.

Cleve Jones Web Interview - On The Importance of the National Equality March

2009-09-04T16:16:00.002-04:00

Hattip: Bil Browning of Bilerico

Cleve Jones Web Interview - On Various Criticism and LGBT Activism

2009-09-04T16:13:00.004-04:00

Hattip - Bil Browning of Bilerico

Cleve Jones Web Interview - On The Origin of the National Equality March

2009-09-04T16:05:00.006-04:00

Hattip - Bil Browning of Bilerico

NGLTF Endorses National Equality March

2009-09-04T12:10:00.004-04:00

The Task Force will engage and support people taking action in pursuit of full equality and justice for LGBT people.

WASHINGTON – September 3 – The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a leader in building grassroots lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) political power, endorses the National Equality March, which will be held in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10-11. Thousands of people from across the country will march and rally in front of the U.S. Capitol demanding equal protection under the law for LGBT people and their families in all 50 states.

At the march, the Task Force will engage new activists, support fair-minded clergy and other people of faith, and mobilize volunteer activists to return home engaged and energized.“For the past 30 years, LGBT people and our allies have come together in Washington to be inspired, to engage in political action, and to go home geared up to create change. The National Equality March will bring together those of us who have never marched, those who want to renew their passion for action, and those who demand their voices be heard. When we mobilize for LGBT equality, for racial and economic justice, for a transformed society, and to make our love and lives visible, the Task Force is there.

The Task Force will be there at the march to support the voices of new activists, LGBT people and our allies who push and push for the end to hatred, discrimination and unjust laws,” says National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey.

As part of its commitment to support march participants in fighting for local, state and federal change, the Task Force will:
· Utilize technology to connect people to concrete actions they can take on the local, state and national levels.
· Lend its faith organizing expertise in helping to plan an interfaith worship service.
· Work to connect state equality organizations and community centers with march participants the Task Force identifies from their states so they can further engage them to be active at home.
· Engage march participants in ballot campaigns under way in Maine, Washington state and Kalamazoo, Mich.

· Engage and support new activists in honing their talents and grassroots skills after the weekend of the march.

Consistent with the march goal of seeking equality in all 50 states, the Task Force will maintain its longstanding commitment to provide organizers, expertise and money for key ballot measure fights under way in Maine, Washington state and Kalamazoo, Mich. The Task Force will reach out to march participants from these states to channel their energy to create change back home.March attendees who want to further develop their skills and strategize with other activists will be encouraged to attend the National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change just a few months later in Dallas, Texas.

“The Task Force is excited to support a new wave of activists and advocates. Whether you come to D.C. to march or stay at home to create change in your city, town, school or place of worship, the Task Force has the tools and know-how to help. Let’s march in Washington and step it up at home,” says Carey.

Standing on the Side of Love Website Relaunches with A Call to Participate in the National Equality March

2009-09-04T11:42:00.003-04:00

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ErAUIvI6/446jATM8th7Oe2BFpf%2BDsce

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations Becomes a Sponsor of the National Equality March

2009-09-04T11:10:00.003-04:00

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is a proud sponsor of the National Equality March & Rally that will take place in Washington, D.C. on October 11. People from all of our nation's 435 Congressional Districts will converge on Washington with one simple demand: Full equality for BGLT people in all matters governed by law in all 50 states. The Rev. Peter Morales, newly elected President of the UUA, will preach at All Soul's Church, Unitarian in Washington, DC that morning and lead the UUA's delegation to the March.

Participate in the National Equality March

2009-09-02T14:23:00.004-04:00

NYC Fundraiser for October March

2009-09-01T15:51:00.014-04:00

Benefit for The National Equality March on Washington

Thursday, September 24, 2009
ELMO

156 7th Avenue

between 19th & 20th Streets

New York City

9:00 PM until midnight

Two Floors & DJ’S Scott Jones & David Serrano
Guest Hosts Sherry Vine and Mistress Formika
Complimentary Grey Goose Cocktails

Tickets are $30 in advance, and $35 at the door
Click to purchase tickets on-line.

Due to the generosity of ELMO and Barracuda, your entire ticket will go towards the funding of the National Equality March.

2009-08-31T17:42:00.005-04:00

Visibility Matters
Why I'm Going to the Big Gay March in Washington
By Beth Sherouse
from Counterpunch.org 08.31.2009

Since movement veteran Cleve Jones announced plans for a national gay rights march on Washington following the passage of California’s Prop. 8 last November, reactions from the LGBT community have been mixed. Supporters of October’s National Equality March are adopting a grassroots lobbying strategy, demanding “Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states,” and promoting a more direct appeal to the federal government for LGBT rights. Lukewarm supporters and skeptics of the march, mainly organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and state Equality groups, are concerned that the march will drain resources from the state-by-state approach for marriage equality. Critics of the march movement are also concerned that this march may share the fate of previous gay rights marches in ’79, ’87, ’93, and 2000, which seem to have accomplished little.

I have been a supporter of HRC for most of my adult life, and I have worked with both state, local, and campus organizations in South Carolina and Georgia. While I will continue to support such organizations, I think a national approach offers more hope for me and other South Carolinians than anything HRC or state-by-state marriage equality can offer.

South Carolina is one of only five states that has no hate crimes laws; other than a limited policy in the city of Columbia, there are no laws banning discrimination in employment or housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity; and the 2006 constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in SC passed by 78%. For people who do not live in California or Massachusetts, for those who are part of otherwise disadvantaged communities, for those who live in constant fear of employment discrimination and physical violence because their states give them no protection, for those whose lives and relationships are invisible to most of America, marriage equality in progressive states is nothing more than a symbolic victory, and symbols cannot help them provide for their families or protect themselves from discrimination.

I do not plan to spend the rest of my life in SC. But for those LGBT folks who call South Carolina home, gay marriage fights in states like Maine and California offer little more than momentary comfort against communities in which they will remain second-class citizens for the foreseeable future unless the federal government intervenes. The state-by-state approach to equality seems meaningless in a state that has historically been several decades behind the rest of the country in terms of civil rights. If the federal government had left the battle for desegregation up to states to fight on their own, de jure segregation would arguably still be in place here in SC and a few of its neighboring deep South states.

We need to build support behind a federal gay rights agenda, because if we leave our rights up to the conservative majorities in states across the nation, we will never achieve equality. LGBT Americans should ALL enjoy the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts, whether they live in San Francisco or Atlanta, New York or Charleston. The federal government must step in and defend our civil rights in places where our community cannot adequately defend itself, and we must show Washington lawmakers that we are looking to them to change laws as we go about the work of changing hearts and minds.

So this is why we march on Washington on October 10-11. We march because at no time in our nations’ history have gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people been more visible and political. We march because marriage is but one of the many rights and privileges that we deserve as citizens of this country, and because it is time for the Obama administration to make good on its promises to the LGBT community. We march because as Americans, our civil rights should not depend on our sexual orientation or gender identity, nor should they depend on what state we live in. We march because visibility matters and is the key to dismantling the foundations of prejudice and discrimination. And we march with the hope that standing in solidarity with each other and asserting our place in this nation has transformative potential.

Beth Sherouse is a Graduate Assistant in the Department of History at the University of South Carolina.

Central Park Rally by NYC Theater Community

2009-08-31T12:03:00.007-04:00

The New York Theater Community's Mobilization Rally for Equality In Central Park

from BroadwayWorld.com - 08.30.2009

The New York Theater Community's Mobilization Rally for Equality, organized by The Public Theater, the cast of HAIR, Broadway Impact and Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS (BC/EFA) was held on Friday, August 28th onstage at Central Park's Delacorte Theater.

Tony Award-winning actress Sutton Foster joined previously announced participants Oskar Eustis, Cleve Jones, Gavin Creel and David Stone onstage at the Delacorte Theater. The rally was held in advance of October's National Equality March in Washington, D.C.

The producers of the Tony Award-winning revival of HAIR previously announced that, in an unprecedented move, they are canceling the show's Sunday, October 11th performance so that the entire cast can join the National Equality March in Washington, D.C.

Last May, civil rights activist David Mixner called for a national march on Washington in support of equal rights for LGBT people, calling on prominent LGBT community leaders Cleve Jones and Torie Osborne to execute and organize it. Days later in Fresno, California, at a rally of approximately 5000 people from all walks of life protesting the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold Prop. 8, Cleve Jones stepped to the podium and committed to Mixner's plea.

At that moment Jones' organization, Equality Across America, was born, along with its first mission: the National Equality March. Between now and October, Equality Across America will develop grassroots leadership in all 435 congressional districts to ensure that their message is heard loudly and clearly by elected officials all across America.

In October 1979, LGBT activists from across the country marched on Washington to fight for equal rights towards all. Exactly 30 years later a new generation of equality activists will take to the National Mall and continue that fight -- and not quit until LGBT people are granted equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

For more information, visit http://www.broadwayimpact.com/ and http://www.equalityacrossamerica.org/.

picture by Jamie McGonnigal

TalkaboutEquality.org

2009-08-31T09:13:00.007-04:00

Let Them March
It’s all about visibility, so either applaud marchers' passion or get out of their way
By: Kevin Naff
from the Washington Blade - 08.28.2009

THERE’S MUCH consternation within the LGBT rights movement of late over the issue of the planned National Equality March set for Oct. 10-11 in D.C.

On one side: Left Coast advocates like Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black who are lending their celebrity to help promote the cause. On the other: East Coast lobbyists worried about diverting precious resources from state marriage fights so we can have a party on the National Mall this fall.

The inside-the-Beltway take on the march goes something like this: Those Hollywood gays don’t know how D.C. works — duh, Congress isn’t even in session. President Obama will be relaxing at Camp David that weekend. No one will be here to witness the march. Do they even have a permit?You can’t just show up at the Mall and start hootin’ and hollerin’. We should all skip D.C. and go to Maine where the real fight is happening. And they shouldn’t even be calling it a “march,” it’ll bloat expectations in the mainstream media; let’s call it a “gathering” instead.

March supporters, meanwhile, like to portray themselves as modern, progressive, tech-savvy 21st century activists disdainful of the “old ways” of doing things. Indeed, the “old ways” haven’t yielded a single LGBT-related federal law in 40 years of trying. Then again, there’s something to be said for knowing your history.

Some supporters have wondered why the Human Rights Campaign and other national organizations haven’t taken a more aggressive role in planning the march. HRC did issue a press release announcing tepid support (what else could they do?) while others have taken the lead on planning.

But there’s a reason HRC and others in Washington are nervous about the prospect of another LGBT march — the fiasco of the Millennium March on Washington in 2000.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars went missing after that event, much of it cash stuffed into trash bags and hauled away. There were stiffed vendors, shady last-minute emergency loans and mismanagement galore. The theft triggered an FBI investigation, unflattering coverage in the mainstream media and proved an embarrassing debacle for the movement.
THEN, AS NOW, there was no shortage of skeptics who questioned the motivations for the march.

“It’s hard to know what to say, since nothing has been proven, but I think it does seem to confirm a lot of problems we suspected from the beginning,” Tommi Avicolli Mecca, who attended gay rights marches in Washington in 1979, 1987 and 1993, told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2000. “What was the point of people going there? In 1979, we were invisible, in 1987 the focus was on AIDS. This one seemed very self-serving for the organizers.”

Some of those objections have been heard in the current debate. There’s certainly cause for pause and HRC is right to take a hands-off approach to this. But after talking to some march supporters, including Black, it’s hard to dismiss their passion and quest for visibility, particularly after the disappointing opening months of the Obama administration.

As we learned in the Proposition 8 fight, the key to legislative victories lies in winning over our fellow citizens, black and white, rich and poor, religious and agnostic. The way to win them over is to get to know them and for them to get to know us. That, of course, is accomplished through visibility. From individuals coming out in their communities to Ellen DeGeneres and “Will & Grace” bringing gays and lesbians to TV and popular culture to Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin demonstrating that open gays can win election to high office, it’s all about visibility.

No one should dissuade LGBT people from coming out — or marching in the streets. If a group of activists, however small or large, wants to stage a march, they ought to do just that.
And there are encouraging signs that organizers have adopted sensible goals that extend beyond the October march.

THE GOAL OF the event, according to the National Equality March site: “Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states. We will accept no less and will work until it is achieved. Equality Across America exists to support grassroots organizing in all 435 Congressional Districts to achieve full equality.”

Happily, there’s no flashy concert planned. This is about a grassroots movement of people still angry over Prop 8 and frustrated by the Democrats’ slow progress on our issues in this Congress. They turned out en masse for protests around the country after Prop 8 and now they want to converge on D.C. to amplify their message. For those who can’t join the march, organizers are urging them to personally lobby their members of Congress.

Some state-based activists have expressed legitimate concerns about diverting resources to fund a presence at the march at a time when they’re fighting marriage and other battles at home. Of course, those battles should take precedence over a national march and state organizers worried about the march should skip it and stay focused on their important legislative initiatives at home.
But for those seeking an outlet for all that pent up frustration — particularly younger people energized by the change rhetoric of late and connected as never before by social networking technologies — this march represents a unique outlet and a chance to be seen.
The rest of us should either applaud their passion or get out of the way and let them march.

Equality Federation Refuses to Endorse October March

2009-08-31T09:00:00.006-04:00

Stop talking to buildings, start talking to people

Why now is not the best time for an LGBT march on Washington

By: Toni Broaddus
From the Washington Blade - 08.21.2009

EQUALITY FEDERATION, THE national alliance of state-based equality groups, will not endorse the proposed March for Equality currently being planned for October in Washington, D.C.

Although we cannot endorse the march, we will not oppose it. We understand the importance of a March to many activists — especially our youth — who want to be energized and radicalized by standing shoulder to shoulder with tens of thousands of other people who are passionate about equality for LGBT people. Many of us working in the movement today were inspired to this work by past marches, and we hope that will be true of future leaders.

But at our recent annual meeting of state leaders, the overwhelming sentiment surrounding the proposed march was frustration that our movement would divert any of its precious resources — especially volunteers and money — to converge on Washington without a specific goal and when most members of Congress will actually be in their home districts.

As one of our young state leaders told her Federation colleagues: We have to stop talking to buildings and start talking to people.

This is not the time for a national march. This is the time to be speaking in our own communities, to our elected representatives, to our neighbors and to voters.

For activists who want a life-changing experience, Washington is not the place to be this October. This year, Maine is the place where we are all needed most.

IF THE LOSS of the right to marry in California last year made you angry, you now have an opportunity to fight back against religious fundamentalists and stand up for marriage equality by making sure that we never again fail to successfully defend our hard-won civil right to marriage.
This October, I urge you to take a volunteer vacation in Maine. There, thousands of volunteers are needed to knock on doors, staff the phone banks, organize community meetings and speak one-on-one with voters. You can sign up online, get yourself to Maine, be assigned community housing and an action team and make a real difference in winning and defending equality. Or you can take that money you planned to spend on your $400 airfare and your $300 hotel room in D.C., and donate it instead to the Maine campaign now. As we learned in California, early money is critical to implementing a successful campaign.

Our ability to defend marriage equality in Maine will have far more ramifications for this struggle for equality than our ability to quickly throw together another march on D.C.

EVEN IF YOU cannot travel or donate money or participate in a long-distance phone bank this fall, you can still engage in critical work for equality wherever you live. Do you know, for example, what is happening in your own state legislature?

Over the next three years, state equality groups will be working to pass or amend non-discrimination laws in 20 states, so that LGBT people can find jobs and housing. In 21 states, we will work to pass anti-bullying and safe schools laws so that youth can grow up more safely and valued as individuals — and, I hope, to help stem a wave of youth suicides. In 17 states, we will work to extend relationship recognition to LGBT families and in 14 states we will fight to defeat anti-gay laws that diminish our families.

We cannot achieve these goals in the states without the active participation of community members and grassroots activists willing to knock on doors, make phone calls, attend lobby days, meet with legislators and speak up in their workplaces and churches and neighborhoods.

Each person reading this article has incredible power to make a difference — without traveling to Washington on a holiday weekend. Are you registered to vote? Do you know who all your elected officials are — at the local level, the state level and the federal level? Do they know how you feel about equality for LGBT people?

Achieving equality is not a walk in the park. It is a walk in neighborhoods and communities across this country, where we still need to educate Americans about the meaning and importance of equality to each of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, our gender identity or any of the cultural or ethnic or physical differences that separate us. Equality should unite us.

And equality should begin at home.

Toni Broaddus is the Executive Director of Equality Federation.

Live Nation Cancels HATE-filled Buju Banton Shows

2009-08-28T09:03:00.008-04:00

Important VICTORY! over "kill gays" performer Buju Banton!
by Gay Liberation Network, Chicago
Friday 08.28th.009

Late yesterday afternoon huge concert promoter Live Nation announced that it was canceling all its concerts with "kill gays" performer Buju Banton. This includes House of Blues concerts previously scheduled for Chicago (10/2), Las Vegas (10/15), Dallas (10/20) and Houston (10/22).

In early August, Chicago's Gay Liberation Network initiated a campaign for Live Nation and other concert promoters to cancel Buju Banton concerts because the performer calls for killing Lesbians and Gays in the lyrics of his songs. Thousands of flyers were distributed and protest messages started to pour into Live Nation officials. "Live Nation, owner of four House of Blues locations at which 'kill gays' singer Buju Banton was scheduled to appear, has done the right thing and canceled the hate monger," said Bob Schwartz of Chicago's Gay Liberation Network. "

These cancellations show the power of protest to deliver the goods," said Schwartz, who has led several protests against "murder music" performers over the years. Schwartz had written Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino to demand that Banton not be rewarded with bookings for advocating the murder of lesbians and gay men. "We first wrote Live Nation several years ago following their purchase of House of Blues to alert them to the Jamaican Reggae 'Dancehall' singers who advocated killing gays, and had thought we wouldn't have to go down this road again. We hope they have finally gotten the message," said Schwartz.

In Buju Banton's native Jamaica, anti-gay violence is rife and typically tolerated by the authorities. Gay sex is punishable by 10 years in prison. Buju Banton both feeds off of and encourages this violence. As Passport magazine reported,"When [Human Rights Watch researcher Rebecca] Schleifer visited Jamaica in 2004, Brian Williamson, the country’s leading gay activist, was violently chopped to death with a machete in his apartment in Kingston. Schleifer walked to his street shortly after the murder and found a crowd of people gathered outside Williamson's apartment singing and celebrating his murder and shouting the chorus of 'Boom Bye Bye,' a popular Buju Banton dancehall hit about shooting gay men: 'Boom bye bye, in a faggot's head. Rude boys don’t promote nasty men, they have to die.' Others were laughing and yelling, 'Let’s get them one at a time,' and, 'That's what you get for sin.'"

While the Live Nation House of Blues cancellations are an important victory over Buju Banton, our work is not done yet.

Other concert promoters in several other cities are still sponsoring his concerts: Philadelphia (Sept 12); Providence (Sept 15); Portland, ME (Sept 17); Revere, MA (Sept 18); Charlotte (Sept 23); Raleigh (Sept 24); Norfolk (Sept 25); Richmond, VA (Sept 26); Detroit (Sept 30); Denver (Oct 6); Aspen, CO (Oct 7); Salt Lake City (Oct 8); San Francisco (Oct 10); Tallahassee (Oct 11); Jacksonville, FL (Oct 12); San Jose, CA (Oct 13); Charleston (Oct 14); Los Angeles (Oct 14); Raleigh (Oct 15)AEG Live is the promoter behind most of the remaining concerts on Buju Banton's U.S. tour.

You can sign the LA Community Center's petition to AEG Live at the following https://secure2.convio.net/laglc/site/SPageServer?pagename=Stop_Hate_Lyrics

If you are in any of these other cities, please begin organizing your own protests! The Gay Liberation Network will be willing to assist you as best as we can.
http://www.gayliberation.net/

Michelangelo Signorile: Why I'm Marching

2009-08-26T09:20:00.007-04:00

At first he thought the march on Washington planned for October was ill-timed and ill-advised, but Michelangelo Signorile now says there couldn’t be a better time to take to the National Mall en masse.

Why I'm Marching
By Michelangelo Signorile
from Advocate.com 08.24.2009

The time is now for an LGBT march on Washington, and every one of us should be heading to D.C. for the National Equality March planned for October 10–11. Let me explain why, first by reviewing recent events. Then we’ll look back a little in history.

Last June, amid growing criticism of President Obama’s foot-dragging on LGBT rights and after the despicably homophobic Defense of Marriage Act brief, the White House hosted a cocktail party to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. It was nice for us to see a president commemorating the Stonewall riots for the first time. But it was an even better event for Obama himself, a great photo op, in the midst of the outcry, showing gay people -- dubbed by the media as LGBT “leaders” -- applauding him.

Leaders? The crowd included an overwhelming number of Democratic Party hacks and donors, Beltway social climbers, careerists (specifically, former gay group heads now looking for jobs), PR flacks, lobbyists, sycophants, and assorted sellouts. The fabulously superficial -- including a fashion editor who sits front and center at every New York fashion show -- were there too. And everyone was enthralled by the event, clapping uproariously for the president. Many of those present had raised lots of money for Obama and for the Democratic Party—or gave generously themselves -- and probably worked for 20 years to see the day when they could have cocktails and hors d’oeuvres in the White House, using the good china no less!

I say the crowd “included” these people because also present were hardworking chiefs of gay groups, a few of whom actually have made a difference. There were also people like Matthew Shepard’s family -- his parents, Judy and Dennis, and his brother, Logan -- who’ve worked tirelessly on our behalf. And there were some legendary activists, such as Frank Kameny, who paved the way for us all.

But noticeably absent were people the White House sees as troublemakers and who, as a result, weren’t invited to the event. These were people who worked for -- and raised money for -- candidate Obama but criticized the president in the weeks prior to the reception. I’d argue that there probably wouldn’t have even been a cocktail party if it hadn’t been for these people’s protests. And, to that point, I’d add that the White House is pretty naive if it thinks a little East Room glad-handing is enough to quiet the masses of fed-up gay people. But I digress.

Obama gave a speech at the event that repeated the promises he’d made on the campaign trail -- about ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” once Congress sends him a bill, getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, stopping discrimination, and on and on. Everyone toasted him.

But just months later, the president is already back to his pre–cocktail party mode: quietly backing, if anything, the incrementalist approach -- as pushed by the Human Rights Campaign, Congressman Barney Frank, and others who are giving him cover -- in which we pass a hate-crimes bill, then eventually move on to the toothless Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which exempts small businesses and religious organizations and isn’t needed by people who live in some of the country’s most populous states (since they already have statewide protections) or work for almost any Fortune 500 company (since most already have corporate policies banning employment discrimination). Then maybe we’ll slowly move on to some of these other things, like discrimination in housing, discrimination in public accommodations, serving openly in the military, marriage equality, and so forth. Of course, at this rate the Democrats might lose control of Congress—and Obama, the White House -- before any of this is ever achieved.

A lot of people are saying we need to think big -- real big -- and that we need to stop denigrating ourselves by settling for crumbs, which we never get anyway. Perhaps we need an omnibus LGBT rights bill that covers everything -- go for it all, and leave it at the feet of Congress. Maybe we should amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include us. What about going for the most urgent things rather than the easiest—like pushing hard for the president to issue a moratorium on “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- something he has disingenuously said he can’t do and that gay groups more or less have given him a pass on -- rather than sitting idly by and watching careers be destroyed while we continue to investigate options for overturning the policy?

We should be inspired by the people around us who are taking different and refreshing approaches at winning full equality. People like those behind the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is backing the Ted Olson-David Boies federal legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 despite the tension that’s created with gay legal groups petrified of taking the issue to federal court.

It’s time for these new, even risky approaches, and it’s time to ask for it all -- now. That’s why I’m going to Washington for the National Equality March -- called for by legendary activists David Mixner and Cleve Jones -- even though, like others, I wasn’t initially down with the idea. It’s time the rest of us showed up on the National Mall and let Obama know that the cocktail party crowd -- the suck-ups, the sycophants, and the scaredy-cats -- doesn’t represent us. We want full equal rights (or at least see a substantial commitment to moving in that direction) -- not photo ops and wine spritzers.

It’s not that I was ever really opposed to the idea of a march. To the contrary, as listeners to my Sirius/XM radio show know, I’ve been talking about marching on Washington ever since the morning after Election Day. For me, it’s been a matter of historical precedent: The black civil rights movement wisely took advantage of a window of opportunity in 1963, when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress. Republicans could no longer be blamed for the lack of civil rights protections, and marchers knew that media attention would put pressure on the Democrats and shame them into action.

We have that same window of opportunity today.

But that’s not to say I was immediately sold on this march. I didn’t think there was enough time to organize (I thought we’d need at least a year) and I thought it made more sense to march when Congress was in session (rather than out on Columbus Day recess).

Activist Cleve Jones came on my show and pretty much dismissed my first argument: In the old days, yes, we needed a lot of time to plan an event of this magnitude. But with the Internet, organizing can happen at lightning speed. Indeed, the protests that popped up across the country in the weeks following the passage of Prop. 8 -- including one that I helped organize in New York City that drew more than 5,000 people -- are a testament to that.

To my second argument, Jones explained that holding the march on a holiday weekend means many more marchers will be able to make the trek to D.C. Besides, he said, it doesn’t matter so much that Congress isn’t in session. People should focus on lobbying back home -- at the district offices instead of on Capitol Hill—and they’ll be trained to do so at the march. Even if the House and Senate were in session, Jones said, representatives and senators (not to mention the president) would likely find a convenient reason to be out of town. And really, after the Obama administration submitted that brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, an alarm sounded -- and I think it told us all that we need to go to Washington as soon as possible, holiday or no holiday.

Others have argued that there are so many other important things happening around the country -- from organizing the repeal of Prop. 8 in California to defending marriage in Maine in a referendum this fall -- that this march might be too much to take on. These same critics have also pointed to the economy and the price of travel as arguments against a march.

But we’re a big and resourceful group of people. We can do many things at once. We can always find a way. And we must. We can’t wait any longer.

In 1963 many African-Americans from all across this country, many of them poor and with little means to pay for travel, did whatever they could to get themselves to Washington. The time was right, and historic. For us, the time is now.

2009-08-22T07:04:00.006-04:00

Lutheran Group Eases Limits on Gay Clergy
By Michael Luo and Christina Capecchi
from New York Times - 08.22.2009

After an emotional debate over the authority of Scripture and the limits of biblical inclusiveness, leaders of the country’s largest Lutheran denomination voted Friday to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy.

The vote made the denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the latest mainline Protestant church to permit such ordinations, contributing to a halting sense of momentum on the issue within liberal Protestantism.
By a vote of 559 to 451, delegates to the denomination’s national assembly in Minneapolis approved a resolution declaring that the church would find a way for people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships” to serve as official ministers. (The church already allows celibate gay men and lesbians to become members of the clergy.)

Just before the vote, the Rev. Mark Hanson, the church’s presiding bishop, led the packed convention center in prayer. When the two bar graphs signaling the vote’s outcome popped up on the hall’s big screens seconds later, there were only a few quiet gasps, as delegates had been asked to avoid making an audible scene. But around the convention hall, clusters of men and women hugged one other and wept.

“To be able to be a full member of the church is really a lifelong dream,” said the Rev. Megan Rohrer of San Francisco, who is in a committed same-sex relationship and serves in three Lutheran congregations but is not officially on the church’s roster of clergy members. “I don’t have to have an asterisk next to my name anymore.”

But the passage of the resolution now raises questions about the future of the denomination, which has 4.6 million members but has seen its ranks steadily dwindle, and whether it will see an exodus of its more conservative followers or experience some sort of schism.

“I think we have stepped beyond what the word of God allows,” said the Rev. Rebecca M. M. Heber of Heathrow, Fla., who said she was going to reconsider her membership.

Conservative dissenters said they saw various options, including leaving for another Lutheran denomination or creating their own unified body.

A contingent of 400 conservative congregations that make up a group that calls itself Lutheran Core is to meet in September. Leaders of the group said their plans were not to split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church but to try to protect its “true tenets” from within.

Among so-called “mainline” Protestant denominations, distinguishable theologically from their more conservative, evangelical Protestant counterparts, both the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ already allow gay clergy members.

The Episcopal Church has endured the most visible public flashpoints over homosexuality, grappling in particular in the last few years with the consecration of gay bishops. It affirmed last month, however, that “any ordained ministry” was open to gay men and lesbians.

Earlier this year the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rejected a measure that would have opened the door for gay ordination, but the margin was narrower than in a similar vote in 2001. The United Methodist Church voted not to change its stance barring noncelibate homosexuals from ministry last year, after an emotional debate at its general conference.

But the Evangelical Lutheran Church’s heavily Midwestern membership and the fact that it is generally seen as falling squarely in the middle of the theological milieu of mainline Protestantism imbued Friday’s vote with added significance, religion scholars said.

Wendy Cadge, a sociology professor at Brandeis University who has studied Evangelical Lutheran churches grappling with the issue, said, “It does show, to the extent that any mainline denominations are moving, I think they’re moving slowly toward a more progressive direction.”

Describing the context of Friday’s vote, several religion experts likened it to the court decision last year in Iowa legalizing same-sex marriage.

“In the same sense that the Iowa court decision might have opened people’s eyes, causing them to say, ‘Iowa? What? Where?’” said Laura Olson, a professor of political science at Clemson University who has studied mainline Protestantism. “The E.L.C.A. isn’t necessarily quite as surprising in the religious sense, but the message it’s sending is, yes, not only are more Americans from a religious perspective getting behind gay rights, but these folks are not just quote unquote coastal liberals."

The denomination has struggled with the issue almost since its founding in the late 1980s with the merger of three other Lutheran denominations.

In 2001, the church convened a committee to study the issue. It eventually recommended guidelines for a denominational vote. In 2005, however, delegates voted not to change its policies.

On Friday, delegates juggled raw emotion, fatigue and opposing interpretations of Scripture.

Before the vote but sensing its outcome, the Rev. Timothy Housholder of Cottage Grove, Minn., introduced himself as a rostered pastor in the church, “at least for a few more hours,” implying that he would leave the denomination and eliciting a gasp from some audience members.

“Here I stand, broken and mournful, because of this assembly and her actions,” Mr. Housholder said.

The Rev. Mark Lepper of Belle Plaine, Minn., called for the inclusion of gay clergy members, saying, “Let’s stop leaving people behind and let’s be the family God is calling us to be.”

Michael Luo reported from New York, and Christina Capecchi from Minneapolis.

NAACP Board Chairman Julian Bond Endores National Equality March

2009-08-20T14:43:00.006-04:00

"GLBT rights are civil rights; there are no 'special

rights' in America. Everyone has rights - or should have - and I am happy to join in this battle for justice and fairness."

- Julian Bond, NAACP Board Chairman

NAACP Board Chairman Julian Bond has endorsed the National Equality March.

Metropolitan Community Churches to Support National Equality March on October 11th

2009-08-20T14:09:00.005-04:00

“I’m marching in the National Equality March because of its one single demand: 'Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.' We must accept no less and we must work until it is achieved.”

Rev. Nancy L. Wilson, Moderator - Metropolitan Community Churches

Remarks by Rev. Nancy L. Wilson
Office of the Moderator

Dear Friend of Equality:

On Sunday, October 11, 2009, I’ll be marching in the National Equality March in Washington, DC, along with tens of thousands of supporters of justice and equality.

I hope you’ll join me for this historic event in the ongoing struggle to achieve equality under the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens within the United States.

Let me share with you why I, along with the entire MCC Board of Elders, am supporting the National Equality March in Washington, DC.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because MCC has a history of being at every March on Washington to take a public stand for LGBT equality under the law.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because it offers an opportunity for a new generation of LGBT youth and supporters who have never marched to become involved in the vital work of justice.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because I believe it is important for people of faith to have a visible presence before our government’s leaders in the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because of its one single demand: “Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.” I agree with the March’s organizers — we must accept no less and we must work until it is achieved.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because its theme touches the key issues facing our LGBT communities: repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, immigration reform that recognizes same-sex couples and includes our LGBT families, an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that ends workplace discrimination for everyone, hate crimes legislation that includes LGBT people, and the equal right to adopt children and raise our families without government restrictions.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because this is one March in which we’re not forced to choose between whether to address national issues or to support state and local organizing. The March’s organizers are mobilizing grassroots support in all 435 local congressional districts and carrying our voices to the federal government.

I’m marching in the National Equality March… because we must hold the President accountable for his campaign promises. Justice must never be postponed; equality must not be delayed.

The time is right for this National Equality March. It will take place during National Coming Out Day, the anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s murder, and the 30th anniversary of the first March on Washington for LGBT rights.

This March will achieve what every past March on Washington has accomplished: It will make voices heard at the federal government, give national visibility to the LGBT equality movement, and birth a new generation of activists with a passion for justice and equality.

That’s why I and the full Board of Elders of Metropolitan Community Churches encourage you to join us in Washington, DC, in October.

Together, let us march on Washington… and demand equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

Together, let us march on Washington… to hold our government officials accountable and to work for the realization of full equality for all people as envisioned inn our country’s founding documents.

Together, let us march on Washington… and together, let’s make history during October 10-12, 2009!

The Reverend Nancy L. Wilson

Is It The LGBTQ Movement or President Obama?

2009-08-13T10:02:00.013-04:00

The September 2009 cover story of the Advocate ponders -
"As a candidate Obama promised us a lot; as president he’s delivered very little -- and many gay people are getting impatient. Does the outcry unmask this president’s indifference, or reveal our own impotence as a movement?"

Read the excellent essay from the Advocate
Hope and History by Michael Joseph Gross

Equality California Urges 2012 Marriage Battle

2009-08-13T09:07:00.003-04:00

Equality California released its findings and recommendations favoring a new electoral battle in the year 2012. Here is a copy of their report: Winning Back Marriage Equality in California - Analysis and Plan

Meanwhile the Courage Campaign also based in California proceeded with its plans for achieving marriage in 2010. The Advocate.com reports that: "On Tuesday, Courage Campaign chair Rick Jacobs asked members to raise $42,000 within 60 hours to help decide the timing of the measure. As of Wednesday morning, the organization reported that it had received donations totaling $77,905 within just 24 hours, raising their total amount available for research, polling, and focus groups to $135,998."

HRC Endorses National Equality March

2009-08-12T19:19:00.006-04:00

“With thousands of LGBT people and allies coming to Washington to make a difference, it’s our mission to help them become the citizen lobbyists that they want and need to be.”
Joe Solmonese - President, Human Rights Campaign

Statement of Human Rights Campaign on
National Equality March in Washington

WASHINGTON — On October 11, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists and allies will meet by the United States Capitol in Washington, DC. The first national gathering of LGBT volunteers, community members, and supporters since the 2008 elections and the passage of Proposition 8, this event provides a powerful opportunity to harness the energy-both excitement and anger-that this historic year has sparked.

“The Human Rights Campaign considers October 11 in Washington DC to be a starting point-not a destination,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Those who join us in the nation’s capital have more work ahead of them after the crowds clear. They need to become citizen lobbyists, ready and able to tell their Senators and members of Congress what this community needs to see: an ENDA that protects every single one of us. Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Repeal of DOMA. Protections for our families.”

HRC will train march participants to initiate and carry out successful in-district lobby visits-whether they come to DC in person, or take their activism on line. Similar to the successful “No Excuses” campaign (www.noexcuses.hrc.org), HRC’s work with the October 11 event will focus on mobilizing face-to-face meetings between community members and their lawmakers.

“With thousands of LGBT people and allies coming to Washington to make a difference, it’s our mission to help them become the citizen lobbyists that they want and need to be,” said Solmonese. “Cleve Jones’s vision of bringing us together at this important time is an extraordinary opportunity to capitalize on the energy and commitment of our community and achieve results.

“I’ve heard criticism about this gathering diverting resources from existing goals such as marriage equality in Maine and New Jersey,” added Solmonese. “It’s our intention and our obligation to ensure that in October, we amplify our energy not divert it. Will and commitment are unlimited resources. We intend to ensure that when the event in Washington is over, many more of us will know not only the work that lies ahead, but how to turn that energy into action.”

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

2009-08-12T16:10:00.003-04:00

Viewpoint From A Queer Tel Aviv Activist - On the Recent Shootings & Current Conditions in Israel

2009-08-11T13:55:00.011-04:00

On Saturday, August 1st 2009, a murder rooted in homophobia and hatred occurred. This murder is a direct result of the violence in Israeli society.

During an outburst of unity we, activists from various pink communities, want to say that we are afraid.

We are afraid to live in a militant and violent society, which oppresses basic human rights of the different communities that live along side of it;

A society where hatred and homophobia became transparent; A society that allows this homophobia in its conducts and values;

A society in which we have to hide that we are afraid.

Israel is presented around the world as a democracy of freedom and equality, and the gay community is brought as an example of it. We do not want to take part in this dangerous illusion.

We call for a substantial change in the social agenda, one that does not talk about acceptance through similarity and belonging to the consensus, but rather through acceptance of all the different shades in society.

MP3 Audio file click here

Comments by Ishai Mishory
Pink Coalition, Tel Aviv, Israel
Take Back the Night March - 08.06.2009
Hahashmal Garden, Tel Aviv, Israel

Mixner Says - The Clock is Ticking

2009-08-11T12:44:00.002-04:00

from 08.09.2009
DavidMixner.com

Congress is in recess and soon it will be September. And we, as a community, are running out of time.

We will have no better opportunity than the last seven months to effect major significant change on the LGBT struggle for freedom. We have sixty members of the Democratic party in the Senate, the President's credibility has been high, the nation was primed for major change and people are focused on their jobs and their livelihoods and not divisive social issues. Most likely by the end of the year, most of those factors will start to change and the struggle for our liberation will become more difficult. There is no guarantee that ever again in the Obama Administration will we have so much going for us to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," repeal DOMA and continue the march to the envitablity of marriage equality. Now is the not the time to pull back and wait on some neat and cozy time table.

Here we are well into the Obama administration and basically we have an executive 'memo' for federal employees rights that doesn't even cover insurance or pension. We had a good Gay Pride party at the White House and some talented people tapped for some appointments. Yet, that being said, right now not one openly LGBT Ambassador has been appointed. Hate Crimes has still not been officially passed. ENDA, which should be a no- brainer has not even been up for a vote. There has been no "stop-loss"order for our LGBT service members. DOMA still represents a major barrier to marriage equality. Obama has yet to make appearances outside the White House before LGBT groups. Not a peep has been spoken about Proposition 8 or even our victories in Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. The White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, continues to dance around any LGBT issue. The record, so far, is dismal and sad.

It is not too late but the clock is ticking. There is no question now that neither the White House nor the Democratic Congress is going to make this easy for us. The ball is not in their court, it is in our court. We must be an aggressively unrelenting civil rights movement that will not accept any delay. Isn't it amazing that the crazies can fill Congressional Town Hall meetings waving tea bags and idiotically chanting "Just say no!", yet as a community after all the money spent over the years we still can't fill rooms at Town Hall meetings with people quietly and intelligently demanding justice and freedom for the LGBT community? Just exactly what are we doing? Can you imagine 250 Town Hall meeting packed with hundreds of people demanding an end to this American Apartheid? Where are our people? Where are our leaders? We have increasingly become invisible in this first year.

This is one of the reasons that I believe October's March for National Equality is so important. I have no idea how successful it will be nor how many will attend. I am encouraged, I am hopeful, but only a fool would give a sound prediction. But this I do know: Speaking up and making a statement in Washington on October 11 is better than silence and enabling our oppressors. 100,000 in Washington DC on October 11 is better than empty town hall meetings with our members of Congress. Gathering as a tribe to inspire our young and create a sense of community as we enter the next phase of our struggle for freedom is better than writing statements to urge our young to wait. These things I know without a doubt.

Next year we will be told that the LGBT community must be patient because we have to re-elect a Democratic Congress. After all, the Speaker has to get all those "Blue Dog Democrats" elected so we can maintain control and the President can continue his good work. I promise you they will be asking us to wait until 2011 and give us more empty promises.

Now is the time. No more "Oh Lord, Not Now" leadership. Fill a bus, fill a plane, get your straight friends and supportive family members and get to DC on October 11 and make some noise.

The clock is ticking.

National Kiss-In Event Video - NYC Event - Battery Park this Saturday - 08/15/09

2009-08-10T20:55:00.002-04:00

Saturday, August 15, 2009
1:30 PM Battery Park
Meet between Hope Garden - the HIV/AIDS memorial, & Castle Clinton
Downtown Manhattan, NYC

NYT's Frank Rich - Obama is No True Reformer

2009-08-10T12:50:00.007-04:00

Is Obama Punking Us?
By Frank Rich
August 9, 2009
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

“AUGUST is a challenging time to be president,” said Andrew Card, the former Bush White House chief of staff, as he offered unsolicited advice to his successors in a television interview last week. “I think you have to expect the unexpected.”

He should know. Thursday was the eighth anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the President’s Daily Brief that his boss ignored while on vacation in Crawford. Aug. 29 marks the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s strike on the Louisiana coast, which his boss also ignored while on vacation in Crawford.

So do have a blast in Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama.

Even as we wait for some unexpected disaster to strike, Beltway omens for the current White House are grim. Obama’s poll numbers are approaching free fall, we are told. If he fails on health care, he’s toast. Indeed, many of the bloviators who spot a fatal swoon in the Obama presidency are the same doomsayers who in August 2008 were predicting his Election Day defeat because he couldn’t “close the deal” and clear the 50 percent mark in matchups with John McCain.

Here are two not very daring predictions: Obama will get some kind of health care reform done come fall. His poll numbers will not crater any time soon.

Yet there is real reason for longer-term worry in the form of a persistent, anecdotal drift toward disillusionment among some of the president’s supporters. And not merely those on the left. This concern was perhaps best articulated by an Obama voter, a real estate agent in Virginia, featured on the front page of The Washington Post last week. “Nothing’s changed for the common guy,” she said. “I feel like I’ve been punked.” She cited in particular the billions of dollars in bailouts given to banks that still “act like they’re broke.”

But this mood isn’t just about the banks, Public Enemy No. 1. What the Great Recession has crystallized is a larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during the campaign. It’s the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged — that, as the president typically put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.” He promised to smite them.

No president can do that alone, let alone in six months. To make Obama’s goal more quixotic, the ailment that he diagnosed is far bigger than Washington and often beyond politics’ domain. What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.

It’s a cynicism confirmed almost daily by events. Last week Brian Stelter of The Times reported that the corporate bosses of MSNBC and Fox News, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric and Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation, had sanctioned their lieutenants to broker what a G.E. spokesman called a new “level of civility” between their brawling cable stars, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. A Fox spokesman later confirmed to Howard Kurtz of The Post that “there was an agreement” at least at the corporate level. Olbermann said he was a “party to no deal,” and in any event what looked like a temporary truce ended after The Times article was published. But the whole scrape only fed legitimate suspicions on the right and left alike that even their loudest public voices can be silenced if the business interests of the real American elite decree it.

You might wonder whether networks could some day cut out the middlemen — anchors — and just put covert lobbyists and publicists on the air to deliver the news. Actually, that has already happened. The most notorious example was the flock of retired military officers who served as television “news analysts” during the Iraq war while clandestinely lobbying for defense contractors eager to sell their costly wares to the Pentagon.

The revelation of that scandal did not end the practice. Last week MSNBC had to apologize for deploying the former Newsweek writer Richard Wolffe as a substitute host for Olbermann without mentioning his new career as a corporate flack. Wolffe might still be anchoring on MSNBC if the blogger Glenn Greenwald hadn’t called attention to his day job. MSNBC assured its viewers that there were no conflicts of interest, but we must take that on faith, since we still don’t know which clients Wolffe represents as a senior strategist for his firm, Public Strategies, whose chief executive is the former Bush White House spin artist, Dan Bartlett.

Let’s presume that Wolffe’s clients do not include the corporate interests with billions at stake in MSNBC and Washington’s Topic A, the health care debate. If so, he’s about the only player in the political-corporate culture who’s not riding that gravy train.

As Democrats have pointed out, the angry hecklers disrupting town-hall meetings convened by members of Congress are not always ordinary citizens engaging in spontaneous grass-roots protests or even G.O.P. operatives, but proxies for corporate lobbyists. One group facilitating the screamers is FreedomWorks, which is run by the former Congressman Dick Armey, now a lobbyist at the DLA Piper law firm. Medicines Company, a global pharmaceutical business, has paid DLA Piper more than $6 million in lobbying fees in the five years Armey has worked there.

But the Democratic members of Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the moral high ground. Their ties to health care interests are merely more discreet and insidious. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the first six months of 2009 alone to the 18 House members of both parties supervising health care reform, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them.

Then there are the 52 conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who have balked at the public option for health insurance. Their cash intake from insurers and drug companies outpaces their Democratic peers by an average of 25 percent, according to The Post. And let’s not forget the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which has raked in nearly $500,000 from a single doctor-owned hospital in McAllen, Tex. — the very one that Obama has cited as a symbol of runaway medical costs ever since it was profiled in The New Yorker this spring.

In this maze of powerful moneyed interests, it’s not clear who any American in either party should or could root for. The bipartisan nature of the beast can be encapsulated by the remarkable progress of Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana congressman. Tauzin was a founding member of the Blue Dog Democrats in 1994. A year later, he bolted to the Republicans. Now he is chief of PhRMA, the biggest pharmaceutical trade group. In the 2008 campaign, Obama ran a television ad pillorying Tauzin for his role in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices. Last week The Los Angeles Times reported — and The New York Times confirmed — that Tauzin, an active player in White House health care negotiations, had secured a behind-closed-doors flip-flop, enlisting the administration to push for continued protection of drug prices. Now we know why the president has ducked his campaign pledge to broadcast such negotiations on C-Span.

The making of legislative sausage is never pretty. The White House has to give to get. But the cynicism being whipped up among voters is justified. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose chief presidential campaign strategist unapologetically did double duty as a high-powered corporate flack, Obama promised change we could actually believe in.

His first questionable post-victory step was to assemble an old boys’ club of Robert Rubin protégés and Goldman-Citi alumni as the White House economic team, including a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who failed in his watchdog role at the New York Fed as Wall Street’s latest bubble first inflated and then burst. The questions about Geithner’s role in adjudicating the subsequent bailouts aren’t going away, and neither is the angry public sense that the fix is still in. We just learned that nine of those bailed-out banks — which in total received $175 billion of taxpayers’ money, but as yet have repaid only $50 billion — are awarding a total of $32.6 billion in bonuses for 2009.

It’s in this context that Obama can’t afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what’s in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or doesn’t, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform.

The best political news for the president remains the Republicans. It’s a measure of how out of touch G.O.P. leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are that they keep trying to scare voters by calling Obama a socialist. They have it backward. The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy. If anything, the most unexpected — and challenging — event that could rock the White House this August would be if the opposition actually woke up.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

NYC Vigil Commemorating Victims of Recent Tel Aviv Shooting: Silvia Rivera Law Project

2009-08-07T18:41:00.002-04:00

NYC Vigil Commemorating Victims of Recent Tel Aviv Shooting: Jerold Nadler, Congressman - NY's 8th Congressional District

2009-08-07T06:56:00.005-04:00

NYC Vigil Commemorating Victims of Recent Tel Aviv Shooting: Carl Siciliano - Ali Forney Center

2009-08-07T06:51:00.002-04:00

NYC Vigil Commemorating Victims of Recent Tel Aviv Shooting in NYC: Christine Quinn, New York City Council Speaker

2009-08-07T06:43:00.003-04:00

Change Comes Home - Congressional Meetings Initiative Announced

2009-08-06T14:54:00.008-04:00

Equality Across America and Join The Impact are encouraging groups of LGBT people to meet with their elected Representative in their local district during the month of August.

"While our US Representatives return home for a month of recess, we will meet with them to share our stories and to build a national movement from the ground up. If you've never met with your Representative before, don't worry...there's nothing to be afraid of! It doesn't take any special skills or experience. It just takes a passion for equal rights, and a willingness to speak up for what's right."

Queer Justice League will be helping to coordinate meetings in New Jersey's 13th Congressional District (Hudson County also parts of Essex, Middlesex & Union Counties) with Representative Albio Sires; New York's 14th Congressional District (Manhattan's East Side - Roosevelt Island -Astoria/Sunnyside/Long Island City in Queens) with Representative Carolyn Maloney; and New York's 8th Congressional District(Manhattan's West Side - Borough Park, Sunset Park, Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Gravesend, Dyker Heights, Bath Beach, & Seagate in Brooklyn) with Representative Jerold Nadler. We have choosen these districts because most of our activism has been in these areas. QJL will also be working in coalition with existing groups in the NY-NJ Metro area to encourage participation in these local meetings through the creation of District Teams and also to garner support for the NATIONAL EQUALITY MARCH in October.

Please contact us directly to help with these meetings.

Agitate! Agitate! Agitate! - Frederick Douglas

2009-08-06T10:02:00.003-04:00

Agitation (āj'ĭ-tā'shən) - a persistent annoyance that eventually evokes a response. Agitation is a real world cause and effect leading to change. Change, whether "good or bad" can be measured against the real-world impact (result) of agitation at the "top". - js (from WIKI Answers online)

Mel White Endorses Expanded Civil Rights Act to Include LGBT People

2009-08-05T16:44:00.007-04:00

Remarks by Mel White
40th Anniversary of Stonewall
June 29th, 2009

Here at Stonewall, we stand in the shadow of giants who refused to accept their second class citizenship. They would be outcasts no more! Now with their voices echoing in our hearts, we have come to take our stand as well. In a 1965 interview, Dr. King made it clear that it is far past time to liberate African Americans from their second class citizenship. These are his words. I’ve edited them simply to call for the liberation of LGBT Americans as well.

“Why do straight people find it so difficult to understand that LGBT Americans are sick and tired of having reluctantly parceled out to them those rights and privileges which all others receive upon birth or entry in America? We never cease to wonder at the amazing presumption of much of straight society, assuming that they have the right to bargain with LGBT Americans for their freedom. This continued arrogant ladling out of pieces of the rights of citizenship has begun to generate a growing discontent in the LGBT community. What LGBT Americans want is absolute and unqualified freedom and equality here in this land of our birth. LGBT Americans no longer will be tolerant of anything less than our due right and heritage. We are pursuing only that which we know is honorably ours.

“Most straight Americans support the struggle to eradicate injustice; nevertheless they feel that LGBT Americans should be more patient, that only the passage of time – perhaps generations – will bring about the sweeping changes we demand…

“We say, with Dr. King, that the time is always right to do what is right…Increasingly we realize that time has been used destructively by people of ill will much more than it has been used constructively by those of good will…We wonder at straight Americans who dare to feel that they have some paternalistic right to set the timetable for the liberation of LGBT Americans. We are often inclined to think that our moderate “friends” are more of a stumbling block to the progress of LGBT Americans than Pat Robertson, James Dobson and other leaders of the Christian right.”

We have a growing concern that our new President is listening to those same “moderates” who counsel that it is too early to take on ENDA or DOMA or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These are difficult times, they whisper. LGBT Americans have waited this long. They are amazingly patient. They will understand if we ask them to wait a little longer.

We are here to say to our President and to members of the House and Senate that we do not understand. That we cannot “wait a little longer.” Our sisters and brothers have suffered injustice, intolerance and discrimination far too long: harassed, hunted down and hounded out of the military; denied employment and housing, refused the rights of marriage and ordination; left out of hate crime legislation all the while being primary victims of hate in all its vicious forms. We are second class citizens at best. Worse, we are outcasts in the nation we love and serve. (Page 353, Testament of Hope).

It is time to do what is right and including LGBT Americans in the Civil Rights Legislation of 1964 is right. We hope and pray that this time truth will prevail and justice will flow down like a mighty stream.

Mel White is founder of Soulforce.org and author of Stranger At The Gate: To Be Gay & Christian in America.

HRC Seeks Local Action On An Inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

2009-08-05T14:00:00.001-04:00

2009-08-05T11:57:00.003-04:00

Obama Said 'I Don't.' He May Just Mean It.
by James Kirchick
Washington Post - 02.02.2009

Last month, former president Bill Clinton joined the increasing number of Democratic politicians who publicly back same-sex marriage. Granted, Clinton's endorsement -- offered in response to a questioner at a Washington conference for liberal college activists -- was heavily qualified: Clinton said he is "basically in support" of providing legal recognition to gay couples. This latter-day epiphany from the man who signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions, earned warm praise from gay activists. "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said, and people seemed to believe his apparent change of heart.

Others, however, claimed to know that he has been for gay marriage all along. Kerry Eleveld, Washington correspondent for the Advocate, wrote that "no one ever really believed [Clinton] opposed marriage equality. Call it craven politics, but everyone knows Clinton signed DOMA into law before the '96 election to avoid a potential GOP family-values offensive at the ballot box." Eleveld and others contend that support for same-sex marriage among liberal elected officials is a given. It's just that pesky political exigencies prevent them from publicly expressing their "real" beliefs.

There's no doubt that part of Clinton's motivation for signing DOMA was to prevent the Republican Party from using it as a wedge issue. But whether or not that law went against his actual convictions, it is part of Clinton's legacy to the gay community, along with "don't ask, don't tell." Repealing both is the most important task of the gay rights movement today.

When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can't count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton's comments, he told reporters that his boss "does not support" same-sex marriage. "He supports civil unions," Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama's statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating "don't ask, don't tell" violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn't done -- and is unlikely to do -- much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama's secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. "Pbbbht! Of course he's in favor of gay marriage!" Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama's deputy national campaign director. "I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we've achieved full equality in the gay community," he told journalist Rex Wockner. I've lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama "really" supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it's easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent -- if not outright opposed -- to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals' notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. "Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn't have -- that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar -- is it a complicated issue?" Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a "citizen of the world" would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don't, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama's history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama's apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama's apparent flip isn't genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he "really" thinks, Obama's stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They've done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn't apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: "I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Talking about "feelings" is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama's promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, "I feel your pain." Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action.

James Kirchick (jkirchick@tnr.com) is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.

National Equality March Coming in October

2009-08-05T11:28:00.002-04:00

Shooting May Have Been Personal

2009-08-05T08:56:00.004-04:00

Motives unclear in Tel Aviv attack
Jewish Telegraphic Agency - 08.04.2009

NEW YORK (JTA) -- Israeli police remain unsure whether the weekend murders at a Tel Aviv gay community center constitute a hate crime.

"There is no clear evidence at this stage indicating that this was a hate crime," said a source involved in the investigation, according to Ha'aretz.

Among the possibilities investigators are considering is that the crime was motivated by a personal dispute rather than antipathy toward gays.

The police have called on Israelis not to blame any sector of the public for the crime, which shocked the nation.

The attack killed two: Nir Katz, 26, and Liz Troboushi, 17. Four others remain in the hospital, two in intensive care.

NYC Vigil For Those Killed in Israel

2009-08-03T14:10:00.003-04:00

There will be a vigil in support of the victims of Saturday's shooting at the LGBT Youth Center in Tel Aviv and to show solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Israel.

When:
Wednesday, August 5th, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Where:
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
57 Bethune Street (between Washington & West Streets)
Manhattan

National Equality March In October

2009-08-03T10:16:00.005-04:00

reprinted from Bilerico.com (06.15.2009)
Cleve Jones Responds: 10 Reasons Why a March Isn't a Bad Idea

On June 8, 2009, Bil Browning of Bilerico Project attacked the planned march on Washington scheduled for October 11 in a post entitled: "10 reasons why a march on Washington is a bad idea." Bill, and other critics of the march are wrong on all ten counts and here's why.

In his first paragraph, Bil references a speech I gave in Salt Lake City during Utah Pride to announce the march. The speech is posted on YouTube, but apparently Bil didn't actually view it. If he had he would have known that the march is not just about Prop. 8 or California or marriage equality, but for equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law, in all fifty states.

Point 1: "Planning a march on Washington isn't something you can throw together in five months."
Wrong. We've learned from Join the Impact, Meet in the Middle and others that large and powerful events can be organized with lightening speed.

Point 2: "The Mall is already reserved on October 11... Cleve and Co. have already been denied a permit for that day."
Wrong. The West Capitol lawn is available and has been reserved - by us. The DC Police, Capitol Police and the National Park Service are all cooperating with us to accommodate a crowd of any size.

Point 3: "Congress isn't in session on October 11th, what's the point when participants can't lobby?"
Wrong. The most effective form of citizen lobbying occurs at home, in local districts, when people who live and work and vote in that district engage their representatives in long term dialogue. That's why we're building this march in all 435 Congressional districts.

Point 4: "None of the large organizations have been consulted...its just a small circle of people."
Wrong. A large and growing network of grassroots activists from throughout the country is coordinating the march. Perhaps Bil believes that we should have achieved a consensus from all the leaders and organizations before calling for the march. A consensus in our community? Get real. What we are offering is a clear unifying demand, a philosophy and a strategy. Individuals are free to support it, criticize it or ignore it as they choose.

Point 5: "A do-nothing march on Washington is a tactical mistake."
Well, of course, a do-nothing march would be a total waste of time. This march is an organizing vehicle to create a national grassroots movement to change votes in Congress. That's the purpose.

Point 6: "A march on Washington will not bring marriage equality to the flyover states... the coastal queers are willing to sacrifice us on the alter of domesticity."
Wrong. In fact, only federal action will bring full equality to all of our people in all fifty states. The march and other actions that focus on Federal intervention are urgently required. And could we please stop using strategies and rhetoric that divide us by state or region? The 14th Amendment of the Constitution is supposed to protect us all.

Point 7: "California is not the end-all-be-all of queer America."
Agreed. But wrong, again, if you think that's what we believe. Read what we are actually saying, it's clear that this march is not about California or any other single state. It's about all of us. And it's about building queer political power to win equality, combat homophobia and fight for HIV/AIDS funding.

Point 8: "Not too many of us can afford to take a vacation to DC."
Yes, times are hard, but if you want to wait until the economy improves before we push for equality you may be waiting a long time. We're organizing frugally, not planning a 3-day multimedia extravaganza. Roundtrip airfare from the West Coast is available now online for less than $300. Millions of equality advocates live within a few hours drive or train trip of DC. The march is going to be huge. While many will not be able to attend, they can hold support rallies in their hometowns or engage in other actions to support our goal.

Point 9: "The majority of US queers still need basic protections from discrimination."
If you would take them time to review our statements and my speeches on the issue, we have only one demand: equal protection under the law, in all matters governed by civil law, in all fifty states." We reject further compromises and delays.

Point 10: "Cleve's quotes are all about Prop. 8, California and same sex marriage."
Wrong. View the speech, read anything I've published since last November. It's all about full equality now. And please don't complain that the media will only focus on marriage rights when you're exacerbating the problem by misrepresenting our statements.

The October 11 march and rally in Washington, DC, offer our community a powerful opportunity to protest the lack of action from President Obama and the Congress. It's an important way to express our anger while building the foundation for a nationwide grassroots movement to change votes in Congress. The organizers are all volunteers, operating with a stripped down, barebones budget and committed to doing the hard, often tedious work of organizing in all 435 Congressional districts.

The events of the past week have made it abundantly clear that President Obama and the Democratic leadership are turning their backs on our community and reneging on their promises. We need to march in Washington on October 11, then return to our home districts and get to work.

A few more words on the date, October 11, 2009:
- It is National Coming Out Day.
- The anniversary of Mathew Shepard's murder is Oct. 12.
- It is the 30th anniversary of the first March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights.
- It's a 3-day weekend for students, government employees and many others.
- The weather is generally favorable. It is a weekend that has been used historically by our community for marches and for displays of the AIDS Memorial Quilt.

Join us: http://www.nationalequalitymarch.com/

hattip: bilerico.com
Cleve Jones Responds: 10 Reasons Why a March Isn't a Bad Idea - 06.15.2009

2009-08-02T22:21:00.000-04:00

Tel Aviv Gunman Still at-Large

2009-08-02T13:55:00.001-04:00

Anti-Gay Murders Rock Tel Aviv
Police hunting for gunman who killed two in LGBT youth center
BY PAUL SCHINDLER
Gay City News 08.02.2009

One day after a masked gunman opened fire at an LGBT youth center in Tel Aviv, killing two and wounding 13 others, Associated Press reports that hundreds of Israeli police are combing nearby streets in an effort to track down the murderer.

Ynetnews.com identified the two killed as Nir Katz, a 26-year-old counselor at the club, and Liz Trubeshi, alternately reported as 17 or 16.

The August 1 attack targeted a weekly event held for LGBT teens in a club in the basement of the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association. The club offers counseling and a place to gather and socialize for youth, many of whom have not yet come out.

Tel Aviv is widely considered a more cosmopolitan city than Jerusalem, with a large and vibrant LGBT community. Reuters quoted Avi Sofer, a gay activist, saying, "The biggest shock is to think that it happened in Tel Aviv, which is the most tolerant city in the country.”

Four of the 13 taken to the hospital were described as having serious injuries. The Israeli media was full of pictures showing the blood-stained aftermath of the attack, and witnesses described an horrific scene, with bodies strewn on the floor surrounding a billiards table.

Within hours of the attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the killer, "We'll bring him to justice and exercise the full extent of the law against him." President Shimon Peres described the shootings as "despicable murder" that "a cultured and enlightened people cannot accept.”

Police are keeping a tight lid on details of their investigation, concerned that it could be compromised by leaks.

Nitzan Horowitz, the only openly gay member of the Knesset, described the killings as a “hate crime.”

"We demand that the government put an end to this hate campaign and that the Education Ministry institute proper information and education at schools in order to prevent the recurrence of such shameful events," Horowitz said, according to Reuters.

Israel’s chief rabbis also condemned the attack.

But the Associated Press quoted Mike Hamel of the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association, which sponsors the youth center, as blaming religious extremists for the killings.

"Beyond the pain, the frustration, and the anger, we are facing a situation in which the incitement to hate creates an environment that allows this to happen," Hamel said.

In recent years, gay pride celebrations in Israel have faced hostile responses from Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who take to the streets to voice their opposition to shows of LGBT visibility.

In 2005, one ultra-Orthodox anti-gay protester stabbed three marchers in a Jerusalem gay pride parade, and according to the AP, last year a Knesset member from the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party said earthquakes were God’s punishment for Israel’s tolerance of the gay and lesbian community.

Shas Party leaders on August 2 condemned the attacks.

The Associated Press quoted Rona Keinan, a songwriter and LGBT activist, saying of the club that youth “go there because it is a refuge of sorts for them."

"The very thought that a person might enter that protected space and simply open fire at them is shocking,” Keinan wrote in the daily Yediot Ahrono. “I just want to cry.”

Israelis by the hundreds and thousands took to the streets, in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, on both Saturday and Sunday, to voice their outrage over the shootings.

According to Ynetnews, Nir Katz’s stepfather said of the 26-year-old youth counselor, "He believed in his own way, lived with a boyfriend for years. His goal was to help people who were struggling and who were still in the closet. He considered it a mission."

Liz Trubeshi’s family was described as “closed off in their home.”

"We are hurting and are having a hard time,” Trubeshi’s aunt Cindy said, according to Ynetnews. “It's hard to talk about it."

An unidentified friend of Trubeshi’s was quoted saying, “She was very quiet in class. A closed-off and introverted person. I don't know what to say, she didn't even turn 17. She didn't talk about her sexual orientation but was very open on the gay-lesbian issue."

Come to the National Equality March - October 11, 2009

2009-08-02T07:26:00.001-04:00

The Dallas Principles Articulate A National Call to Action

2009-08-02T06:27:00.003-04:00

The Dallas Principles articulate a common set of goals and principles that we hope will inspire and mobilize our community, allies, and political leaders to act individually and collectively to achieve full LGBT civil rights now.

The idea arose from web-based conversations about the lack of progress at the federal level in achieving full civil rights for LGBT citizens. Those involved share a desire to inspire and mobilize our community, allies, and political leaders to act individually and collectively to achieve this goal. Their names and information about them can be found at http://www.thedallasprinciples.org/.

The following eight guiding principles underlie our call to action.
In order to achieve full civil rights now, we avow:
1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.
2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.
3.Separate is never equal.
4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.
5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.
6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.
7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.
8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

Masked Gunman Kills in Israel

2009-08-02T04:34:00.003-04:00

2 Shot Dead at Gay Center in Tel Aviv
08.01.2009 - Rueters
5:41 EST

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - A gunman sprayed automatic fire at an Israeli club for gay teenagers on Saturday, killing two people and wounding at least eight, police and witnesses said.

The shooting spree in central Tel Aviv set off a citywide security clampdown, reviving memories of Palestinian attacks that have ebbed in recent years. But a police spokesman said that the incident was "criminal, rather than nationalistic."

Citing witnesses, Israeli television said a black-clad, masked gunman stormed into the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association building and opened fire in a basement room where teenage homosexuals were holding a weekly support group.

Most of the casualties were minors, the police spokesman said, adding that the assailant was believed to have used an automatic weapon such as an M-16 rifle.

"This is an unprecedented event for Israel and for the community," association director May Pamel told Channel 10 TV.

"We have joined the roster of 'civilized' countries where hatred is the standard."

Coastal, cosmopolitan Tel Aviv has a bustling gay scene, but open homosexuality is less welcome in conservative areas of the Jewish state. Annual gay pride parades in Jerusalem meet with often violent protests from ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Tel Aviv police chief Shachar Ayalon stopped short of branding the shooting a hate crime remarks to reporters.

But one protester at the scene held up a placard blaming a powerful religious Jewish political party whose members have regularly inveighed against gays.

Israeli media said police had warned other gay clubs in Tel Aviv to close for fear of a follow-up attack.

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Michael Roddy)

Nationational LGBT KissIn Events Being Planned in 15 Major US Cities on August 15th

2009-08-01T23:36:00.003-04:00

Hattip: Seth Fowler from Equality Across America & National Equality March

Mixner on the Importance of Prop 8 Repeal in 2010 - "That Work... Will Not Be Done Without A Vehicle"

2009-08-01T16:12:00.003-04:00

hattip: Michaelangelo.com

Report Says Gay Community Has Relinquished Momentum on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2009-07-31T11:42:00.004-04:00

This past Tuesday, Politico.com announced the publication of a new Palm Center report on efforts by gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and others to block consideration of an executive order suspending “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The new report, “A Self-Inflicted Wound: How and Why Gays Give the White House a Free Pass on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was written by
Palm Center director Aaron Belkin.

“Some members of our community have been circulating misleading arguments which ended up as talking points for the President of the United States,” Belkin said. “It is not our job to provide
Washington with reasons to continue to discriminate.”

Yesterday, a working group including former Congressman Marty Meehan and two retired Generals released a statement correcting misleading and inaccurate claims about “don’t ask, don’t tell” that are addressed in today’s report.

Copy of Palm Center Report - GAY EFFORTS TO BLOCK EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Palm Center is a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center usesrigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policyoutcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Its data-driven approach is premised onthe notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high-quality information isavailable. For more information, visit

Hattip: DavidMixner.com & www.palmcenter.ucs

Obama Administration Pressures Hastings to Drop Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell!

2009-07-31T09:00:00.002-04:00

Hattip: DavidMixner.com

Join the Impact - Chicago Organizer Offers Rationale for National Equality March

2009-07-30T16:40:00.006-04:00

Nik Maciejewski, co-founder and organizer, Join the Impact - Chicago

offers his thoughts on the National Equality March set for October 10-11th.

Former LGBT March Organizer Speaks Out

2009-07-30T09:24:00.007-04:00

from GAY CITY NEWS - 07.29. 2009
Top-Down “National March for Equality” Won’t Wash
by Steve Ault

As one of the lead organizers for the LGBT community’s first two marches on Washington — in 1979 and 1987 — my ears perked up when I heard there were plans for a new one.

I checked out David Mixner’s website where the “National Equality March” was announced, ostensibly for and by the LGBT community, although the name of the event was devoid of any such reference. The date was set, as was an overarching statement of purpose, but unlike the earlier actions, there would be no specific demands.

Despite rhetoric invoking the “grassroots,” it appears the leadership already had been decided: Mixner, and a few self-selected others. The whole package was signed, sealed, very neatly wrapped, and then delivered to the LGBT community as a fait accompli.

To date there have been four national marches on Washington organized by the LGBT community — in 1979, 1987, 1993, and 2000. The first three were great successes; the fourth a fiasco marked by a huge event-day rip-off of participating small business people, followed by bankruptcy, lawsuits, and an FBI investigation — not to mention a turnout a mere fraction of the 1987 and 1993 marches.

By no coincidence, the first three were run democratically, with grassroots involvement in decision-making and organizing; the fourth — the grandiosely named “Millennium March” — had self-selected leadership and a decision-making process closed to the community.

Briefly, here’s how our first three marches were organized and structured. The primary decision-making steering committee, national in scope, was comprised of delegates elected at regional meetings, assuring representation from all parts of the country while also mandating gender parity and inclusion of people of color. National organizations and spokespeople from unrepresented and underrepresented constituencies were added to make sure just about everyone had a seat at the table. The leadership was in turn elected from and by the steering committee. This decision-making process — admittedly contentious and chaotic at times — won acceptance as fair and inclusive. The ability to be both heard and represented motivated people from all over the country to commit time, energy, and resources to building these marches — a factor at the very heart of their success.

In each instance, when the big day finally arrived, we reveled in and were empowered by our accomplishment. The first three marches on Washington strengthened our movement largely because they were democratically-run grassroots efforts on a massive scale. They have thus become milestones in both our developing self-awareness and our history as a politically effective community. They have even served as models for other movements seeking social change. Some traditions are worth fighting for.

That’s not to say a future march must be organized exactly the same way in order to succeed. We should, of course, take full advantage of the many new social networking technologies available to connect us with each other. But these technologies cannot replace what is unique about face-to-face meetings and old-fashioned grassroots organizing — experiences crucial to building and sustaining a sense of community.

The importance of process also becomes obvious when considering the major issues:
To Have a March or Not: The issue of resources and priorities inevitably arises from the ways in which a national action affects local or statewide work. Under current economic conditions, the matter of resources, in the case of both organizations and individuals, is especially relevant.

And If So -- When to March: Three months is a very brief lead-time. Such short notice precludes a real grassroots effort that, by nature, takes a while to get off the ground, the Internet notwithstanding. Some would maintain that a march should be held during the year leading up to a presidential election for maximum impact.

What to Call It: The name we give to our community, which evolved over time to become more inclusive, was incorporated into the title given to the first three marches; not so for the fourth, and apparently that will also not be the case for this one. There are different viewpoints on this question, but they have not been debated.

What It’s For — the Political Message: Focus can be lost with too many demands, but unlike the current endeavor, usually a demonstration does include a set of demands. Perhaps a happy medium is best. Some would argue that change is more important than “equality” — that before demanding an equal slice of the pie, one should consider whether the pie itself is rotten.

True, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is idiotic, but what about the role played by the US military? As for marriage, some will point out that its allocation of benefits based on relationship status discriminates against the unmarried. If so, is extending access to a prejudicial institution the way to go?

With HIV/ AIDS and more, no one can deny the unique and historic intersection between the needs of the LGBT community and the issue of health care. Is it not possible, in fact, that a single-payer health care system could benefit far more members of our community than all the topical equality issues combined? Doesn’t this discussion merit open debate?

The Program: Who speaks for and represents the community is always a hot topic — and no small matter.

Related events: In previous instances, related events were planned in addition to the march and rally. Most frequently, a lobbying effort was included. But in conjunction with the 1987 march, we organized a huge, empowering civil disobedience action at the US Supreme Court protesting its Bowers v. Hardwick decision the year before upholding the sodomy laws of Georgia.

There’s a lot to mull over, a lot to debate, and a lot to decide. The issues raised here are but a few possible examples, presented not as endorsements, but as an indication of how the current discussion could easily proceed. One thing is certain, however — the discussion needs to proceed openly, with decisions made democratically.

Differences between the grassroots and top-down models are evident in their contrasting approaches to the inclusion of people of color. With the former, representatives are selected by and from their communities and are part of the decision-making process of the entire effort from the outset. With the latter, people of color are selected by the leadership — after major decisions have already been made — and are used to lend the event and its planners a veneer of credibility.

The experience of working out the structure and putting the marches together served as a unique and indispensable training ground for many burgeoning activists and movement veterans. The overwhelming majority of those who helped build these events would undoubtedly concur — arguing strenuously that a new generation of LGBT activists should not be deprived of a similar experience.

Organizers of the current march may claim we’re at a critical moment and just don’t have time to do it any other way. This response won’t wash. In 1987, the Supreme Court had recently decided that our sexuality could define us all as criminals; our very existence was challenged. Meanwhile, we were in the depths of a devastating epidemic with a president who wouldn’t even utter the word AIDS. Yet, we took no convenient or facile shortcuts. Building a community-wide mandate was too important.

Coming up with an idea, promoting it, and then testing it is all well and good. Self-selecting leadership for an event that purports to represent and speak for an entire community is not. A leadership style or process that makes raising community issues akin to petitioning Caesar is simply not acceptable. Earlier generations of LGBT activists would not have tolerated this power grab. We must make our voices heard now.

Native New Yorker Steve Ault, who can be reached at stgault@earthlink.net, served as co-coordinator of the first National March on Washington for Lesbian & Gay Rights in 1979, and co-chair of the second in 1987. He was a member of the Gay Liberation Front and a founding board member of the LGBT Community Services Center of New York City. For more information about the LGBT community’s marches on Washington, check out “The Dividends of Dissent,” a book by Amin Ghaziani, and visit newyorkslime.com/ahc/. This discussion can also be informed by an Internet search on the “Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament.”

Vanasco: It’s Time to Stonewall Obama

2009-07-23T12:16:00.005-04:00

from a posting on Gay Independent Forum

by Jennifer Vanasco
First published in the Chicago Free Press on June 17, 2009

It is starting to seem like a tautology that if the Obama administration is asked to weigh in on a question of gay rights, then it will come down on the wrong side.

It happened again last week.

Obama’s Department of Justice crafted a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act that used all of the arguments of the anti-gay Right. Heterosexual marriages are “traditional,” it said. Denying federal recognition to legal state marriages doesn’t hurt anyone, it said. States don’t have to recognize gay marriages performed by other states just like they don’t have to recognize a marriage between an uncle and his niece, it said.

We do not have a “friend in the White House.”

We do not have a “fierce advocate.”

What we have is an enemy.

He is, sure, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, wearing a glittering costume embroidered with “Hope,” “Change” and empty promises. He is master of doublespeak, saying that he is against DOMA yet not protesting when a Bush-holdover presses a poison dagger of a marriage brief into our chests; he says he supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but has yet to issue a Stop-Loss order to keep hunted gays and lesbians in their military jobs.

Leave gay rights to the states, he says. Leave them to Congress.

Barack Obama is no longer hurting us with benign neglect. Barack Obama’s administration is now actively attacking us.

If George W. Bush had responded this way to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA, we would be rising in the streets. We would be protesting in front of the White House.

"Barack Obama has forgotten, perhaps, that we are human beings with families. He perhaps has made the erroneous assumption that we will wait our turn humbly, hats in hand, until he decides to be beneficent in the waning days of a second term. We need to show him that we will not."Barack Obama is not our friend. He is not our fierce advocate. He is someone who used our vulnerability and hope to get elected.

Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote a beautiful letter to the White House expressing just this sense of betrayal. “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones,” he wrote.

We need to show him that we will not.

The world is a different place than it was five years ago or even six months ago. Establishment Republicans — Dick Cheney! Joe Bruno in New York! — are now coming out in favor of gay marriage. A majority of Americans favor the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Gay and lesbian civil rights are no longer a fringe issue. And gays and lesbians are no longer a minority who will be placated with hate crimes legislation in lieu of full and equal rights.

There will always be urgent issues competing for a President’s attention. That’s what being President is. But those other issues shouldn’t make us back down. In fact, they should make us fight harder.

Health care? DOMA might make it impossible for our spouses to be our dependents in a federal health care program. The economy? Our families would certainly be better off if the money we paid to Social Security could go to our loved ones if we passed before they did. The war? America would have a stronger fighting force if it stopped ejecting perfectly qualified, long-serving soldiers just because they are gay.

We must stop giving Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. It is time to show him that we will not support a second term, that we will not support the Democratic Party, if this continues. We will not give a dollar of our money. We will not give an hour of our time.

We will Stonewall him and his administration. The time for being treated as the equal Americans we are has come, and we will not be pushed aside.

Shame!! - McCain Calls Typical Legislative Amendment on Hate Crimes an "Abuse of Power"

2009-07-22T16:31:00.005-04:00

2009-07-22T09:00:00.006-04:00

Gay Marriage and the Constitution
Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8.
By David Boies
Wall Street Journal - 7.20.2009

When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.
There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

THE " Oh Lord, Not Now!" NAYSAYERS - Mixner Responds to National Equality March Critics

2009-07-21T15:55:00.011-04:00

from David Mixner.com

"There is a new chapter within the LGBT civil rights movement that can only be described as the "Oh Lord, Not Now!" movement.

"These well meaning, hard-working and intelligent folks want a very neat time-lined, totally safe and predictable movement. One where, as a community, we do not publicly move until we are assured of victory. They don't want us to venture from a proscribed game plan that mostly originates out of a Washington-based political strategy to gain our freedom. They live in fear that we will move too quickly, make someone uncomfortable and put our political friends in a tough spot. Afraid to risk defeat, they believe we have to make everyone like us and be on our side. Most amazingly they seek the approval of others instead of insisting that others have to liberate themselves from their own long held myths in order to receive this marvelous gift that our community brings."

Read the rest of his blog post here.

photo credit: Charlie Rose Show

2009-07-20T18:37:00.002-04:00

2009-07-20T17:38:00.009-04:00

Comments Sought for Repeal of HIV Travel Ban

2009-07-20T17:38:00.006-04:00

The Center for Disease Control & Prevention is seeking comment on a proposal by Obama adminstration to repeal the HIV/AIDS travel ban to the United States.

Among the key provisions of the new rules proposed in the administrative outline by the CDC are that: HIV infection would no longer be included on the list of “communicable disease of public health significance”; Testing for HIV infection would no longer be required as part of the U.S. Immigration medical screening process; and HIV infection would no longer require a waiver for entry into the United States.

This repeal is long overdue and something that was promised by Barack Obama during the U.S. Presidential campaign.

Send your supportive comments here.

hattip: Queers United

A Passionate Plea to Scientists to Act on HIV/AIDS by Stephen Lewis (Co-Director - AIDS Free World)

2009-07-20T11:04:00.007-04:00

In my younger days, decades upon decades ago, we were consumed by the threat of nuclear annihilation. The forces of darkness, East and West, seemed in the ascendance. The Doomsday clock inched its way to midnight.

And then there arose, across a spectrum ranging from the scientists and engineers writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, through to the Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, aloud clamouring cry of protest, accompanied by marches, banners, polemics, statements, press conferences demanding, in the name of humankind, that the madness end.

And it did, at least for a time at the end of the Cold War. And the scientists and doctors won Nobel Peace Prizes and showed the power of scholarly activism for the whole world to see. Two weeks ago, just prior to the meeting of the G8, a full-page ad appeared in the FinancialTimes, with the headline “Scientists Call on World Leaders to Take Action on Climate Change”. It was signed by twenty-five of the most renowned climatologists and earth scientists. They didn’t get all they wanted by any means, but they jolted the political leadership into the recognition that the scientists are mobilized, are watching, are keeping the rest of the world informed and will not be silenced.

I was immediately reminded of the letter, signed by eighty-one acclaimed medical clinicians and researchers right after the Toronto AIDS conference, demanding the resignation of the then South African Minister of Health for reasons everyone in this audience understands. It was an important moment in the accelerating, cumulative pressure for a change in policy, a change now underway.

In truth, there are many in this audience who fought for that change. This is an audience that has devoted itself to making the world a better place, so I hope that what I’m about to say will
-- No one should underestimate the power and influence of science when it decides to take a stand. The two co-Chairs of this Conference are striking examples, amongst many, of the extraordinary impact scientists can have. And never has the exercise of power and influence been more imperative than at this moment in the fight against the AIDS pandemic. Your individual and collective voices are needed … sure, you have the technological and laboratory acumen, you know about vaccines and microbicides and triple combination therapy and viral loads and CD4 counts and pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis … the entire panoply of sophisticated scientific discovery and intervention.

And that’s your work, and it’s of inestimable value. We need you to unravel the secrets of thescience, to make all of that elusive and mysterious information accessible to the untutored rest of us. But we need the scientific community as well to speak clearly, and unequivocally, boldly andevocatively to the power-brokers of this world, telling them of the risks and the benefits, andwhat will happen if they make the wrong choices.

Somehow, along with the science, we need the activism. They are inseparable.So when, as now, there’s a backlash against funding for AIDS, with mindless charges against AIDS exceptionalism, you should find a way, collectively, to shoot down the pinched bureaucrats and publicity-seeking academics who advocate exchanging the health of some for the health of others – who propose robbing Peter to pay Paul rather than arguing, in principled fashion, that money must be found for every imperative, including maternal and child health, and sexual and reproductive health, and environmental health as well as all the resources required toturn the tide of the AIDS pandemic.

It can never be an either/or. We’re talking about human lives for God’s sake, not about the phony parsing of balance sheets. The Treasuries of the western nations are very artful at the divide andconquer route. We must never allow them to play one part of the health sector against the other.HIV/AIDS, for all the horrendous human consequences, has objectively strengthened health systems, has brought together all the sectors of government from agriculture to education, hasintegrated private and public initiatives, has exponentially raised awareness of the consequences of gender inequality, has spawned remarkably novel ideas for raising resources … all of it inevitably improving human health overall.

Believe me, if we could have back the lives we’ve lost, I’d relinquish in a heartbeat the institutional gains that flow from AIDS. But we can’t, so at least don’t undervalue or dismiss the gains.

It’s so easy for the detractors to coddle specious arguments. Rather than asking for more money,they have this punitive spasm to ransack resources for AIDS. You must not let them get awaywith it.

And when the G8 won’t renew its 2005 commitment to universal access; when the G8 cynically uses the financial crisis to threaten cutbacks to AIDS funding; when the G8 once again, yet again, always again subverts its own promises and in so doing compromises the health of millions, then it’s time for science to speak with one powerful voice of accusation. And when the Global Fund faces a shortfall of several billion, you would do the world a tremendous service by simply finding a way, collectively, from your positions of authority, to remind the political leadership of how they used precious public money to bail out the banks, so that Goldman Sachs could make a profit of $3.4 billion in the second quarter of 2009, JP Morgan Chase could make a profit of $2.7 billion in the same period, and with obscene contempt for the human condition, pay bonuses, yet again, beyond the dreams of hyperactive wealth.

You spend every day of your working lives to make life possible, and the power brokers devalue your work with the fraudulent plea of destitution. Don’t let them get away with it. But funding isn’t the only issue; the issues proliferate. When the Government of Senegal jails eight gay AIDS activists for no reason except homophobia, setting back the fight against AIDS, where are the scientific voices of condemnation?

Right now, in the Caribbean, every country save the Bahamas, has laws that criminalize homosexuality. We tiptoe round this twisted form of racism. We submit to ridiculous claims ofcultural relativism. The Prime Minister of Jamaica, in the safety of Parliament, makes the mostcontemptible statements about gay men, leaving every elemental component of human rights intatters, and he’s never called to account ... not by the UN Human Rights Council, not by the G8,not by the G20, not by the Commonwealth … only by the gay activists themselves. What iswrong with the international community? If this is how it behaves, it doesn’t deserve the name“community” at all. And if the political leadership lacks the courage to confront such outrageous slander, you shouldn’t lack the courage. You’re scientists. You know that it’s a scientific realitythat a certain percentage of the world’s people is gay. So tell the political philistines to get over itand stop wrecking such damage. More, you know that an ugly homophobic culture is a threat to public health that inevitably serves to spread the virus … I beg you to say so. The majesty of science is its influence.

Then there’s the issue, commonly known as PMTCT --- prevention of mother to child transmission. This should have been the easiest intervention of all, instead we’ve had a panorama of unnecessary death for both the mothers and their children. So-called PMTCT has been a colossal failure, subjected to twisted linguistics, lousy science, governmental chicanery, and astonishing delinquency on the part of United Nations agencies. Only now is the political establishment coming to its senses. But it needs your help so that it never goes off the rails again.What help?

Let me count the ways.

First, never again should it be called mother-to-child transmission. It should better be called vertical transmission. How is it that we so casually, mindlessly demonize the mother by naming her as the vector?

Second, even now a dreadful double standard prevails: in the industrial world we use full HAART; in the developing world we still use, in the majority, single-dose nevirapine. You’re scientists: you know what that means in terms of unnecessary infant infection and death.

Third, we abandon the mothers. In 2007, only 12 per cent of pregnant women living with HIV identified during antenatal care, were assessed for their eligibility to receive ARV treatment. That’s an unconscionable neglect of women that smacks of vestigial misogyny.

Fourth, the WHO/UNICEF/UNAIDS guidelines on breastfeeding, and the use of breast-milk substitutes are widely ignored. To this day, the value of exclusive breast-feeding for six months in stemming HIV infection and providing the infant with the strongest possible immunity to other diseases is still caught between conjecture and disavowal. Sometimes I think that every Minister of Health should be required to take a mandatory course from Dr. Coovadia. Failing that, the UN, and primarily UNICEF, should do its job, and mount a massive global education campaign to replace myths with facts about infant feeding. Political and cultural influences can be dead wrong where infant feeding is concerned; the scientists here assembled have an indispensable role to play in setting the world straight.

And there’s one other matter I must raise. The epidemic of domestic sexual violence that lacerates the soul of South Africa is mirrored in the pattern of grotesque raping in areas of outright conflict from Darfur to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in areas of contested electoral turbulence from Kenya to Zimbabwe. Inevitably, a certain percentage of the rapes transmits the virus. We don’t know how high that percentage is. We know only that women are subjected to the most dreadful double jeopardy.

The point must also be made that there’s no such thing as the enjoyment of good health for women who live in constant fear of rape. Countless strong women survive the sexual assaultsthat occur in the millions every year, but every rape leaves a scar; no one ever fully heals.

This business of discrimination against and oppression of women is the world’s most poisonous curse. Nowhere is it felt with greater catastrophic force than in the AIDS pandemic. This audience knows the statistics full well: you’ve chronicled them, you’ve measured them, the epidemiologists amongst you have disaggregated them. What has to happen, with one unified voice, is that the scientific community tells the political community that it must understand one incontrovertible fact of health: bringing an end to sexual violence is a vital component in bringing an end to AIDS. The brave groups of women who dare to speak up on the ground, in country after country, should not have to wage this fight in despairing and lonely isolation. They should hear the voices of scientific thunder. You understand the connections between violence against women and vulnerability to the virus. No one can challenge your understanding. Use it, Ibeg you, use it.

When I said at the outset that this was the most critical moment, I wasn’t indulging in rhetorical flourish. As has been pointed out time and time again, 2010 is the anointed year for universal access. We have but seventeen short months. If ever the scientific community was to engage in public activism, that time is now. Not only must we save every life we can in that seventeen months, but we have to create such energy that the tide of intervention is irreversible, and neitherfinancial downturns nor the feckless caterwauling of the critics of AIDS funding will compromise our goal.

Make no mistake about it: that means taking on the development aristocracy and those who advise and influence it … for example, DfID in the United Kingdom, and the World Bank and the IMF and even the World Health Organization.

Pause for a moment to think what we’re dealing with. AIDS exceptionalism is a perfectly defensible and descriptive concept. Why do you think the world created an organization called UNAIDS? AIDS was exceptional. AIDS is exceptional. I tramped the high-prevalence countries of Africa for more than five years; if I wasn’t viewing the most exceptional communicable disease assault of the twentieth century, then the word “exceptional” needs to be re-defined. As a consequence of that exceptionality, and the tremendous campaigning of grass-roots advocates, AIDS received funding, a lot of funding … never enough to be sure, but enough torecognize the exceptionality.

Then along come the detractors, driven by resentment, resentment at the success of the AIDS movement. These arithmetic arguments alleging that AIDS is getting too much money at the expense of other health imperatives … this is simply naked academic and bureaucratic envy. I know I’m not supposed to say that, but it’s got to be said.

Why? Because the critics know that it’s not a matter of pitting one aspect of health against another. The critics know that it’s a matter of measuring the resource needs of global health against the crazy expenditures that the world makes on other things. But the seething resentment that pulsates beneath the surface creates this false argument.

I urge the scientists and activists here assembled not to fight on the terrain of the poseurs. Your whole life is in the world of AIDS. You know the legitimate resource requirements. You just can’t permit an intellectual contrivance --- an argument in favour of accepting the size of the pie and slicing it differently, rather than demanding a larger pie --- you can’t allow that to be used to justify a terrible reversal in public policy. People infected with HIV or at risk of infection, are suddenly tossed onto the landscape of treatment ambiguity, and the gains we’ve made and the momentum we’ve achieved are put at risk.

Is my naiveté showing? Why is it not possible to allocate sufficient money for every aspect of global health, of which AIDS is but a part, and in so doing, meet the Millennium Development Goals … money which is but a fraction, a miniscule fraction of all the public dollars that have found their way, in one short year, into the bottomless pits of greed and avarice? No one dies from a surfeit of money. People die when poverty and disease are the twin ingredients of life.
Madiba turned ninety-one yesterday. I strolled down to the waterfront here in Cape Town wherepeople were singing and dancing and irrepressibly celebrating the life of their national treasure.This country has been through tough tough times. The numbers of deaths, the psychoticdenialism, the political betrayals; it’s taken an incredible toll. And yet, in the liberation and itsaftermath, and the constitution, the law, the courts, the phenomenal culture of community activism, most sublimely exemplified by the Treatment Action Campaign … in all of that, therelies hope. I saw hope everywhere yesterday. And if that tumultuous passage from despair to hopecan happen here, it can happen anywhere.

But to take it to a global scale, requires the collective will of people like the people at this conference… people who speak with unimpeachable scientific authority, and if they so wished,and brought advocacy to bear, could move the mountains of resistance and inertia.You could strike a fatal blow against the pandemic. I salute those of you who have already risento that challenge. I leave it with all of you.

Speech by Stephen Lewis, co-Director, AIDS-Free World, delivered at the opening of the International AIDS Society Conference onPathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention, Cape Town, South Africa, July 19, 2009, 8:30 pm, local time.

hattip: Mark Milano

2009-07-17T17:02:00.003-04:00

Tom Duane Admonishes NY Senate for Inaction on HIV/AIDS

2009-07-17T16:49:00.001-04:00

Dwight DeLee Convicted of 1st Degree Manslaughter

2009-07-17T16:28:00.007-04:00

A jury convicted Dwight DeLee of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime in the killing of Lateisha Green.

Feministe.com - 07/17/2009
Transgender Legal Defense Education Fund Statement on Verdict

Obama to NAACP:"Presidents Needed To Be Pressured into Action."

2009-07-17T15:16:00.007-04:00

Excerpts from

Obama's Speech to the NAACP
100th Anniversary Convention, NYC
[emphasis added]

"From the beginning, these founders understood how change would come -- just as King and all the civil rights giants did later. They understood that unjust laws needed to be overturned; that legislation needed to be passed; and that Presidents needed to be pressured into action. They knew that the stain of slavery and the sin of segregation had to be lifted in the courtroom, and in the legislature, and in the hearts and the minds of Americans. "

"They also knew that here, in America, change would have to come from the people. It would come from people protesting lynchings, rallying against violence, all those women who decided to walk instead of taking the bus, even though they were tired after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. (Applause.) It would come from men and women of every age and faith, and every race and region -- taking Greyhounds on Freedom Rides; sitting down at Greensboro lunch counters; registering voters in rural Mississippi, knowing they would be harassed, knowing they would be beaten, knowing that some of them might never return."

"Because of what they did, we are a more perfect union. Because Jim Crow laws were overturned, black CEOs today run Fortune 500 companies. (Applause.) Because civil rights laws were passed, black mayors, black governors, and members of Congress served in places where they might once have been able [sic] not just to vote but even take a sip of water. And because ordinary people did such extraordinary things, because they made the civil rights movement their own, even though there may not be a plaque or their names might not be in the history books -- because of their efforts I made a little trip to Springfield, Illinois, a couple years ago -- (applause) -- where Lincoln once lived, and race riots once raged -- and began the journey that has led me to be here tonight as the 44th President of the United States of America."

____

"... I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that."

"But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender. (Laughter.) By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. =By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."

photo credit: APA

2009-07-17T12:30:00.011-04:00

Hate Crimes Passes, Faces Veto
By Kerry Eleveld
Advocate.com - 07/15/2009

The Senate voted 63-28 Thursday night to end discussion on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was subsequently adopted by unanimous consent as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

“The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes have no place in America,” said Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “This is a victory for all Americans – particularly those like Judy Shepard who has endured what no mother should ever have to.”

Though the amendment garnered three votes more than necessary to reach cloture, the fate of the hate crimes measure is now partially linked to $1.75 billion in funding for F-22 fighter jets that is also included in the DOD legislation.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates both oppose the F-22 program and a White House spokesperson said the president will not sign a DOD bill that continues to fund the program.

"The President has long supported the hate crimes bill and gave his personal commitment to Judy Shepard that we will enact an inclusive bill,” said Shin Inouye, referring to Shepard’s Oval Office visit with the president earlier this year. “Unfortunately, the President will have to veto the Defense Authorization bill if it includes wasteful spending for additional F-22s. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments is that the current program is sufficient to meet operational requirements. A Presidential veto would not indicate any change in President Obama’s commitment to seeing the hate crimes bill enacted."

Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have offered a bi-partisan amendment to remove the F-22 funding that is scheduled for a vote Monday, but insiders say the count is unclear.

If the amendment fails and President Obama vetoes the bill, it will be sent back to the Senate for a rewrite. A Democratic Senate aide said Senator Reid was optimistic, nonetheless, that hate crimes would ultimately make the final version of DOD authorization.

“This was a good vote,” said the aide. “Senator Reid is hopeful that we can keep this language in the final bill.”

David Smith, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, also indicated that hate crimes stood a good chance of being signed into law despite the F-22 snag.

“We are very confident that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is going to get to the president's desk,” Smith said. “There might be some bumps along the way but it will eventually get there.”

The hate-crimes measure would broaden a federal statute that already protects citizens against bias crimes based on their race, color, national origin, or religion to include crimes committed against citizens for their actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. It would also allow the federal government to provide assistance to local law authorities investigating a bias crime and to step in where local authorities are themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute a hate crime.

Senator Edward Kennedy, who is being treated for brain cancer, originally introduced the legislation in the Senate in 1997.

Controversy Continues in the American Episcopal Church Over LBGT Issues

2009-07-16T20:04:00.003-04:00

Cleve Jones Responds To Questions About Upcoming National Equality March on Washington, D.C.

2009-07-16T11:26:00.009-04:00

San Diego News Network asks: Tell us a bit more about the planned LGBT march on Washington in October. Why is it necessary, what message do you hope it will send, and when was the last time we saw something like this in the nation’s capitol?

Cleve Jones responds: I don’t think we’ve ever seen something like this before, because the technology didn’t exist to do it. A quick thing on the march: after the film [Milk] came out in November, hundreds of young people e-mailed me and wanted a march on Washington, and I discouraged them. I saw marches through the lens of previous marches that were difficult and complicated productions that cost millions of dollars; and some debts didn’t get paid, and many felt alienated by the marches because they became entertainment events, not political statements.

At that time, I also held a lot of hope for Obama and the new Democratic majority. But, by inauguration, I was already nervous and facing skepticism. And when Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi said repealing DOMA is not a priority, I thought, “Oh my gosh, we’re in trouble.” About that time, David Mixner put out a call for a march on Washington, and I found myself saying, “Yes, I’ve changed my mind – we do need to march.” We have to do everything we can; I mean everything. We have to write letters, we have to lobby, we have to do sit-ins and acts of civil disobedience. And shortly after, David Mixner gave an interview, I think to the The Advocate or someone, saying I should lead the march, and I thought, “I have a family and a job, but, um, OK.” So the response to that was overwhelming.

There was a fair amount of criticism too all over the blogosphere, but for every naysayer blogger, there was 1,000 e-mails from people saying they wanted to march. So, it’s the National Equality March, on Sunday Oct. 11, and we’re hoping to fill the weekend with training workshops and town hall meetings. We do not want parties; no raves, no circuit parties, no fundraisers – nothing like that. That isn’t what this was meant to be. We want to make a serious political statement, and think very carefully about the tone and content of that weekend. We want people to leave their dancing shoes at home, and put on their marching boots. Let me be really clear, though: I’m not talking about hiding the trannies or any of that crap. This is for everyone in the LGBT community – the lesbians, the gay men, the bisexuals and most certainly the transgender community. When I talk about the tone of this march, I’m not talking about any of that closet nonsense. I want it to be serious and focused on politics.

photo credit: Mark Finkenstaedt For The Washington Post

Academy Award Winning Director/Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (MILK) Says It Is Time To March On D.C.

2009-07-15T15:38:00.005-04:00

HAIR Cancels October 11th Performance So Cast Can Join National Equality March in Washington DC

2009-07-14T14:14:00.009-04:00

In an unprecedented move, the producers of HAIR: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical have announced they are canceling the show’s October 11th performance so that the entire cast can join the National Equality March in Washington, D.C.

The announcement was made this evening by the cast of HAIR at a spirited rally in Los Angeles (the entire company of HAIR has traveled from New York to California to appear on tonight’s broadcast of “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien”).

The cast was joined at the rally (for Rally excerpts click here) by National Equality March organizer and historic LGBT activist Cleve Jones, Oscar-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk) and a handful of other prominent equality advocates.

In a statement, Oskar Eustis, Artistic Director of The Public Theater and producer of HAIR, said “The Public Theater has always aspired to make theater that matters, that speaks to the great social issues of our time. HAIR has never been just a show; its message of change and hope and inclusion is one we try to live, not just preach. This is the moment when we need to recognize the right of all citizens, gay and straight, to have their love and their unions acknowledged by the state. We are proud to join with Cleve Jones and the National Equality March in support of gay marriage. Peace now! Equality now! Justice forever!”

Ticketholders for the October 11, 2009 performance of HAIR, can exchange their tickets for a different performance of Hair as follows: if you purchased your tickets at the box office, please bring your tickets back to the Al Hirschfeld Theatre Box Office; if you purchased your tickets through Telecharge.com (either by phone, by mail, or online), you can exchange your tickets by phone with Telecharge.com Customer Service Department (212-239-6210 in the tri-state area or 800-543-4835 outside of the tri-state area); if you purchased your tickets from any other source, you must contact the original ticket-seller.

HAIR opened at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre on March 31, 2009, following previews from March 6 and is currently selling tickets through to January 3, 2010.

The musical opened to mostly excellent reviews: "emotionally rich revival" (NY Times); "a smile-inducing celebration of life and freedom" (NY Daily News); "the most exciting new show in town" (Bloomberg); "gives Broadway a welcome jolt of energy" (The Record); "If this explosive production doesn't stir something in you, it may be time to check your pulse." (Variety).

With book and lyrics by James Rado and Gerome Ragni, and music by Galt MacDermot, HAIR is directed by Diane Paulus.

The cast features Gavin Creel (Claude), Sasha Allen (Dionne, White Boys Trio), Caissie Levy (Sheila), Megan Lawrence (Mother), Bryce Ryness (Woof), Will Swenson (Berger), Jackie Burns (Black Boys Trio, Tribe), Kaitlin Kiyan (Black Boys Trio, Tribe), Nicole Lewis (White Boys Trio, Tribe), Megan Reinking (Black Boys Trio, Tribe) and Saycon Sengbloh (Abraham Lincoln, White Boys Trio, Tribe).

The musical depicts the birth of a cultural movement in the 60's and 70's that changed America forever: the musical follows a group of hopeful, free-spirited young people who advocate a lifestyle of pacifism and free-love in a society riddled with intolerance and brutality during the Vietnam War.

As they explore sexual identity, challenge racism, experiment with drugs and burn draft cards, the "tribe" in HAIR creates an irresistable message of hope, peace and change that continues to resonate with audiences 40 years later.

HAIR was a phenomenal success when it first played on Broadway in the 60's, and again in 2008, when it was a hit at the Delacorte Theater.

The musical is being produced on Broadway by The Public Theater and Elizabeth Ireland McCann.

HAIR was the show that, in 1967, officially opened The Public Theater’s long-time home on Lafayette Street.

Hair: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical has the distinction of being the first off-Broadway musical to transfer to Broadway, (It moved to Broadway on April 29, 1968 and ran for 1,873 performances).

as reported by NewYorkTheatreGuide.com

Pressure Is A Good Thing

2009-07-09T13:42:00.009-04:00

This past Monday blogger Rex Wockner interwiewed Steve Hildebrand (Obama's Deputy National Campaign Director) regarding the President and various issues queer issues.

It is a worthwhile read. Hildebrand emphasized that the President welcomes the pressure and Congress needs it to act. In my view this adds more fuel to the fire regarding the need for a National Equality March on Washington in DC this October.

26 Activists Arrested in DC Capitol Protest

2009-07-09T11:23:00.003-04:00

AIDS Activists Risk Arrest in Capitol Building
Demanding Promised Funding & Policy Changes

With a new HIV infection every 9 ½ minutes in the US, why are we bailing out the bankers and leaving people with HIV without?

Washington, DC— Dozens of AIDS activists from across the Northeast U.S. risked arrest today, staging a loud demonstration inside the Capitol Rotunda on the eve of key Congressional votes on appropriations for life-saving programs and one day before President Obama’s first trip to Africa since his election.

The activists decried the Obama administration’s failure to make good on a range of AIDS campaign promises including his pledge: to lift the federal ban on funding syringe exchange, to fully fund lifesaving global AIDS programs, and to fully fund AIDS housing programs in this year’s budget. The activists demanded Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Congressional leadership fix President Obama’s flawed budget proposal.

“HIV is not in recession,” said Omolola Adele-Oso of DC Fights Back. “So why are we bailing out the bankers with $9 trillion, but breaking promises to fund life-saving AIDS programs in the US and around the world at a fraction of that cost?”

Activists noted that despite campaign pledges to increase bilateral global AIDS (PEPFAR) funding by $1 billion a year and fully fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the Administration’s budget proposal essentially flat-lines global AIDS funding. Unless President Obama and Congress keep their promise to fund their fair share of the Global Fund’s needed, for example, the Global Fund will have to cut billions of dollars worth of life saving grants.

The activists also denounced the administration’s failure to lift the ban on syringe exchange funding. “Thousands of people have died in the past decade because clean syringes aren’t available,” said Jose De Marco, an HIV+ member of ACT UP Philadelphia and Proyecto Sol Filadelphia. “President Obama, who many of us worked to elect, promised to follow the science and lift the federal funding ban on needle exchange, but his budget explicitly included the ban. Now it’s up to Congress to show real courage where the President has not.”

“We are here because we know that our friends, families, and communities are still dying,” said Larry Bryant of Housing Works. “From DC to California to Zambia people living with AIDS need Congress to act this week and need the administration to make good on its promises.”

Gustavo Pedroza, of the New York City AIDS Housing Network commented: "Housing is one of our most basic needs and a critical part of HIV treatment, care and prevention - without it, other strategies to fight HIV simply don't work. Given the rising cost of housing, President Obama's proposal to flat-fund federal AIDS housing programs will mean low-income people with HIV will lose their housing, not to mention longer waiting lists for a life-saving home."

News Reports
Seatlepi.com - Police arrest 26 AIDS activists at Capitol protest - 07/09/2009
Rollcall - AIDS Activists Arrested After Shutting Down Capitol Rotunda- 07-09-2009

Support Grows for National Equality March this October

2009-07-09T10:13:00.002-04:00

Chad Gibson Speaks Out on Stonewall-like Bar Raid in Fort Worth

2009-07-07T12:54:00.002-04:00

Please click here to listen to the full video.

2009-07-07T12:27:00.000-04:00

Police boss Raymond Kelly is under fire in new book
Sunday, July 5th 2009, 2:39 AM, NY Daily News

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly is shrugging off a stinging new book by longtime antagonist Leonard Levitt.

The former Newsday columnist writes in “NYPD Confidential: Power and Corruption in the Country’s Greatest Police Force” that he was personally thrilled when Mayor Bloomberg brought Kelly back in 2002 for a second stint as PC. “I respected his judgment, temperament, integrity,” says Levitt, who believed the cop’s cop could end the tight-lipped siege mentality that reigned over the NYPD during Rudy Giuliani’s administration. Kelly returned the love, Levitt says, by calling him “the only reporter in New York with b---s.”

But after a string of stories that Kelly called inaccurate (one he branded “mendaciously vindictive”), the commish drove out to Long Island to complain to Levitt’s editors. Shortly thereafter, Levitt says, he found his usual cop contacts shirking him.

“An inspector I knew in Brooklyn told me his chief had warned him, ‘Being seen with Lenny Levitt is committing career suicide.’”

“The police department under Kelly became more sparing of information than under Giuliani,” writes Levitt, pointing to Kelly’s ordering cops to turn over their private cell phone records to find out who’d spoken to reporters. “He refused to release such minor details as his public schedule [and ] the weekly schedule of officers facing [corruption] charges.”

“Despite his accomplishments and successes” in lowering crime rates and heading off terrorists, “Kelly remained bitter toward those he felt had wronged him,” Levitt claims. “Ironically, the man Kelly increasingly reminded me of was the man he most despised — Rudy Giuliani,” who had fired him.

Levitt contends that Kelly also resented former Commish Bill Bratton — even though he, too, was a victim of Giuliani’s wrath — because Bratton had belittled the accomplishments of Kelly’s first term. In 2001, when Bratton came through New York, “Kelly refused to take his calls,” Levitt claims. He also asserts that Kelly refused to meet with former Commissioner Howard Safir.

Levitt continued to hammer Kelly, writing about his clashes with several members of his personal security detail. In 2005, when he started writing for Newsday as a freelancer, Levitt says the NYPD demanded that he give up his 1 Police Plaza building pass. Later, when his contract with the paper expired, he says he was barred from entering the building and saw his picture posted at the front desk as a possible “security threat.”

The NYPD insisted the moves were unrelated to his critical reporting. NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne suggests Levitt is the one with a grudge. He declined to dignify Levitt’s allegations beyond calling them “recycled, fabricated gossip driven by personal animus, unimproved with age.”

Texas Cops Raid Bar on Stonewall Anniversary

2009-07-01T16:09:00.013-04:00

The Daily Dish details information regarding the violent attack on patrons at a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas. One person, Chad Gibbons, remains in intensive care.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/forty-years-after-stonewall.html

other news accounts
Dallas Voice - Gays, lesbians rally in Fort Worth over bar raid
On Top Magazine - Hundreds Protest Police Raid At Fort Worth Gay Bar

Houston Chronicle - Fort Worth rally protests police raid on gay bar

The Petrelis Files - TABC: 'Saddened' Over Head Injury to Gay ManDuring Ft Worth Bar Raid

cherrygrrl.com - Raid Leads to Candlelight Vigil for those Arrested and Injured

slog.thestranger.com - Fort Worth Police Chief: That Fagoot Had It Coming

Dallas Morning News - US Attorneys Office will Review Raid at Fort Worth Bar

Questions linger about raid at Fort Worth gay bar

Huffington Post - Fort Worth Gay Bar Raid No Accident

Is the Administration Changing Their Tune or Is It Just SPINNING the News?

2009-07-01T15:32:00.003-04:00

Gates Mulls Changes to Gay Ban
July 01, 2009 - Advocate.com

Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated Tuesday that the Department of Defense is looking at alternative ways of implementing the department’s regulations surrounding “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law," Gates told reporters aboard a military plane, according to AFP.

Gates reportedly discussed the policy with President Barack Obama last week, and the defense secretary’s comments suggest that the changes DOD is considering are in line with those called for in a letter sent to the president by 77 House members several weeks ago.

“We ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation,” read the letter, authored by Rep. Alcee Hastings, “and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell.”

In Tuesday’s interview, Sec. Gates said the department was looking at whether they could take into consideration the motive behind an outing.

“If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he explained. "That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

The comments are a far cry from those he made in April in which he questioned whether the policy would be overturned at all.

“If we do it, it’s important that we do it right, and very carefully,’’ Gates said, according to The New York Times.

Policy analysts said the Defense Secretary’s remarks suggest that President Obama has tasked Gates with finding a short-term solution to the ongoing discharges.

“Short of an executive order, it looks like this has been put onto Gates’s plate to maybe informally modify the implementation of the rules,” said Aaron Belkin of The Palm Center, a research institute that released an analysis last month concluding that the president had the legal authority to issue an executive order halting gay discharges altogether.

Belkin added that the move appeared to be a crafty way for the White House to shift the burden of responsibility away from the president.

“This is no longer the civilians telling the military what to do -- you're letting the Republican Secretary of Defense decide how to implement the law within his own agency,” he said.

While the secretary’s Tuesday interview is first concrete indication that the Pentagon is re-evaluating the military’s gay ban, Gates also noted some hurdles to altering the policy.

"What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law,” he told reporters. “It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."

But that’s not the way Nathaniel Frank, a legislative scholar at The Palm Center, reads the law. Frank, who recently authored the book “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines The Military and Weakens America,” said there’s room within the law for assessing both whether evidence of someone’s sexuality is “credible” and whether to make a “finding” related to someone’s sexual conduct.

“The law gives discretion to commanders to determine what's credible evidence,” Frank said, “and we know that commanders do look the other way because in times of war, discharges plummet.”

Frank noted that in accordance with historic patterns per-year discharges peaked at around 1200 just before 9/11 and are now down to just over 600 a year.

Frank added that just as what’s credible is open to interpretation, so is whether to issue a determination of someone’s sexual conduct.

“The law says that a service member will be separated if a finding is made,” he explained, “but nowhere does the law require that a finding actually be made.”

Obama Praises Gay Pioneer Frank Kameny

2009-07-01T12:48:00.001-04:00

Organizers for DC March to Confer this Thursday

2009-07-01T12:22:00.006-04:00

Conference Call 07/02: DC March Plans
Nationwide Press Conferences 07/08

If you've given your addy to the folks organizing the march, your in-box this week received a message about a conference for later this week, and it looks like there will be nationwide news conference next week. As of next week, the organizers will be looking at only three months remaining till their action happens. We'll see if a miracle occurs and there's a decent-sized turnout on the Mall. Here's the email about upcoming organizing for the march:

Thanks for signing up for the National Equality March this October 10-11 in DC!

We're excited to take to the streets in a few months, but the real work is about to begin.

http://nationalequalitymarch.com/getlocal

In early July, we're going to launch a new national campaign called Equality Across America with one simple demand: full federal equality for all LGBT Americans in all matters governed by civil law. Now.We hope you're fired up and ready to make change in your community. If we're going to win full equality, we need grassroots organizing in every one of the 435 Congressional Districts.

On July 8, will you hold a press conference in your Congressional District to announce the new campaign? We'll provide you with talking points and a sample press release during a conference call with Cleve Jones on Thursday evening of this week.Please take the time to tell us what you're doing in your community. If your group can organize locally as part of this national movement, let us know what you're up to and how we can get in touch with you. And when we launch our new website in a couple weeks, we'll have a map that shows all of the groups fighting for full equality across America.

See you in the streets,
Equality Across America and the National Equality March team

hattip: Michael Petrelis

David Mixner Calls for National Equality March this October

2009-06-30T17:28:00.002-04:00

As this Administration sits in offices plotting timeline charts on what rights they feel comfortable granting us this year, clearly it is time for us to gin up our efforts and stop waiting for them to hand us our God given entitlements. Enough. I really can't stomach any more being told 'not now'. As nice as it would be, no one is going to give us our freedom; we are going to have to continue to fight like hell for it. It is demeaning to us to be moved around on a political chess board like freedom is a move in some game.

We have to stop it.

Let's never forget that we are not talking about just another piece of legislation nor just an executive order. What is at stake is over 1,000 rights, benefits, privileges and protections granted to all other Americans and denied to the LGBT community. It is about the ability of those who choose to serve their country can do so in total honesty and freedom. That the vision of America is for our young as well as other young Americans. Finally as we work toward full equality we must halt in its tracks the efforts of a number of our fellow citizens to put in place a system of Apartheid for LGBT citizens. The stakes are way too high for them to tell us to wait until next year, or even until the next term.

Our freedom can't be negotiated in the political offices of the White House and in the halls of Congress. Our goal is not to make their path easier but to ensure that young LGBT citizens will not be beaten, denied the right to serve, have their love demeaned in some sort of separate but equal system or excluded from giving their gifts and talents freely to this nation. At this moment, there is very little movement on any of these issues in the White House and it appears that some even believe we should be happy with just hate crimes legislation being passed this year.

I adore President Obama but not enough to allow his team to delay my freedom for political convenience or comfort. It is unacceptable.

My plea is for our LGBT leaders to call a March on Washington for Marriage Equality this November and if they won't do it, I appeal to our young to come together and provide the leadership.

We need to come together in a display of powerful community unity to empower our young and to show the nation that anything less than full freedom is unacceptable. Clearly there are other issues that should be on the agenda for the march but marriage equality is the lynchpin that deals with so many of those issues. The most striking outside that institution would be the freedom to serve in our nation's military - and that weekend I think we could have a separate powerful event to highlight that.

Having organized a number of major marches in my near 50 years of activism, I don't take this call lightly. Trust me, I know that there are times when such marches are ineffective and poorly timed. Yet, I have also seen them be extremely effective both in message and building momentum within the movement. For the first time, we have the opportunity to have tens of thousands of our straight allies and straight students join us and we should organize the march to make it easy for them to be by our sides.

My experience has taught me the secret to any march is to keep the message simple and to make it easy for others to join. Of course, our best organizers must be enlisted in order to ensure that hundreds of thousands attend in an orderly and safe fashion.

Tapping into my previous work, I would suggest the following for consideration: On the Friday before the march 12,000 (approximately the number of our service people that have been dismissed under DADT) led by our veterans walk single file from the Pentagon to the White House until all 12,000 are across from the White House. Let the nation see visibly how many of our citizens have had their careers destroyed while the military allows convicted felons to serve. I would love to see 12,000 across from the White House chanting "Let US Serve."

One of the lessons from previous marches is that everyone should be on the Mall by no later than 3PM. We should not let logistics prevent people from getting to the Mall or otherwise they won't be counted. Everyone must be present before the evening news has to develop their stories. Each marcher and organizer should be told that every single person has to be on the Mall from 2PM to 3PM in order for us to have a success. How they choose to do that I will leave to the organizers.

Watching press secretary Robert Gibbs dodge and duck answers on LGBT issues while it seems almost every other group and issue is being discussed is so depressing to me. The promise of the Democrats being in control was great. They still can rise to greatness. It is not too late but they need our help in lifting them out of their own fears and into the light.

President Kennedy had to deal with a recession, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis and so much more. However, when Dr. King and others filled the streets of cities around America and yes, Washington, DC, the president found the resources and time to stay by their sides. The time has come for us to remove the current administration's option of shrinking from leadership on this issue and to insist they rise to a new level of greatness along side us as we all fight together for freedom. It is the only way.

- David Mixner
Posting on his regular Blog DavidMixner.com
May 30, 2009

President Praises Gay Pioneer Frank Kameny

2009-06-30T17:07:00.006-04:00

Remarks by President Barrack H. Obama
White House East Room Reception commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion
June 28, 2009

THE PRESIDENT: It's good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I've received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking. And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that's important, and I'm glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. (Applause.) For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.

(Cell phone "quacks.") Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)

MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.

THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.) Indeed, that's the story of the movement for fairness and equality -- not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could. That's the story of a civil rights pioneer who's here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired -- (applause.) Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. (Applause.)

It's the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens -- with few options, and fewer supporters -- decided they'd had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they've travelled. It's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need -- that we all share the capacity to love. So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.)

We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love. And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago. But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive -- (applause.) We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration. (Applause.)

Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we've already put in place since coming into office. I've signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don't exist. And I'd like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)

I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination -- (applause) -- to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I've made that clear.

I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May -- (applause) -- and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.) In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And that's why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.) And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)

Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress. Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal. I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet. That's why I've spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences -- in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that's what I'll continue to do so. That's how we'll shift attitudes. That's how we'll honor the legacy of leaders like Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.

Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement. It was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail. Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this: People didn't leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves. As we've seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way. (Applause.)

And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, "So what if I am?" It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest. In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back. The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you -- or, for that matter, I -- (laughter) -- would be standing here today. (Applause.)

So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.

hattip: Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Dish

Speak Out Against the Syringe Funding Ban

2009-05-12T14:08:00.003-04:00

Last week President Obama released his Fiscal Year 2010 budget request. This budget still includes the language that bans the use of federal funding for syringe exchange programs.

HR 179, the Community AIDS & Hepatitis Act - permits the use of Federal funds for syringe exchange programs for purposes of reducing the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, including HIV and viral hepatitis.

It is being sponsored by Rep. Jose Serrano and cosponsored by some 8O house members including:

Rep Neil Abercrombie[HI-1], Rep Joe Baca[CA-43], Rep Tammy Baldwin, Rep Howard L. Berman [CA-28],Rep Robert A. Brady[PA-1], Rep Lois Capps[CA-23], Rep Michael E.Capuano[MA-8], Rep Andre Carson [IN-7],Rep Donna M. Christensen[VI], Rep Yvette D. Clarke [NY-11], Rep Steve Cohen[TN-9], Rep John Conyers,Jr. [MI-14], Rep Joseph Crowley [NY-7],Rep Elijah E.Cummings[MD-7],Rep Danny K. Davis [IL-7],Rep Diana DeGette [CO-1],Rep William D. Delahunt[MA-10],Rep Rosa L. DeLauro[CT-3],Rep Michael F. Doyle [PA-14],Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4],Rep Keith Ellison [MN-5], Rep Sam Farr[CA-17],Rep Chaka Fattah [PA-2],Rep Bob Filner[CA-51], Rep Barney Frank [MA-4], Rep Marcia L.Fudge [OH-11], Rep Charles A. Gonzalez [TX-20], Rep Gene Green [TX-29],Rep Raul M. Grijalva [AZ-7], Rep Luis V. Gutierrez, [IL-4], Rep Phil Hare [IL-17], Rep Jane Harman [CA-36], Rep Alcee L. Hastings[FL-23],Rep Maurice D. Hinchey [NY-22], Rep Rush D. Holt [NJ-12], Rep Michael M. Honda [CA-15], Rep Jesse L. Jackson,Jr.[IL-2], Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee [TX-18], Rep Henry C."Hank " Johnson,Jr.[GA-4], Rep Carolyn C. Kilpatrick [MI-13],Rep Dennis J. Kucinich [OH-10], Rep Steven C. LaTourette [OH-14], Rep Barbara Lee [CA-9], Rep Sander M. Levin [MI-12], Rep John Lewis [GA-5], Rep Zoe Lofgren [CA-16], Rep Carolyn B. Maloney [NY-14], Rep Doris O. Matsui [CA-5], Rep Betty McCollum [MN-4], Rep Jim McDermott[WA-7], - Rep James P. McGovern[MA-3], Rep Kendrick B. Meek [FL-17], Rep Gregory W.Meeks [NY-6], Rep George Miller[CA-7], Rep James P. Moran [VA-8], Rep Jerrold Nadler[NY-8], Rep Grace F. Napolitano [CA-38], Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton [DC], Rep John W. Olver[MA-1], Rep Solomon P. Ortiz [TX-27], Rep Ron Paul[TX-14], Rep Pedro R. Pierluisi[PR], Rep Chellie Pingree[ME-1], Rep Mike Quigley [IL-5], Rep Charles B. Rangel [NY-15],Rep Silvestre Reyes [TX-16], Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [FL-18], Rep Lucille Roybal-Allard [CA-34], Rep Bobby L. Rush [IL-1], Rep Tim Ryan [OH-17], Rep Linda T. Sanchez [CA-39], Rep Janice D. Schakowsky [IL-9], Rep Robert C."Bobby" Scott [VA-3], Rep Brad Sherman[CA-27], Rep Albio Sires[NJ-13], Rep Jackie Speier [CA-12], Rep Fortney Pete Stark [CA-13]; Rep Betty Sutton [OH-13], Rep Paul D. Tonko [NY-21], Rep Edolphus Towns [NY-10], Rep Nydia M. Velazquez[NY-12]. Rep Wasserman Schultz [FL-20], Rep Maxine Waters[CA-35], Rep Diane E. Watson[CA-33], Rep Henry A.Waxman [CA-30], Rep Anthony D Weiner[NY-9], Rep Robert Wexler [FL-19], Rep Lynn C. Woolsey[CA-6]

Is your Member of Congress listed above?

hattip: CHAMP - Comminity HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project

New Jersey Four Film to be Released

2009-05-07T15:59:00.001-04:00

As many of you know, I have been working on a documentary about the case of the New Jersey Four. Today we are excited to announce the launch of the website and trailer. We hope this will shed more light on the events that transpired from August 18th.

http://thefirethistimethefilm.com/

Unfortunately, we also regret to inform you that nearly six months after her release, Renata Hill was sent back to complete her three and a half year prison term. This Thursday evening, May 7th, CBS news on LOGO TV (check your local listings) will air an exclusive interview with Renata, right before her re-incarceration.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case here is a brief description. Please check out the new website for more details.

On a hot summer evening in the gay-friendly West Village neighborhood of New York City, seven young women from New Jersey were verbally threatened and physically attacked by a twenty-nine-year-old man. In a not uncommon travesty of justice, the New Jersey Seven, as they came to be called, were sent to prison for defending themselves. The Fire This Time tells the story of the seven women’s trial and prison sentences, and the years-long fight by relatives and activists to get the women released. Along the way, the film reveals in devastating detail how the media, homophobia, and racism all work together in American culture to stigmatize and victimize gay people of color.

We hope this site will help add perspective and awareness to this case and other like it. Please take a minute to check out the website and watch the trailer!

Thank you.
Blair Doroshwalther & The Fire This Time film crew

2009-05-07T09:08:00.001-04:00

White House Memo
With Gay Issues in View, Obama Pressed to Engage
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
New York Times - May 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.

Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president.

Mr. Obama’s new global health initiative has infuriated activists who say he is not financing AIDS programs generously enough. And while the president has urged Congress to pass a hate crimes bill, a high priority for gay groups, he has delayed action on one of his key campaign promises, repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule.

Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience.

But some are unsettled by what they see as the president’s cautious approach. Many are still seething over his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, and remain suspicious of Mr. Obama’s commitment to their cause.

In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, “How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?” Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post headlined, “Where’s our fierce advocate?”

The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be “unfolding exactly as we thought,” he was pleased.

“They have a vision,” Mr. Solmonese said. “They have a plan.”

While Mr. Obama has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views on same-sex marriage are misguided, he has offered no signal that he intends to change his position. And as he confronts that and other issues important to gay rights advocates, he faces an array of pressures and risks.

Anything substantive he might say on same-sex marriage — after the Iowa ruling, the White House put out a statement saying the president “respects the decision” — would be endlessly parsed. If Mr. Obama were to embrace same-sex marriage, he would be seen as reversing a campaign position and alienating some moderate and religious voters he has courted.
And if he appoints a gay person to the Supreme Court, he would be viewed by social conservatives — including many black ministers, another of his core constituency groups — as putting a vote for same-sex marriage on the highest court in the land. Two gay women, Kathleen M. Sullivan and Pamela S. Karlan, both of Stanford Law School, have been suggested as potential nominees.

“That would be tantamount to opening the gate for the other side,” said Bishop Harry J. Jackson Jr. of the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., who is organizing protests in Washington, where the City Council passed an ordinance this week recognizing same-sex marriages in other states. “If he meant what he said about marriage then I think he has got to stand up and be a president who acts on his beliefs.”

Some say change is inevitable, not only for Mr. Obama but also for other Democratic politicians who have embraced civil unions but rejected same-sex marriage. Now that the Iowa ruling has pushed the battle into the nation’s heartland, the issue will inevitably come up during the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential campaign.

“We’ve elected probably the most pro-gay president in history; he’s very good on the issues but he is not good on gay marriage,” said Steven Elmendorf, a gay Democratic lobbyist. “From the gay community’s perspective, he and a lot of other elected officials are wrong on this. My view is that over time, they’re going to realize they’re wrong and they’re going to change.”

Mr. Obama has chosen a number of openly gay people for prominent jobs, including Fred P. Hochberg as chairman of the Export-Import Bank and John Berry to run the Office of Personnel Management. And he is the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll.

But on legislation, allies of Mr. Obama’s are not surprised that he is charting a careful course. In addition to calling for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military, Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.

Tobias Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was Mr. Obama’s top campaign adviser on gay rights, said the president needed time to build political consensus.
“I think he has a genuine sense,” Mr. Wolff said, “that in order to move these issues forward you need broader buy-in than you are going to get if you poke a stick in too many people’s eyes.”

Help Iowa See This Message

2009-05-01T14:01:00.002-04:00

Contribute to ONE IOWA through Lambda Legal: https://secure.ga4.org/01/Lambda_Legal

Direct Action Urged on Prop 8 Decision Day

2009-05-01T13:19:00.002-04:00

Please forward your ideas and suggestions for a possible direct action in the New York Metropolitan Area to Queer Justice League: Changebuilders@msn.com

2009-05-01T10:09:00.000-04:00

In Military, New Debate Over Policy Toward Gays
By Elisabeth Bumiller
New York Times - May 1, 2009

WEST POINT, N.Y. — Here at the military academy that is nearly as old as the nation itself, two cadets recently engaged in a modern debate: whether they agreed with President Obama’s pledge to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly.

“From what I’ve heard from my classmates, people are kind of against it,” said Daniel Szatkowski, a senior from Edmond, Okla. But Adrienne Rolle, a senior from Brooklyn, said she had no problem with lifting the ban, although she said that some of her male classmates did.

“People are more comfortable with ignorance,” Cadet Rolle said of the reality that gay men and lesbians already serve in the military.

West Point is not a perfect microcosm of the armed forces, but recent conversations with the cadets who will become the Army’s next generation of leaders reflect uncertainty about what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has characterized as a “complex and difficult problem.”

While Mr. Obama has promised to get rid of the 16-year-old policy that allows gay men and lesbians to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation secret, Mr. Gates has said that both he and the president want to push the issue “down the road a bit.”

Advocacy groups have stepped into the vacuum. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents some of the 13,000 gay men and lesbians discharged from the military since the policy took effect, is intensifying lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill — changing the policy requires legislation — and calling on the president to make good on his word.

“If he doesn’t speak up, he’s going to end up O.K.’ing the firing of service members for being gay,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the group’s executive director.

In recent years, prominent retired generals and admirals have also urged repeal, among them Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the policy was adopted after a blowup over the issue in the early days of the Clinton administration.

On the other side, some 1,000 retired officers supported by the conservative Center for Military Readiness sent an “open letter” to Mr. Obama saying they were “greatly concerned” about the impact of repeal on recruitment, morale and unit cohesion.

“How would women in the military feel if they were required to accommodate men in their private quarters?” said Elaine Donnelly, the center’s president.

Col. Thomas A. Kolditz, the chairman of West Point’s department of behavioral sciences and leadership who discusses “don’t ask, don’t tell” in his classes, said that cadets were roughly split for and against openly gay service but that most did not feel strongly about their views.

Colonel Kolditz predicted that a large majority would readily follow any order on the issue from the commander in chief, although there was, he said, “a certain amount of unease based on not having clear expectations as to how the implementation would occur.”

Polls now show that the majority of Americans support openly gay service — a majority did not in 1993 — but there have been no recent broad surveys of the current 1.4 million active-duty service members. A 2008 census by The Military Times of predominantly Republican and largely older subscribers found that 58 percent were opposed to efforts to repeal the policy; in 2006, a poll by Zogby International of 545 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans found that three-quarters were comfortable around gay service members.

Mr. Gates, for one, has expressed skepticism about how accurately polls reflect true opinion on the policy. “To get people’s real feelings about it, you have to have almost a one-on-one private conversation,” he told reporters last week. “I think it’s very difficult for people to speak in front of their peers on this issue.”

Gen. James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, has polled more than 80 of his generals on how strongly the Defense Department should challenge the policy, although he has declined to make public the results. Other Pentagon officials are studying how the British, Canadian and Australian militaries lifted their own bans on openly gay service.

At West Point, cadets have been encouraged to discuss the topic openly, so there is less constraint here than in the military over all about publicly airing views on what for now is a law of the land. “You can have feelings and opinions about a law without breaking it,” Colonel Kolditz said.

Faculty members said that cadets’ opinions were often shaped less by the military than by their own personal backgrounds, and that those from religious families or from rural areas were sometimes less comfortable with the idea of openly gay and lesbian service members.

Another factor, faculty members said, was that most students had not yet served in combat units, and so remained apprehensive about what to expect in close quarters from openly gay service members.

Still, a number of cadets reacted to the possible repeal of the law with a shrug. “I really don’t think it’s going to be that big of a deal,” said Bill Mynatt, a senior from Knoxville, Tenn. “There are gay soldiers serving and doing their jobs well, and it’s not going to change.”

Cadet Mynatt said that when some classmates expressed the view that openly gay soldiers would make them uncomfortable, left unspoken was the fear of sexual harassment.

“Which is already against regulations,” Cadet Mynatt said. “It’s the same for a gay soldier and a straight soldier.”

Others were less positive. “If President Obama says, ‘Let’s get rid of this policy,’ I guess we don’t have a choice,” said James Buensuceso, a junior from Poway, Calif. The policy, Cadet Buensuceso said, was in place “to protect gays and lesbians from the military.”

Greg Stoner, a senior from Menifee, Calif., said there might be a difference in units once the policy was enacted, “but if it’s done right, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.”

Nathaniel Frank, the author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” said that while military opinion matters, “we don’t poll the military to decide if we should invade Iraq, to decide if black service members should serve with white ones or if women are needed in combat.” The germane question, he said, was, “Can you work with people who are different from you?”

Colonel Kolditz, while declining to give his personal views, said, “It’s something that should be solved, and I hope it is soon.”

Marriage Equality Counter Religious Objections

2009-04-27T13:59:00.000-04:00

Yale's Conspiracy of Silence by Larry Kramer

2009-04-27T09:06:00.003-04:00

Twelve years after Yale rejected a $7 million endowment for a gay student center, the school's Gay and Lesbian Association invited legendary playwright and gay-rights activist Larry Kramer back to campus to receive its first Lifetime Achievement Award. The following is his speech.

I have come here to apologize to you.

It took a long time for Yale to accept Kramer money. After a number of years of trying to get Yale to accept mine for gay professorships or to let me raise funds for a gay student center, (both offers declined), my extraordinary straight brother Arthur offered Yale $1 million to set up the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies and Yale accepted it. My good friend and a member of the Yale Corporation, Calvin Trillin, managed to convince President Levin that I was a pussycat. The year was 2001.

Five years later, in 2006, Yale closed down LKI, as it had come to be called. Yale removed its director, Jonathan David Katz. All references to LKI were expunged from Web sites and answering machines and directories and syllabuses. One day LKI was just no longer here.
When this happened I thought my heart would break.

I wanted gay history to be taught. I wanted gay history to be about who we are, and who we were, by name, and from the beginning of our history, which is the same as the beginning of everyone else’s history.

By chance, just as we opened for business, Jonathan Ned Katz, our first visiting scholar, and Jonathan David Katz discovered that John William Sterling, Yale’s first really major benefactor, who died in 1918, had been gay and lived with one man only, James O. Bloss, all their adult lives. We released this information to the world, with great pride and excitement. What a way to launch ourselves! In no time flat I received a phone call from a classmate who is a partner in Shearman & Sterling, the giant law firm John Sterling founded, telling me that this information had not gone down well there and indicating that Yale would hear about it.

Jonathan David Katz, who is an art historian, put on an exhibition of the relationship of Robert Rauschenberg and his gay lover and how it affected his art. This, too, did not sit well. Jonathan David Katz’s courses were taken away from him. He was told he could no longer teach.

A book of great historical importance was published in 2005. It is called The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, by the distinguished gay member of the Kinsey Institute, Dr. C. A. Tripp. It maintains that Lincoln was gay. I had a great deal to do with its publication. I had offered it to Yale. Yale wanted nothing to do with it.

When I set LKI up I didn’t know that gay studies included all kinds of other things and these other things ruled the roost: gender studies, queer studies, queer theory. And that then-Provost Alison Richard, who immediately left to run Cambridge University, my attorney, Bill Zabel, and I were ignorant of the great semantic differences lurking in the words “studies” and “history.” Thus I was not able as I might have been when initial negotiations were transpiring, to insist that my brother’s money be funneled via the history department rather than leave it up to Yale, which plunked LKI just where it should not have been, in the women’s and gender studies department. The various queer and gender theories I came to quickly realize as relatively useless for a people looking to learn about our real history drowned us out completely. Month after month, over these five years, as I was sent constant email announcements of lectures and courses and activities that reflected as much about real history as a comic book, I slowly began to go nuts. I made pleas everywhere I could, in the Yale Daily News, to then-Dean Peter Salovey and then history chair, Paul Freedman. Please put us in the History Department, I begged. I made a public plea to another provost, Emily Bakemeier, at a Berkeley Master’s Tea. I brought letters to Provosts Long and Bakemeier from George Chauncey, then at Chicago and now, in no small part because of me, here at Yale, and from Martin Duberman, whom I had put on LKI’s advisory board, two of our most distinguished gay historians. Martin stated in no uncertain terms, and George concurred with him, then: “Yale is doing it wrong. You do not teach gay history via gender studies, via queer theory. You are making the same mistake every other gay program makes.”

Yes, I came to see this and this big deal activist came to see that he was powerless. I apologize to you. I bore witness to all this. I bore witness to the fact that the university was ridding itself of a teacher, Jonathan David Katz, who was exceptionally loved and admired. The kids stood up and cheered him nonstop with tears in their eyes. “He is the best teacher I have ever had for anything, period,” is a direct quote from one young man. On his day at Yale, Jonathan somehow managed to get the Yale Art Gallery to remove from storage, for this one day, work by the following artists: Homer, Eakins, Sargent, Bellows, Demuth, Hartley, O’Keefe, Rauschenberg, Johns, Twombley, Nevelson, Martin, Indiana, Morris, and Warhol. Jonathan lectured in the Art Gallery to a packed house about why he considers each of these great American artists gay and how this is reflected in their work. I had brought one of the heads of the Phillips Collection in Washington. “What a brilliant piece of scholarship,” she said. This event, also, did not go down well somewhere in the murky invisible inner sanctums of Yale’s Soviet-style bureaucracy. Yale was getting rid of the only faculty member teaching the kind of gay history that I longed for and I was powerless to help rectify this great mistake. Yes, this famous big deal loudmouth activist apologizes to you, and to Jonathan. My lover, David, says I did not sit on the nest enough. I did not become enough of the Larry Kramer they were afraid of.

There were and are 22 courses offered in the Pink Book of LGBT studies for this year. Only one of them, the course George Chauncey teaches entitled U.S. Lesbian and Gay History, is a gay history course.

Here are the others:
•Gender and Sexuality in Popular Music
•Critical Ethnography: Methods, Ethics, Poetics
•Cross-Cultural Narratives of Desire
•Gender Transgression
•Sex and Romance in Adolescence
•Biology of Gender and Sexuality
•Anthropology of Sex and Sexualities
•Beauty, Fashion, and Self-styling
•Gendering Musical Performance
•Gender Images: A Psychological Perspective
•Gender, Nation, and Sexuality in Modern Latin America
•Queer Ethnographies
•Music and Queer Identies

The word “queer” also embellishes most of the activities and lectures and fellowships and appointments announced in those various emails. It seems as if everything is queer this and queer that.

Just as a point of information, I would like to proclaim with great pride: I am not queer! And neither are you. When will we stop using this adolescent and demeaning word to identify ourselves? Like our history that is not taught, using this word will continue to guarantee that we are not taken seriously in the world.

Here are some of the things that I have uncovered about our history in writing my new book, The American People:

That Jamestown was America’s first community of homosexuals, men who came to not only live with each other as partners but to adopt and raise children bought from the Indians. Some even arranged wedding ceremonies for themselves.

That George Washington was gay, and that his relationships with Alexander Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette were homosexual. And that his feelings for Hamilton led to a government and a country that became Hamiltonian rather than Jeffersonian.

That Meriwether Lewis was in love with William Clark and committed suicide when their historic journey was over and he wouldn’t see Clark anymore.

That Abraham Lincoln was gay and had many, many gay interactions, that his nervous breakdown occurred when he and his lover, Joshua Speed, were forced to part, and that his sensitivity to the slaves came from his firsthand knowledge of what it meant to be so very different. And that the possibility exists that Lincoln was murdered because he was gay and John Wilkes Booth, who was gay, knew this.

That Franklin Pierce, who became one of America’s worst presidents, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, who became one of our greatest writers, as roommates at Bowdoin College had interactions that changed them both forever and, indeed, served as the wellspring for what Hawthorne came to write about. Pierce was gay. And Hawthorne? Herman Melville certainly wanted him to be.

That most of the great actresses who endlessly toured America during the 19th century bringing theater to the masses were lesbians and occasionally dressed as men. Just like Katherine Hepburn.

That the plague of AIDS was allowed to happen because much of the world hates us and most of the world knows nothing about us. They don’t know we are related to Washington and Lincoln.

I needed no queer theories, no gender studies, to figure all this out.

Why can’t we accept that homosexuality has been pretty much the same since the beginning of human history, whether it was called homosexuality, sodomy, buggery, hushmarkedry, or hundreds of other things, or had no name at all? What we do now they pretty much did then. Period. Men have always had cocks and men have pretty much always known what to do with them. It is just stupidity and elite presumption of the highest and most preposterous order to theorize, in these regards, that then was different from now.

Do you know that men loving men does not require the sexual act to qualify them as homosexuals? My American Heritage unabridged dictionary lists two definitions for homosexuality: the first: “sexual orientation activity to persons of the same sex; and the second: “sexual activity with another of the same sex.” In other words, it is not necessary, nor should it be, to have had sex with another of the same sex, to maintain that a person is homosexual. Why, then, do academics, indeed everyone, insist on this second definition over the first? This theory makes it all but impossible in many cases to claim a person as one of us.

Is Yale actually afraid to teach any of this? To actually name names out loud from Abe Lincoln to John Sterling to Robert Rauschenberg? And why is the History Department allowing history to be hijacked by the queer theorists just as the English Department allowed Paul DeMan and Jacques Derrida to highjack literature for the deconstructionists? That travesty found safe haven here at Yale too.

History is about people events more than it is about theory. We need to know specifically who our brothers and sisters, our ancestors, our own people, are and were! John Demilio has written an award-winning biography of Bayard Ruskin, the trusted associate of Martin Luther King, which reveals that Ruskin was homosexual and was assassinated because of it. How many years did the world refuse to acknowledge that Jefferson had a black mistress? Such knowledge, when it was finally accepted, has invigorated black studies and given people of color a new pride in themselves and in each other, in their people, in their rightful place in America’s history.
Gays must have this! We must. We must if we are to endure.

I asked Peter Salovey recently why he thought LKI was closed down. Who was behind it? What was behind it? His answer was: “We’ll never know.”

In a recent Yale Daily News article, a gay staff reporter, sophomore Raymond Carlson, wrote that The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students lists Yale as among the bottom of the heap in terms of institutional support and administrative services for its gay students and gay studies.
For those of you here celebrating Yale’s acceptance of us, I am here to tell you that there is not quite so much to celebrate yet. Yes, it is a long way from my freshman year in 1953 when I tried to kill myself. But like so much that continues to happen to us, there is still too much invisible shit blocking the acceptance that we need and we are due.
So I receive GALA’s award with a certain bittersweet acceptance. As I hope I have made clear, I feel very alienated from this university which took my brother’s money and my dream and slammed the door in both our faces.

In closing, once again I apologize to you for failing you. And for failing my brother, who died last year. And for failing myself. I wanted so very very much for the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay History at Yale to succeed for you and for all our people.

But, yes, thank you. We are all fellow warriors and I salute you.

Larry Kramer is a writer and gay-rights activist.

Hattip! - The Daily Beast (and Andy Velez)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-24/my-apology-to-yale/full/

NYC Protests Murders of Gay Men in Iraq

2009-04-12T23:18:00.002-04:00