July 16, 2009

"Prejudice has no place in the United States of America"

Posted by: Andoni

From President Obama's address today at the 100th anniversary of the NAACP (National Association of Colored People):

"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 gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country.  By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America."

An interesting clause in Obama's recounting the history of the Civil Rights Movement, was, "and presidents had to be pressured into action...."

He has told our community this very thing about our rights, as well. Let's not forget it.

You can also view the full speech here.

Technorati Tags: gay rights, NAACP, Obama

July 08, 2009

Steve Hildebrand on Obama

Posted by: Andoni

Steve Hildebrand may be the closest gay person to Barack Obama. He was deputy national campaign director for Obama's presidential campaign last year. In a remarkable interview with Hildebrand, Rex Wockner gets to the bottom of some of the issues LGBT Americans have been worried about vis a vis President Obama of late. After the the Department of Justice brief defending DOMA, Hildebrand went to the White House and spoke one on one with the president about the anger in the our community, LGBT issues in general and the DOJ brief in particular.

Two items of particular note in Wockner's interview with Hildebrand are:

2. "(President Obama) did not read the ... pathetic (marriage) brief in advance but he subsequently has read the brief and was not happy at all with both the direction as well as the language that was used." --Steve Hildebrand

So all the brouhaha the LGBT community created following that "pathetic" brief was appropriate and most likely brought some results. The president thinks pressure is a good thing and apparently repsonds to it. I for one don't believe the White House cocktail party to celebrate Stonewall had been on the books for a long time. I really think the noise we made as a community had results and if we continue the pressure we will get more results. But as Hildebrand notes, we need more pressure on Congress. The president will sign all LGBT legislation that comes to his desk. But as Chris reminds us Congress initiates and passes the laws, not the president.

Finally, Steve Hildebrand thinks that we gays are not doing as much as we could be doing to advance our cause. That will be a topic of a post in the next few days.

In the meantime, read the Wockner interview.

Technorati Tags: gay rights, LGBT rights, Obama, Steve Hildebrand, White House meeting

June 16, 2009

Obama's major speech on LGBT rights

Posted by: Andoni

Before you get too excited, this hasn't happened yet. When I was sitting on the island of Symi, Greece I was getting despondent over the inaction in Congress on LGBT rights. Remembering the president's promises during the campaign, I thought the answer was a major address to the nation by President Obama on LGBT rights -- to jump start things in Congress.

The president has a great way of explaining issues. Just think of his speech in Philadelphia on race and the one in Cairo on Muslim relations with America. When people listen to his well reasoned speeches, a lot more people nod their heads in agreement after the speech. Do I think LGBT rights warrants a major address by the president? Yes, I do. It is the civil rights issue of our time and should be one of the major issues of this presidency.

I began writing a post suggesting a major speech by Obama on LGBT rights sometime in the early fall, but couldn't quite get the words right on paper. Juan and Ken Ahonen-Jover, however, have done me one better. They wrote the speech the president should give. Juan and Ken are the founders of EqualityGiving an organization of major LGBT donors and activists. The link to the speech is here. And at the risk of eating up too much server space (sorry, Chirs), I copy it in its entirety below.

This is the LGBT speech Obama should give. The bold print are his actual words from this year's Pride proclamation.

"Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.  Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born.

"LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society.  There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities.  LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

"I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration.

"The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done.  In the last four decades legislation has been enacted in many states to ensure that we hold our most dear American Promise: that we are all equal under the law. However, no state provides full legal equality to guarantee that each person is treated equally independently of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

"Other states fall far behind in what most Americans believe to be fair and just.

"Congress has not passed a single piece of legislation in the four decades since Stonewall to ensure that Americans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender are treated equally under the law. So, millions of Americans remain denied this American Promise.

"In these same four decades, Congress has passed two pieces of legislation that do the exact opposite and that actually openly discriminate against those Americans. As I said in my campaign, I support repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation, as well as the repeal of the entire Defense of Marriage Act.

"I am here to tell you that yes, we can end discrimination. And that yes, the time for this is now.

"Many will argue that while equality is a worthwhile goal, civil rights have been given incrementally. They will also tell you that we have other important priorities.

"But I ask: Where is our moral compass when we knowingly continue to allow members of our society to be unequal under the law? Where is our moral compass when we have laws that openly discriminate against some members of our society?

"How do you tell a parent that the daughters and sons they love so much will not be treated equally under the law? That one will be able to serve his country, while the other will be fired for doing the same thing? That one will be able to marry and raise a family with all the protection that the law affords, and the other will not?

"We may not agree with every person. But we have to respect them. And the law has to apply equally to every person in the same way.

"Many of the problems that we face require solutions that are complex. Many of these problems have different solutions, which some uncertainty about which solution might be best.

"For instance, Congress already analyzed and enacted legislation on one of our most important and difficult problems: the economic crisis. Work is underway now on healthcare reform.

"But inequality under the law is not a difficult problem to fix. We just have to ensure that all citizens are covered by our existing laws in the same way. No more and no less. We also need to repeal two laws which fly in the face of equal protection under the law: the Defense of Marriage Act, which not only acts against the rights of the States, but also religions, and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that acts against the national security of our nation because it deprives our armed forces of personnel we need.

"There is never an ideal time to enact legislation for equal rights. Yet every moment that passes, and we don't act, injustice continues. There are always reasons to delay. But ensuring that we live to our highest promise of equality needs to happen now. It is our moral imperative, since delays just end up denying the rights and protections to those who do not deserve to be left out.


HATE CRIMES

"First, I want to commend the House of Representatives for approving the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As a senator, I was a co-sponsor of this legislation, and I am asking the Senate to act swiftly to approve it.

"Some say that a crime is a crime and there is no need to distinguish crimes motivated by prejudice against a minority. The reality is that our judicial system considers, as it should, the intention of the criminal. The punishment is not the same, and it should not be, if somebody kills a person by accident versus somebody killing a person with predetermination.

"Hate has no place in our society. Respect for each individual is the glue that keep us together.

"Today, we already have hate crimes laws for those who are victims of crimes based on their race, color, religion and national origin. It is important to add gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to those laws." Rest assured that adding this language to our existing laws in no way gives special rights to homosexuals, since hate crimes against someone for being a heterosexual would be also included in this law.


NON DISCRIMINATION

"Most Americans are very familiar with several pieces of civil rights legislation that protect Americans against discrimination. Most people naturally assume that those protections also cover lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

"They do not.

"The first legislation covering LGBT individuals was introduced 35 years ago. I am asking Congress today to introduce an expansion of the civil rights legislation to cover non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodation, public facilities, credit, and federally funded programs and activities."


DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

"My most important responsibility as President is to protect our country. Because our national security is at stake, we cannot continue to fire personnel from the military, just because of their sexual orientation. All of our dedicated service members are vital to our national security, and we have spent large sums of money and time training them.

"Since the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been in effect, more than 12,000 service members have been discharged to the detriment to our national security, just for who they are, and not because of their actions or performance.

"I am thinking of service members like Sergeant Eric Alva, a marine, who was awarded a purple heart and was the first American soldier wounded in Iraq. He was discharged for being gay; and Lieutenant Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arab linguist, also discharged just for being gay.

"Therefore, today I am signing an executive order asking for a temporary suspension of investigations and discharges of service members because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Of course, behavioral problems will continue to be aggressively investigated and prosecuted.

"I am also asking Congress to pass without delay the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009.

"Effectiveness and cohesion of our military forces is based on trust. Each service member needs to trust each other with their own lives. Critical to this trust is integrity and the ability of our service members not to have to hide who they are and whom they love.

"As when the military was integrated with female service members, we know that our troops are professional and capable of interacting appropriately. We know that our allies, such as Great Britain, Israel, Canada, and Australia have successfully integrated gays and lesbians into their militaries. I believe that our armed services personnel are capable of acting professionally.

"I have also asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to modify regulations within the next 60 days to ensure that all service members are treated equally and that inappropriate behavior is punished whether it is between a members of the same gender or of different genders.


MARRIAGE

"Our country is very divided on the issue of same gender marriage. I have expressed my own opinion on the subject before.

"Yes, marriage has a religious component.

"Some religions do allow same gender couples to marry, others don't. It is not the role of the government to interfere with religion or favor one religion over another. For example, most religions do not allow divorce. However, led by Ronald Reagan while he was Governor of California, no fault divorce has been adopted by all states.

"Let me say this, in no uncertain terms, to all Americans: the government does not currently, and will not, tell your church whom they can or cannot marry.

"In addition, the rights of the States need to be protected: civil marriage licenses have been and should continue to be the prerogatives of each state. When the Defense of Marriage Act was approved by Congress in 1996, no state allowed same gender couples to marry.  Today, six States do, while several others allow either civil unions or domestic partnerships. Other states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts or constitutional bans against same gender marriage.

"The principle at stake is that the federal government does not, and will not, issue marriage licenses. However, the federal government needs to honor all the licenses issued by the States, not just those of opposite gender couples. Therefore, I am asking Congress to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act without delay and to ensure that all the 1,138 federal benefits, such as social security, immigration, and hospital visitation, that apply to opposite gender married couples are applied without discrimination to all couples legally married or otherwise joined by a civil union or domestic partnership legally recognized by a State.

"Today I am proud to say that I signed an executive order providing domestic partners of federal employees many of the benefits of married spouses."


EDUCATION

"One of my main priorities is education. This is a requisite for our country to be competitive in the 21st Century. Our hearts were broken when in the space of two weeks in April, two young people committed suicide after being repeatedly bullied because of a perception that they were gay. One was a middle schooler. The other was in elementary school. Our thoughts and prayers go to their families.

"I want to send a clear message to all children: in America you can be free to express who you are. Bullying should not be part of our vocabulary. Every child should grow up in a society that respects their differences.

"Youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment. One of the critical components of learning is to have a safe environment for children to develop to their full potential. This means, among other measures, schools free of drugs and free of bullying. Bullies target other children based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and others. I am asking Congress to immediately pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2009, which has bipartisan support.


THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW

"These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation.  As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected.  If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit.  During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.   

"Some people will argue that we cannot do so much, so fast, while the country is dealing with an economic crises, is engaged in two wars, desperately needs healthcare reform, needs education reform, and needs to address the problems with the environment.

"I say: we cannot afford to NOT take care now of these blights on our American Family to ensure that we live to our highest value: That we were all created Equal.

"The time has come to live to our highest aspirations. To send the message that while we may not agree with each other all the time, we all share the aspiration of living in a society in which none of our members faces discrimination. And a reminder that we were all created equal.

"I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

"Because if some of us are not equal, none of us are equal."

Technorati Tags: gay rights, LGBT rights, major speech, Obama, Pride proclamation

June 15, 2009

Defending Obama's indefensible defense...

Posted by: Chris

... of the Defense of Marriage Act. OK not really. But at the risk of being labeled (once again) as an Obama apologist, I want to add a bit more context to the excellent analysis done by Andoni and others of the DOJ's brief defending DOMA.

Like most of you, I was profoundly disappointed by the filing, and my heart sank even further when I read some of the arguments used by the Obama Justice Department in favor of DOMA's constitutionality. The analogy to incest, in particular, was completely beyond the pale. Although (once again) it's not fair to say the brief directly compared same-sex relationships to incestuous relationships, it is ludicrous and insulting to suggest there is no meaningful legal distinction between laws that don't exclude gays from marrying and laws that permit an uncle to wed his niece.

It was also patently irrational to argue that DOMA doesn't discriminate against gay Americans because we, too, can  enter into "traditional marriages." Its unfathomable that lawyers for a president who is the product of an interracial marriage would use an argument that was rejected some four decades ago in Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that anti-miscegenation laws weren't racist because both whites and blacks were equally restricted to marrying within their own race.

Even so, once my blood pressure came under control, I cannot join those who see the DOMA brief as a "betrayal" by President Obama or even as a sign that his administration will be "throwing us under the bus" like the last Democrat occupant of the White House did. Here's why:

First and foremost, candidate Obama did not make any commitment that I'm aware of to refuse to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That would have been an extraordinary promise for any presidential candidate to make about any piece of duly adopted legislation, and yet I don't know of a single time the question was even put to Obama or his competitors, or where he was even asked the more general question of whether DOMA is unconstitutional.

There's obviously a big difference between believing a law is wrongheaded or unfair or even discriminatory, on the one hand, and believing it is unconstitutional, on the other. Since Hillary Clinton defended her husband's decision to sign DOMA into law, and only favored half-repeal, it's fair to conclude she agrees with the Obama DOJ that DOMA's deficiency is a matter of policy, not constitutionality. Ditto  the Human Rights Campaign, since "the nation's largest gay rights group" chose only to score the candidates on whether they support DOMA's half-repeal -- thereby equating Clinton's views with Obama's.

If this question of DOMA's constitutionality is so crucial and fundamental, then why did everyone -- all of us -- fail to raise it during the eons-long presidential campaign? We thought about DOMA enough to make a big deal -- or not -- about half-repeal vs. full repeal, and others questioned Obama about the positions the DOJ might take in defending Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court. So why didn't we ask for a commitment about refusing to defend DOMA as well? And if we didn't, maybe we should take a deep breath before accusing Obama of treason for how his lawyers ultimately answered our unasked question -- in a lawsuit that most gay legal experts wish had never been brought and hopefully will get dismissed.

A  spokesperson has explained the DOJ brief saying that, "As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court." John Aravosis makes a good point by digging up examples of the DOJ under previous presidents declining to defend the constitutionality of certain statutes in court, but rather than proving the Obama administration is "lying," he accomplished the opposite. Four examples out of thousands hardly disproves the claim that "generally" the DOJ defends laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Let's also pause long enough to consider whether we want to advocate the politicization of the Justice Department. Let us recall from the debate over the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" that the DOJ has an independent obligation to weigh questions of legality and constitutionality. Those decisions ought to be made on the basis of the law, not politics. It's not fair for us to switch sides on that argument when it suits our cause, however worthy.

Please, please don't take away from these observations any hesitation on my part about the constitutionality of DOMA. As someone whose entire life has been torn apart for years now because of this single federal law, I know its destructive force, and for years counted myself among those who see DOMA as a gross affront to the Constitution. Nonetheless, I think it's a bit too easy to condemn President Obama for failing to anticipate a complicated legal question that our own advocates either also failed to anticipate or decided was unworthy of raising during the presidential campaign.

Speaking of our own advocates, I will say it was refreshing to see Joe Solmonese at HRC actually speak out on the issue, even if he ultimately cops out by attempting to evade any institutional or personal responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in. Solmonese's impassioned letter to Obama calls on the president to "put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."

Is that the way Washington works, Joe? Are we really to believe that this consumate lobbyist -- who couldn't resist bragging about his own White House access in the same self-serving letter -- completely missed that "Schoolhouse Rock" episode on how a bill becomes a law?

Solmonese and his Beltway minions know damn well the president doesn't "send" legislation to Congress. Even on top administration priorities like the stimulus package and health care reform, the bills are drafted by legislators -- hence the name -- with public and private input from the White House throughout the process, including what importance the president puts on passage.

If pressure is to be brought to bear, and indeed it should, then it ought to focus first on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. So when the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles raised a public ruckus with the president over DOMA this weekend, HRC should passionately remind them that not one of the Democrats in Congress from these two gay meccas, including a certain Speaker of the House, has introduced, much less given priority to, a bill to repeal DOMA.

Why is it, then, that in the 13 years since passage of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act that HRC and its friends in Congress have failed to "put principles into action" and draft repeal legislation, identify House and Senate sponsors and co-sponsors, pressure for hearings or otherwise shepherd the bill through the legislative process?

I will answer my own question. Because anyone with even a passing familiarity with gay politics in our nation's capital knows that HRC long ago agreed with its cronies in the DNC and on the Hill not to even begin pressing for DOMA repeal until a whole laundry list of other (far less important and less controversial) legislation is adopted.

With all of this context in mind, I would humbly suggest that we take each of Andoni's five examples of direct action and aim them also (not instead) at your member of Congress, the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate, and our dear friends at the Human Rights Campaign. Has either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid even committed publicly to repealing DOMA, or half-repealing it?

Let's demand that HRC publicly release draft language for repealing DOMA and point us to members of Congress we should lobby to take on leadership roles in sponsorship. (And how about federal civil unions legislation while they're at it!)  With those pieces in place, pressure on the White House can be much more concrete, and all this righteous anger might move the ball forward toward relationship equality.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Defense of Marriage Act, DOJ, DOMA brief

June 08, 2009

They said it…

Posted by: Chris

I understand that you should put the question, but frankly, do you think people are just waiting to see us hand-in-hand sitting here looking into one another’s eyes? Of course not.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy, at a joint press avail with President Obama in Colleville-Sur-Mer, France, in response to continuing questions about whether the American president had snubbed his French counterpart by not accepting his dinner invitation over the weekend. (Wall Street Journal, June 6)

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, dinner snub, Nicholas Sarkozy

June 05, 2009

Don't Ask Do Deal: 'outright lie'?

Posted by: Chris

Me thinks they doth protest too much, our friends at the Human Rights Campaign. Trevor Thomas has fired off an angry response by Blackberry to Jason Bellini's Daily Beast report alleging HRC cut a deal to delay pressing for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell until next year. Wrote Thomas:

This story is not only an outright lie, it is recklessly irresponsible. HRC never made such a deal and continues to work with congress and the administration on a full range of equality issues including a swift end to the military's shameful ban on gay servicemembers.

Considering that Bellini's claim to a go-slow deal on DADT was (a) sourced to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, and (b) confirmed on camera by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, thereby (c) confirming what Beltway gays have known for months, it appears that (d): HRC's Thomas, while using his Blackberry, was in fact talking out of a much lower extremity.

Technorati Tags: Chuck Schumer, Dailiy Beast, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, HRC, Jason Bellini, Tammy Baldwin, Trevor Thomas

June 03, 2009

The 'big M' is 'empathy'

Posted by: Chris

It was a bit of a head-turner this week when Dick Cheney, the former vice president and conservative attack dog, took time out from his blistering critique of Barack Obama to disagree with the president from the left on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish — any kind of arrangement they wish,” Cheney said during a question-and-answer session that followed his harsh assessment of how the current occupant of the White House is handling the economy and national security.

“The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that,” he added.

Instant analysis from the blogosphere took pleasure in the obvious irony that such an iconic figure from the Republican right now appeared better on the issue than the Democratic president who despite opposing marriage equality has promised to be a “fierce advocate” for gay rights.

Not so fast. Careful observers like Denis Dison, who blogs for the Victory Fund at GayPolitics.com, noted that Cheney stopped just short of saying he actually supports marriage for gays, referring as he has in the past to gay couples entering into “any kind of union they wish.” We are dealing here, after all, with a politician who knows how to parse his words, re-branding waterboarding and other forms of torture as “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

More concretely, Cheney’s opposition to “a federal statute to protect this,” while also vague, could either be referring to a law banning states from marrying gays or a law that extends marriage rights nationwide.

In that sense, Obama still comes up better than Cheney on marriage friendliness, since the president supports full repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the heinous federal statute that allows states to ignore same-sex marriages elsewhere, as well as blocking federal recognition.

A “federal statute” repealing DOMA could decide things nationwide as a practical matter, since even couples in states that ban gay marriage would be able to travel to places like Massachusetts or Iowa, get married, and demand legal recognition back home.

Even if Obama remains better on paper, it is certainly fair to complain that he’s done nothing concrete thus far toward ridding us of DOMA — much less been a “fierce advocate.” Then again, no Democrat in Congress has introduced repeal legislation either.

All in all, Dick Cheney’s supportive comments tell us less about the president than they do about gay marriage as an issue and how a personal connection can be so critical in winning over even hardened hearts and minds.

As we all know, the former veep’s younger daughter Mary is gay, and she and her long-time partner have a young son. By all accounts father and daughter are very close, personally and politically; so much so that Mary managed her father’s re-election campaign in 2004. From that close-in vantage point, Dick Cheney understands full well that her desire to marry — or “union”-ize — is a basic human need that poses no threat to the “traditional family.”

A Gallup poll out last week confirmed the importance of that personal touch. Among Americans who said they don’t know personally know anyone who is gay or lesbian, opposition to same-sex marriage runs almost three to one. Among those with who do, slightly more support marriage equality than oppose it.

Marriage isn’t the only hot-button controversy impacted this way. Nancy Reagan became such a "fierce advocate" for stem cell research, parting ways with the religious conservatives who are her husband’s greatest admirers, because she saw firsthand the devastating effect of Alzheimer’s.

There is a word to describe this ability to look beyond politics and even religious teachings to see how an abstract issue has real impact in real lives, whether among loved ones or strangers. It’s called empathy.

It’s the quality that President Obama said he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee, and it’s the reason Sonia Sotomayor may well be right that, on average, “a wise old Latina” ought to make a better judge than “a wise old white man.”

It’s the reason your's truly is no longer the conservative Republican I once was, because seeing bigotry and grossly unequal treatment up close has given me greater empathy than I had before for the struggles of others.

And it’s empathy that will ultimately be responsible for President Obama eventually finding the political courage to lend his support for full marriage equality.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, empathy, gay marriage, lesbian, Mary Cheney, Sonia Sotomayor

May 28, 2009

Gays 'honor killings' in occupied Iraq

Posted by: Chris

One of the first stories I posted on Gay News Watch, back in February 2007, concerned reports that the Iraqi government was lending its official endorsement to Shiite militias responsible for killing gay men. After two more years of American occupation and a change in U.S. administrations, the story hasn't changed and the horrific killings continue:

Two gay men were killed in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, and police confirmed they found the bodies of four more men, all killed during a 10-day period after an unknown Shiite militia group urged a crackdown on homosexuals in the country.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs believes as many as 30 people have been killed during the last three months because they were -- or were perceived to be -- gay.

Homosexuality is prohibited almost everywhere in the Middle East, but conditions have become especially dangerous in recent years for gays and lesbians, as religious militias have become more powerful since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

But an Iraqi military source claimed the recent killings were linked to tribal violence, not militias, and his characterization of the killings hints at how deep homophobia runs in Iraqi society.

"Two young men were killed Thursday. They were sexual deviants. Their tribes killed them to restore their family honor," an Iraqi army member who did not want to give his name told ABC News.

The army source said the bodies of four gay men were unearthed in Sadr City March 25, each bearing signs reading "pervert" in Arabic on their chests. All the bodies found bore signs of torture and were found fixed to poles when they were killed. The Iraqi army source also said two of the men found dead were wearing diapers and women's lingerie.

Two gay men were found elsewhere in Sadr City, alive but bearing the scars of severe torture. They were beaten, their chests showed signs of cigarette burns, and when police found them they were rushed to the hospital. They had been sodomized with iron bars, sources said. Other men said they had had their chests slashed and their nipples cut off.

The Bush and Obama administrations have been justifiably proud about the improved status, safety and opportunity for women as a result of the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But where is the concerted action to put an end to these unspeakable acts of violence?

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, George Bush, Iraqi gays, murder, Shiite militias, torture

May 26, 2009

The gay verdict on Sotomayor

Posted by: Chris

Little to none of the initial reaction to President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has focused on gay rights issues, largely because her own judicial record is apparently void on the subject. That said, there are aspects to her selection that speak to the limits of identity politics, both for the GLBT left and, in opposition, on the conservative right.

Since the resignation announcement by Justice David Souter -- himself a lifelong bachelor long rumored to be gay -- some gay rights advocates have voiced their hopes that the president would pick the first-ever openly gay nominee to the high court. But if news accounts have been accurate, neither of two lesbian Stanford law professors -- Kathleen Sullivan and Pamela Karlan -- made Obama's list of top four possibilities.

For many of the same reasons that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund advocates for openly gay legislators, cabinet secretaries and the like, there would no doubt be enormous symbolism to an openly gay or lesbian justice, in addition to the inclusion of that person's unique life experiences into the mix of judicial viewpoints. But the room for influence from gay or lesbian life experiences on a jurist is a good deal more limited than for the more actively political and policy-making branches of government.

And why I don't know much about Karlan -- except that her record had a number of political minefields -- I'm not convinced that Sullivan is the ideal "openly gay" candidate. Sullivan, a former Stanford Law dean and Harvard law prof, was deeply closeted during my years in school -- which overlapped as well with President Obama's years there.

Despite her participation on the brief in the (failed) attempt to overturn Georgia's sodomy law, Sullivan said nothing helpful or otherwise about her own life during a time of energetic campus activism around "faculty diversity" and the absence of a single openly gay professor. All in all, it's not greatly disappointing and certainly unsurprising, that the president did not select an openly gay nominee.

On the other hand, conservatives are already in a lather about Sotomayor as "judicial activist" who they claim will "legislate from the bench." In support they cite not to her actual record as an appeals court judge on the Second Circuit, but to a YouTube moment where she jokes offhandedly at a law school symposium about whether federal appellate judges "make policy":

Outside the political arena, anyone half-serious as a lawyer or judicial observer will acknowledge that the circuit courts -- which are more often than the U.S. Supreme Court the venue of last resort for litigants -- unavoidably "make law" as they intepret the vagueries of legislative statutes and judicial precedents. (Sotomayor also followed up her remarks by saying she was not "promoting" or "advocating" policy-making from the bench.)

A second example lighting up the right is a bit more troubling on its face. In prepared remarks at Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor suggested that the unique life experiences of a Latina female jurist would result in "better conclusions"

[O]ur gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.

First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

On the one hand, Sotomayor's suggestion that ethnicity and gender are somehow determinative of the "richness of life experiences" represents the tired, ugly side of identity politics, which forgets the rhetorical commitments to equality in favor of elevating the lives of minorities in importance (or "richness") over those in the majority.

On the other hand, conservatives actually have little to complain about here. Those of us paying attention to the debate over gay rights, both in the legislature and the judiciary, have heard ad nauseum about how private religious values are absolutely relevant to making and interpreting law. Beyond that particular hypocrisy, Sotomayor's comments are aimed in the right direction, at least to the extent that a diversity of life experiences on any court, much less the nation's highest court, can only add to the decision-making process.

Doubters should recall the difference between Justice Byron White, who suggested for the court's majority in Bowers vs. Hardwick that it was "facetious at best" to compare gay relationships to heterosexual-led families, with the contrary language of Justice Anthony Kennedy in Lawrence vs. Texas, which overruled Bowers and struck down the nation's sodomy laws. Reading Justice White's opinion, it was abundantly clear that he had no personal relationships with same-sex couples. The swing vote in that 5-4 decision, Justice Lewis Powell, said later that the Bowers vote was his biggest regret, and one of Powell's law clerks was closeted. Kennedy's familiarity with the lives of gay people and same-sex relationships similarly came through in his Lawrence opinion.

We will no doubt all be learning more about Judge Sotomayor in the days and weeks to come, including the context of her most incendiary comments, and whether they are in fact reflected in her actual judicial philosophy, the votes she has cast from the bench, and the opinions she has authored. In the meantime, she appears to be an impressive selection destined for confirmation.

Technorati Tags: gay rights, judicial activist, lesbian, Sonia Sotomayor

March 15, 2009

Prohibition and gay rights

Posted by: Andoni

History repeats itself. That is the theme in Frank Rich's wonderful Op Ed The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off in today's New York Times.

According to Rich, we are entering a new period where the public has again tired of the anti-science, let me impose my values on you crowd. After the major economic downturn we have experienced over the past year, the culture wars are a luxury we can no longer afford. The same sort of cultural reversal happened in 1933 during The Great Depression.

In the period leading up to the Depression fundamentalists pushed for Prohibition and anti-evolution legislation - succeeding on both counts. The Depression ended all that nonsense. In the period leading up to today's great recession, the fundamentalists peddled an anti-gay, anti-stem cell research agenda and also succeeded broadly.

Now history is repeating itself. Anti-stem cell research was reversed last week by President Obama with only a whimper from the religious right and public opinion is showing majority support on most of the crucial gay rights issues - employment, the military, and our relationships.

We need to take advantage of this moment in history. FDR demonstrated that a president can lead a nation to reform on cultural issues when the country's mood changes. Obama should follow that example. As the saying goes - it is his moment, it is his time.

Technorati Tags: family values, FDR, gay rights, Obama, Prohibition, stem cell research

March 13, 2009

Will he or won't he?

Posted by: Andoni

The New York Times says President Barack Obama is in a tough spot with regard to whether he should allow the federal government to provide health insurance benefits to partners of same sex couples as two California federal appeals court judges ruled yesterday.

The Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to obey the judges' order because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And of course religious conservatives such as Gary Bauer, president of American Values, are threatening (in an almost gleeful manner) that if Obama provides these benefits it will reinvigorate the conservative coalition. To complicate all this further is the fact that Obama's designated, but unconfirmed, new director of the Office of Personnel Management is M. John Berry, a gay man.

The judges' ruling was not the result of of a lawsuit but as part of a ruling as employers resolving employee grievances.

I don't think Obama is in as tough a position as the Times says he is. He should simply say this is not about marriage, it's about equal pay for equal work. The partner benefits are part of the pay package for federal employees and the federal government cannot and will not be part of discrimination that pays some employees less than others for the exact same work. He can even say, "Let me be clear about this" so we know he means business.

There really is no other way to provide equality, because the insurance package is more than just the money involved to pay for the partner's insurance; a major benefit is the access to that insurance as well. In most instances the partner would not be able to buy this good insurance on their own.

Unfortunately, the IRS will tax this insurance benefit as income, which is patently unfair, but that's a different matter that is best left to fight about on another day.

Technorati Tags: federal benefits, gays, insurance, Obama

February 27, 2009

The 90% tax bracket

Posted by: Andoni

There is consternation in some quarters this morning because President Obama's budget proposes to raise the top income tax bracket on people who make more than $250,000 per year to 39.6% from the current 35% . I'm not one of the worried ones.

I'm old enough to remember the 1950's when the top income tax bracket was 90%. Yes, 90%. It got reduced to 70% in the 1960's. During both these periods, between 1950 to 1970, the economic growth for the country and individuals, rich and middle class alike, was excellent.

Since WWII, the top bracket has gone from 92 to 77 to 70 to 50 to 33 to 28 to 31 to 39.6 (Bill Clinton) to 35 (George W. Bush). When graphed, this sort of looks like an oscillating curve trying to find its proper equilibrium. Clearly the trend has been downward, but in trying to achieve the right top tax rate for growth but also for government responsibility in being able to pay for things, maybe we have gone to far -- overshot.

Obama is simply proposing to go back to the Clinton tax rate, and the Clinton years were some of the best economic years this country has ever seen. In trying to find the sweet spot between what will stimulate growth, but not be irresponsible, maybe 39.6% or somewhere near there is a good place to be. Certainly 35% didn't turn out that well, did it?

Time, of course, will tell where the best spot is. But right now, count me as not worried about Obama's tax increase.

Technorati Tags: budget, budget, income tax, Obama, tax rates, wealthiest Americans

February 24, 2009

Civil unions WILL lead to marriage

Posted by: Andoni

Something that the far right realizes that seems to be outside of the grasp of many our leaders in the gay community is that once you have a national civil unions law, it is only a matter of time before you get marriage equality. Separate but equal is not a sustainable position in this country. It will be easier to go from civil unions to marriage than from nothing to marriage. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, gets it. In responding to a compromise national civil unions Op Ed in last Sunday's New York Times, co-authored by a fellow leader of the religious right, Perkins warns that "once a civil unions law is in place, denial of marital status would be almost impossible to defend."

The right realizes this, our leaders don't.

Many proposals have been made advocating ways to achieve civil unions nationally, especially since it is President Obama's official position to have full civil unions for gay people. Federally recognized civil unions would mean civil unions in all 50 states. All couples would have to do is go to a state that offers civil unions to get hitched, then return to their home state. Federal couples' benefits in all 50 states is a big deal. These would include things like social security survival benefits, joint tax returns, partner immigration rights.. over 1100+ very substantial rights and benefits.

Federally recognized civil union proposals have been elucidated here, here and here.

Civil unions can be accomplished because 75% of the public supports the idea.

In private emails from leaders in our community, I have been told that I have it all wrong, that the best way forward is to hold out for marriage equality. I strongly disagree.

Right now it's like standing on the side of the road waiting for a bus and the bus keeps passing me by. The bus won't stop to let me on. If one day the bus stops and tells me that I can get on but I have to agree to sit in the back, I would gladly do it. Once on the bus I know I will be able to fight my way forward until I get a seat in the front. It's much harder to get a seat in the front of the bus if you're not on the bus at all. If I'm still standing on the side of the road, I seriously doubt that the bus will one day stop and offer me a seat in the front of the bus. It didn't happen that way for the African Americans; what makes us think it's going to happen for us?

From a public relations (selling the public) point of view (as well as I believe in court), it's much easier to argue that a national separate but equal institution for gays is un-American-- both historically and constitutionally. Separate but equal has been stigmatized in the US and the public will get it after a very few years. However, trying to convince people or the court that we should be allowed to marry when the starting point is having nothing (no recognition at all) is be a tougher sell.

This is a no-brainer folks, and I'm starting to get angry at our leaders who won't pick up on Obama's civil union idea. Obama clearly sees the way forward and is trying to lead us to that next step, but our leaders seem oblivious to it.

h/t Andrew Sullivan

Technorati Tags: civil unions, marriage, Obama

February 22, 2009

Another civil unions proposal

Posted by: Andoni

Both Chris and I have each elucidated on ways to take take advantage of President Barack Obama's explicitly stated support for full civil unions on the White House web page to score a giant leap forward for gay rights. Chris' post on this topic is here and mine here .

The Washington Blade also did a story exploring how Obama's civil union proposal might be implemented.

So far, however, no such bill to recognize civil unions is on the radar screen at HRC (Human Rights Campaign) or the offices of any of our three openly gay elected Representatives, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin or Jared Polis.

But the civil unions idea keeps rolling along. In today's New York Times, David Blankenhorn, a religious conservative, and Jonathon Rauch, a gay marriage advocate, have teamed up in an Op Ed to make a specific proposal on how to move gay marriage forward -- in the form of civil unions. The key to passage of this bill which recognizes gay marriages as civil unions is a compromise with the religious community exempting it from having to recognize these unions and also giving them a wide exemption from any anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Just as Chris and I proposed, it defines civil unions as any same sex marriage or civil union legally performed by a state.

It is heartening to see the mainstream media picking up on Obama's civil unions and coming to the same conclusions Chris and I have. Also, since the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) already gives religious institutions an exception (this bill would broaden it), I can live with the proposal in today's New York Times.

There are several issues that must be considered before this bill is introduced. The main one is that if this is the compromise position, it would have to introduced with enough co-sponsors (or counted votes) in the Senate and the House that it passes as is, without amendment. Normally, such a bill would start out as a marriage equality bill, and end up like this after the compromise. If we start with this bill and work it through the normal channels of the House and Senate, the compromise wouldn't be worth too much.

My second main concern is that we would have to get our own left wing on board. There are people in our community that are for "marriage or nothing" and would try to kill this, even though it moves us 3/4 of the way to the prize and would recognize gay marriages from MA and CT.

I'm encouraged that Obama's willingness to support full civil unions is generating ideas on how to take advantage of this and move gay rights forward.

Now I have to ask, where are Barney, Tammy, and Jared.....and, of course, HRC. Being the leaders of our community bears some responsiblity to ..... well, actually lead.

Technorati Tags: civil unions, ENDA, Gay marriage, New York Times, Obama

February 09, 2009

Should the military choose a felon over a gay guy?

Posted by: Andoni

"And to choose a felon over a combat-proven veteran on the basis of sexuality is defeatist. Ask any squad leader," counsels Owen West, a straight veteran in an Op Ed in today's New York Times. His piece lays out one of the best lines of reasoning I have seen on repealing the 'don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy enacted by Congress in 1993.

He advises Obama not to make repealing DADT into an argument about civil rights and equality, as President Clinton tried to do in 1993, but rather concentrate on helping the military and advance a line of evidence that repealing DADT is what's best for the military. He cites the example of after the integration of the military in 1948, during war time (the Korean War) even the generals acknowledged that recruiting across America's socio-economic specturm produced the best force.

I hope the White House reads this piece. Maybe we should send it to them.

Technorati Tags: DADT, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, gays in the military, Obama, repeal DADT

February 06, 2009

It's UAFA time again

Posted by: Andoni

Immigration Equality has just announced that the Uniting American Families Act of 2009 (UAFA) will be introduced into the House of Representatives by lead sponsor Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on February 13. Because it's a new Congress this legislation must be re-introduced anew.

Last year this bill had 118 co-sponsors. The goal is to get all those co-sponsors back and then some, to make a good showing when the bill is introduced. So action is necessary. Please find out the name of your Congressperson, then call them by going through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224- 3121 and ask your representative to co-sponsor this legislation. If your Congressperson was a co-sponsor last year, ask them to become an original co-sponsor this time by calling Congressman Nadler's office by February 12 to add their name.

Here's the spiel when you talk to your representative:

"The US government discriminates against gay and lesbian binational couples by not allowing us to sponsor our foreign-born life partner for immigration. Because of this, we face the terrible choice of separating from the person we love or leaving our country. As Americans, we should not have to choose between family and country. Please co-sponsor the Uniting American Families Act of 2009 before February 12. Thank you."

It was very encouraging to see Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese reference UAFA in today's Washington Blade as one of the legislative priorities they hoped to work with President Obama on and see passed in the near future.

Technorati Tags: binational, gay, immigration, UAFA, Uniting American Families Act

January 27, 2009

Throw some gays overboard, again?

Posted by: Andoni

Remember the battle last year when the trans members of our community were excluded from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) --- resulting in activists and most LGBT organizations exploding in protest? They argued that it was not right to move forward with federal rights and benefits for some in the community while others are left out.  We have resolved this bitter policy argument by committing that this year when we move forward with employment protections, we will do so only if all members of our community can receive these benefits.

We face a parallel situation again today -- leaving many in our community behind-- in our quest for federal marriage rights. If we pursue marriage as the sole vehicle to achieve the 1100+ federal rights and benefits for our relationships (the ones that come with opposite sex marriage), we will effectively be throwing gay couples who live in the 30 states with constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage overboard. When everyone else gets marriage benefits, gay people who live in these 30 states will be left behind and get absolutely nothing. They will also have no hope of getting these benefits or protections for their relationships for a very, very long time.

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will bring the 1100+ federal rights and benefits only to couples who live in states that perform same sex marriage (MA, CT) or recognize same sex marriage (NY, RI). Repealing DOMA also gives hope for gay couples in the 16 states that have the possibility of same sex marriage sometime in the future. However, gays in the 30 other states will be completely shut out and left behind.

This poses a huge problem. If we choose to go forward with a marriage only strategy at the federal level, we are actively choosing to pursue a strategy that excludes a segment of our community-- just as we did to the trans community when we left them behind over ENDA.

There is a simple and fair solution to this dilemma and that is to pursue a strategy of moving forward with both MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNIONS simultaneously. Pursuing this path is not only fairer, but would result in achieving couples' rights and benefits in all 50 states, not just 20. We would be taking care of our entire community and leave no one behind.

This solution permits us to pursue the strategy that Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry wants as well as the strategy that President Obama outlines for LGBT civil rights on the White House webpage -- at the same time. If we were investing in securities this strategy would be called diversification; it has the benefit of maximizing our protections and minimizing our risks.

If we pursue marriage and marriage only, here's what it would take to get federal couples rights and benefits to gays in all 50 states:

1. DOMA must be repealed (or declared unconstitutional) which would result in gay couples in four states getting the federal rights and benefits of marriage, with another 16 possible after some long and hard work in each state. For gays in those 30 states that have inoculated themselves against same sex marriage with constitutional amendments, nothing happens and much, much more would have to happen before they have a chance to see couples' rights.

2. Next, using the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution, some gay couples will have to get married in (let's say) MA and then go back to (let's say) GA and sue to try to have their marriages recognized there. After many years this would end up in the US Supreme Court and then if we win (a very big if), those 30 states will have to recognize our marriages. This may take 10 years or more. But even after that victory, those 30 states still will not have to perform same sex marriages.

3. Finally, another lawsuit will have to be filed challenging those state constitutional amendments on the federal "equal protection" clause, to compel those states to perform same sex marriages. This may also take 10 or more years.

Add this all up and it becomes a generational wait for the unfortunate gay people in those 30 states.

By SIMULTANEOUSLY going full steam ahead with marriage-- trying to repeal DOMA and get marriage rights state by state in the18 states where it's possible, AND pursuing a federal level civil union strategy as President Obama wants, we can end up with couples rights in all 50 states much quicker; 20 can have marriage and the other 30 who have no hope for marriage, can have civil unions while waiting for the courts or Congress to do the right thing. Another reason we can't forget gays in these 30 states (such as SC, GA, AL, MS, , TX, NV, etc.) is they are the ones who really need some gay rights, arguably more than the people in MA and CT -- although I know that no one group deserves rights more than another. The point is that EVERYONE deserves rights and we shouldn't neglect any subset of our community as we move forward.

Both Chris and I have blogged on ways to achieve civil unions that would work well for all 50 states, not depend on DOMA being repealed and complement the state by state fight for marriage.

At this point some clever person might say, but Don, being trans is not a choice, while living in GA is. If the person living in GA wants couples' rights and benefits, they should move to MA. Well that same argument was made about trans people and ENDA last year. Cynics suggested that any trans person who wanted employment protection should move to a state such as NJ or OR where they could have these protections. However, most commentators shouted this argument down saying a person should not be forced to make a geographical move in order to obtain basic rights. So for this discussion I'm going to stipulate that moving is not a valid solution for couples' rights either.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a really smart move right out of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign playbook. Obama pursued a "50 state strategy" to win. If we go forward only with marriage, we are pursuing a "20 state strategy" because there are only 20 states currently "in play" for marriage. However, if we pursue both marriage and civil unions, we are using a "50 state strategy," putting all 50 states "in play."

For gay rights, a "50 state" strategy is far superior to a "20 state strategy.

I firmly believe that true equality comes only after we have same sex marriage coast to coast. That is our ultimate goal, and I am a supporter of marriage equality both politically and financially.

However the question today is how to get to that ultimate goal fastest while also being fair to ALL members of our community, not just some.The answer is that pursuing both marriage and civil unions simultaneously is the smartest strategy moving forward.

Technorati Tags: civil unions, ENDA, federal benefits, Obama, same sex marriage, state constitutional amendments, Trans community

January 25, 2009

The 'Obameter'

Posted by: Andoni

The St. Petersburg Times has determined that Barack Obama made over 500 promises during the course of his presidential campaign....and they are keeping track of them. They've established a webpage called The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises.

On this webpage you can see all the promises Obama made, sort them by subject, see the ones he's completed already, or the ones he's started on. I guess they are planning on keeping this page going for four years because they also have a category called broken promises.

The promises to the LGBT community are numbers 290 through 294 ----- and in case you haven't been paying attention, none of them are checked off yet.

In case you are wondering, according to the St. Petersburg Times, Obama has completed five of his promises already.

Technorati Tags: Obama, promises

January 22, 2009

Affirmative action by any other name (II)

Posted by: Chris

Remember Equal Rep, the Facebook-based lobby group that campaigned for an openly gay cabinet appointment by President-elect Barack Obama? They took considerable issue with my suggestion that they were effectively pushing affirmative action for gay politicos -- not to mention distracting from much more important issues for the movement.

Having failed to succeed with Obama's selections to existing cabinet posts, they've come up with an entirely new suggestion:

Equal Rep is now putting on a follow-up national campaign to strongly urge President-elect Obama to create a new cabinet position, Secretary of GLBT Affairs. All participants are asked to phone and email President Obama’s White House comment line and email daily from Jan. 26-30. …

Equal Rep founder, Paul Sousa, said, “And on top of that, gay Americans are the only minority group to have never been appointed to the Presidential Cabinet in the history of the United States. We’re asking President Obama to give this community the attention it needs and the representation it deserves.”

There are other Cabinet positions that represent minorities such as the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs and Equal Rep is asking President Obama to create another position similarly for the GLBT community. It is commonplace for Presidents to create Cabinet positions due to community needs such as the creation of the Secretary of Homeland Security position in 2001.

What to say, what to say, what to say… I think I'll just second the remarks of Matt Comer at InterstateQ:

I don’t think Sousa really understands what his proposal means. The U.S. Department of GLBT Affairs?

Never. Will. Happen. Ever. If African-Americans, after suffering centuries of bondage, rape and murder, didn’t get a representative U.S. department, neither will we.

There’s no need for minority departments. The U.S. Justice Department, if operated correctly and with tools given to them by the president or Congress, is the office in charge of protecting the civil rights of Americans. And, let’s just face it, the LGBT community hasn’t yet gotten any federal civil rights legislation. That’s just a simple fact of life. If we can’t get a simple bill passed, what makes him think his proposal for a Gay Secretary is going to be taken seriously.

There were better ways to address our representation in Obama’s administration and the government, and I’m sure the Victory Fund and others are working diligently away to find it. One way to address equal representation is supporting LGBT people who run for elected office. The more out elected officials we have, the bigger a pool there is for a president or governor to appoint from. Hell, even taking the initiative to run yourself, if no one else is running, is a solution. You might not win, but you make it possible for someone else to win down the road.

But, the reality is that a Gay Secretary isn’t possible and isn’t the answer. And, no, the Secretary for Veterans’ Affairs is not similar to any idea for a Gay Secretary. Sorry.

Whether or not the kids at Equal Rep intend an entire department or just the position of cabinet secretary, it's so far beyond the pale, not to mention a smack in the face of other minority groups. Why is the important work that would actually benefit the lives of LGBT Americans of such little interest to so many?

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, EqualRep, gay cabinet picks, Paul Sousa, Secretary of LGBT Affairs

Inauguration tidbits

Posted by: Andoni

It was the best party I had ever attended. Everyone was my friend, yet I went there knowing no one. I talked to perfect strangers and felt as if I had known them all my life.

It was the highest high of my life, but there was no alcohol or drugs served.

And when Barack Obama said that there is a

"God given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness"

I was ecstatic. He was talking directly to me. In my mind he was laying the groundwork for my emancipation which will come later in his administration. It could have been Harvey Milk up there talking to me.

I knew then that Barack Obama was going to fulfill his campaign promises. In fact seeing how quickly he is moving with executive orders on his promises, I am sure this guy is serious about gay rights. He does what he says.

And my high is still present, two days later. Maybe this is what if felt like to be in Times Square at the end of World War II.

I met so many interesting people who became immediate soul mates. The photo above was taken on the Metro on the way to the festivities.

Inauguration Day began early for me getting up at 4:30 am to catch the 7:30 am flight to Reagan National. I was going up and back on the same day.

My plane arrived in DC at 9:08 am and I was in line at the check point for Purple ticket holders (the intersection of Louisiana and First Street) around 10, finally to be admitted just before Barack was introduced.

When I got off the plane, I quickly made my way to the Metro, but when I got to the platform, a train was pulling away and there were still about 1000 people on the platform. I asked someone what happened and he said that it was the third train that passed them by because it was full. I immediately turned around, went back down the escalators and up to the other platform for trains going south. An empty yellow train came immediately and I got on, took a seat and went 4 stops in the wrong direction to Huntington, where the train immediately turned around and began going north to DC. When we got to the Reagan National Airport stop again, the train was full and very few people were able to squeeze on. Meanwhile, I was comfortably seated. If I had not learned this trick from all my years on public transportation I would have missed the inauguration as many others did. (Why didn't the Metro folks only open certain cars at each station so everyone had a shot to get into the train everywhere along the route?)

I waited in line at my check point for over an hour inching along because of the inefficiency of the ticket checkers. I made friends with everyone around me. The mood was joyous. This type of really bad line management under any other circumstances would have resulted in a riot. I could go on and on with what they did wrong, but suffice it to say, it was very bad at the Purple check point.

In any case, I got in just before Barack was introduced. I was one of the last people to get in before they closed the Purple gate. The area was fairly packed, and I could not get to where I had planned to stand. Just as I was about to choose my spot, I noticed that some people were removing a waist high fence surrounding one of the monuments, and they began entering that verboten zone, climbing the monument for a better view. There were at least 6 police officers right there, so I waited to see how they would react to this. After a moment it became clear that the police chose not to make an issue out of this, so I joined the young people climbing the monument to get a better view. (Picture below) It should be noted that the monument was surrounded by freshly planted ornamental cabbages as part of the landscaping. I was worried for the plants. On my way out after the ceremonies I could not find one cabbage plant that had been trampled by the 100 people or so who had made the circle around this monument their home for an hour during the inauguration. This was definitely a well behaved crowd.

I would say I was within 300 yards or so of the stage. It was one of those indelible moments in life such as the lunar landing or the Kennedy assassination, only this time I was there in person instead of simply watching on TV. One million, two million, who knows how many people.... but in spite the tremendous crowds, people were happy, polite, and patient in the face of the tremendous obstacles by security in getting to your allotted spot. Sadly to say, some people with Purple tickets behind me, did not get in. The reason for this is unclear and the Presidential Inauguration Committee has begun an investigation to see what happened.

In general there were 3 groups of really good tickets. They were on the actual Capitol grounds. The first group was up on stage with Obama and these were the Senators and Congressmen, former presidents, and very, very important people. The next group was seated at a lower level in front of Obama and they were anywhere from 50 yards to 250 yards or so away. These were government officials from around the country, Hollywood stars, and people who paid $5000 or $10,000 for a weekend package to all events. (I had declined this opportunity.)

Finally in my group, we stood behind these people and were between 250 to 400 yards away....about midway between the stage and the large Capitol reflecting pool. The people on the Mall behind me were anywhere from a half mile away to to two to three miles away. However, neither they nor I could could see the features of Obama's face and we both had to rely on the Jumbotrons, so in a sense our positions were equal.

The over-riding mood of the day was happiness, people being nice to people, and a real patriotic feeling. The only thing comparable for me was the Bicentennial celebration I attended in Boston with over a million people at the Esplanade along the Charles with Arthur Fiedler playing the 1812 Overture just as the canon and fireworks started. Both events were wonderful, but the Obama inauguration was definitely more wonderful.

Technorati Tags: gay rights, Obama inauguration

January 21, 2009

Federal civil unions: so simple

Posted by: Andoni

".... and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

More properly, the title of this post should have been "Federal recognition of our relationships as civil unions: so simple."

Of all President Barack Obama's proposals for the LGBT community on the official White House webpage , I believe this one is the best and most powerful. It will achieve more rights and benefits for gay people than all the others combined. It's beautifully simple yet simultaneously brilliant. If done properly, it will bring gay rights to couples in Mississippi and Alabama as well as Massachusetts.

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act will take many more years because marriage is still such a third rail issue, whereas benefits for civil unions is not. And when DOMA falls, only Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York couples will gain those 1100+ rights.

This is how you do it. The bill would not have to be complicated and could be as simple as this:

THE PURPOSE of this legislation is to extend to same sex couples the exact same rights and benefits from the federal government that married opposite sex couples receive from the federal government

THE LEGISLATION: All federal statutes, codes, rules and regulations are hereby amended so that wherever the word "marriage" appears, that word is replaced with the phrase "marriage or civil union." Additionally, when other forms of the word "marriage" are used, the appropriate form of "civil union" is used. (Example: "married" is amended to read "married or civil unioned.")

DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this legislation "civil union" is defined as any same sex union legally created by a state government where such a union has the exact same or substantially the same definition, obligations and rights as a marriage in the state.

RESTRICTIONS: This legislation applies for federal rights and benefits only. There is nothing in this legislation to mandate state recognition of these relationships, or to compel the various states to grant similar rights and benefits to same sex couples. Such matters are left entirely to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

Here are some important things our community needs to understand about this proposal:

The federal government doesn't create marriages or other unions, it merely recognizes marriages legally performed by one of the states. This would be the same arrangements for "civil unions." The federal government would recognize a same sex union legally performed in one of the states and it would be called a "civil union."

This legislation does not require DOMA to be repealed. Only if the federal government wants to call these unions "marriages" does DOMA have to be repealed.

The federal government would acknowledge same sex couples in all 50 states, as long as the union was created legally by one of the states, which is what they do for marriage. It doesn't matter where you live, it matters that your union was created or performed legally -- which would mean in a state that performs these same sex uinons. A couple can go from a state that has no recognition of same sex couples to a state were same sex relationships are legally created. They can get hitched legally there and the federal government will acknowledge that relationship even if the couple returns to their home state where they get no recognition and no state rights and benefits.

Because of DOMA, the federal government cannot recognize same sex marriages (from CT and MA) as marriages, but under this legislation, those same sex marriages would be defined as civil unions (see definition above) at the federal level. Domestic partnerships from CA and civil unions from VT or NJ would also be called civil unions at the federal level. Should a future state decide to call a same sex union something new, such as a "civil partnership," this law would cover that too -- as a "civil union."

When DOMA is repealed, then same sex marriages from MA and CT (and any future same sex marriage state) will be recognized as marriage by the federal government. DOMA is the only thing preventing that now.

The fight for marriage can and will continue in the states. When new states choose to call our relationships marriage, people will receive the 1100+ federal benefits as civil unions. When DOMA is repealed, they will receive those same 1100+ benefits under a new name, marriage. Maybe then someone will propose to expand the federal definition of civil unions to include opposite sex couples as well, so they too can choose to have a marriage or a civil union, getting our country further along the road of separation of church and state.

You may ask, how can the federal government grant rights at the federal level, when the state government where the couple resides may not do the same.

There is a parallel situation. Just like marriage licenses, the federal government does not issue doctors' licenses either -- states do. So how does the federal government recognize doctors who can practice in the federal medical system (the Veterans Administration, the military, the public health system, etc.)? It recognizes the state licenses. To practice medicine in the federal system and receive all the rights and benefits granted to a physician by that license, you must hold a license legally obtained from one of the 50 states. Your license may be from MA, but the federal government will recognize you as a doctor in the federal system in Alabama (for example at the VA hospital) even though the state of Alabama will not recognize that license and will not allow you the rights and benefits to practice in their state outside of the VA system. Alabama will not recognize your license to practice medicine from MA even if the federal government does. So just as the state of Alabama does not recognize a same sex marriage license from MA, or a doctors license from MA, the federal government does recognize the doctors license and could do the same with the other license. The federal system and the state system are two separate and independent systems. This is at the heart of federalism that some Republicans like Bob Barr strongly support.

The best part of this is that it is such a powerful tool. Literally hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of gays in all 50 states will have the ability to access these 1100+ federal benefits even if their own state doesn't recognize that relationship.

Finally, I realize that the screams from our own left will say "marriage or nothing." Here's a counter argument. By setting up such a clearly "separate but equal system" (there is no debate on this, rigtht?), that separate but equal system, as a half step, will be successfully challenged more quickly (either through public education or in the courts) and become full marriage equality sooner, than the purer route of going from nothing at the federal level to full marriage equality in one step. Anyone who thinks that going from nothing to full marriage equality at the federal level all in one step is coming soon is fooling themselves. That is a much harder, bigger, and more time consuming route.

I wish I could say my thinking is original on this, but it is based on my discussions with a prominent LGBT Obama campaign official and a prominent ACLU attorney neither of whom wishes to go on record at this time.

Technorati Tags: civil rights agenda, federal rights and benefits, full civil unions, LGBT rights, marriage, Obama

January 20, 2009

From transition to clean break

Posted by: Chris

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin sounded a sour note a few hours ago on Barack Obama's inaugural address, criticizing it for lacking a coherent theme or any memorable phrase or idea. I would actually agree.

The speech surprised by being less memorable or powerful than his race speech, his acceptance speech in Denver or on election night in Chicago -- not to mention his 2004 keynote at the Democratic convention. Though with four warm-ups like that and all the world attention, it was probably impossible for Obama to live up to expectations today.

If a central goal of his presidency -- and the inauguration -- is to u nify the country, the speech itself probably hit a sour note. I can only imagine how President Bush and Republicans reacted to hearing about "a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable." We usually hear these sorts of broadsides from Republicans after Democratic control in Washington. Can't you imagine Ronald Reagan saying the same thing after four years of Jimmy Carner?

Not to mention how John McCain and his supporters probably felt about Obama proclaiming, "We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," or "or that in national defense, "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

I agree on each and every point, but that's not my point. I wonder whether such direct attacks on Bush and the GOP, especially on such a day, will undermine the goodwill Obama has built and set the country on a more divisive course.

On the other hand, polls show Americans overwhelmingly agree that the Bush presidency was a failure and the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Even arch-conservative Bill Bennett called the speech "muscular," and though he was talking about its few chest-thumping passage, he is right. Obama set a clear new course for the country.

Forget talk of a transition, this was a clean break. This was change. That's what the people want, after all.

(Photo via Washington Post)

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, inaugural address, Jeffrey Toobin

Change has come to WhiteHouse.gov

Posted by: Chris

What a difference one minute can make!

The new official site WhiteHouse.gov went live at 12:01 p.m., when the Constitution provides that Barack Obama became president even though he didn't take office for a few more minutes. In the section on "Civil Rights," there is an entire subsection entitled "Support for the LGBT Community" -- the only subsection on the civil rights page.

There you'll find commitments to support hate crime and workplace discrimination laws -- both including sexual orientation and gender identity -- as well as repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and opposition to a marriage amendment. But most dramatically, in my view, is discussion of relationship recognition:

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

You don't get much better than that except for outright support for marriage equality, which is actually a non-issue at the federal level. And not to read too much into it, the support for federal civil union rights and repeal of DOMA is listed just below hate crimes and ENDA, which are the first and second pieces of legislation expected to pass Congress.

It is disappointing that there is no specific mention of equal immigration rights for GLB Americans or the Uniting American Families Act, either in the civil rights page or the page on immigration. Obama has repeatedly expressed support for UAFA, although he did not sign on a sponsor in the Senate and has expressed some reservations about the potential for fraud.

But then again, either repealing DOMA or adopting federal civil unions would automatically extend pretty much the same rights as UAFA.

Talk about change we can believe in! Can we officially stop caring or talking about Rick Warren now?

Yes, they're "only words" but to put the commitment right out there, so prominently, is to give us a standard by which to measure the administration's success on civil rights. Even more importantly, we must now respond to this dramatic change of fortunes in Washington by doing our part to lobby Congress to move forward on these issues.

The full text on LGBT rights is below:

• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
• Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
• Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
• Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
• Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, federal civil unions, gay rights, WhiteHouse.gov

A sharp but hopeful speech

Posted by: Chris

It was an inaugural speech of sharp distinctions and change more than idealistic unity or the marking of a historical first. I'm not sure how I would feel if I were a supporter of George W. Bush or John McCain, but President Obama -- ahh, that feels good writing! -- certainly did not disappoint those of us yearning for a clean break.

For a politician often accused of overly lofty rhetoric, it was a down and dirty and direct address. For those of us committed to equality and civil rights for gay Americans, there was this powerful statement:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

The words are general enough to provide inspiration and hope to any number of groups, and no doubt fell short for those waiting in hopes for "the G word." But after eight years of wedge politics and opposition to basic civil rights and equality, they were powerful words indeed.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, gay rights, inaugural address

Two-minute prayer vs. inaugural sermon?

Posted by: Chris

With all the hoopla about the two-minute prayer that Rick Warren will offer during today's inauguration of Barack Obama, I am surprised to have heard nothing about (self-proclaimed) Bishop T.D. Jakes giving the sermon at this morning's inaugural church service.

Back in 2005, black gay activist Keith Boykin included Jakes among a series of black church pastors with anti-gay views who he believes are closet homosexuals:

Jakes is even more conservative than [George W.] Bush. Unlike Bush, who has hired gays and lesbians in the federal government, Jakes has called homosexuality a "brokenness" and said he would not hire a sexually active gay person.

And Jakes has also adopted another part of the presidential philosphy: his lifestyle. Jakes and his congregation refer to his wife Serita as "the first lady," and they live in a $1.7 million mansion on Dallas's scenic White Rock Lake next to a building once owned by oil magnate H.L. Hunt. As Time magazine explained, "He flies on charter planes or in first-class seats, sups with a coterie in a room known as 'the king's table,' sports a large diamond ring and dresses like the multimillionaire he is."

I don't believe that black preachers have a duty to be poor, but I do believe they should not make their millions off the backs of their struggling kin. It's one thing to create your wealth as a preacher. It's another thing to create your wealth with a message of sexism, heterosexism and homophobia directed against some of the hardest hit people in your own community.

Jakes has endorsed the so-called Truth for Youth campaign, which is distributing specially-made anti-gay Bibles to high school students all across the country.

"To date, I have not seen scriptural authority that allows me to stand on behalf of God and say I now pronounce you husband and husband, and wife and wife," Jakes told USA Today. "This is an issue the government is undecided about. The Bible is not," he said. But if Jakes still believes in the separation of church and state, it's not clear from his political activity. In fact, Jakes publicly endorsed the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have been the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution to legalize discrimination against a group of citizens.

As Time magazine put it, "gay Americans would have no reason at all to consider Jakes their preacher."

Ultimately Boykin's proof on Jakes' anti-gay past is much stronger than the rumors that Jakes may be a closet case. (A former male staffer went public with charges that Jakes repeatedly propositioned him for sex.) Regardless, it will be interesting to see whether activists take note of Jakes' high profile role.

My own view, of course, is that Obama is fulfilling his promise to unite the country -- and making a shrewd political move -- by including the likes of Jakes and Warren, along with openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, and pro-gay ministers Joseph Lowery and Sharon Watkins, in inauguration ceremonies.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, inauguration, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes

HBO adds Robinson to re-broadcast

Posted by: Chris

For all those who suspected some grand conspiracy between the Obama transition team and HBO to exclude openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson from the broadcast of the (ironically named) "We Are One" event, rest easy:

The cable network said that it had not been advised about what would go where in the two-hour live telecast. … The omission caused a pile of headaches for HBO and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which received an estimated $2 million to give HBO the exclusive rights to the concert.

Whew. And even double whew:

HBO said late Monday that it will include an opening prayer from an openly gay pastor in subsequent telecasts of the "We Are One" inaugural concert, whose original live telecast began after the pastor's invocation.

No doubt gay activists will be watching like hawks to make sure HBO follows through on its promise. Will they watch with the same level of scrutiny to make sure Obama and Congress move forwarrd on legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell, or enact federal civil unions?

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Gene Robinson, HBO, inauguration, Rick Warren

January 19, 2009

The Robinson prayer that HBO skipped

Posted by: Chris

A transcript of the prayer by gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson at yesterday's opening inaugural event is now available, as is the video:

It's a challenging prayer, no doubt something of a downer for an event that is supposed to celebrate Barack Obama's historic election. Perhaps the event's producers excluded it from the HBO broadcast for that reason. Reverend Robinson's glass is not just half-empty; it's mostly evaporated.

Still, it will no doubt please its intended audience, the progressive left that revels so much in victimology that it is loathe to ever recognize the "progress" from which it gets its name.

Here's the Robinson transcript:

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

(Video h/t to our pal Jeremy at G.A.Y.)

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Gene Robinson, HBO, inauguration prayer, video

Looking beyond Warren-gate...

Posted by: Chris

I was encouraged to read a piece by the Advocate's Sean Kennedy for New York Magazine that suggests that our activists are finally looking beyond the giant distraction of Warren-gate and on to the serious issues that lie ahead. (Unfortunately, HBO's failure to broadcast the inaugural event prayer yesterday by gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson will undoubtedly prolong the kvetching.)

But at least Kennedy's report suggests that the Human Rights Campaign hasn't forgotten to set their eyes on a prize bigger than who gives a two-minute prayer at the inauguration:

[T]here were those who believed it was a genuine act of inclusiveness, in keeping with the post-swearing-in benediction by the Reverend Joseph Lowery, who supports gay rights (but not marriage), and the Reverend Sharon Watkins's leading of the national prayer service Wednesday morning, the first woman to do so.

"Unless we believe it's pure political bull, Obama's been talking the whole time about bringing people together across the ideological spectrum," says gay-media veteran Chris Crain, adding: "Why is it a bad thing that someone who's anti-gay wants to support the most pro-gay president we've had?"

But Crain is an outlier; for the most part, the rancor is unabated: "The Warren choice was universally disappointing," says Harry Knox, director of the Human Rights Campaign's Religion and Faith program. "But both grayheads like me and young people are wise enough to see that we can't expect perfection from our leaders. We have to be vigilant about getting the work done that it will take to get this legislation passed."

He's referring to major policy items, like "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, both of which Obama says he wants to repeal.

That's actually the first time I've seen anyone from HRC talk about being "vigilant" about "major policy items" like repeal of DADT and DOMA. Up till now, all they've talked about are low-hanging fruit like hate crime and employmnet non-discrimination laws, which while important are largely symbolic by comparison.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Harry Knox, HRC, Human Rights Campaign, New York Magazine, Rick Warren

January 16, 2009

Lincoln's wisdom of leadership

Posted by: Andoni

OK, so I went out and bought Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals" after it became clear that Barack Obama was trying to emulate Abraham Lincoln in this respect. I'm about 3/4 of the way through this 800 page tome and highly recommend it for new insights into Lincoln as well as possible insights into Obama's modus operandi.

Lincoln was one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen, but one trait from the book that struck me was that Lincoln was not usually on the cutting edge of the great progressive causes of his day -- until the timing was right.

He is remembered as the great emancipator and terminator of slavery in the U.S., but he was not a strong proponent of either movement as they were building strength and volume. He joined and then acted when the timing was right.

As with any progressive movement there are activists who are agitated and want immediate change. They scream loudly but with little effect. When these big movements eventually do succeed, these people are not usually the ones remembered as much as the leader who actually jumped on the wagon at the right moment and escorted the sought-for change.

Take same sex marriage for instance. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry is associated with this cause since his early efforts in Hawaii in the 1990's and has been a mover and shaker ever since. However, when gay marriage finally becomes a reality on the national level, it will be the Supreme Court justice or the president who makes it happen who will be remembered best. And most likely that person will not will have been an active gay marriage advocate all along. As they say, timing is everything.

Barack Obama is not a strong supporter of gay marriage. It appears that he was a stronger advocate in the past ---before he ran for U.S. Senate or for president. Lincoln did the same thing on the most controversial issues of his day. He was a more vocal opponent of slavery years before his run for the presidency, but became more cautious in his rhetoric the closer he got to the presidency and even in his first two years as president. When the time was right, and he knew he could win that battle, he took a very strong position however, against slavery and the rest is history.

During this period of being publicly cautious and not revealing their stronger internal positions, both Lincoln and Obama, at least leaned more toward the morally correct position.

A good leader cannot get too far out in front of the public. Lincoln himself said that he could not have successfully issued his emancipation proclamation even six months earlier than he did. The public wasn't ready yet and it would have failed.

A good leader while simultaneously not getting too far ahead of the public, uses his office to bring the public closer to his position by educating them and leading them there. Lincoln was great at this with his speeches and letters to the nation.

If a leader is too far ahead of the nation, he cannot make that change and fails.... no matter how moral that position is. Think Bill Clinton and "Don't ask, don't tell."

Two of Lincoln's contemporaries observed his leadership style. Leonard Swett wanted Lincoln to immediately propose a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. Lincoln refused and replied that he could see a "time coming" for a constitutional amendment and whoever "stands in its way, will be run over by it" but that the country was not ready just yet. Swett later wrote that the secret to Lincoln's leadership was "by ignoring men, and ignoring all small causes, but by closely calculating the tendencies of events and the great forces which were producing logical results."

John Forney, a news reporter at the time, put it another way. Lincoln was "the most truly progressive man of the age, because he always moves in conjunction with propitious circumstances, not waiting to be dragged by the force of events or wasting strength in premature struggles with them."

I believe this is the way that it is with Obama and same sex marriage at the moment. Now is not quite the right moment for Obama to take up same sex marriage. It would be a premature struggle that would end as badly as Clinton's trying to lift the ban on gays  in the military.

However, I bet that when the timing is right, Obama will jump on recognizing same sex marriage at the federal level and it will be historic. The timing isn't quite right yet. I don't know when it will be right, but I bet it's coming soon.

Technorati Tags: Abraham Lincoln, Obama, same sex gay marriage

January 15, 2009

Bitter isn't pretty, even on Savage

Posted by: Chris

There's nothing like the smell of gay cynicism in the morning. Take sex advice columnist cum pundit Dan Savage, who tells Rex Wockner that he believes Barack Obama's invitation to gay Bishop Gene Robinson was all about damage control:

Does anyone believe that Gene Robinson, per the Obama team, was part of their inauguration-day plans all along? It certainly didn't sound like Gene knew anything about it when Warren was selected and he was handing out the bitter quotes. And the Obama team's post-Warren talking points -- mocked here, there, and everywhere -- mentioned that big gay marching band... but not Robinson.

Hmmm. I'm thinking the talking points would've been a good time to bring up Robinson, had he been part of the plan all along, so it seems pretty clear he wasn't.

Air-tight logic from Savage, as always, and also wrong, as usual. Obama's relationships with Robinson stretches back much further than the Rick Warren flap. That's not all.

Weeks ago, when Robinson was "handing out the bitter quotes," he was always telling the congregation at Trinity Cathedral in Miami that not all of the details of all of the Inauguration-related events had been announced, and angry gays "should not be surprised" to find someone they'd be much happier about being named to deliver a prayer at a related high-profile event.

I'm as hard (actually much harder) on politicians than the next gay, but can we let Obama at least take the Oath of Office before we expect the worst of him? Bitter isn't pretty, even in politics.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Dan Savage, Gene Robinson, Rex Wockner

January 14, 2009

Obama's gay marriage closet (II)

Posted by: Chris

Some have reacted to news that Barack Obama unequivocally supported gay marriage when he ran for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 by saying they've always assumed that leading gay-friendly politicians were closeted supporters of marriage equality, despite their public opposition.

Others, myself included, reacted by giving Obama a bit of a pass because we perceive the political climate on gay marriage, while improving, as too hostile except in certain geographic pockets.

In reality, both sets of assumptions may well be wrong. For one thing, there are generational and faith-based reasons why even the politicians we assume are our closest friends continue to resist full marriage equality. Hillary Clinton, for example, shot down one reporter's concerted attempt to get her to send some sort of signal along those lines:

We’re supposed to be convinced that this brilliant Yale-educated lawyer and lifelong feminist, who hobnobs in Martha’s Vineyard and Malibu with her well-heeled friends from the business and entertainment worlds -- who famously declared that women’s rights were human rights at the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing while China was on lockdown -- is having trouble with the concept of same-sex marriage? Could [Hillary Clinton] perhaps be a closet supporter of marriage equality? …

But when I suggest that her “personal position” is actually not her position at all, she quickly interrupts me, sitting up in her chair with a start.

“I don’t think that would be fair,” she says. “Because, you know, I would tell you that. This is an issue -- I’m much older than you are -- and this is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically. But it is also one that has enormous room and support both in my heart and in my work to try to move the agenda of equality and civil unions forward.”

I'm as cynical as the next guy -- OK, even more so -- about Hillary's ability to give a straightforward answer about pretty much anything. But I also think she could have signaled that she was further along personally if she had wanted to, much as Obama did and much as Bill Richardson did during the primaries.

As for giving politicians something of a pass in today's political climate, a new report by Evan Wolfson's Freedom to Marry organization "unequivocally" showed that "voting to support the freedom to marry and opposing anti-marriage measures helps rather than hurts politicians":

A review of all of these votes from 2005 to the present shows that legislators who vote to end marriage discrimination for same-sex couples are consistently re-elected.  The success of more than 1,100 state legislators who voted to support the freedom to marry stands in bold contrast to the commonly held belief that supporting marriage equality ends political campaigns and careers.  In fact, these legislators are re-elected no matter what party they represent or if they changed their vote from opposing to supporting marriage equality.  Even better, legislators who run for higher office win after voting in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.

The study, which included votes over the last four years from 21 different states taken in each of the country's four major regions of the country, is available for download here.

Technorati Tags: Evan Wolfson, gay marriage, Hillary Clinton

January 13, 2009

Barack Obama's gay marriage closet

Posted by: Chris

Just how many gay marriage skeletons does Barack Obama have hiding in the closet?  Eighteen months after we first learned the president-elect had given conflicting answers about the Defense of Marriage Act in candidate questionnaires back in 2003 and 2004, a new, even bigger bombshell has come to light.

Just one week before Obama takes the oath of office, a gay newspaper in Chicago is reporting that the president-elect vowed to support marriage equality for same-sex couples when he was a candidate for the Illinois state Senate way back in 1996.

Windy City Times editor Tracy Baim, who was the co-founder and publisher of the gay paper Outlines, which later merged with WCT, reported today:

IMPACT, which was Chicago's main GLBT political action committee for several years, surveyed Obama and other candidates, as did Outlines. What we are including with this special Presidential Inaugural issue of Windy City Times are copies of the answers to the IMPACT and Outlines questions.

For IMPACT, the Obama campaign simply responded on the form. For Outlines, the candidate typed in his answers and signed his letter.

It's a great scoop for Tracy, though her analysis raises a couple of questions for me: Why assume "the candidate typed in his answers" to the Outlines questionnaire, and why not assume that the handwritten responses to the IMPACT questionnaire were not by the candidate?

The usual course is for these types of questionnaires to completed by campaign staff and signed by the candidate, which can lead to later embarrassment -- or plausible deniability, however you want to look at it. However important these surveys can be in pinning down politicians, I've long viewed them with skepticism, including the survey responses by Obama on gay marriage that previously surfaced during the primaries. 

But as much as these newly surfacing questionnaires from 1996 confirm my original intuition that Obama's apparent flip-flop on the Defense of Marriage Act was really just an erroneous questionnaire response, they pretty much have him dead to rights on the less subtle issue of gay marriage itself.

There is zero doubt in my mind that a candidate of Obama's intellect and political savvy knew what he was doing, and the political risk he was taking, when he voiced support for gay marriage back in 1996, only months after the issue burst onto the political scene because the Hawaii Supreme Court had indicated it was ready to strike down hetero-only marriage laws.

His response to the '96 Outlines questionnaire, signed by the candidate, indicates, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

In similar fashion the handwritten response to the IMPACT questionnaire indicates Obama "would support" something called "the Marriage Resolution," which in turn states:

Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice,
RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who chose to marry and share equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.

That's two very clear indications that Barack Obama supported marriage equality back in 1996, the same year Congress passed DOMA, which he later called an "abhorrent law" that "perpetuates divisions."

One final indication that Obama backed gay marriage and later "evolved" to supporting civil unions as a strategic matter: the man said so himself in a 2004 interview with the one and the same Tracy Baim:

Tracy Baim: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.

I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, ‘absolutely.' And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?', then suddenly ...

TB: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

TB: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?

Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

No reading between the lines required here, friends. The man who will be president in one week supports full marriage equality and backs civil unions as the expedient path to get there. That's true whether you agree or disagree with his political analysis, and I definitely take issue with his excuse-making and rationalizations.

The point is, we've got the goods on the soon-to-be former-president-elect, and this latest finding should give us greater confidence to push with full force for real gay rights progress, meaning a federal civil unions bill that would extend those "more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage" to every gay couple who wants them in all 50 states -- and even for those ex-pats stuck living in "love exile."

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, candidate questionnaire, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay marriage, IMPACT, Outlines, Windy City Times

January 12, 2009

A coda to the Rick Warren flap (II)

Posted by: Chris

I came across an additional irony from all the misplaced upset over the selection of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation next week. Of course among those most harshly critical of President-elect Obama are quite a few Hillary Clinton backers who still can't let go of the Democratic presidential primaries of last year.

When I pointed out that Bill Clinton invited legendarily anti-gay evangelist Billy Graham to give the invocation at both of his inaugurations, a couple of commenters pointed to Warren's alleged support for Peter Akinola, the homophobic Anglican Bishop of Nigeria, as proof that his sins are worse than Grahams -- and hence Obama's worse than Clinton's.

It's certainly true that Warren has been generally supportive of Akinola, who has led the schism effort over Gene Robinson's selection as the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. (The single citation I've seen to Warren backing Akinola's views on legal mistreatment of gays is from the English-language publication the Kampala Monitor, which quotes him an awkward speaking style that is anything but convincing.)

But the Clinton version of Warren-gate doesn't end with Billy Graham. It turns out that Bill Clinton has his own Nigerian ties -- and these are to Sani Abacha, the now-deceased, notoriously anti-gay despotic ruler, himself:

It appears from the donor list of the Clinton Foundation that there is barely an oligarch, royal family, or special-interest group anywhere in the world that does not know how to get the former president's attention. Just in the days since the foundation agreed to some disclosure of its previously "confidential" clients—in other words, since this became a condition for Sen. Clinton's nomination to become secretary of state—we have additionally found former President Clinton in warm relationships with one very questionable businessman in Malaysia and with another, this time in Nigeria, who used to have close connections with that country's ultracorrupt military dictatorship.

The Nigerian example is an especially instructive one. Gilbert Chagoury is a major figure in land and construction in that country and has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as arranged a huge speaking fee for President Clinton at a Caribbean event and kicked in a large sum to his 1996 re-election campaign. In return for this, he has been received at the Clinton White House and more recently at Clinton-sponsored social events in New York and Paris. This may have helped to alleviate the sting of Chagoury's difficulties in Nigeria itself. As a close friend of the country's uniformed despot Gen. Sani Abacha, he benefited from some extremely profitable business arrangements during the years of dictatorship. …

The point here isn't so much to compare Rick Warren to Bill Clinton, but to point out that the Clintons are involved in setting actual policy for the U.S. government, and yet we waste our attention on an ambitious evangelical who's saying a prayer. There is simply no comparison.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Gene Robinson, Hillary Clinton, Rick Warren, Sani Abacha

A coda to the Rick Warren flap

Posted by: Chris

President-elect Barack Obama has reached out yet again in an attempt to those who criticized his selection of mega-church evangelist Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Jan. 20 inauguration. The inaugural committee announced today that the kickoff event at the Lincoln Memorial on Monday, Jan. 18, will feature an invocation prayer by none other than Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire.

The selection of Robinson for the event, which will be broadcast on HBO, is a bit ironic for me because I used Robinson as an example several weeks ago in my gay press column when asking the hypothetical of how gay rights opponents and proponents would have reacted if John McCain had won the election and tapped Robinson as a "reach across the aisle" selection:

Imagine, in a conciliatory gesture toward Obama supporters, McCain selects Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop, to give the invocation. In a nod to his own supporters, he chooses the evangelical leader Rick Warren to give the benediction.

We know what the response would be. The Republican right would be furious: What a kick in the teeth from McCain to choose a minister whose elevation was an indictment of their core religious beliefs, and who advocates the destruction of traditional marriage and the murder of millions of aborted fetuses!

Gay rights groups and bloggers, still reeling from Obama’s unexpected defeat, would be cheered by McCain’s unexpected and courageous attempt at reconciliation. Press releases from progressives would defend McCain against charges of betrayal, chastising conservatives for their intolerance and their insistence on dividing, not unifying. Besides, they would point out, the benediction will come from Rick Warren, who opposes gay marriage and supported Proposition 8 in California.

You see where I’m going here? We know that, happily for us, history unfolded in opposite fashion, and Barack Obama chose Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation, and civil rights hero Joseph Lowery, who supports full marriage equality, to say the benediction.

Yet the response from many gay bloggers and rights groups has been every bit as reactionary and intolerant as the Republican right would have been toward Robinson. Aren’t we better than that?

Apparently not, at least not some of us, judging by the ongoing bitterness on the blogosphere and among some gay rights groups. Hopefully the intolerant types will be mollified by the selection of Robinson, who is in fact a far more divisive religious figure than Warren, given that his selection as bishop has resulted in a schism in the ancient Anglican Communion.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, inauguration invocation, Rick Warren

January 10, 2009

Affirmative action by any other name

Posted by: Chris

Round about the time I posted about gay grassroots lobbying for Barack Obama to name Fred Hochberg as Secretary of Commerce, news broke that the openly gay Hochberg has been slated to run the U.S. Import-Export Bank instead. Activists found themselves torn, since on the one hand it's a prestigious appointment but on the other, that almost definitely means Obama's cabinet will not include an openly gay secretary.

(ABC News' Jake Tapper did report that Hochberg will be "the first openly gay director of the bank," though I have to wonder if he really did research the sexual orientation of every previous director since the bank's founding in 1934.)

A group calling itself Equal Rep, which previously pushed openly gay hopefuls for Interior and Labor cabinet slots, is left considering next steps:

"It was devastating to learn that gay Americans wouldn't have a seat at the table within Barack Obama's Cabinet administration. They are the only minority group to have never been appointed in the history of the United States." said Paul Sousa, Equal Rep founder.

That statement, contained on the group's website, is of course factually inaccurate, since any number of homosexuals have been appointed to the Cabinet positions in any number of administrations; they've just been closeted, whether at their own choice or out of perceived political necessity.

And no one has answered the factual question I raised in my previous post: Since Hochberg served as acting administrator of the Small Business Administration at a time when Clinton had elevated the agency to cabinet-level, hasn't Hochberg already broken this particular glass ceiling, albeit in a temporary capacity?

Sousa did take serious exception to the rest of that post, and without disclosing his private correspondence, I can say that he rejects out of hand my characterization of his group as advocating affirmative action for gay Cabinet selections. Take, for example, Sousa's quote in a story on the Hochberg effort in the Washington Blade:

“We’re not pushing his name just because he’s gay,” Sousa said. “We’re pushing his name because he’s highly qualified and the fact that he’s openly gay is kind of icing on the cake there.”

Of course Equal Rep was pushing for Hochberg because he's gay. Are we really to believe that in all three cases, Equal Rep independently evaluated the qualifications of all the leading candidates for Interior, Labor and Commerce secretary and coincidentally concluded the gay candidate was the most qualified?

No, they were arguing for each and every gay candidate that emerged as a contender for a spot in the Cabinet. Unless Sousa and his compatriots honestly believe that Obama is actively discriminating against openly gay candidates, then they are arguing that merit alone should not determine the selection and sexual orientation should play an affirmative role.

That's not evil, but it is affirmative action.  And for the reasons I laid out earlier, it's also bad policy and a poor choice of priority for the movement.

(Photo of Paul Sousa via Facebook)

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Equal Rep, Fred Hochberg, gay cabinet pick, Paul Sousa

January 09, 2009

'Yes' to getting rid of DADT

Posted by: Andoni

UPDATE AT END

Future White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today answered some of the questions posed to president elect Barack Obama on his official website change.gov after round two of questions. In a video clip on Obama's web site Gibbs answers about five questions, with the one on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" being the last, at around the 4 minute 18 second mark. Here's what he said, as transcribed by me.

Gibbs (showing the question): Thaddeus from Lansing, Michigan asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?"
Gibbs (answer): That is Thaddeus, you don't hear a politician give a one word answer much, but it's "Yes."

Not that this is anything new. Obama has promised this from the beginning. But it certainly is refreshing to hear it again, after the election and from his official future White House spokesperson.

I don't know why they decided to answer this question. It wasn't one of the over-all top vote getters. It wasn't even one of the top gay question vote getters. Maybe its because there had been rumors circulating that they were going to delay repealing DADT and they wanted to squelch the rumors. But then again, "yes" doesn't exactly say when, does it?

UPDATE:  Today's New York Times also notes that when Gibbs answered this question he did not say when the repeal would occur and suggested that repealing DADT is one of the items on Obama's agenda that might have to be postponed because of all the effort that is going to have to be made to fix the economy.

Although I understand all this, this situation it is very frustrating. Now for the first time in 16 years we have the opportunity to pass major reforms that are long overdue. However, because the Bush Administration so trashed the economy (and country), the public demands that the economy be fixed first, so we are in a familiar quandary. If for any reason, the public turns on Obama and the Democrats (the economy doesn't get fixed, there is an internal attack, the overseas wars spiral out of control, etc), we will be left with another change of power (back to the Republicans), and another lost opportunity.

We cannot allow that to happen. If necessary, we should insist that if Dems are significantly diminished or turned out of power, that they must return for a lame duck session to pass all those promised pieces of legislation before they bid their final good-byes to Washington.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, Robert Gibbs

Grassroots push for gay Cabinet pick

Posted by: Chris

Those of you reading between the lines already know that I'm less than enthusiastic about the demand that President-elect Obama appoint someone openly gay to his Cabinet. I would agree, of course, that it's a shame there has never been an openly gay Cabinet secretary, and that cultural and political pressures are partially to blame. Then again, so are the complicated closets of some of those who served in silence -- Donna Shalala, anyone?

With Bill Richardson's withdrawal as Obama's nominee to run the Commerce Department, the president-elect has one final opportunity to tap someone openly gay to be among his initial selections. Leading the list of possibilities is Fred Hochberg, who was deputy and later acting director of the Small Business Administration under Bill Clinton.

I have great respect for Fred Hochberg, and I remember how personally encouraging he was back in 1997 when William Waybourn and I were launching our own small business -- Window Media, which went on to publish a gay publications in Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, Washington, and New York. That said, I don't know enough about the position at Commerce or the other leading candidates to say for sure that Hochberg is the most qualified.

Neither do those who are behind a grassroots push -- on Facebook, where else? -- to pressure Obama into selecting Hochberg. Their argument sounds more of the affirmative action variety:

In more than 200 years, the United States Cabinet has never included an openly gay member. Growing national focus on GLBT civil rights has therefore made the Secretary of Commerce appointment a national issue in the struggle for equal representation.

One question for those involved in the grassroots push: Since Clinton elevated SBA to a cabinet-level agency and Hochberg was acting administrator for the agency, hasn't he already broken this particular glass ceiling, serving as the cabinet level, albeit in a temporary capacity?

Putting that aside, offering up Hochberg as a diversity pick for Obama's cabinet is a good example of how affirmative action can produce counter-intuitive results at times. Hochberg made his name in business over two decades at the helm of the Lillian Vernon Corporation, a direct mail company. He got the job because Lillian Vernon is his mother. Don't get me wrong -- Hochberg is credited with transforming the small business into a huge, publicly traded success, but he hardly required affrimative action assistance to launch his career or faced any hurdles of significance because he is gay.

In that sense, it's a bit of an insult to Hochberg to suggest him for the Commerce job as an affirmative action hire, rather than simply on his own merit. His example is also why sexual orientation is generally a square peg for the round hole of affirmative action, and why including gays in diversity "goals" should be very, very low on the priority list for the movement.

A certain segment of the "progressive" gay media and political sorts are arguing, for example, that we should scrap ENDA, put repeal of DOMA and DADT on the back burner, and press for inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which would mean LGBT inclusion in affirmative action programs. It's not just a wasted priority; it's bad policy, for that reason.

Which brings us back to Hochberg, whose selection for Commerce ought to rise or fall based on his qualifications for the post, and not his sexual orientation. Given his experience in the public and private sector, and the importance of small business to the U.S. economy, he is probably the right candidate for the job anyway.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Commerce Secretary, Fred Hochberg, gay Cabinet pick

January 08, 2009

The best gay Obama pick yet

Posted by: Chris

There's been plenty of grumbling among Beltway gays about the absence of openly gay picks at the cabinet level or among senior White House staff. The announcement today of Brian Bond's appointment as deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison is unlikely to silence the critics, but it is still very welcome. Kerry Eleveld first reported the selection for The Advocate.

I've known Brian for a decade, since his tenure as executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, a (truly) nonpartisan organization that helps elect openly gay candidates to public office. In the years since, including his recent stints with the Obama campaign and Howard Dean's mostly unfriendly Democratic National Committee, Brian has always maintained an open door, and never given into the grudges and in-fighting that often plagues the gay power circle in Washington, D.C.

In Bond, the new president has made a selection who is respected as a fair player and (figuratively) a straight shooter. LGBT Americans will have a high profile advocate who maintains his independence, even as he fulfills the responsibility of his position to advocate on behalf of the Obama administration to the community.

I couldn't be happier to see Brian joining the White House staff, and it makes me even more hopeful that the Obama presidency will be no repeat of the Clinton debacle.

(Photo of Brian Bond via The Advocate)

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Brian Bond, Victory Fund

January 04, 2009

Fred Hochberg for Commerce

Posted by: Andoni

SEE UPDATE AT THE END.

Governor Bill Richardson has withdrawn as the nominee for Secretary of Commerce. As of yet there is no openly gay cabinet appointee by Obama. Many in our community are pissed at him for inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural. This is a real opportunity.

Now is the time to bombard the Obama transition team at change.gov to suggest that he nominate a member of our community for Commerce. One name that immediately comes to mind is Fred Hochberg, who was the number 2 man at the Small Business Administration under President Clinton.

Does anyone else have a suggested nominee.

It's time for all good activists to get to work. Complaining is easy, getting something accomplished is harder.

This post is short because I'm in Thailand working with an incredibly slow internet connect via the telephone. Remember those?

If I get more time .....or patience, I will add to this post later.

UPDATE: Here's some background info on Hochberg.

And this is what David from Miami sent me about Hochberg:

Technorati Tags: Commerce, Fred Hochberg, gay, Obama

January 02, 2009

Change I hope I can believe in

Posted by: Chris

Thanks in part to you, the readers of this blog, equal immigration rights for same-sex couples finished in 2nd place among all immigration-related proposals in voting on Change.org:

1. Pass the DREAM Act: 2,219 votes
2. Equal immigration rights for same-sex couples: 1,011 votes
3. Citizenship route through marriage for undocumented immigrants: 850 votes

It's especially heartening to see this modest proposal compete effectively outside the area of gay rights, which was a separate category on the website, which is unaffiliated with Barack Obama's official transition site, Change.gov.

As I explained in an earlier post, the top three ideas in each category now go into a second round of voting, and the top 10 ideas from that round will be presented to the president after the inauguration and the website's affiliated groups have vowed to lobby for their enactment.

In the area of gay rights, these three ideas move on to the second round:

1. Pass marriage equality rights for LGBT couples nationwide: 2,889 votes
2. Pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act: 877 votes
3. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act: 852 votes

The new Congress is expected to quickly enact the hate crimes bill, which already passed both houses last year. It's noteworthy how much more important relationship recognition was to the voters, dwarfing all other categories. (Enacting a trans-inclusive ENDA came in fourth place, at 779 votes, and does not go on to the second round.)

Of course the new president and Congress can't simply "pass marriage equality rights," and Obama does not support gay marriage anyway. But they can either repeal DOMA (idea #3) or they can enact federal civil unions, extending all the rights and benefits of marriage under federal law to gay couples who enter into marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Stay tuned for the second round of voting, which will begin on Jan. 5.

December 31, 2008

Memo to HRC, Tammy and Barney

Posted by: Andoni

I just checked Obama's new interactive web page Open for Questions to see how the voting is going on LGBT issues. When you search for questions that have the words gay or lesbian in them, the question getting the most votes (3,959 -- ten times the number of votes as the second place question) is:

"You've stated during your campaign that you don't support marriage rights for GLBT citizens. How will you ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have rights equal to those of married couples?"

In fact of the top ten questions, three deal explicitly with obtaining those 1100+ federal benefits and six deal with recognition of our relationships in one way or another such as wanting to be able to pass Social Securtiy benefits to a partner. It is pretty clear that the biggest thing on our minds is benefits and protections for our relationships. No where in the top ten is ENDA or Hate Crimes specifically mentioned, although there is a general question about ending all discrimination (which includes marriage, federal benefits, employment).

My question about about how, who and when we will obtain those 1100+ federal benefits for our unions comes in at number 13, but is essentially the same question as the one at number 1. I was surprised that the question about same sex immigration is at number 11, again much earlier than an ENDA question or a Hate Crimes question.

So, Memo to our gay leaders: HRC, Congressman Barney Frank and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin

Your rank and file are not that less concerned about employment discrimination or and hate crimes, than we are about our relationships. Our community's biggest concerns and desires are to have our relationships/families protected. That means obtaining those 1100+ benefits that married couples get, re-unification of our families if one partner is a citizen and the other a foreign national, and protection of our children. Apparently ENDA and hate crimes are so 1990's. If you think you can simply pass ENDA and Hate Crimes and that is enough and we will be happy, you are sorely mistaken. Just look at the numbers.

Technorati Tags: federal benefits, gay lesbian, Obama, Open for Questions, rights

December 30, 2008

Rick Warren clarifies and confuses

Posted by: Chris

Throughout the outcry over Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, I have taken a lot of heat for defending the megachurch pastor against claims he considers gay relationships the "equivalent" of incest and pedophilia.

As I explained (here and here and here), it was flatly irrational to interpret Warren that way, given that he was making a "slippery slope" argument that depends logically on examples like incest and pedophilia as horrific consequences of recognizing relationships like ours that are much less objectionable. I also interpreted Warren as favoring some forms of recognition for gay relationships, which of course he would never support for incest and pedophila, both illegal.

Now there's confirmation from the horse's mouth, so to speak. In a video available for viewing on the website for Warren's church, the evangelical is ostensibly speaking to his own congregation, but of course he knew that whatever he said on the subject of gay marriage would enjoy a much larger audience.

Here are some highlights (transcribed by me):

I have been accused of equating gay partnerships and relationships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course, as members of Saddleback Church you know, I believe no such thing. I never have. You've never once heard me in 30 years talk that way about that. …

God created sex to be exclusively in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. But I've in no way ever taught that homosexuality is the same thing as a forced relationship between an adult and a child or, you know, between siblings, things like that. I've just never thought that in 30 years.

However, I understand how some people think that because of a recent Belief.net interview. ... In that interview I named several other relationships, in fact I've done it several times, named several other relationships such as living together, man with multiple wives, or brother-sister relationships or adults with children or common law partnerships -- all kinds of relationships -- I don't think any of them should be called marriage.

I was not saying those relationships are the same thing because I happen to not believe that and I've never taught it.

Just to reiterate my own view, I am not defending Warren's opposition to gay marriage, which is based on imposition of his own theological view in the law and "slippery slope" scare tactics that would fear-monger if they weren't so ridiculous.

I also could not help but laugh at Warren's hypocritical views on civility in public discourse. At one point in the video, he complains that gays treat all disagreement with them as some form of "hate speech," an accusation I think is unfortunately all too true:

Some people today believe if you disagree with them you either hate them or are afraid of them. I'm neither afraid of gays nor do I hate gays. In fact, I love them, but I do disagree with some of their beliefs and I have that constitutional right just as I would fight for their constitutional right, too.

Then, later in the video, when he answers questions from his congregation about how he plans to respond to the controversy over his role at the inauguration, Warren engages in the same demonization and demagoguery he earlier criticized, and without even a hint of irony:

You've asked, 'What about these hateful attacks? ... How are you going to respond to all these false accusations, attacks, outright lies, hateful slander and really a lot of hate speech -- it's what I would call Christ-aphobia -- people who are afraid of any Christian. You know how I'm going to respond. You already know the answer. ... We return good for evil, we return love for hate.

Just as progressives want Obama to unify the country without including the views of millions who disagree with them, Warren objects to demonization of his views while readily engaging in the same smear tactics. Warren will never gain credence as an advocate for civility as long as he uses such doubletalk.

But again, trying to focus on common ground, Warren does suggest without specifics in the video that he supports legal recognition in some form for gay couples, if not full marriage equality. Whether or not you believe, as I do, that Warren is clarifying his view, or is modifying his position in response to the controversy, he has very clearly left the door open to support for legal recognition for same-sex couples.

Given the proliferation of "bad cops" who have made hay out of this controversy, including gay leaders trying to change the subject from Prop 8, now is the time for "good cops" to reach out to Warren and see whether he would throw his specific support around some level of legal recognition, or perhaps even federal civil unions.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, federal civil unions, gay marriage, Rick Warren, Saddleback Church

December 29, 2008

How to ask Obama a question

Posted by: Andoni

Calling all activists - now is your opportunity to influence president-elect Barack Obama's thinking on gay issues (actually all issues). It has become very much easier to submit a question to his transition team as well as vote on other questions that have already been submitted.

Even though I am traveling, when I got an email from John Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team, announcing this new feature called  Open for Questions on their transition web page, I dropped everything, registered, asked a question and voted on other questions.

My question was:

"How soon will you enact legislation to grant to gay and lesbian couples the same 1100+ federal benefits that opposite sex married couples get? Who is working on this? Who is going to introduce this bill you list in your civil rights agenda?"

I would have gone deeper, but the length of the questions is limited. I was impressed that there already were a number of questions about same sex immigration, so instead of repeating those question, I simply voted "yes" to those questions, supporting them.

You can search topics by keywords. If you are not registered, it's as simple as using your email address and choosing a password.

Note that as of this posting, this is not like pissing in the ocean. So far, there have only been only 15,000 questions submitted, a much smaller number than I would have expected.

This is a geat tool and I personally hope others will register and vote for my federal benefits question and support those questions others asked on same sex immigration.

If I don't post again until after the New Year, have a great New Year eveybody. I'm on my way to Thailand to be with my beau.

Technorati Tags: federal benefits, gay agenda, gay issues, lesbian and gay, Obama, same sex immigration

December 25, 2008

Bill Clinton's Rick Warren

Posted by: Chris

It's worth remembering, as you consider the competing viewpoints over Warren-gate, that there was no outcry surrounding Bill Clinton selection of evangelist Billy Graham to give the prayer at his 1993 inauguration, and again four years later. Graham's views are far more conservative and damning than Warren's, whether on sexual morality, homosexualtiy and (most disturbingly) AIDS and other STDs.

In 1997, Clinton presented Graham with the Congressional Gold Medal, one of the nation's highest civilian honors. There's a certain irony, of course, to Clinton's choice given his own record of sexual morality and marital fidelity, and his presidency's record on gay issues isn't one we hope Barack Obama replicates.

But the broader point is the insidious way that ideological intolerance (liberal and conservative) has grown over the years, and the divisive effect it has, eschewing debate in favor of exclusionary demands. As we saw throughout the Republican and Democratic primaries, it's not enough that candidates agree with these ideologues, they must never associate themselves with anyone who fails the litmus test.

Just imagine if Rick Warren had said something similar to what Billy Graham preached on the subject of AIDS back in 1993, when the death toll from HIV was reaching its peak, especially among gay men:

"Is AIDS a judgment of God?" asked Graham before a record-breaking crowd in Columbus, Ohio. "I could not say for sure, but I think so." After seeing letters criticizing that comment, Graham contacted the Cleveland Plain Dealer to retract his statement. "I remember saying it, and I immediately regretted it and almost went back and clarified the statement," said Graham in a telephone interview. He said he never intended to make the remark, explaining that he was tired during the sermon and forgot to retract or clarify his statement. "I do believe God stands in judgment of all sins...but AIDS is a disease that affects people and is not part of that judgment," Graham told the newspaper. "To say God has judged people with AIDS would be very wrong and very cruel."

Don't take Graham's retraction too seriously. Later that year he repeated the same "cruel" condemnation in a syndicated newspaper column that is still available on his website under the heading "Homosexuality":

I believe the "explosion in sexual freedom" is one of the most disastrous things that has happened to our society in the last 50 years. Think, for example, of the devastating impact this "explosion" has had on our families. A family isn't just a nice idea; it is a God-ordained institution, given to us for our happiness and protection. But almost every day I get at least one letter from someone whose family has been torn apart by sexual immorality. …

The same could be said about another "explosion" today—the explosion in sexually transmitted diseases. Millions of people in many parts of the world are living under a sentence of death because of AIDS and other devastating sexual diseases. How can we possibly conclude that unbridled sexual expression is a good thing?

(Jump to the end of this post for some additional tidbits about homosexuality from Graham and his evangelical association.)

I also can't imagine that Rick Warren will use language anything like that Graham used in 1993, and again when Clinton asked him back to offer a inaugural prayer four years later.

From Billy Graham's 1993 inauguration prayer:

Our God and our Father, we thank you for this historic occasion when we inaugurate our new President and Vice-President. We thank you for the moral and spiritual foundations which our forefathers gave us and which are rooted deeply in scripture. Those principles nourished and guided us as a nation in the past, but we cannot say that we are a righteous people. We've sinned against you. We've sown to the wind and are reaping the whirlwind of crime, drug abuse, racism, immorality, and social injustice. We need to repent of our sins and turn by faith to you.

His inaugural invocation four years later was longer and more subdued, at least when it came to sinful folk "reaping the whirlwind of immorality." (AIDS, anyone?)  But Graham nonetheless admonished Americans that the government depends on God's grace ("Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it"), and he prayed that God would "teach us to follow Your instructions more closely."

Now, as promised, some additional pearls of wisdom and compassion from the page entitled "Homosexuality" on Billy Graham's website:

The realization that someone you love is gay can be a shattering experience. If you are trusting in Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord, you can be conscious of your Heavenly Father's great love for you and your loved one (Jeremiah 31:3). God is the One who is able to transform lives and heal the scars of painful memories. We want to assure you that any willing person can be liberated from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ; see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, especially verse 11. (Billy Graham Evangelical Association, with contact info for "ex-gay" ministries)

Q: Does the Bible approve of some homosexual relationships? A;The Bible provides God's blueprint for marriage and for His good gift of sex in Genesis 2:24. The gift is only to be enjoyed within a marriage between a man and a woman. There are no exceptions suggested, such as homosexual partnerships. (Billy Graham Evangelical Association)

If you engage in homosexual relations or lust (willful fantasizing about such relations) God is deeply grieved and sets about in a variety of ways to turn you from such a destructive course. … And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (1 Corinthians 10:13). You must discipline your mind as an athlete disciplines his body. … God not only wants to protect you from homosexual behavior, but He wants to begin to meet the deep needs at the root of your same-sex desires. Apart from an occasional miracle, this psychological and spiritual healing which leads toward sexual wholeness does not happen quickly. Usually, outside help is necessary. For this reason, we would suggest that you contact a Christian ministry which assists men and women who want to deal with homosexual issues in their lives. (Billy Graham Evangelical Association, with contact info for "ex-gay" ministries)

It must be emphasized that even if a biological predisposition to homosexuality in some people exists, it would not change God's opposition to the behavior. Neither would it change the fact that through the transforming power of Jesus Christ freedom from sinful behavior is always available. In addition, many strugglers discover growing heterosexual attractions as they address underlying problems with the help of competent Christian support and counseling. (Billy Graham Evangelical Association, with contact info for "ex-gay" ministries)

When a little boy desires to dress as a little girl and play with little girls and their toys exclusively, it can be very troubling to parents. However, your son is not a homosexual. While gender-confused children may develop homosexual attractions in teen years if not helped, that is not the issue at this point. The reasons why a child develops opposite sex characteristics and preferences to an extreme degree is complex. Whatever the causes, you would do well to emphasize that he should be exactly what God made him—a boy. (Billy Graham Evangelical Association)

Technorati Tags: AIDS, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Billy Graham, homosexuality, inauguration, Rick Warren

December 23, 2008

Watch the Warren bait and switch

Posted by: Chris

A lot of the anger over Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to say a prayer at the inuauguration springs from genuine (if misplaced) resentment over the mega-church pastor's previous pronouncements on marriage, mixed with a disturbing streak of P.C. intolerance that runs through the gay rights movement and liberals generally.

Part of it is lingering distrust of Obama by gay Hillary supporters, who still revel in the chance to stick it to him, as they did on the (similar and analogous) Donnie McClurkin flap. Another part is from Clinton-haters, who are already bracing themselves for Obama to "throw gays under the bus" the way Bill Clinton did on gays in the military (1993) and the Defense of Marriage Act (1996).

And then there are the "leaders" of the gay movement, who absolutely love this kind of controversy for an entirely different reason: the gay and gay-friendly masses are exorcised and primed for fund-raising, successfully distracted from the indefensible lack of progress, even backsliding, on the actual push for legal equality. You know who I'm talking about, people, so let's just get to the quote (from Politico.com):

The rapid, angry reaction from a range of gay activists comes as the gay rights movement looks for an opportunity to flex its political muscle. Last summer gay groups complained, but were rebuffed by Obama, when an “ex-gay” singer led Obama’s rallies in South Carolina. And many were shocked last month when voters approved the California ban.

“There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere,” [Joe] Solmonese [of the Human Rights Campaign] told Politico.

B-I-N-G-O and BINGO was his name-o! A nice juicy controversy with absolutely nothing of consequence at stake, and all those angry gays upset by the humiliating defeat of gay marriage rights in California, Arizona and Florida are distracted from further inquiry into why we lost, or whether there is anything that Democrat-controlled Washington can do anything about it.

Look at this shiny Rick Warren bauble, gay people! Pay no attention behind that curtain to the deal Joe Solmonese, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and others have cut to give you only hate crime and ENDA crumbs until after the mid-term elections! (And by then, of course, the excuse will be that controversial issues like Don't Ask Don't Tell and relationship recognition must wait for Obama's re-election.)

Remember Solmonese's "very frank" letter -- we know it's "very frank" because HRC said it was -- to the president-elect calling the Warren invitation "a genuine blow to LGBT Americans"? Does anyone remember HRC sending such a very frank letter when congressional Democrats failed to pass even the most benign form of gay rights legislation? (No, actually, HRC thanked them for giving it the ol' college try -- for the 12th consecutive year.)

(And why can't the cynic in me shake the notion that Obama's real transition sin was failing to hire more Beltway gays to high White House and cabinet posts? Hillary surely would have emptied out HRC with cushy bureaucratic jobs.)

On the other side of the country, another gay leader in the hot seat is also trying his hand at the Warren bait and switch. Geoff Kors, the Equality California leader under heavy fire for the horribly mismanaged and poorly strategized No on 8 effort. You think he's gonna miss out on this chance to point the heat in another -- any other -- direction?:

The head of California’s largest gay civil rights organization has declined an invitation to attend the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama because Rev. Rick Warren will deliver the invocation.

It is extremely disappointing and hurtful that President-elect Obama has chosen California Rev. Rick Warren, who actively supported Prop 8 and the elimination of existing civil rights for LGBT Californians, to give the invocation at his inauguration,” said Equality California executive director Geoff Kors in a statement.

“Accordingly, I have decided to decline the invitation to attend the inauguration as I cannot be part of a celebration that highlights and gives voice to someone who advocated repealing rights from me and millions of other Californians.”

The EQCA home page devotes its premium space to Kors' silly refusal to attend the inauguration, which makes about as much political sense as his silly refusal to meaningfully debate Prop 8. Does he really think we can boycott and refuse to debate our way to equality? He needs to watch "Milk" again.

There's still time to make lemonade from these lemons. If the uproar over Rick Warren has the Obama folks anxious to mollify the gays, then let's ask for something real -- not simply long-promised hate crime and employment non-discrimination legislation. Something real -- like administration support for pushing a federal civil unions bill.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, EQCA, Equality California, gay marriage, Geoffrey Kors, HRC, Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, Rick Warren

December 21, 2008

Warren-gate and the First Amendment

Posted by: Chris

There is a deeply disturbing undercurrent to the arguments made by those who want Barack Obama to rescind the invocation invitation to Southern Baptist evangelist Rick Warren in favor of a minister with friendlier views on gay marriage or homosexuality. While you and I might view this campaign as well-intentioned, the 16 million members of Warren's denomination understandably feel otherwise, as do many millions who belong to faith traditions with similar views.

We gays are very accustomed to Southern Baptists and other evangelical and fundamentalist faiths attempting to have their beliefs about homosexuality enshrined into law, always at the expense of our freedom or civil rights. But now the shoe is on the other foot.

The angry blogosphere, D.C.-based gay groups and their progressive allies are basically demanding the president-elect remove one minister from his role in a major public ceremony because of his religious beliefs and replace him with one who is more acceptable. Their demand ought to trouble everyone, particularly LGBT Americans and anyone else who values the First Amendment separation between church and state. 

The use of public ceremonies to show official government favor of one group over another runs directly afoul of the First Amendment's "establishment clause," which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, or even from sending direct or indirect signals that some faith groups or views are preferred over others. The clear motivation for Obama showing favor for one set of beliefs over the other, as well as the obvious effect, is for the new president to signal that religious beliefs like Warren's are on the "outs," and religious beliefs approved by gays and progressives are on the "ins."

That same intent, and that same obvious effect, are why the First Amenment does not permit official prayers in public schools and high school football games, and why we no longer have manger scenes at Christmas time in front of city halls and state capitols. That's why Roy Moore was removed as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the courthouse rotunda.

In my public school here in the suburbs of Memphis, Tenn., we began each and every day with the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" included) and the national anthem, but that wasn't all. We also sang along to Kate Smith on "God Bless America," and our principal led the students in reciting "The Lord's Prayer." Jewish students stayed quiet, obviously, and Jehovah's Witness adherents stepped out into the hallway for our morning intercom revelry.

The motivations behind these official displays of religious preference, and certainly their impact, are directly analogous to why gay folks are demanding that Warren be removed from the inauguration, and the obvious effect on the public if Obama ultimately caves. 

To be fair, it is partly Obama and Warren's fault that church and state are entangled here. The president-elect's decision to include a religious invocation and benediction, while noncontroversial and in keeping with tradition, opens the door to these kinds of debates. What's more, marriage as an institution is a conflation of law and religion, "vesting power" in ministers to officiate at a religious ceremony that has legal effect.

Warren makes matters worse, of course, by basing his opposition to gay marriage and support for Proposition 8 on his religious beliefs about homosexuality. I've long believed that laws excluding gays from civil marriage are, in and of themselves, a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause, since the primary objections to marrying gay couples -- repeated in one form or another by conservative politicians and pastors alike -- are their personal religious views about "the sanctity of marriage." The government ought not to be choosing which denominational views about marriage by same-sex couples will be enshrined in the law.

So do we really want to jump into the Blblical battle over marriage, asking the president-elect to signal to the public that views held by Warren and millions of others are disfavored by the government? Shouldn't we be arguing that the Bible and religion are an illegitimate basis from excluding gays from a fundamental freedom and civil right?

Gay folk and progressives exorcised by the selection of Warren would be much better served focusing on winning the political debate over marriage, in part by arguing for the separation of church and state, than by trying to use the president-elect to show our religious beliefs are in favor. Not only is that fight an anathema to the First Amendment, it's a loser with the majority of church-going Americans today.

(Pictured is former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and a cake honoring the Ten Commandments memorial that federal courts had removed from the courthouse of the state supreme court.)

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, establishment of religion, First Amendment, gay marriage, Rick Warren

December 20, 2008

Rick Warren, a different take

Posted by: Andoni

Chris has covered the Rick Warren controversy from many angles beginning here and continuing here, here, and here.

My take is different.

Assume we are observers sitting on the sidelines watching how two distinct entities operate over the course of time and then compare how successful each has been. These two entities would of course be the national gay and lesbian leadership and Barack Obama.

The LGBT leadership has had the goal of full equality for gays in the US for a very long time, setting up specific stepping stones to get there: Hate Crimes legislation, ENDA, repeal of DADT, repeal of DOMA, UAFA, and coast to coast marriage equality. A few years ago most analysts would have given our community very slim odds of achieving full equality in the near future, but most probably would have given us a fairly decent shot of at least passing some basic legislation such as Hate Crimes and ENDA.

We have been working on these first two items as long as I can remember. However, the strategy, decisions and actions of our national leaders has achieved absolutely nothing for us at the national level. Yet they continue to pursue the same strategy. To any independent observer, this should be a very sobering thought about how we operate.

Meanwhile, as recently as  2007, the other entity, Barack Obama, was also given nearly impossible odds of achieving his goal -- capturing the presidency. However, he had a new way of operating. He wanted to practice a new kind of politics that brought people together who agreed on things; he didn't believe in punishing people who disagreed with him. He wanted to end the culture wars. He wanted to end the traditional thinking of us versus them or red states versus blue states. He wanted to form a new coalition to provide a big enough majority to govern effectively and move his agenda forward.

He knew he (we) could not be successful with the old politics and the old way of thinking -- talking to and working with only those who agreed with him (us) all of the time. This old way has never resulted in a big enough coalition to accomplish things. The old way of dealing with people who only thought exactly like us always resulted in obtaining less than 50% of the vote.

The end result is that Barack's way worked and our national gay leadership's methods haven't and won't. People who think only like us do not make up a majority. We need more than people who only agree with us 100%.

Oh and one more point about our national leaders and their judgment. These are the same folks who analyzed the presidential election during the primaries and decided  that they should back Hillary Clinton because she was the sure winner and Obama didn't have a chance. This should have given us pause about the accuracy of their political judgment.

So if you were an investor and saw these two approaches and the results, which approach would you support? I would support the modus operandi that gets the results -- and that would be the Obama way of doing things. And if that means having to listen to Rick Warren during the Inauguration, I can put up with that. (Keep your eye on the prize.)

There were several times in the past two years that I thought Barack Obama was wrong and I was right. I got very emotionally upset and emotionally vocal when he didn't act or react the way I thought he should. However, it always turned out Obama knew what he was doing and I didn't. His judgment was correct and the judgment of his critics was proven wrong. That's when I learned that his political judgment was better than everyone else's.

Barack has an LGBT agenda (at change.gov, then Agenda, then Civil Rights). I'm not going to act out because my feelings are hurt that he invited Rick Warren to speak at his Inauguration. Obama has a game plan to achieve his agenda .....and a good track record. I trust his political judgment and skills, and will give him 2 to 4 years before I become critical.

A lot of our national leaders are acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way. We should remember that we don't own Barack Obama, and we shouldn't be behaving as if we do. It won't do our movement any good.

It's as simple as this. If we are concerned about results, remember Barack's way has worked, our national leaders' way hasn't.

I've learned that when I leave my emotions out of things and use my brain, I usually make a better decision. When my emotions are in charge, I usually make the wrong choice. At the moment, I think most of our leaders are acting on emotions, instead of logic, over this Rick Warren thing.

Technorati Tags: gay rights, inauguration, Obama, Rick Warren, unity

December 19, 2008

Newsweek: Warren outrage justified?

Posted by: Chris

Newsweek.com has posted my debate with Leah McElrath Renna over whether gay outrage over Rick Warren's role in the inauguration is justified.

My thanks to Carl Sullivan at Newsweek.com and to Leah for being such an provocative debate partner. She surprised me a bit by coming at the controversy from a spiritual perspective, and I'm curious whether our exchange raised any new issues for any of you.

Just a quick highlight:

Chris Crain: Leah, you and others are criticizing the selection of Rick Warren as a betrayal of Barack Obama's promise to unify the country, but the way you define "unity" is really very exclusionary. … Obama's point was to unify us around areas of agreement, and here you are focused on disagreement, so where's the betrayal? For "unifying the nation" to mean anything, there must be "inclusion" for conservatives, including the many millions like Warren who oppose gay marriage. Excluding those with whom we disagree is the antithesis of unifying. …

We are only deferring that happy day when we win our equality if we are unwilling to find common ground and respectfully engage those with whom we disagree—especially those like Rick Warren who are so influential with so many. We can't get away with "refusing to get into" whether Warren in fact "equated" our relationships to abusive ones. The argument isn't beneath you, Leah, it's in front of you. 

Leah McElrath Renna: I need to return to my central point that is not about marriage equality for same-sex couples or any other policy-related issue. The reality is that Rick Warren does not believe that lesbian and gay people exist. In his worldview and spiritual perspective, LGBT individuals are people who choose to engage in sinful, sexually disordered behavior. This worldview is justified by him and others by a narrow, ahistorical and literal interpretation of a very small number of Biblical passages. It is not shared by all religions, nor by all people or denominations within the Christian faith.

As long as LGBT people and our allies continue to allow others to define our very existence as a so-called "social issue,'' we will not succeed in creating a world that is safe for ourselves, our loved ones and our families.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, gay marriage, inauguration invocation, Newsweek.com, Rick Warren

Newsweek.com debate over Rick Warren

Posted by: Chris

A quick heads up that I'm wrapping up an e-mail debate with Leah McElrath Renna, author of the Huffington Post piece slamming Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation -- a piece that I then slammed in my first post on the subject. It's been a fun and interesting exchange, and I'll post a link to it when it goes live on Newsweek.com.

I'll also repeat here what I've said to Leah privately by email:  I cringed a bit yesterday when I read that first post.  Ahh, the joys and perils of late-night blogging. I'm especially red-faced that I actually called her "honey."  I was intending the tone of voice we gay guys regularly use toward one another. But the reader can't know that, and the word obviously has a sexist history in male-female discourse, which is why I regret using it.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, gay marriage, Leah McElrath Renna, Newsweek.com, Rick Warren

December 18, 2008

Lowering the volume on Warren-gate

Posted by: Chris

I'll admit that my initial reaction late last night to the controversy over Barack Obama naming evangelist Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation was a bit unfair in characterizing (err, disparaging) the motives of those offended by the decision. I still believe that political correctness and ideological purity underly most of the complaints, but I have heard from some who I would never characterize that way.

One thing they cite is how supposedly "compared" or "equated" gay marriage to incest and polygamy in explaining his support for Prop 8 in California:

I’m not opposed to [gay marriage] as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

This is neither "comparing," nor "equating." In fact, Warren specifically draws a distinction between that which he does not oppose -- gay marriage -- and the parade of horribles he thinks opening up redefinition of marriage will lead to -- incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

The proverbial "slippery slope" is used when the speaker knows his audience sees no real problem with the proposal at hand, and so must be jolted to attention by what would somehow inevitably follow:

If you raise taxes, it will slow the economy, put people out of work, throw us into a recession and require socialist bailouts to get us back on track.

Does that "equate" or "compare" raising taxes with socialism? No.

Recognizing Rick Warren's argument as slippery slope and not comparison does not make his claim any more reasonable, but it does make it less offensive -- although clearly offended is what we do best on our side, rather than meet arguments head to head, with confidence that ours is the stronger position.