Milk Was Right

New Yorkers get married; the federal government admits to "significant and regrettable role" in discrimination against gays and lesbians; and the Pentagon braces for invasion.

2011-07-25T10:33:00.000-07:00

Well, it is official! Gay and lesbian New Yorkers are equal citizens in their own state (not their country, mind you, but the state is a good place to start). The coverage of marriage equality in NY has been outstanding, so I will just share a few tear-provoking links for you to peruse at your leisure.

First, check out this video from the NYT.

Here is a great Times editorial on the significance of marriage equality for all of the kids (or adults) with two moms or two dads.
And, finally, more heart-warming images of the first day.

I think it’s fair to say that these hilariously effective signs will happily migrate next door to New Jersey, where the fight for marriage equality is gaining tremendous momentum courtesy of this Lambda Legal suit filed on behalf of several couples who can compellingly demonstrate the inadequacy of civil unions.

In other news, President Obama officially endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would essentially repeal and replace the much-maligned Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We have a really long way to go before this bill gets passed, but Obama’s endorsement is certainly a nice symbolic gesture (and unsurprising, given the DOJ’s refusal to defend DOMA).

The MUCH more significant event of the last few weeks, however, occurred on July 1, when the Department of Justice filed a brief in support of a plaintiff in California who is suing the government for equal access to health benefits for her wife. Many legal scholars have asserted that the brief represents a watershed moment in the advancement of GLBT civil rights. Here is an explanation from Metro Weekly:

The brief, filed in the Northern District of California, is the single-most persuasive legal argument ever advanced by the United States government in support of equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Moreover, although the case did not include transgender issues, the government's previously described position that the same legal standard should apply to gender identity classifications could prove helpful for court cases looking at gender identity-based discrimination.

Some sentences in the brief will become staples of every filing in every lawsuit attempting to advance sexual orientation nondiscrimination, most notably when the Justice Department acknowledged, "The federal government has played a significant and regrettable role in the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals." The Justice Department goes on to spend two pages detailing the specifics of that discrimination, including efforts by the State Department, FBI and U.S. Postal Service to seek out or track those who were thought to be gay.

This admission is an essential part of lawyers' arguments before courts when they are arguing why ''heightened scrutiny'' should be applied under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to laws that classify people based on sexual orientation. To have an admission from the Department of Justice that the government did so is significant because lawyers can now go into court and say, "Not only do we think this, but so does the federal government – and they admit that they have been part of the problem."

What's more, Justice took a hard line against state and local discrimination, citing more than 20 different instances of state or local discriminatory practices – from laws and judicial opinions making adoption and teaching more difficult or impossible for gay and lesbian people, to police raids of gay bars, including notations of raids over the past years in Atlanta and Fort Worth, Texas.

One last piece of news to report: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which continues to linger despite congressional repeal and multiple judicial assertions to its unconstitutionality, will face another step in its demise on September 20th. President Obama certified the repeal last week after Pentagon officials announced that the military is braced for ... wait ... what are they bracing for again? Anyway, the implementation of the repeal will be, according to American Progress, torturously bureaucratic.

The faces of NY's triumph

2011-06-27T12:21:00.000-07:00

As you probably know by now, NY’s bill more than doubles the number of gay couples in this country with access to marriage rights. The numbers are compelling, but as usual, numbers don’t tell the story. Here are a few links that do a better job of telling the story:

New York’s Marriage Law Sets Off Waves of Engagements
Huffington Post coverage (includes photos and video)

And an excerpt from the Bellingham Herald:

Among the New Yorkers who will now get [married] are Richard Dorr, 84, and John Mace, 91, who have been partners for 61 years while pursuing successful careers as voice teachers in Manhattan.

"We thought about getting married in Massachusetts, but it just didn't seem to jibe right," said Dorr. "It should be in the state where you live." They plan to seek a marriage license as swiftly as possible but don't envision a lavish ceremony.

"Just a couple of witnesses and a justice of the peace," Dorr said.

When they fell in love, back in 1950, "marriage never crossed our mind," he added. "It was just that we had to be together. We could not stay away."

So what does NY mean for the rest of us?

2011-06-27T11:04:00.000-07:00

First and foremost, a big thank you to the senators in Albany, and especially the conservatives who were ready to acknowledge that standing on the right side of history is just as much a political prerogative as appeasing the religious right.

Wonder how the deal finally got done? Read here.

In her Sunday NYT column, Maureen Dowd argues that President Obama could learn a lesson or two from Gov. Cuomo. Dowd remarks: [Isn’t it] odd that the first black president is letting Andrew Cuomo … go down in history as the leader on the front lines of the civil rights issue of our time[?]” She also notes: “[Obama] should draw inspiration from the gay community: one thing gays have to do, after all, is declare who they are at all costs. On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.”

So what does it all mean outside of New York? You can find as many perspectives as there are possibilities, which is to say that nobody really knows. Here are two opinions on opposite ends of the spectrum, one expressing a dearth of hope for my home city of Atlanta, and the other pointing to the pending Prop 8 case as a feasible watershed for national marriage rights, surmising that the Supreme Court will apply heightened scrutiny, a monumental step that would all but assure our happily-ever-after. I think the current Supreme Court is too focused on states’ rights to write such a sweeping opinion, but maybe the tidal wave of public opinion that made such a big difference in the minds of N.Y. senators will make its way to the heart of D.C.

Good news: Judges can be gay and still be judges.

2011-06-15T07:43:00.000-07:00

The bush league tactics of prop 8 proponents failed yet again. The motion to vacate on grounds that the judge who wrote the opinion is gay (and therefore should have recused himself) was denied yesterday. This would be like saying that a black judge can't fairly try a black defendant, or that a female judge can't decide an issue that might impact women in some way, or that a human judge shouldn't preside over cases that involve ... humans.

In other words, no big surprise that the motion failed. If you would like to read more, Prop 8 Tracker is a good place to start.

In other marriage news, NY is on the brink yet again. The measure that failed in 2009 is back on the table, and this time, it looks like Gov. Cuomo might make it happen. Last I checked, he needs only 1 more vote and the pundits are saying it will happen sometime before next Monday. Very exciting. Read more here. And check out this quote from Republican Senator Roy MacDonald, who announced yesterday that he would vote in favor of the bill:

You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You realize that people and circumstances aren't always what you think they're going to be... develop a little more sensitivity... As a father, as a grandfather you try to do the right thing, you care about people. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f--- it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing ... I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. I'm tired of blowhard radio people, blowhard television people, blowhard newspapers. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing and that's where I'm going with this.

President Obama and DOJ refuse to defend DOMA

2011-02-23T21:06:00.000-08:00

I've been waiting for an article that does a decent job of capturing the moment, but I want to post this before the strike of midnight on the day it happened (this blog, especially as law school eats more and more of my time, is becoming more like my personal journal of milestone victories). Anyway, here's a link to the big news of the day: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp. If you are at all interested in the progress of gay rights, click on the link. But just in case you fail to do so, here's the best excerpt:

"The development floored Edith S. Windsor, an 81-year-old widow who filed one of the two new lawsuits in New York [against the Defense of Marriage Act]. Ms. Windsor is seeking the return of about $360,000 in estate taxes she had to pay because the federal government did not recognize their marriage when her wife died two years ago. The couple married in Toronto. “It’s almost overwhelming,” Ms. Windsor said in an interview. “I don’t know what it means in terms of what follows. But the very fact that the president and the Department of Justice are making such a statement is mind-blowing to anybody gay or anybody who is related to anybody gay. I think it removes a great deal of the stigma. It’s just great.”

This is bigger than any of us can probably conceptualize at the moment, because it impacts far more than marriage - it has the potential to initiate a new era where laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to higher level of scrutiny, perhaps that level afforded to a "suspect class." A higher level of scrutiny is just what is sounds like - a higher barrier that must be cleared in order for a law to be held constitutional by the courts. Right now, a law that discriminates against a white heterosexual Christian male, is not, for obvious reasons, subject to strict scrutiny (apologies to my white hetero Christian male friends). A law that discriminates against racial, ethnic, or religious minorities IS subject to strict scrutiny. As of now, sexual orientation is not protected by a strict scrutiny standard, but Obama and the DOJ just made their case that perhaps it should be, and such a disinction would effectively alter the entire legal landscape for the GLBT community. Laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation would come crashing down around us.

There will be a lot of backlash against Obama. You are going to hear two things from the GOP about our President: 1) he is destroying "family values" and 2) he shunned his duty to defend the laws of the United States. In other words, he should have defended the law even if he didn't agree with it, and allowed the Supreme Court to make the final decision about whether or not it is constitutional. I have to say that the second argument is not a bad one - if this was a law that I really liked (can't fathom that I would ever like a law that blatantly violates individual rights and Equal Protection, but for argument's sake ...), I would be angry.

So this will certainly buffer the vitriolic rhetoric against the Obama Administration and against the gay community, and it will have some political consequences for the left - consequences that Obama clearly weighed and decided to accept. The reward for him? He takes a huge left leap towards the right side of history. He did not want this law on his resume, and who can blame it? The only enduring legacy of DOMA will be as a sad reminder of just how slow this country was to come around on yet another issue of basic civil rights. Sometime soon, it will join DADT in the annals of really bad law, really bad public policy, really bad for America, and really damaging to so many individuals who will never, ever be justly compensated.

DADT finally dead.

2010-12-22T19:31:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from President Obama's speech prior to signing the new law that says gays don't have to lie for the privilege of serving in our armed forces and protecting the "American ideals" of freedom and equality.

"You know, I am just overwhelmed. This is a very good day. And I want to thank all of you, especially the people on this stage, but each and every one of you who have been working so hard on this, members of my staff who worked so hard on this. I couldn’t be prouder.

Sixty-six years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forests of Western Europe, Allied Forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the Battle of the Bulge. And in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th Division of Patton’s Third Army came under fire. The men were traveling along a narrow trail. They were exposed and they were vulnerable. Hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy.

And during the firefight, a private named Lloyd Corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine. And dazed and trapped, he was as good as dead. But one soldier, a friend, turned back. And with shells landing around him, amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring Private Corwin to safer ground.

For the rest of his years, Lloyd credited this soldier, this friend, named Andy Lee, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone. It was a full four decades after the war, when the two friends reunited in their golden years, that Lloyd learned that the man who saved his life, his friend Andy, was gay. He had no idea. And he didn’t much care. Lloyd knew what mattered. He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life. It was his friend.

And Lloyd’s son is with us today. And he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today. That's the reason we are here today.

So this morning, I am proud to sign a law that will bring an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It is a law -- this law I’m about to sign will strengthen our national security and uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend.

No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military -– regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance -– because they happen to be gay. No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder, in order to serve the country that they love. (Applause.)

As Admiral Mike Mullen has said, “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.” (Applause.)

That’s why I believe this is the right thing to do for our military. That’s why I believe it is the right thing to do, period ...

Now, with any change, there’s some apprehension. That’s natural. But as Commander-in-Chief, I am certain that we can effect this transition in a way that only strengthens our military readiness; that people will look back on this moment and wonder why it was ever a source of controversy in the first place.

I have every confidence in the professionalism and patriotism of our service members. Just as they have adapted and grown stronger with each of the other changes, I know they will do so again. I know that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, as well as the vast majority of service members themselves, share this view. And they share it based on their own experiences, including the experience of serving with dedicated, duty-bound service members who were also gay.

As one special operations warfighter said during the Pentagon’s review -- this was one of my favorites -- it echoes the experience of Lloyd Corwin decades earlier: “We have a gay guy in the unit. He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys.” (Laughter.) “No one cared that he was gay.” (Laughter.) And I think that sums up perfectly the situation. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to speak directly to the gay men and women currently serving in our military. For a long time your service has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice. You’ve been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and isolation. And all the while, you’ve put your lives on the line for the freedoms and privileges of citizenship that are not fully granted to you.

You’re not the first to have carried this burden, for while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades, this is a moment more than two centuries in the making.

There will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by gay Americans in service to this country; their service has been obscured in history. It’s been lost to prejudices that have waned in our own lifetimes. But at every turn, every crossroads in our past, we know gay Americans fought just as hard, gave just as much to protect this nation and the ideals for which it stands.

There can be little doubt there were gay soldiers who fought for American independence, who consecrated the ground at Gettysburg, who manned the trenches along the Western Front, who stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima. Their names are etched into the walls of our memorials. Their headstones dot the grounds at Arlington.

And so, as the first generation to serve openly in our Armed Forces, you will stand for all those who came before you, and you will serve as role models to all who come after. And I know that you will fulfill this responsibility with integrity and honor, just as you have every other mission with which you’ve been charged.

And you need to look no further than the servicemen and women in this room -- distinguished officers like former Navy Commander Zoe Dunning. (Applause.) Marines like Eric Alva, one of the first Americans to be injured in Iraq. (Applause.) Leaders like Captain Jonathan Hopkins, who led a platoon into northern Iraq during the initial invasion, quelling an ethnic riot, earning a Bronze Star with valor. (Applause.) He was discharged, only to receive emails and letters from his soldiers saying they had known he was gay all along -- (laughter) -- and thought that he was the best commander they ever had. (Applause.)

There are a lot of stories like these -- stories that only underscore the importance of enlisting the service of all who are willing to fight for this country. That’s why I hope those soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have been discharged under this discriminatory policy will seek to reenlist once the repeal is implemented.

That is why I say to all Americans, gay or straight, who want nothing more than to defend this country in uniform: Your country needs you, your country wants you, and we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known. (Applause.)

Some of you remembered I visited Afghanistan just a few weeks ago. And while I was walking along the rope line -- it was a big crowd, about 3,000 -- a young woman in uniform was shaking my hand and other people were grabbing and taking pictures. And she pulled me into a hug and she whispered in my ear, “Get ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ done.” And I said to her, “I promise you I will.”

For we are not a nation that says, “don’t ask, don’t tell.” We are a nation that says, “Out of many, we are one.” We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. (Those are the ideals that generations have fought for. Those are the ideals that we uphold today. And now, it is my honor to sign this bill into law."

Prop 8 oral arguments heard yesterday; Appeals Court decision pending ...

2010-12-07T05:26:00.000-08:00

I'm in the midst of exams, but for those of you who are interested in following the Prop 8 legal fracas in California, here's your brief update:

The federal court of appeals heard oral arguments yesterday, beginning with arguments regarding the "standing" of the parties who support Prop 8 (the evil side) because the usual course is for an attorney general or governor to defend the laws of the state, but in this case, the attorney general and the governor have declined to do so (call it saving face or call it smart or call it a breach of professional duty or call it a refusal to sit on the wrong side of history - just call it something, because it is a significant thing to remember about this case - the people who have a professional obligation to defend Prop 8 have refused to do so). So that leaves us with these "protect the family" type of organizations that I refuse to name here, defending Prop 8. And yesterday, those organizations were forced to acknowledge that they might not have standing in the case, which is legalese for "we don't really have a stake in any of us ... it has no impact on our lives, personally or professionally, and we can't come up with a single reason why we are here right now defending something that doesn't affect us or OUR families in any way, shape, or form." So we might see this next decision come down on a technicality, which would certainly be worth a good laugh, but would disappoint in a sense, because it would be a heck of a lot more fun to kick their asses (again) on the merits of the case.

The second half of oral arguments found Ted Olson and David DuBois reiterating all of the arguments that compelled Judge Walker to write such an overwhelming opinion in their favor at the conclusion of this summer's trial. Olson and DuBois' adversary, Charles Cooper, had a few months to revamp his side of the case, but didn't come up with much of anything - and "much of anything" is the most generous description that anyone has offered yet for Cooper's anemic legal efforts (he can thank me later). In other words, if this case comes down to the merits, we should get a SECOND strongly worded opinion in our favor. And the appeals will march on ... I'm sure you know where we would be headed next.

Here are a couple of sources if you want to read more:

General overview of yesterday's events on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/california.proposition.8/index.html?hpt=Sbin
And, as always, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker (lots of good detail here): http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Arianna Huffington comments on the current state of gay civil rights

2010-11-16T12:17:00.000-08:00

Worth the read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-splitscreen-struggle-_b_783971.html

What does the GOP want?

2010-11-14T08:03:00.000-08:00

As hard as I try, I have a little bit of trouble understanding the GOP's "plan" for "fixing" America. So I decided to educate myself. And after a lot of internet cruising, I found this very clear explanation of the Republican agenda. Godspeed to our enlightened brothers and sisters. If all goes as planned, I'm not sure any of us will be able to "refudiate" the sound logic of President Sarah Palin in 2012.

http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/11/09/the-mandate/

1. Social Security reform that guarantees my current level of benefits, alters someone else's, and cuts everyone's Social Security taxes to boot.

2. A world-class national infrastructure that can be built and maintained without tax dollars.

3. A balanced budget that doesn't sacrifice any of the government programs – especially the sacred military-industrial complex and the various old age benefits – that we like.

4. Clean air without pollution controls, clean water with a neutered and underfunded EPA, and businesses that do socially responsible things without any regulation whatsoever.

5. Consumer goods at Made in China prices that create high-paying jobs in America.

6. Giant trucks and SUVs that drive like Formula One race cars, look cool, fit into small parking spaces, cost under $18,000, and get the fuel economy of a Toyota Prius.

7. Complete freedom and complete security at the same time.

8. An America that acts like a swaggering, sociopathic asshole on the global stage yet is beloved by all the nations of the world.

9. Wars against every enemy, real or imagined, all of the time, with no U.S. casualties and no effect on the budget.

10. Incredibly rich and rewarding professional lives while supporting our employers' right to do whatever they want to us without recourse.

11. A vibrant, consumption-based U.S. economy with good jobs for anyone willing to look for one resulting from free trade policies that encourage money and capital flows to cheap labor markets.

12. A highly educated workforce produced by a school system that requires no tax dollars to achieve excellence, students who have no interest in learning, and a virulently anti-intellectual society.

13. Closed borders and an endless supply of cheap labor to keep prices low.

14. To buy whatever we want irrespective of what we can afford while maintaining the drumbeat of personal responsibility.

15. Health care that is cheap, superior, and readily available to me without the danger of the same being enjoyed by anyone I deem undeserving.

Looking for a good laugh?

2010-11-09T10:24:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show meets Andrew Shirvell.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-1-2010/look-who-s-stalking

Did he seriously think it was a good idea to give this interview? Where in the world is his attorney? Oh, that's right ...

Michigan assistant AG finally fired

2010-11-08T17:18:00.000-08:00

Well, it took a few weeks, but the State of Michigan got it right. Andrew Shirvell, the guy who inexplicably started a blog to slander/harass the student body president at the University of Michigan, has been fired. Turns out he WAS using the state's time and resources to spread hate speech. Who would've guessed?

This was not a difficult decision. The more interesting story will be the outcome of whatever civil suit Mr. Armstrong decides to file against Shirvell. He could (and should) wipe this guy clean of his meager net worth. I would guess that the State of Michigan will also disbar Shirvell in the near future, meaning that he will need a new source of income to fund his gay bashing. Don't feel too badly for the guy - FOX News is always hiring.

Transgender man to play basketball for women's D1 team this year

2010-11-02T14:24:00.000-07:00

Kye Allums, formerly Kay Allums, will break down another barrier when he suits up for the women's basketball team at George Washington after transitioning from female-male this past summer.

http://www.outsports.com/os/index.php/component/content/article/24-people/338-transgender-man-to-play-for-womens-basketball-team

Good for Kye.

One whole day as equals ... and now back to the closet.

2010-10-20T18:51:00.000-07:00

A federal appeals court has blocked the lower court's injunction on DADT. Hopefully LGBT soldiers heeded the warnings to stay in the closet. We've lost all hope of President Obama implementing a stop-loss policy, so until Congress does what is right or the higher Court does what is right, those soldiers will continue to serve our country as second-class citizens.

Oh to be a fly on the wall in a military recruiting office today ...

2010-10-20T08:50:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/19/pentagon.gays.recruiting/index.html?hpt=Sbin

My vision:

A young person enters wearing his or her "Legalize Gay" t-shirt and idles in the lobby before being approached by a recruiter:

"Are you here to sign up?"

"Nope."

"I'm sorry?"

"No sir, I am not here to sign up. I am not interested in your wars. Not interested in imposing our flawed brand of democracy on other nations. Not interested in killing for sport. I am thankful for all you do, and even more thankful to all of the people who fought and died for a freedom that I still don't share, but as for the current version of the U.S. military, I'm just not all that interested ..."

"Then why are you here?"

"Oh, well, so glad you asked! I am simply excited to be invited to the table! By the way, next time you decide to create a big mess like this one, you should definitely consult with gay Americans about how rebuild communities, make friends out of enemies, and overcome the sleuth tactics of oppressive political regimes - those are, after all, our areas of expertise. It turns out that we are good for something other than dinner parties and broadway musicals, and from the look of things, you could maybe use some help? Next time, silly, just ask and we'll tell!"

Fun times ...

Injunction in DADT case; Appeal in DOMA case

2010-10-12T17:10:00.000-07:00

On the same day that the judicial branch of our federal government essentially told the other two branches "enough is enough - if you are incapable of putting a stop to the unconstitutional discrimination against gays in the military, we'll do it for you," the Obama admistration and the DOJ turned the other cheek and filed an appeal on the earlier decision in Massachusetts that found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Gotta love the irony. Gotta love the hypocrisy. Gotta love the lessons of history forgotten. One of those lessons, of course, is that when the traditionally subordinate American courts flex their muscles in protection of a minority class, institutionalized discrimination against that particular class doesn't have long to live.

Who is to blame for the suicide rate among gay youth?

2010-10-06T06:01:00.000-07:00

As Sarah Silverman pointed out yesterday, America is to blame. But let's get more specific. How about these idiots?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's hope SCOTUS figures out where to draw the line here.

Ellen has something to say, too.

2010-10-01T10:45:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Liz Brigham, for passing this along. Apparently Ellen is speaking out on the issue of bullying as well. Great message, and very sobering, as Ellen seems to struggle a little bit with the memories and emotions attached to being young, vulnerable, and then on top of those things, realizing you are a little bit different. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B-hVWQnjjM&feature=player_embedded

Pam Spaulding agrees with me!

2010-10-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

Right after posting, I found this opinion article from Pam Spaulding connecting the stories that I attempted to summarize below. Per usual, she says it much better (and MUCH more succinctly!) than I could ever say it, so if don't want to work your way through my far-too-long post, just click here.

Happy Friday!

What is it with all of the cyber-bullying?

2010-10-01T08:55:00.000-07:00

In the short span of about 10 days, three completely independent (but uncannily similar) stories have made national news.

Cyber-bully #1: See my post below for the drama that ensued after last week's Senate vote to effectively preclude a repeal of DADT in the near future. A staffer of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss posted "all faggots must die" on the message board of a gay rights blog. (Sidenote: for all of the news outlets that conveniently substituted "gays" for "faggots" in their reporting of the incident - SHAME on you).

Saxby announced yesterday that the staffer has been removed. Removed?? I hope that someone out there is investigating the destination of his so-called "removal." Of course, that will be difficult to do, as the identity of our online friend "Jimmy" has not been revealed. Who wants to bet that little Jimmy is packing his bags in [insert small, rural town], GA for a move to Saxby's DC office? I digress. The point here is that the story emerged from an instance of cyber-bullying, and in its wake, we have two additional cyber-bullying stories ...

Cyber-bully #2: Before we turn our attention to the endlessly entertaining saga of Andrew Shirvell, a word on Tyler Clementi. There isn't much to say here. Tyler, a freshman at Rutgers University, took his own life last week after his roommate suspected that he was gay and rigged a web-cam to catch Tyler making out with another guy in the privacy of their dorm room.

The roommate was not in the room at the time, so there was no way for Tyler to know that he was being “outed” via an online live-stream of his brief (nothing salacious here, guys) romantic encounter. It didn’t take long for word to spread around campus, and Tyler, then aware of his predicament, consulted a gay online forum to solicit advice. He apparently didn’t get what he needed, and ultimately made the decision to jump off the George Washington Bridge. The roommate has been charged with invasion of privacy and could face up to 5 years in prison. Tragic for everyone involved.

Cyber-bully #3: And we arrive, conspicuously, at our anointment of a fearless leader for the emerging cyber-bully generation: 30-year-old (!!) Andrew Shirvell. Have you heard the name yet? If not, then you don’t pay much attention to CNN or Anderson Cooper, which is understandable, but Mr. Cooper has really found himself one hell of a good character to demonstrate the borderline psychosis that is emerging from the small percentage of Americans who are either 1) delusional enough to think that it is still socially acceptable to gay-bash or 2) suffering from the type of homophobia that is so classic of a closeted gay person. I’ve said it before and I will keep saying it: there is nothing more suffocating, nothing more detrimental to mental health, nothing more torturous than the unwieldy walls of a closet. We see it time and time and time and time again.

We don’t know (and might not ever know) which of those two categories victimizes Mr. Shirvell, but either way, he is proabably going to pay a hefty price (legal and otherwise) for the remarkably bizarre decision to start a blog entirely devoted to smearing the reputation of a 20 year old gay kid. The blog is – without question – one of the most disgusting and vitriolic blogs I’ve ever encountered, replete with swastikas superimposed over the kid’s face, references to the kid as “Satan’s representative,” and accusations that the kid (yes, I am obnoxiously repeating "kid" to make a point) is “recruiting young men to join the radical homosexual agenda.”

Wow. So who is this monster child that Mr. Shirvell seeks to slay? He is the Student Council President at the University of Michigan, and all indications are that he is a great kid, guilty of nothing more than advocating for gender-neutral housing to accommodate the needs of trans students. Oh, and reduced tuition to make the University more accessible in these tough economic times. Gosh, sounds like a real creep, huh?

More importantly, who is Mr. Shirvell? Great question! He is an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. Yep, you read that right. He is a public official, salaried by the tax-dollars of Michigan citizens, and responsible for ensuring the safety, well-being, and legal rights of those same citizens. On Tuesday night, Shrivell made yet another delightfully dumb decision and agreed to appear on Anderson Cooper’s 360 News. Watching this video will tell you everything you need to know about Shirvell.

So let’s get beyond the incredibly disturbing context of this interview (does it even merit a conversation?), and ask a more important question: how in the world did this guy get hired for ANY professional job, much less as an Asst. AG for the State of Michigan? You might be baffled, but I am not, because I also saw Anderson’s interview with Shirvell’s boss, Mike Cox, on Wednesday night. Attorney General Cox is also lacking dense material between the ears. He made a very lame-duck argument that Shirvell is just “exercising his first amendment rights” in his off-hours. I will give Cox a modicum of credit for calling his subordinate a “bully,” and questioning his “obvious immaturity and lack of judgment,” but the modicum of credit quickly dissipates when you realize that despite these admissions, he is (at least on Wednesday evening) not even considering the most obvious course of action for any boss in history: FIRE him. Notice that I did NOT say: PROSECUTE him. I said: FIRE him.

The justification for termination is exhaustive – just trust me, I’ve read up on it – even IF he can’t legitimately be prosecuted for hate speech, cyber-bullying, or stalking (he posts videos of the 20 year old kid that he admits shooting from outside the kid’s house), the justification for dismissal is pretty straightforward – there is a state law that allows the dismissal of state employees on the broad grounds of “unbecoming” words or actions - in other words, bad behavior. Hmmm. Not a hard call, right?
I am going to venture that Mr. Cox – an elected official – received a barrage of calls and emails following his less-than-insightful interview. I know he received at least one email, because it originated from my inbox. In short, I informed Mr. Cox that this incident was starting to say more about his character than it would ever say about the character of a rambling, mentally-instable, bizarrely delusional sociopath incidentally employed by his office. Don’t worry – I didn’t use those exact words (or anything close).

You will be relieved to know that the victim of Shirvell’s harassment exercised HIS constitutional rights and hired a [competent!] attorney, filed for a restraining order, and released a statement ensuring everyone that he is okay and will continue in his service to the University of Michigan. The University then released a statement that Mr. Shirvell would be banned from campus, effective immediately.

UPDATE: Whether it was public pressure or some lightning strike that filled his vacuous mind with an inch of common-sense, it appears from some (unconfirmed) reports this morning that Mr. Cox changed his stance and suspended Mr. Shirvell, and would likely commence termination proceedings. Might just be wishful thinking, though, because conflicting reports claim that Shirvell requested a leave of absence and the request was granted. The blog has also been removed from public access, so I suppose that's a positive development either way.

Busy week ...

2010-09-22T17:13:00.000-07:00

I can't keep up with the news this week.

CNN just reported that the Court of Appeals in Florida upheld the trial court's decision to strike down the state's ban on gay adoption. Governor Crist, who recently flip-flopped his stance on gay rights (probably a smart move - at some point he is going to come out of the closet), says that the state will stop imposing the ban effective immediately.

Wonderful news for the GLBT community in Florida, as well as the many foster children who are waiting for good homes. And a big thank-you to the foster Dad who never stopped fighting for the right to adopt his two young sons ...

Nice.

2010-09-22T07:48:00.000-07:00

Check this out: in the aftermath of the DADT vote yesterday, when political blogs were rockin' and rollin' with responses and debate, one popular blog received this comment: "All faggots must die."

Astute contribution to the dialogue, right? So who is the intellectual heavyweight stalking pro-rights blogs to spew his less-than-creative brand of hate? Well, the moderators of the blog asked just that question and traced the IP address (yep, online anonymity has its limits ...).

Turns out that the comment originated from ... drum roll ... a staffer's computer at Senator Saxby Chambliss' office in downtown Atlanta. The staffer identified himself on the blog as "Jimmy," which is just hilarious - if I'd been given the chance to guess his name, I would've arrived at "Jimmy" in relatively short order.

Senator Chambliss promises to "investigate" the matter. I guess little Jimmy is getting a raise.

Ah, who would've thunk it?

2010-09-22T03:55:00.000-07:00

Yawn. Yet another conservative evangelical is alleged to have seduced and abused young men. This one leads a megachurch in Atlanta, and of course, actively crusades against the gay community, even running a pseudo "ex-gay" ministry, designed to "heal" the gays (gay men, in particular).

If the allegations are true, let's hope he spends his first years out of the closet in a tiny, bare prison cell. I could make a few comments here about all the striking similarities between being closeted and being in prison, but it's too early, and this story is all too familiar and all too sad.

America, The Incompetent

2010-09-21T18:52:00.000-07:00

At the end of the day, the Defense Authorization Bill vote (which would have allowed debate on DADT and the DREAM Act) wasn't about anything other that posturing for the November election, and once again, we are just political pawns, this time along with our trendy new pawn-brothers, illegal immigrants. And you can't just blame the GOP, although they do offer us a colossal, flaming-red, screeching-and-screaming-and-flailing target.

Please keep in mind that this vote (along party lines) not only denied us an opportunity for dialogue on the archaic (17 embarassing years), unpopular (80% of Americans now support repeal), and discriminatory (you don't need an explanation) Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it also denied the Pentagon necessary funding in the coming months. In other words, the GOP said: Keep the gays in the closet AT ALL COSTS, including life and limb and national defense.

But we have to blame the Democrats, too, and in particular, our impotent White House.

I found this snippet on Pam's House Blend before the vote; as a result, I didn't need to see the vote to know the outcome:

UPDATE @ 10:39 PM: [just moments ago] I was informed by someone involved with this process that the White House is not lobbying fence-sitting senators to reach the magic 60 votes.

As we all know, without a fierce effort and person-to-person advocacy from Obama himself (or at least his senior-most staff), Senators have little reason to change their minds and support debating the Defense Authorization bill. Never did I think I'd see the day when Lady Gaga would do more to advocate for repeal of DADT than our president who campaigned on equality.

It's stunning really. And, they wonder why the base is depressed.

I don't have any question as to why the base is depressed. Maybe the Dems should take a cue from the Tea Party and try witchcraft.

Key Senate vote on DADT tomorrow afternoon

2010-09-20T06:03:00.000-07:00

And who is leading the rally call for opponents of DADT? Lady Gaga. Really? We can't find a better spokesperson to carry the torch the last few tortuous miles? I guess not. Maybe we are just tired of the fight. I know I am. If the GOP actually manages a filibuster, I might lose my mind, and so should you.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/20/lady.gaga.rally/index.html?hpt=T2

Judge declares DADT unconstitutional

2010-09-10T06:47:00.000-07:00

Well at least one of the three branches of our federal government is seeing the light these days: A federal judge ruled yesterday that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a violation of the first amendment rights of gays and lesbians, and thus, unconstitutional. She imposed an injunction on the policy, but the Department of Justice will file an appeal that effectively imposes a hold on that injunction, so for all practical purposes, we aren't that much closer to repeal. And Lord knows our President and Congress aren't doing a damn thing to expedite the matter. For now, we will have to take some solace in the judicial declaration of what we already knew - the United States of America is ripe with civil rights violations. Anyone watching the news this week is well aware of that sad fact. But I digress ...

Back to the topic at hand: can someone PLEASE explain to me how in the world (a world where our reputation really can't withstand many more hits) are we still fighting DADT in the year 2010?

Please watch for a good laugh ...

2010-08-31T09:10:00.000-07:00

One of the more brilliant videos I've seen in quite awhile ... nothing new here in terms of arguments, but something about the way the argument is couched is just so ... well ... brilliant. Not to mention hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCu2eGCjz4

Bush's 2004 campaign manager and former chair of RNC comes out of closet

2010-08-26T07:29:00.000-07:00

Ken Mehlman gave an interview to the Atlantic describing his coming out process after over 20 years of hiding in the closet while rising in the ranks of the Republican party and serving as one of President Bush's closest advisors. The interview hasn't been published, but there is an excerpt from CNN's blog where Mehlman states that he is a "happier and better person" after coming out. What a sad story (20 years is a long time to hate yourself), but at least he is being honest now, and maybe his story will help open the minds of his former and current colleagues.

CNN article here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/25/former-bush-official-says-he-is-gay/#more-119345

Great summer. Sobering outlook.

2010-08-16T13:02:00.000-07:00

In early July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and two weeks ago, a federal judge in California ruled that Prop 8 – the ballot initiative that subjected the civil rights of a minority of US citizens to popular vote – is also unconstitutional. Both of these cases are on track to reach the Supreme Court (although Judge Walker, the Prop 8 judge, seems to doubt that his ruling can be appealed – yet another fascinating development in a ruling that will inevitably be dissected and studied and referenced for years to come).

It was, at the very least, a summer of great progress for the gay civil rights movement. If the rulings are upheld in higher courts, we might be witnessing THE watershed year in gay civil rights. Frank Rich’s op-ed in yesterday’s NYT eloquently advances the idea that the Prop 8 ruling was a small (but significant) step in America’s long journey to achieve some semblance of the democratic ideals that we espouse but often fail to practice. Rich’s conclusion was too beautifully crafted for me to resist copying and pasting it here:

“None of this [Prop 8] means that full equality for gay Americans is a done deal. Even if it were, that would be scant consolation to the latest minority groups to enter the pantheon of American scapegoats, Hispanic immigrants and Muslims. We are still a young, imperfect, unfinished country. As a young black man working as a nurse in a 1980s AIDS clinic memorably says in Tony Kushner’s epic drama “Angels in America”: ‘The white cracker who wrote the national anthem knew what he was doing. He set the word ‘free’ to a note so high nobody can reach it.’

But sometimes we do hit that note, however tentatively. How one wishes that the many gay Americans who were left to die in the shadows during that horrific time — and, in most cases, without a Judith Peabody, let alone a legal spouse, by their side — could hear Judge Walker’s clarion call.”

I think it is important – in midst of the rightful revelry and renewed hope – to quickly underscore Rich’s point that full equality for gay Americans is far from done. Allow me to remind you of just a few injustices that continue to plague gay citizens in my home state of Georgia: NO state employment non-discrimination laws, NO state hate crimes law, NO state-granted legal protections for same-sex parents, NO domestic partner benefits for state and university employees (my partner of 4 years works for Georgia Tech, and I am not eligible for her insurance, meaning that we are forced to purchase separate – and very expensive – health insurance as I enter law school), and of course, NONE of the legal and financial benefits that are afforded by marriage. And that’s an abbreviated list.

So how do we begin to reconcile the visible progress in some states with the listlessness of other states? As Ted Olson so memorably put it during his interview with Chris Wallace: "How would you like it if FOX New's right to free press was put to a popular vote and say well, if 5 states approved, let's wait until the other 45 states do?" How is it, then, that a federal case revolving around gay marriage might reach the Supreme Court before a case that would redress any of the above inequalities in federal law (i.e. in a fashion that would impact ALL gay Americans, not just those who are fortunate enough to live in progressive states)? I know that legislative measures, such as ENDA (stalled in Congress last time I checked), might provide the quickest fixes, but it still doesn’t address why we haven’t been able to advance such issues through our judicial system in light of what we are now witnessing around the issue of marriage.

I don’t know the answer(s) to that question, and in fact, I don’t know enough about constitutional law to even venture a guess. If you do, please enlighten me ...

Or maybe I will discover the answer on my own. I have three years of law school in which to do so, and though my blog will definitely suffer as a result of my studies, I do hope to post a periodic update on my adventures in the study of law, and specifically, areas of the law that most impact the GLBT community. There is little doubt that I will ALWAYS have more questions than answers, and the answers I do obtain will just serve to inspire more questions, because isn’t that the nature of law?

So why study it, then? Well, in the words of Frank Rich, even as we move (go, tortoise, go!) towards a more perfect America for gays and lesbians, other scapegoats are rising to take our place – scapegoats that don’t deserve the glare of “otherness” and the resulting tyranny of the majority any more that we do, at least not in a country that was ostensibly built to repel that very threat.

Stay on same-sex marriages lifted by Judge Walker

2010-08-12T13:19:00.000-07:00

Gay couples have been lined up at courthouses up and down the great state of California in anticipation of the ban on gay marriages being lifted by Judge Walker, and as CNN just reported in breaking news, they will not leave disappointed. Marriages can begin next Wednesday, August 18th at 5 PM PST. This is a bit of a surprise - most "experts" predicted that he would rule in favor of the stay to prevent same-sex couples from being left in legal limbo should the Prop 8 ruling be overturned in a higher court. But anyone who read the text of his decision could've surmised that Judge Walker felt pretty damn confident that he was making the right - and hopefully final - decision on the matter, so in that regard, lifting the stay was the next logical step.

Either way - expected or not - it is, above all, very happy news.

This is just too good to miss ...

2010-08-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

Could it be that Ted Olson's absolute annihilation of Chris Wallace (by Wallace's own admission, no less) on FOX News is actually pulling the right to the light on gay rights? Doubtful. But maybe they are beginning to realize that fighting a losing fight (and standing firm on the wrong side of history yet again) is not going to win votes, and in fact could just do the opposite, especially among young voters (you know, the voters that are still malleable and therefore CRITICAL to the current and future success of a political party ... doesn't take a rocket scientist, but I guess these are the guys and gals that don't really believe in science either ... I digress).

Anyway, check out this article from Margaret Hoover of FOX News, encouraging her fellow conservatives to "think carefully about the opposition to gay marriage."

Amen to the rejuvenation of dead brain cells! If I were a bigger person, I would say here that I hope conservatives heed her message. Alas, I delight too much at the prospect of the far right falling face-first into this hole that they've worked so incredibly hard to dig.

Side note: Judge Walker's decision on whether or not to "stay" his prop 8 ruling pending appeals (a process that could stretch on for years ...) should be announced in the next few hours, so keep your eyes peeled. If he decides against a stay, same-sex couples in California will be free to apply for marriage licenses almost immediately.

Ted Olson's appearance on FOX news: "Would you like for FOX's right to free press put up to a vote?"

2010-08-09T07:52:00.000-07:00

From Think Progress:

"Ted Olson — the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore — appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his recent victory in overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Throughout the interview, host Chris Wallace attempted to trip up his guest with a series of familiar Republican talking points, all of which Olson repudiated.

Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”

When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

Watch the interview here.

At the end of the interview, Wallace conceded that his right-wing points failed to crack Olson’s arguments. “Mr. Olson, we want to thank you so much for joining us today. We’ll keep following your lawsuit. And I gotta say, after your appearance today, I don’t understand how you ever lost a case in the supreme court, sir,” he said."

Resounding victory: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis” for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples

2010-08-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

Upon reviewing the 138 page decision submitted by Judge Walker in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow called it “delicious.”

Delicious it was. The decision was written in a way that overwhelmingly favored the plaintiffs – and “overwhelmingly” is really an understatement.

According to the New York Times, yesterday’s victory is "historic" (of course) and (perhaps more interestingly) "difficult to exaggerate" in terms of the way it suddenly tilted the gay civil rights movement in favor of the guys fighting for the rights.

I dare not present myself as any sort of legal expert, but I’ve read enough coverage at this point to proclaim with some confidence that Judge Walker – a “conservative” Justice (appointed by Reagan, reappointed by the second Bush) – did not labor over this decision. It was so obvious, in fact, that he almost couldn’t resist dismissing the defense and their “expert” witnesses as mere mouth-pieces of religious right politics, and in no way credible purveyors of anything that will hold up in the court of law or even in the court of rational thought. "Fails to advance any rational basis" was a notably strong admonishment - and a source of great delight for those of us who have long lamented the manifest bigotry (or in legal terms, “animus”) that was the architect and vigor of Proposition 8. To be clear - history has demonstrated time and time again that the majority should NEVER be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. Think about it.

What really packed the punch in Judge Walker’s decision was his “finding of facts,” which is the part of the decision that is unlikely to be seriously challenged by higher courts – in other words, the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court may challenge his application/interpretation of law, but in general, the finding of facts will not be subject to the same scrutiny. Here are just a few of those very compelling facts (direct quotes from the decision, borrowed from a Huffington Post recap):

• "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

• "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

• "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

• "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

• "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

• "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

• "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

It should be noted that Judge Walker issued a stay on California marriage licenses for same-sex couples until he can review arguments from both sides on whether it makes sense to continue that stay through the long appeals process that has already commenced. He will make that decision by tomorrow (August 6).
Here are a few additional links for your enjoyment:
New York Times (main story plus PDF of decision): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us

New York Times analysis of decision (and impact that the decision will ultimately have at the level of the Supreme Court): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html?_r=1&ref=us

Rachel Maddow’s interview with the plaintiffs’ superstar legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies after the decision was handed down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZdE08wcCU

Chad Griffin of the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), one of the organizations that advanced this case, stated:

"Our rights are fundamental. They are the birthright of every American. Be who you are, love who you love, and marry who you wish to marry. To those quiet millions, to the teenager in Bakersfield who aches for acceptance, to the college student in Salt Lake who only seeks liberty and equality, and to the couple in Topeka who longs to openly share their commitment and love, this victory is for you."

Delicious, indeed.

As the hour approaches ...

2010-08-04T12:15:00.000-07:00

Here is a clear and thorough explanation of what the Prop 8 ruling will mean in terms of short and long term impact on California and the nation at large: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/prop-8-decision-day-faq.html

If you are interested in attending a "response rally," check here to see if there is a planned event in your city: http://wockner.blogspot.com/2010/08/prop-8-day-of-decision-rallies-etc.html

I will be at 10th and Piedmont in Atlanta at 6:30 PM. Here's hoping that we will have something to celebrate ...

Prop 8 verdict expected tomorrow (WEDNESDAY AUGUST 4th)

2010-08-03T19:44:00.000-07:00

In somewhat "breaking news," the verdict that we've been waiting for all summer long will finally be announced tomorrow - sometime between 1 PM and 4 PM PST - in San Francisco. The overwhelming consensus (due to really lopsided evidence and testimony - the defense really struggled to "defend" their position in legal terms) is that Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional in that it violated the basic civil rights (as "promised" by the US Constitution) of gay and lesbian citizens. If that is in fact the ruling, much celebration will ensue, and rightfully so, but keep in mind that this case is headed for appeals (regardless of the decision) and will probably land on the docket of SCOTUS (and in the hands of Justice Kennedy, the current "swing" Justice).

If you haven't done a great job of keeping up with the Prop 8 trial, please reference the links below. And if you have kept up with the trial, then you are as excited as I am to read to decision, and the mere hours that separate us are nothing if not pure torture.

Pam's House Blend (PHB): http://www.pamshouseblend.com/tag/Perry%20v.%20Schwarzenegger
Prop 8 Trial Tracker: http://prop8trialtracker.com/
American Foundation for Equal Rights: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/action/lets-strike-down-prop-8/

Great excerpt from PHB describing the trial prior to closing arguments:

It has been an amazing two and a half weeks. This trial has been a truly historic moment for our community. It is the first time a federal court has heard, first hand, from real live witnesses, about the harm that the denial of marriage equality causes lesbians, gay men and their families every day. It's also the first time a federal court has heard the arguments in favor of marriage equality presented live in court by an array of internationally renowned scholars who are truly experts in their respective fields.

What stands out the most after having seen all the witnesses on both sides is how overwhelmingly one-sided the evidence in this case turned out to be. The plaintiffs, represented by some of the most skilled attorneys in the country, laid out a well-crafted, meticulous case, backed by the testimony of half a dozen of the most respected historians, psychologists, economists, and political scientists who study marriage, sexual orientation, and child development. Using the Prop 8 proponents' own outrageous and inflammatory words, ads, and emails, the plaintiffs powerfully demonstrated that Prop 8 was a direct product of hostility, fear-mongering, and demonization of lesbians and gay men. And through the deeply moving testimony of the plaintiffs and other members of our community, they proved beyond question that denying same-sex couples the right to marry causes great harm to LGBT people and their children.

Stacked up against this mountain of facts, scholarship, and science, the Prop 8 proponents - though represented by fine attorneys - were not able to come forward with a case of their own. Before trial, they dropped nearly every witness they had planned to present and relied entirely on two poorly qualified, ill-prepared expert witnesses, neither of whom was able to establish that banning same-sex couples from getting married has any rational or legitimate purpose relating to procreation, child rearing, tradition, or any of the other justifications that have been offered in the past in support of anti-gay discrimination. In fact, nearly all of the defendants' experts agreed with the plaintiffs that marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples and their families in many real, tangible ways.

It should not have come as a surprise that the defense's case turned out to be so weak. As our executive director Kate Kendell is fond of saying, the arguments against marriage equality have always been "all hat and no cattle." This trial showed more powerfully than ever that there truly is no substance to the arguments of those who would deny equality to our families.

It has been extremely gratifying to see those arguments aired out in public, before a smart, independent-minded judge, in a way that's never been done before. It is a shame that the public was unable to see the trial in video, but the transcripts, available at http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/, are fascinating reading for anyone interested in learning more about this important chapter in our civil rights struggle.

Atlanta pastor attacked in Piedmont Park for being gay. Predictably, he responds with empathy and love.

2010-07-22T16:01:00.000-07:00

This is a story that has been reported on by several major news outlets. The AJC has penned several articles, but it has also reached the airways of NPR, and reputedly the pages of several other large market newspapers (although I haven't done my homework to find those links).

There is a personal element in play for me. First, Josh Noblitt is one of four pastors at my Atlanta church, St. Mark United Methodist, and though I do not speak to Josh on a regular basis, I've always admired his ministry, which carries a heavy emphasis on social justice. Last I heard, Josh was spending a lot of time ministering to death row inmates (and lobbying against the death penalty). And secondly, the incident played out in Piedmont Park, where my girlfriend and I walk and play almost everyday. We are not shy about holding hands in any locale, but Piedmont Park is an especially safe space for us, as it is (or should be) for the entire LGBT community. Piedmont Park is the heart and soul of Atlanta, and Atlanta is the heart and soul of the gay South. If this can happen in Piedmont Park, well ... I dare not go any further with that statement for fear of what my imagination might yield.

Josh was enjoying a peaceful picnic with his partner on the evening of July 3rd when several teenagers approached his blanket and asked if the men were gay. Josh asked the boys to please go away, which they briefly did, but only to return minutes later with a larger group and brandishing a gun. Josh and his partner fought back to an extent, but were considerably out-manned. The boys, ranging in age from 13-19, kicked, punched, and otherwise abused Josh and his partner before they were able to run away and call 911.

It should be noted that – by even Josh’s account – the police acted swiftly in pursuing and arresting the suspects. The APD has also been thorough in their investigation, and there are rumors that the boys could face federal hate crime charges (although that appears unlikely, especially given their sta. We will have to see how this plays out in court, but it appears – at least for right now – that the justice system is working. And for gay Atlantans, that small observation is relevant and maybe even profound, given the gross negligence of our police department in similar incidents. Perhaps it has something to do with Josh’s pedigree as a community (in the greater sense, not just gay community) leader and pastor?

Regardless, the bigger part of this story is Josh’s response. Although somewhat predictable that he would not let his faith be swayed nor his passion for social justice diminished, it is no less remarkable and no less worthy of our admiration. Josh wrote and published this open letter to his “Beloved Community,” which includes but is in no way exclusive to the gay community or our church community. I think Josh would want it shared with anyone and everyone who believes that love can conquer hate, and if you are reading this blog, you likely fall into that line of thinking.

Here is an excerpt from Josh's letter, followed by his recap of the gathering that occurred last Sunday as a part of our community's effort to "Take Back the Park."

An Open Letter to the Beloved Community:

I have been thinking a lot about you over the past week and reflecting more on what it means to bring you into full existence. Rev. King describes you as a vision of total relatedness, transcending all demographics, embracing all, with justice for everyone, the alleviation of economic and social inequality, where everyone has the physical and spiritual necessities of life. As I try to make meaning out of the traumatic events of the past week, I find myself now in permanent relationship with people who I don’t know anything about other than the fact that they confronted me and my loved one in the park while we were enjoying a nice summer evening picnic ...

It is a sobering thing to have a loaded gun pressed against your head, and that moment has been branded into my memory forever. It has reminded me that life is short, tomorrow is not promised, and every moment is a precious gift not to be wasted. So what do I do with the time I have left? What would you have me do at this unique personal intersection of race, class, age, sexual orientation, and religion to advance your presence among us?

Over this past week, I have spent a lot of that time thinking about the young men I encountered in the park and I am sure they have thought a lot about me. I wonder how people so young could have found themselves in a position to make the decision to assault and rob people that they perceived to be gay and not think through the harm that it would cause to us, to the community and to themselves. Clearly spiritual starvation is at play in all of this, and I wonder what else.

Do they really hate me and people like me? Or do they merely think that we are easy targets? What led them to ask us if we were gay and then to conclude without even waiting for a response that we should be beaten for that? Would they still have approached us if we had been a man and a woman? Would they still have approached us if we were two men of the same race? Where did they even get these ideas in the first place? It doesn’t take much effort to find negative stereotypes about gay people or about young black men in our culture, and we have seen these stereotypes play out in community discourse over the past week. We live in a culture that so easily gives us permission to demonize the other without taking the time to look at the bigger picture or to hear stories from people who are different from us ...

My thoughts and reflections over the past week have led me to a fork in the road with two potential paths to take. One being a path of fear and the other being a path of love.
For me, the path of fear is easy at first, because it makes me feel safe by building up walls; viewing others with suspicion, and lashing out with violent intentions to protect myself before I am harmed. But slowly over time, it enslaves me to the actions of others by convincing me that I must retaliate hard when I have been wronged and to seek revenge. It leads me to make negative assumptions based on the limited information that I have and conclude that others are evil and without any redeeming qualities. As I gaze down the path of fear, it seems to lead to isolation, pain, and a very narrow view of the world.

I don’t want to walk down that path.

When I look down the path of love, it seems rocky at first. Difficult to navigate because it asks difficult questions and requires deeper reflection. It is a path that recognizes that people are not the worst thing they have ever done and that there is always a complex story and set of circumstances behind every decision we as human beings make, for better or for worse.

The path of love leads me to try to find ways to reach out to people in search of common ground and the reflection of the divine that exists in each of us. The path of love leads to a much wider view of the world and to the liberating reality that we are deeply connected to each other; we are all in this together; and whether we want to admit it or not WE NEED EACH OTHER.

I don’t know what that means yet in the context of the events of the past week or how you would have me act to ensure justice both for those young men or for myself, but I trust that you will guide me and guide us all in our quest to live in a safer community.

Rev. King said that you require from us a “qualitative change in our souls and a quantitative change in our lives” in order to bring about your presence and reality. It is going to be a long and difficult road ahead for both me and for them as this all plays out in the courts and beyond. But I want to be on the path of love leading to Beloved Community; committed to the work of restoration and reconciliation.

Joshua Morgan Noblitt
July 11, 2010

The picnic that Josh occurred in Piedmont Park a week after he wrote this letter, on the afternoon of Sunday, July 18th. Brantley and I attended, and it was as wonderful and as inspiring as you would expect it to be. Another blogger already recapped it here, so please take a look (lots of great pictures too).

Josh's remarks on the picnic were published on St. Mark's website yesterday:

The clouds parted with impeccable timing Sunday just in time for our picnic in Piedmont Park, despite what seemed like open monsoon season earlier in the day. I got there right before 3pm with my Mom and Dad who drove down from NC to be with me for the day. I wondered whether it would just be the three of us because of the weather, but gradually over the next hour individuals, couples, families, and groups of friends started showing up one after another, over 150 in all. They spread out colorful blankets, shared delicious food, played games and combined their healing energy together in one beautiful display of love and solidarity with all those who have been targeted because they are different.

Halfway through our time together, I stood to address the people assembled in the exact same spot where just two weeks and two days before, my loved one and I had spread out our blanket, set up our picnic basket, and were enjoying a peaceful summer evening together. I felt a flood of thoughts and emotions before I started to speak. I thought about the gun pressed to my temple, the bruises on my face and body, and the anger I felt at having a carefree evening ripped out from underneath me. I thought about the ease at which those young people allowed themselves to disrespect us because of our perceived sexual orientation. I thought about the ‘what ifs’ of the night of July 2, 2010 and the possibility that the delicious shrimp pasta dish I had prepared that evening might have been my last. I thought about the sadness I felt when I found out the age of the people who had been arrested, and how traumatic this would be for their families and my own as this plays out in the Courts and beyond. I thought about the stories I had heard from dozens of people who also had been targeted because of their race, religion or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Many of these thoughts caused me to feel some measure of doubt about whether we could make a difference and whether this gathering would even be remembered next week.

But then I looked into the faces of the people standing before me. Beautiful faces of beautiful people, gathered to transform tragedy into triumph and to bring Beloved Community into closer proximity. I thought about the people across the country who were gathering at the same exact time in solidarity picnics, supporting us in Atlanta as well as all those who have been targeted because of who they are. Then I looked over and noticed a small sign made by Jordan Lee-Barber from our congregation that simply said, “Love Wins.” At that moment, I felt the sting of the previous memory of that space lessen and the feelings of doubt and despair melt away. The soothing balm of the new memory we were creating together covered me and I knew that in ALL things, love wins.

That day we left our fears behind for the afternoon and took a few steps down the path of love. We gave ourselves a small glimpse of the Beloved Community and I for one am transformed because of it. I have caught a few glimpses of it in the past and each time it leaves me longing for a more permanent view. There are countless others who work tirelessly for Beloved Community all around the world, and they too catch glimpses of it every now and then. May we find each other in our common quest, build the relationships that will bring us more glimpses until they merge together and form a permanent vision of a new reality with total relatedness, that transcends all demographics, embraces all, with justice for everyone, the alleviation of economic and social inequality, where everyone has the physical and spiritual necessities of life. The day of that reality is coming … and I plan to be there to see it.

Putting a price tag on prom (and dignity)

2010-07-21T12:01:00.000-07:00

The Mississippi school district that decided against hosting a prom rather than allowing a female student to bring another female student to prom will now have to pay the young woman, Constance McMillen, $35,000 in damages.
The most interesting part of this story is the young lady's account of classmates and parents setting up a "decoy" prom for her to attend (alone) and then hosting a "real" prom in a different location. Nice.

The guys are catching up; two moms are still better than one (duh); Gareth Thomas and Chely Wright breaking barriers

2010-06-14T09:59:00.001-07:00

Courtesy of my friend Liz Weaver, who emailed this link to me last week, take a look at the new Gallup results on the American public's ever-evolving view on the "moral acceptability" of gay and lesbian relationships. NYT op-ed columnist Charles Blow calls the results "stunning," but I would argue the opposite. Men have always been a little bit behind women in promoting and accepting diversity (the latter, after all, having garnered some empathy for minorities over the years as a function of their own minority status), but when men realize that the fight is futile (as this fight clearly is), they are remarkably quick to make concessions. It appears that the white flag on overt homophobia (emphasis on overt) is steadily rising, thanks mostly to the "dudes" who are finally figuring out that the "who gives a shit?" attitude is a helluva lot cooler than getting their last kicks in on a little brother who is growing faster and stronger and showing signs of, well, giving a shit.

Liz also passed along the results of the first-ever study of children raised by lesbian parents from insemination to adolescence. Shocker alert: the 18-23 year olds are at least equal to their peers in every single measured area, and in fact (cue the real shocker!), scored HIGHER than their peers in the following areas: psychological competency (particularly self-esteem), academic performance, and behavior (fewer incidences of rule-breaking and aggression). Hmmm. With the "lesbian baby boom" gaining momentum, it seems that our future is in capable hands. So here's a good question: why don't we extend the same tax benefits and legal protections to these highly functional families? Come again? Same question, different day. I will keep asking. Let me know if you stumble upon the answer ... any answer for that matter.

Behold one of the best pieces of sports journalism in recent memory: Gareth Thomas, the only openly gay professional male athlete (in a big-time international sport) wonders why the USA doesn't have anyone with his courage and conviction and immense tolerance for pain (American football is pussy football, and Gareth Thomas, the most rugged of rugby stars, is no pussy. What he is, though, is damn proud to be out of the closet).

And just for fun (or rather, just because she's so damn cute), here's the link the People article about Chely Wright, who just tore down another barrier as the first openly gay (mainstream) country artist. Chely admits that life in the closet nearly killed her (literally), and describes the moment that she decided to stop lying as the greatest moment of her life. Let's hope that Chely inspires a few of her closet-case colleagues to stop running and hiding and writing songs about their dogs.

Dorothy's reason for leaving Kansas?

2010-05-10T07:16:00.000-07:00

Living across the street from a large high school comes with a few minor headaches (carpool traffic at 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM) and a lot of little pleasures (the sounds of a marching band on crisp fall Friday evenings). Over time, I've grown fond of the gorgeous old building and it's diverse and exuberant students and teachers - all serving as friendly reminders of my own high school experience (with the notable exception that my high school didn't sit across the street from Piedmont Park in the heart of Midtown, Atlanta).

Last week, my fondness evolved into an all-out love affair when I joined Grady High School's counter-protest of Fred Phelps' Klan. I can't tell the story as well as Atlanta's gay media, the Huffington Post, and the student who organized the counter-protest have already told it, so I will just give you the links below, but suffice it to say that I was moved to tears, and have never felt quite as hopeful about the future of the GLBT community as I did in the moment that I saw a mob of 14-18 year olds joining their neighbors and community leaders in condemning the hate-filled message of Westboro Baptist "Church." A few of my favorite counter-protest signs: "We love our gay students and teachers!", "ATL = Acceptance, Tolerance, and Love", "Dorothy had a good reason to leave Kansas [WBC's home state]!" and "God only hates Hate." The last one - "God hates Hate" - turned into a passionate and escalating chant as students moved closer and closer to the Klan (blocking traffic at the Charles Allen entrance to the Park). Police intervened to ensure the safety of Fred's followers (10 vs. 500 wasn't going to end well ...), but the cowards had seen enough: they ran for the protection of their strategically parked cars and used a police escort to exit the scene of their latest crime.

From Project Q: Protest Turns Chaotic article and lots of photos.
From GA Voice (MUST READ): Grady High student Becca Daniels talks about how/why she organized the counter-protest with her Grady High peers.
Huffington Post: VIDEOS and more photos.

An alternate take on Obama

2010-04-19T13:04:00.000-07:00

Michael Shear of the Washington Post points out that President Obama is taking small but meaningful steps in the right direction for the GLBT community. Perhaps more significantly, Mr. Shear makes an argument that Obama might actually care about doing what is right (as opposed to just winning our votes for a second term).

Thanks for the link, T!

As I imagine it ...

2010-04-16T12:10:00.000-07:00

Sometime yesterday, Obama needed a break from more important matters (such as dodging hollow bullets from Tea Party snipers), and decided to entertain his adviser on gay rights for a few minutes in the Oval Office. After introductory handshakes (Obama asks Rahm: Who is this guy again?), said adviser warns Obama that those gay groups that threw such lavish, lucrative fundraisers to support his candidacy (remember those?) are growing a little antsy again.

Obama shifts in his seat, avoids eye contact, and exclaims: “My gosh! What more do they want? I told congress to get rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We need 30,000 troops in Kabul by this summer, and any gay person who wants to take a bullet or set off roadside bombs is welcome to sign up. What more do they want, Mr. Adviser??” The Adviser calmly informs our Commander in Chief that nothing much has changed on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, LGBT-inclusive ENDA is still stalled on the House floor, and the hate speech directed at the gay community has really ratcheted up since Sarah Palin’s book tour went rogue in America’s redneck towns.

President Obama nods slowly and wrinkles his forehead in deep contemplation. And finally he proffers: “What about the hospital visitation thing? Gay people are always complaining that they can’t see their partners in the hospital, even with power-of-attorney. I can’t really change the rules, but I could at least release a statement saying that I SUPPORT changing the rules! What do you think, Mr. Adviser? Would that appease ‘em for awhile?”

The adviser smiles meekly and says, “Thanks, Mr. President. That would be just peachy. As long as you don’t think it will cost you too much political capital, of course. It certainly won’t be a popular decision to allow our gay citizens provide comfort to a loved one in his/her dying hours.”

President Obama returns the Adviser’s cautious smile and gets up to usher his guest out of the office: “Oh well. If it has to be done, it has to be done. Let’s meet again around this time next year? I will definitely need the gay purse to fund my re-election.” Adviser departs.

Vice President Biden appears out of nowhere. “Allowing visitation rights to same-sex partners, Mr. President? That’s a big fucking deal!” Obama tells the VP to keep his mouth shut and help him manage the media on this one. Eventually the leaders of our great country decide on a Thursday evening press release to draw the least possible attention. And then it’s done.

I think I’m supposed to be grateful? Nah. I’ll save my gratitude for when the rules are actually implemented. And if it was THAT easy, why wasn’t it done 15 months ago? In the intervening period, we’ve seen hundreds (if not thousands) of incidents similar to the high-profile case from 2007 that supposedly attracted Obama’s long overdue sympathy.

In other recent news, it appears that the Deranged Right is having a field day with the remote possibility that Obama could appoint a (CLOSETED!) gay woman to the Supreme Court. If it happens, the confirmation hearings could be THE event of 2010 – can you just imagine the fun and fireworks?

Congressman: “So, Ms. Kagan, can you prove to us beyond a reasonable doubt that you are exclusively interested in having sex with men?”

Kagan: “I can’t use the word ‘exclusively’ to describe my interests, sir. I am in fact interested in other things. I like good books, Starbucks coffee, jazz music, and vacationing in Sarah Palin’s bed … err … I mean Todd Palin's bed! Different beds by the way. Anyway, are you asking me to sleep with YOU? I’m not sure how else I can prove it to you? But to answer your question, my arrow shoots straight.”

Congressman: “How do we know that you aren’t just hiding in the closet until you have your seat on the Supreme Court, at which point you would slam your rainbow gavel on the hetero heartbeat of America?”

Kagan: “Well, Mr. Congressman, my judicial record is actually quite conservative, much more conservative than Judge Stevens, in fact, so I’m not sure I understand the line of questioning …”

Congressman: “How do we know that your judicial record is not just a function of your own self-loathing? Maybe you just really hate yourself? Here’s the thing, though: I just need some reassurance, Ms. Kagan, that you will continue to repress who you are in order to protect who I am. Is that understood?”

Kagan: “No worries, Mr. Congressman. I’m a career-first kind of woman. Why do you think I’m sitting here? There is a certain profile for insanely successful women, and I fit the profile.”

Silence in the gallery as all observers ponder: "Did she just come out of the closet?" ;)

Update on DADT and a great post from Accepting Dad

2010-03-25T09:39:00.000-07:00

Running short on time again, but two updates on DADT:

Secretary Robert Gates claims that the U.S. military will ease the enforcement of DADT in anticipation of a full repeal: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/military.gays/index.html?hpt=T1

Such progress is "too little, too late" for Choi and Pietrangelo, who feel just fine and dandy about going to trial over their recent DADT protest outside of the White House (read my post from last week for more on this story):
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/19/Choi_and_Pietrangelo_Plead_Not_Guilty/

And for a tear-jerker, please read the most recent post of "Accepting Dad," which briefly covers the story of a Georgia teen who was recently kicked out of his home for "going public" with his intention to attend prom with his boyfriend. "Accepting Dad" has a few questions and a dose of gentle advice for the boy's parents. http://www.acceptingdad.com/2010/03/25/fearing-for-your-kids-or-fearing-your-kids-were-all-gay-now/

Lt. Dan Choi arrested at White House: "Hope is not a strategy."

2010-03-19T11:26:00.000-07:00

Lt. Dan Choi, until yesterday, was the stoic face of the argument against Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Recently reinstated to his Army unit as a PR-motivated sleight of hand by the proponents of DADT, I don't think I was alone in assuming Lt. Choi would fade to invisibility in his continued service to our country - not as a gay rights activist, but as a member of our armed military. Until yesterday, you see, Lt. Dan Choi was the poster-child of diplomacy, pragmatism, and at best, quiet activism. He seemed reluctantly caught in the cross-fire of political vitriol; an "extra" in the cast of veterans and soldiers fighting for the right to live openly before, during, and after putting their lives on the line to preserve the American version of freedom. Lt. Choi was a reluctant star, never really willing to step into the glaring spotlight. Until yesterday, that is, when Lt. Dan Choi, West Point graduate and veteran combatant, unexpectedly joined a lame and listless HRC rally in DC, and then announced his intention to march to the White House, in uniform, and handcuff himself to the outside gate of President Obama's residence. Lt. Choi admitted that the seed of his sudden discontent arose from Barney Frank's remark earlier this week that, despite overwhelming public support for the repeal of DADT, support from the Obama administration has been "ambivalent."

Lt. Dan Choi and his comrade in civil disobedience, Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, were promptly arrested by secret service agents. Lt. Choi and Capt. Pietrangelo are manifestly aware of the severe consequences of their protest, especially as men in uniform, which could include military prison sentences.

Prior to his march on the White House, Lt. Dan Choi spoke the following words to a small HRC gathering:

"My name is Dan Choi. I am being discharged from the US Army because I am gay and dared to say it out loud. Today, I am here on a mission with Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, and we are asking you all to join us. We're calling you to action because we are at a turning point - a moment in time where talk is no longer enough, and action is required. Equality is not going to happen by itself.

You have been told that the President has a plan. But Congressman Barney Frank confirmed to us this week that the President still is not fully committed to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. And if we don't seize this moment it may not happen for a very long time.

Some may tell you that I am one of the lucky ones. I have been welcomed back by my unit with open arms. And it would be easy for me to stay quiet and hope that change will happen.
But what I was taught at West Point and learned in war is - hope is not a strategy. As officers, James and I both find it a dereliction of our moral duty to remain silent while thousands of our brothers and sister are not allowed to serve honestly.

Capt. Pietrangelo was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 2004 and I will be subject to the same shortly. As officers we are here today fighting for those in the ranks, and we need our Commander in Chief to do the same.

Our fight is not here at Freedom Plaza, it is at the White House. We are walking to the White House right now to send the President a message. So...take out your cell phones and your cameras. Document this moment. Join us as we make history."

So what to think of all of this? Could this signal the beginning-of-the-end of a well-documented era of complacency and compromise from gay activists? I love the symbolism of Lt. Choi interrupting an HRC event (I could write a lot on the ineffectiveness of HRC, but there are entire blogs devoted to that one topic, so I will just refer you to the experts) ... anyway, back to that thought: I LOVE the symbolism of Lt. Choi indignantly interrupting Kathy Griffin's speech (Kathy Griffin!?! Can't HRC find an A-list celebrity to pose for gay rights?) to announce his intentions, and then asking the crowd to follow him up Pennsylvania Avenue. Many complied, although it was apparently difficult to keep up with his pace - he didn't wait around for the stragglers - again, apropos symbolism, Lt. Choi.

Lt. Choi and Capt. Pietrangelo were not granted bail (or a phone call for that matter) and will be arraigned this afternoon.

On the very same day, two factions of the same group of demonstrators conducted a bi-coastal "sit-in" at the DC and San Francisco office locations of Nancy Pelosi, protesting the delay of the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Pelosi made promises that she couldn't keep, and ENDA legislation seems to be held up indefinitely. The instances of incompetence on Capitol Hill are far too numerous to sort and file, but that shouldn't stop us from holding our representatives accountable. Kudos to the protestors, who were also arrested.

Of all that has been written in the last 24 hours about Dan Choi's protest, Huffington Post's Rob Smith offers the most balanced reaction, not least of all because he acknowledges how our general malaise has diluted our definition of activism. At the end of the article, Smith observes: "People keep wondering who's going to be the Martin Luther King of the gay rights movement, and that I still don't know, but I think yesterday's actions may have put us one step closer to finding our Malcolm X."

Court dismisses all charges against the Eagle 8

2010-03-16T08:13:00.000-07:00

I am posting from a cyber cafe at a work function, so must be quick.

You might recall the unjustified and poorly executed police raid on Atlanta's Eagle Bar a few months ago. Yesterday, the "Eagle 8" finally had their day in court, and guess what? Justice prevailed. But as Ryan points out in his appropriately titled commentary, "Bittersweet Victory," the sour taste from a night that should've never happened will linger for a long time in the hearts and minds of gay Atlantans.

More later.

Congrats to DC

2010-03-09T07:19:00.000-08:00

Congratulations, DC!

In a related note, the Catholic Archdiocese of DC followed through on their promise to not recognize same-sex marriage by altering their Health Plan to deny coverage to ALL spouses. The changes will not affect current employees, who are "grandfathered in" to the new Health Plan, but will definitely impact newly hired employees, straight or gay, who require health coverage for spouses. Another sad day for the Catholic Church.

Do Ask, Do Tell #2

2010-02-04T11:48:00.001-08:00

Just posted on CNN: An open letter from a 29-year veteran of the US Navy detailing her experience with DADT, and her "wake-up call" in the wake of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Please read this brief excerpt:

"I had pretended to be straight and played the games most gays in the military are all too familiar with -- not daring to have a picture of Lynne on my desk, being reluctant to go out to dinner with her, telling her not to call me at work except in a real emergency, not going to church together, avoiding shopping for groceries together and generally staying out of sight of anyone I knew when we were together. I didn't want to have to lie about who Lynne was or have someone conclude that we were more than casual friends.

But it was the events of September 11, 2001, that caused me to appreciate fully the true impact of "don't ask, don't tell" on our lives.

At 8:30 a.m. on September 11, I went to a meeting in the Pentagon. At 9:30 a.m. I left that meeting. At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight No. 77 slammed into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space I had left less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of my colleagues.

In the days and weeks that followed, I went to several funerals and memorial services for shipmates who had been killed. Most of my co-workers attended these services with their spouses whose support was critical at this difficult time, yet I was forced to go alone.

As the numbness began to wear off, it hit me how incredibly alone Lynne would have been had I been killed. The military is known for how it pulls together and helps people; we talk of the "military family," which is a way of saying we always look after each other, especially in times of need. But none of that support would have been available for Lynne, because under "don't ask, don't tell," she couldn't exist.

In fact, Lynne would have been one of the last people to know had I been killed, because nowhere in my paperwork or emergency contact information had I dared to list her name.

This realization caused us to stop and reassess exactly what was most important in our lives. During that process, we realized that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was causing us to make a much bigger sacrifice than either of us had ever admitted. Eight months later, in June 2002, I retired after more than 29 years in the U.S. Navy, an organization I will always love and respect."

Do Ask, Do Tell

2010-02-04T08:25:00.000-08:00

Please click here and e-sign the petition to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (can I get a "FINALLY!!"??). And if you are unhappy with Obama (hand raised), just be thankful for a moment that we didn't elect John McCain, who has, not surprisingly, reversed his opinion on the policy due to pressure exerted by the only people who actually cast votes for him, far-right fundamentalists. Politics are one thing. John McCain is something else.

"Their lives would be on a higher arc ..."

2010-01-12T08:23:00.000-08:00

Yesterday marked Day 1 of the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger trial that will determine whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional, and could ultimately restore same-sex marriage rights in California. Regardless of the outcome, this trial is MOMUMENTAL for gays and lesbians across the world due to the unprecedented visibility it will give to our fight for basic civil rights. The plaintiffs in the case – two gay couples - are represented by a formidable legal team led by a conservative (George W. Bush’s former solicitor general! Wonders never cease …).

We will hear “expert testimony” from the brightest minds our country has to offer – for example, by the conclusion of Day 1 proceedings, a Harvard professor widely regarded as THE foremost scholar on the history of marriage, testified that marriage has never been defined (in any terms) as a union exclusive to one man and one woman, and in fact, marriage was never intended to have the religious connotation is has today. Marriage has been “interpreted” by religion, but should not be enslaved by religion. Marriage is a construction of civil law, and thus, can only be discussed in the context of civil law, and can only be denied by a court's ruling that knowingly legalizes discrimination (read: this should have never been put to a popular vote).

The defendants in the case are a conglomeration of Prop 8 proponents – the very people who raised lots of money to disseminate pre-election messaging such as "allowing gays to marry = exposing your kids to child molesters" will now to be forced to answer questions. This is not a jury trial, so Judge Walker can stop and ask questions at any juncture, and he wielded that power liberally on the first day, interrupting both sides to request sources, question assumptions, and ponder legal questions such as, “Would California have the option to deny EVERYONE marriage licenses if it is found unconstitutional to deny a certain segment of the population marriage licenses?” Interesting question. I like the way he is thinking.

Most of Day 1 was consumed by highly personal testimony from the plaintiffs in the case, who discussed their lives at length (when they knew they were gay, what it felt like to come out, what it felt like to be in love for the first time, how the lack of marriage equality impacts everyday life, what it feels like to be called a “child molester” – you get the point). The testimony was – by all accounts – incredibly powerful, moving many spectators to tears. When asked what it would mean for young gay people if they knew that they would have the same access to marriage and equality as their heterosexual friends, plaintiff Perry stated: “Their lives would be on a higher arc.” Well put.

The plaintiffs were cross-examined, of course, and – also by all accounts –held their ground admirably, walking right through the smoke screens that were raised in a lame effort to conceal their integrity and humanity.

There is an excellent website that has been created to track the trial on an hourly basis: http://prop8trialtracker.com/. I will try to copy and paste a summary each day, but if you want to follow it more closely, I recommend the above linked site OR Pam’s House Blend. Pam’s Day 1 summary can be found here: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/14796/shannon-minter-perry-v-schwarzenegger-trial-day-1.

And here is the Prop 8 Trial Tracker’s summary of Day 1:
An Earthquake
By Rick Jacobs
Well, we’re done for today, which is kind of sad. I remember the first time I really heard anyone use the phrase “teachable moment.” Arianna Huffington said it as only she can. And it stuck with me. But then, as with so many other popular culture phrases, it became hackneyed. If someone punched a kid in the eye, it was a “teachable moment.”

Today has truly provided teaching of the first order. When do we get to see four people—two couples—relate very personal stories about marriage and love and being gay? When do we get to hear those people talk about how the Prop. 8 ads hurt them personally? When do we see the affect that stigmatizing homosexuals for millennia has had on Jeff or Sandy? And when do we get to learn from a Yale and Harvard professor that our current understanding of the form of marriage is relatively new, not biblically based and the building block of the American polity?

I just finished up a talk with a reporter who had a bad divorce. His girlfriend wants to get married; he does not. After watching today’s trial, he said he understands why she wants to marry. Too bad the right wing does not use the trial to teach the value of marriage. That’s how we strengthen not just the institution of marriage, but American civilization.

Thanks Chad Griffin and Bruce Cohen for having the vision and balls to put this together. And thanks donors who had the courage of their wallets. Thanks to the plaintiffs for putting yourselves out there, for being vulnerable. But most of all, thanks to David Boies and Ted Olson. Let us not ever underestimate the source of much of the ethos that pervades this trial. It is from Ted Olson, a lifelong Republican, George Bush II’s Solicitor General. I have known Ted for twenty five years through business dealings in the distant past. I have rarely agreed with him, but I have always respected him. And I guarantee you that the nine justices and the entire right-wing/libertarian establishments are watching Ted’s leadership on this issue.

There was an earthquake outside of San Francisco last night. Little damage was done. There was an earthquake in this courthouse today that will continue to shake the system for decades and maybe centuries to come.

No place like home for the Holidays? And a nomination for Dad-of-the-year.

2009-11-25T10:38:00.000-08:00

I’ve noticed two things about gay bars on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. They are open. And they are full.

Holidays are hard for everyone. Holidays are for families, and families are complex, fragmented, and fraught with furtive undertones. If you think your family doesn’t fit that description, then run, don’t walk, to a qualified therapist who can quickly diagnose the source of your dangerous delusions. And once you’ve seen the light, also be aware that the Holidays are the time of year when those furtive undertones threaten to ferment. The Holidays are when we push aside our differences in the name of mistletoe, thankfulness, and (GOD DAMNIT!), togetherness. We pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and then take our chances. Most of the time, we hold it together for long enough to feign sanity. We write our platitude-saturated “thank-you” notes, affix 35 cent stamps, and symbolically drop our relatives in the mailbox, raising the flag on survival and muttering under our eggnog breath, “please don’t call, I’ll call you … no, really, I promise I will.”

When you look at it that way, maybe the gay people are the lucky ones. We are often excluded, but not in the way that the alcoholic uncle or the bi-polar cousin are excluded. Most of the time, the invitations arrive, but without the “plus one” that we hoped for, and we sit down at the dining room table with the one we love and discuss the options. We usually settle on what is easiest: we will spend the holidays apart again this year. Maybe next year will be different, we say. We should talk to our families, we say. We should tell them that we are a package deal, we say. We talk about how many years we’ve been together, and we play the what-if game. What if we were straight? Certainly we would be invited to see both families. But boy, that would be logistically hard, we say. We would have to choose one. Which side would we choose? Gosh, we say, aren’t we glad we don’t have to make that decision? We look down. We walk our dinner plates to the kitchen sink. Maybe next year will be different, we say.

If one of our families is "supportive" and "open-minded," an invitation arrives one day with both of our names, and we cherish that envelope, at least for a few hours. But we have grown thick, cynical skin over the years, and we can’t help but wonder if the gesture is genuine. We wonder if they really want both of us, or if they hope that we will know that a gesture is just that – a gesture. And if it is genuine, as it sometimes is, we are thankful, but it doesn’t solve our problem. Should we reward the welcoming family and punish the other family? But we love both, we say. And maybe the other family is expecting both of us, but just didn’t explicitly say so, because the language we’ve adopted over the years is abstruse, necessarily so, and sometimes the message (or the invitation) gets lost in translation. And then we make the mistake of allowing ourselves to think about what it would be like to spend the Holidays together. It would be wonderful, we say. Or maybe not, we think, but do not say. We are both imagining our families – what about the sister-in-law who doesn’t know yet? What about Grandma? She must know, but she is pretty protective of Holidays. Will she say something to my “friend”? This could go badly, we think, but again, do not say. We should just go our separate ways, we say. Maybe next year will be different, we say.

And then next year comes, and it’s not any different. We have seen each other families over the course of the year, and it went so swimmingly well, mollifying our spoken and unspoken fears, but we know better than to drop our shields. And we are soon glad that we tempered expectations, because it looks like the Holidays are different than those other times. The Holidays include extended family, and our immediate family still isn’t ready to acknowledge us as one. It’s not that they say that, but we feel it. We know it. And it hurts. But we can still protect each other. Or can we? We tell each other that our families are just fine, that we should go see both families this year, that we are just sure it will be just fine. But we see the skeptical looks in each other’s eyes, and though we rarely argue, we begin to argue over this, because now we are hurting each other.

And at the end of it all, we realize that we have to choose. We have to choose each other, or we have to choose our families. This is when many relationships come to a close, because not choosing family never feels right, shouldn't feel right. Our resentment grows strong over the years, and then finally we have no place to take it out but on each other. We are not married. We are not legally bound to one another. Our families seem to have noticed, and perhaps taken advantage of that little detail, and now, it is a significant detail. It’s easy to go our separate ways. No lawyers. No family pressure to work it out. In fact, it’s the opposite. Mom doesn’t have an extra place at the dinner table this year, anyway. Not after little Johnny knocked up his girlfriend and eloped, adding a surfeit piece to the dysfunctional family puzzle. She is glad to be relieved of one. She is glad to be relieved of the one you love.

But as the gay community strengthens, evolves, and lives increasingly open and honest lives, this dynamic is shifting. Just as we are demanding basic civil rights, we are demanding a place at the Holiday table, literally and figuratively. We are tolerating the discomfort, and we are protecting our relationships as much in the family sphere as we do in our own private sphere. We are making ultimatums. We are choosing each other, even if it means missing our families. We are staying home for the Holidays, politely declining both invitations in favor a quiet day with each other. Or maybe a more boisterous day with friends at the bars, which, not ironically, grow fuller and more boisterous by the year. What was once a haven for those who had been ostracized is now a celebration for those who are accepting nothing less than acceptance. The truism about picking friends, if not family, is really very true in the gay community. If next year isn’t any different, at least we are not without the choice to never again feel as alone as we sometimes felt spending the Holidays without the one we love. Maybe, just maybe, we are the lucky ones, we say.

(NOTE: My girlfriend and I are both fortunate enough to have loving, supportive, and relatively functional families. We are spending Thanksgiving with each other at home, but not because the invitations weren’t extended by both sides. As for Christmas, we are very much looking forward to spending time with both families, although we will likely be apart on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. We are certain that next year will be different.)

(A MORE IMPORTANT NOTE: I was reading an article in the NYT a few weeks ago about gender variant kids when it referenced this utterly amazing blog – www.acceptingdad.com – if you haven’t seen it before, PLEASE see it now. I recommend starting with this post. Or this one. The latter post concludes with this poem by Peter Gabriel:

You have gambled with your own life
And you face the night alone
While the builders of the cages
Sleep with bullets, bars and stone
They do not see your road to freedom
That you build with flesh and bone

For the young kids out there who feel like they might have been born in the wrong body, or just don't identify easily with their own gender, I'm guessing that just about says it all. They are not slaves to their own fear, at least not yet, and we should follow their lead.

Sad news for Atlantans: SoVo is gone

2009-11-16T09:20:00.001-08:00

Incredibly disheartening news for the gay community in Atlanta (and across the Southeast) this morning: Southern Voice and David Magazine have officially closed their doors. My heart is breaking for the many individuals - especially the journalists - who gave so much sweat equity and selfless service to the gay community. Southern Voice told our stories for over 20 years, and will be sorely missed. I don't think anyone realizes just how much.

Here's the story from AJC.

Harry Knox on Maine

2009-11-04T11:01:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in an earlier post that my church, St. Mark United Methodist, celebrates Gay Pride with great gusto, both in homage to our diverse congregation and also in an attempt to embrace the overwhelming percentage of gay people who have been erroneously and irresponsibly exiled from Christian churches all over our "free" country.

Last Sunday, as part of the 11:15 service, we welcomed home Harry Knox, who is both a longtime member of the St. Mark family and the current director of HRC’s religion and faith program. Harry spoke excitedly about all of the positive things that came out of Washington last week (hate crimes legislation was finally signed into law, and two days later, the travel and immigration ban on HIV-positive persons was repealed). He also spoke about the all-consuming, unprejudiced love of God, even for those of us who eat shell-fish (!), wear cotton-polyster blends (!), sit next to a menstruating woman (!), and - gasp - love other sinners of the same gender.

I just received an email from one of the pastors at St. Mark, Reverend Mandy Flemming (if you aren't already following Mandy's blog, please do), with a link to a personal essay that Harry wrote this morning in response to yesterday’s vote in Maine. I am going to re-post his letter here. Please read and enjoy.

“By the rivers of Babylon, we sat down and wept…how could we sing the songs of Zion…?"

This morning I am wondering who and what I am. Once again, when American voters have had an opportunity to affirm my humanity and the loving commitment I have made to my husband, a majority of those voters have made a conscious decision to deny my humanity and treat me as if my citizenship and my marriage mean nothing; all the while patting themselves on the back for their piety. The slap they intended is received. I am made to wonder – Am I human? Am I an American? Am I a Christian? Am I married?

It is clear that most voters in Maine, like majorities in other states before them, intend for me to feel less than human. People we respect as sisters and brothers in the human family, we treat as equals. Those majorities have reserved to themselves a legal right they feel specially entitled to – in spite of the fact that my husband and I face all the health, financial, familial and social challenges they do, and need the same supports they enjoy.

Here’s what I know.

I know that I was never more beautifully and powerfully human in my life than the day I committed myself to lifelong partnership with my caring, strong, handsome, wise, funny husband. We made ourselves vulnerable to care for each other forever, come what may. There is no more hopeful, faithful, joyful, generative act in all the world. It was a decision only humans could enter into both intellectually and spiritually. It was a total giving of ourselves to each other, and as such, it mirrored in part the gift Christ made for us on the Cross.

Voters in Maine have said with clarity that my husband and I are to be denied equal treatment under the law, despite the Constitutional promises made to us. The voters are unequivocal – we are something, but we are not, in their opinions, American citizens, despite the facts that we are native born or have diligently served our country over the last five decades.

What I know is that Mike and I seek everyday to contribute more to our country and God’s world than we take from it. We have given our lives and careers in the service of others through Christ, and we have invested most of our time and much of our money into helping America live into its promises and potential.

Most Maine voters want us to understand once and for all that the Bible, which has been used to subjugate women, people of color, and the poor of every gender and race is now to be used as a weapon against us. They have gleaned all they intend to learn from their faith and as far as they are concerned, my family can go to hell.

I know that we are disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, God’s incarnate word of truth, love, and justice who lived, died, and through his death and resurrection redeemed and continues to reconcile us, America and all the earth to God’s original vision of peace and caring community.

It is clear to me now that a majority of Americans have chosen to deny my human rights, deny my citizenship, and deny my Christianity, by denying my freedom to marry. So where does that leave me? Who and what am I on November 4, 2009?

I know – I know – that I am married to my husband, Mike. He defends me against all who would do me harm and is faithful to me in spite of all temptations. We have cared for each other through more sickness than health; we’ve known more financial setbacks than gains; we have nursed each others’ family members, wept over the graves of lost loved ones, helped and received help from family and friends, and assisted in raising the children of some heterosexual folks who weren’t able to raise their own. I wake in the morning and nod at night with prayers of thanksgiving for the wonderful man with whom I am building a family by God’s grace.

Today I am tempted to feel like an exile in my native land – to question who and what I am. But this I know: in the end it matters not one whit what others say or believe about me and mine. What matters, today and forever, is what we believe about ourselves. We are fully human. We are Americans. We are Christians. And we are most assuredly married.

When I remember that, the powers of hell cannot prevail against me or my marriage. I am empowered to continue to do the difficult work that will ultimately bring justice in the form of marriage equality to our land. I, and my husband with me, offer our heterosexual neighbors a vision of what the world will look like when we get the human rights we deserve – a world where everyone will live in peace and mutual respect with our neighbors."

HRC link to Harry's essay: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/a-religious-reflection-on-maine/

Major Disappointment in Maine; Good News in NC

2009-11-04T06:57:00.000-08:00

Election Tuesday yielded a mixed bag of results for the gay community. The most publicized ballot measure, Question 1 in Maine, was approved, meaning that the marriage rights extended to GLBT citizens by the state legislature this summer have been rescinded by popular vote. In other words, Maine feels your pain, California. The campaign to vote "YES" to Question 1 (and thus, "NO" to gay marriage - a bit confusing, eh?) was funded largely by the same fundamentalist groups that funded the campaign for Prop 8, and as observed by the brilliant and venerable (and adorable!) Rachel Maddow a few weeks ago, the commercials that flooded airwaves in Maine were exact replicas of commercials that proved effective in California – in other words, twice the bang for the same buck. Keep in mind that we live in a country that is historically more inclined to fear than reason - how else can you explain slavery? Vietman? The re-election of George W. Bush? And now the ferocious fight against basic civil rights for 10+% of our general population? Fear of the unknown is the only explanation. Pam Spaulding, a respected blogger and political advisor, responded to the defeat in Maine this morning:

"What this loss in Maine (and the victory in Washington State) says to me is that I am so grateful that my civil rights, as a person of color, were not put up to a popular vote. As we've seen over and over in the last year, the emergence of naked racism lives despite laws on the books banning discrimination based on race. Reality-based arguments to people who are raised with bias have little motivation to change their thinking outside of keeping their bigotry out of the realm of law-breaking (and even then -- it still occurs!). The feelings simply go underground. [This vote] is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule, because the hateful people behind “Yes on 1” capitalize on spreading fear - the result is that the filthy hog of homophobia continues to be fed with lies and deception."

Link over to Pam's site for more coverage of the Maine vote, including press releases from the "victors," spewing hate and homophobia in its finest forms. Unfortunately, historians will reference these documents for decades to come as endemic to our time, and for that, our children and our children’s children will be bewildered and ashamed.

Our community has grown accustomed to expressing gratitude for whatever scraps are thrown under the table for us on Election Day, and this one was no different. Though overshadowed by the disappointment in Maine, it appears that we did win domestic partnerships in the state of Washington (Referendum 71), and we had a big day in my home state of North Carolina, electing an openly gay Mayor in Chapel Hill and re-electing a cadre of local and state politicians who supported the marriage equality resolution and drew the ire of the religious-right. North Carolina continued the trend towards blue that first emerged in last year’s election.

One final note: this past weekend was Pride Weekend in Atlanta. I hope I never forget the feeling of watching a Pride parade at the self-indulgent age of 27. I know there will come a time when my gut doesn’t lurch with militant delight at the site of the first float, a gay Veterans group carrying American flags and rainbow flags, marching openly and freely, the elderly and the young side-by-side. I know there will come a time when my eyes don’t sting with tears at the sight of a father with one arm around the shoulder of his son and the other arm raising a sign that says “I am proud of my gay son.” I know there will come a time when I don’t laugh feverishly and hysterically at another poster that jibes: “Jesus had two Fathers, and last time I checked, He turned out just fine.” I know there will come a time when my beloved church, St. Mark United Methodist, won’t feel the same urgency to decorate our sanctuary in rainbow swaths for the Pride Sunday service, mostly for the benefit of out-of-towners who have this one Sunday every year to experience an inclusive, loving definition of organized religion. I know there will come a time when I will miss a Pride Parade because I know it will be like all the others, and I have other things to do. I know there will come a time when Pride celebrations are not as important as they are today, when an exclusive celebration of who we are isn’t as necessary as it is in this moment. I don’t think that time will come anytime soon, but I do think it will come. And for that I am a grateful. And admittedly, a little bit sad. Emotions so fervent are hard to come by.

HRC speech ... and more important things.

2009-10-13T12:36:00.000-07:00

It was a big weekend for the gays, indeed. Obama's speech to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) on Saturday night has been somewhat lost in the hoopla surrounding the National Equality March. And maybe that's a good thing. He spent most of the evening basking in the glow of a large constituency that's been left with the following choice: support his slow-moving administration or surrender hope for the next 4-8 years. Most are choosing the former in hopes that the promises of his campaign are not as empty as they seem. I would post the speech, but then I would be wasting time that could be spent looking at pictures from Sunday with a bunch of lip-service and rhetoric that you've heard before and will hear again. I will, however, post the excerpt below from John Polly, editor of 365gay.com, less for it's appraisal (negative) of Obama's political cartwheels, and more for the commentary on what is more critical to the gay rights movement than speeches, marches, or even the President's willingness to be honest with us. Enjoy ...

Marc and I listened to Obama’s HRC speech on Sirius radio, and I have to say, it ticked me off. I got very tired of hearing all the thunderous applause at what amounted to this; ‘Hey gays, I know the things you want, and I’m telling you I want them, too. I’m just not going to tell you when, where, or how you’re going to get them.” I’m bored with the dangling carrot, and I’m tired of it being good enough for our community. Yes, on paper, Obama’s a good boyfriend, but doesn’t it feel a little like we’re always snuggling with him on the couch, telling him how much we want to turn this relationship into something serious, and he’s saying, “Oh yeah, baby, I agree, I do too, just not right now, let’s just enjoy hat we have right here.” I deserve a better boyfriend, one who not only tells me loves me, but SHOWS me. Come on Obama. We’re ready for marriage (or haven’t you noticed?) Step up to the plate, okay?

I found a quote this morning that I’m tacking up in my cubicle: “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” Goethe. It’s easy to get caught up in the talk, the endless and labyrinthine debates and discussions about our key issues, but the talk only gets us so far. Bullhorns and signs and blogs (although I love blogs, mind you, don’t wanna anger my web Mom and Dad) are terrific, but they only go so far. Change doesn’t really happen with Big Symbolic Gestures. It takes place in miniature, in small steps, in putting your boyfriend’s picture up on your desk at work, in being out to your family, in correcting someone who assumes you’re straight, in calling someone out for saying something negative about gay people. Yes, we can feel as though change comes when we all band together and shout for equality, but the bigger change, the lasting change, comes in increments, in small steps, in what happens between you and another person. We should focus more of our energy on that change, on what we can do to make that change happen. Eye on the big prize, hands down in the muck and mire.

Favorite moment of the weekend: Marc and I visiting his friend, Wedon, watching Wanda Sykes’ HBO stand-up special. Marc, cuddled up next to me on the couch, turns his head once it’s over and says, “Baby, you tired? If you want to go we can.” That term of endearment was a surprise and arrived unexpectedly. And while I, of course, found it totally adorable, I was also struck by the ordinariness of the moment, the reminder that this life, this moment, was no different than the lives of millions of other couples, gay and straight, that no matter how different we feel and how much we’re demonized in the public discourse, we’re always occupying beautiful, perfect and ordinary lives. We’re not going to indoctrinate children or bring down Western civilization or destroy Jesus or kill America. We’re just someone’s Baby, someone’s Boo, someone’s Honey.

Not as sexy as annihilating the world, but it’ll do.

Pictures had to be posted separately ... sorry.

2009-10-13T12:29:00.000-07:00

National Equality March: A Place in History?

2009-10-13T08:16:00.000-07:00

If you are gay (or a big gay ally) and didn't know that the National Equality March (the first of its kind in years) occurred in Washington, DC on Sunday, then shame on the gay media. And shame on you. I'm feeling my own brand of shame for not coughing up the money to be there, and then not watching the events unfold on CSPAN or any of several other major networks that covered it live (slow news day, I guess). So I am left to appreciate the march and the ensuing rally in recaps, you-tube speeches, and photos, and while I am at it, I thought I might share those with you.

Speeches:

Lady Gaga roused the crowd with her throaty bellow in the direction of the White House: "ARE YOU LISTENING?," but I have a feeling President Obama was too busy building a bunker to hide the undeserved Nobel Peace Prize to hear the commotion in his hood. Speaking of the NP fiasco, the late-night comedians finally have a good excuse to reintroduce the scathing presidential jokes that took a mini-vacation after comedy-inspiring George Bush jocularly exited his tarnished position. My favorite remark went something like this: "For the first time in history, a man has won a Nobel Peace Prize not for the person he is, but rather for the person he is not - George W. Bush." Well, when you put it that way, maybe Obama does deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. And, even better, our favorite stand-ups haven't run out of Bush material after all! But I digress. To see Lady Gaga's speech, and the more relevant speeches of individuals who are not pop-stars, click here.

Pictures:

My (belated) thoughts on the Eagle Raid

2009-09-26T10:05:00.000-07:00

I’ve been absent from blog-universe for a few weeks, and in that time, a story has emerged that has received and will continue to receive a great deal of ink in Atlanta, and manifestly deserves a wider audience.

I know very little about the protocol and frequency of bar raids, but the one carried out by the Atlanta Police Department on the night of September 10th in the gay-friendly neighborhood of Midtown bears a lingering stench much stronger than that of stale beer and sweaty dancers. And to be sure, the gay community is not one to let a funny smell pass through our safe space without a fuss. So how then could the Atlanta Chief of Police, Richard Pennington, be so careless? How could he not predict the unassailable implications of a gay-bar raid, even one that is justified? Is he that underwhelmed by the heated political discourse that overwhelms our country right now? Is he that unmoved by the combustibility of the gay community that comprises a huge faction of one of his most affluent neighborhoods, the same neighborhood that mostly supports the Eagle leather bar as a part of its unique and progressive fabric? Does he not realize that we are sniffing around every corner in search of the social injustice that we can’t always see, but undoubtedly feel? Does he not realize that he gave us just what we’ve been looking for to validate our latent fears and fury? We could not have dreamed that he would so brazenly offer up his career as target practice for our firing squad, but we also won’t turn him down.

When an anonymous tip (perhaps from a disgruntled customer?) submitted that the Eagle bar was promoting illegal adult entertainment and operating with an expired business license, Chief Pennington of the APD did not allow the task of manipulating violent crime statistics distract him from pursuing civil infractions. He sent an undercover officer to scour the premises, and sure enough, the report came back that men were having sex in a back room of the bar, although the officer admitted that the darkness and shroud of cigarette smoke blurred his line of vision. And this, my friends, is where the story really makes it pitch for comedy (or tragedy) of the year. This officer, trained in investigative techniques, can’t relay the details of a sex act occurring no further than 15 feet from his fixed gaze? Huh? Let’s have a moment of fun with role play:

Officer: “I saw them, Judge, they were poking each other in the back of the bar.”

Judge: “I’m going to need more than that, Mr. Officer. How did you find them? Please tell me exactly what they were doing in as few words as possible, as to not upset your fine colleagues.”

Officer: “Well, first I saw them, you know, I saw two men kissing in the front of the bar, which was shocking and suspicious, so I continued to watch them. I lost them for awhile in the crowd, but then I saw the shadow of two people in the back of the bar, and I just knew it must be those two men, since I just saw them kissing. Anyway, I couldn’t tell exactly what they were doing. I think they were both standing, but I’m not sure. I saw one of them rocking back and forth, I think. Anyway, I didn’t get any closer. I didn’t think it was safe. At least not without a haz-mat mask.”

Judge: “Were their clothes on or off, Officer?”

Officer: “Why would I need to remember a detail like that? I told you I definitely saw them kissing. Isn’t that enough? What kind of depraved community do we live in?”

Judge: “Officer, did you ever think to consult with your LGBT Liaison Officer prior to hanging your homophobe hat in a gay bar?”

Officer: “TGLB? What’s that?”

I think it’s pretty easy to surmise that the “evidence” used to justify a raid at the Eagle was rather porous, underscored by the fact that nothing – no street drugs, no prescription drugs, no sex – I repeat, NOTHING, was found on the night of September 10th, and you can rest assured that Pennington’s cadre of 20-plus officers were looking in every crack and hole of that old building. What they did find were 40 dazed patrons who cooperated fully – maybe mindlessly – with the officers’ demands to “get down on the ground and stay there.” Strip searches, sometimes more than one search per patron, ensued. I am curious as to what legal loophole allows such a bald-faced violation of civil rights, but there are too many other questions to distract my interest. Many of those questions center around the allegations of abusive police behavior, including anti-gay slurs, emerging from multiple sources on the scene, including a (straight) journalist who was tipped off to the raid and arrived shortly after it began.“I hate faggots. This is fun!” is just one purported insult overheard by a patron who requested to be moved to a safer location after noticing that he was lying in the jagged remnants of a broken beer bottle. He was kindly advised to “shut the fuck up” and lie still.

Chief Pennington would later argue that the raid was a “success” because he arrested the two owners of the bar and charged them with misdemeanor counts of operating without a business license. Although typical protocol would entail a cease-and-desist warning and a fine, Chief Pennington must have thought that those scoundrels deserved more: public humiliation followed by 36 hours behind bars, to be precise. Perhaps there were aggravating circumstances? Scantily attired gay men aggravate me, too, but I’ve never felt threatened enough to call in a SWAT team.

Keep in mind that the APD has been under fire for several months now for what is perceived to be a deficiency of uniformed officers on the streets of Atlanta, and thus, a sluggish response time in matters of real urgency, such as homicides, rapes, and burglaries – you know, the small stuff. The APD has been somewhat complicit in the expression of those concerns, feverishly citing city-wide budget cuts as the convenient excuse. As made apparent on the night of September 10th, however, the availability of officers (undercover, uniformed, and the “Red Dog” paramilitary unit) and resources (Chief Pennington admits that he has been “staking out” the Eagle for over 6 months) should be the least of our concerns. We should probably turn our attention, at least momentarily, to how the APD is electing to utilize those men. Not to mention the character of those men.

Pennington did eventually acknowledge that he should have included his recently appointed LGBT Liaison Officer in his department’s investigation of the Eagle, and at the very least, he should have apprised her of the forthcoming raid. In a recent press conference, he swallowed his masculinity and called it a “mistake.” It was, indeed, a monumental mistake. Officer Dani Lee Harris’ involvement (if not her presence) would not only have influenced a cleaner raid, it would have also quelled many of the accusations that followed. But as it stands, Chief Pennington’s arrogance got the better of him, and now he will pay the price.

I have to believe that the protests and rallies and lurking attorneys are a clear indication to Chief Pennington that this story will not fall away with the autumn leaves, especially with Atlanta’s Pride Celebration right around the corner. I have to believe that the reverberations of his ill-planned raid will ripen our community for unbridled carousing, much of which will take place in the seedy gay bars that have always been an unfortunate but necessary symbol of the gay community’s fight for basic civil rights.

NYT Modern Love Section = Must Read

2009-09-03T07:45:00.000-07:00

I am usually the last to discover "must read" prose. I think I was 25 when I finally got around to Catcher in the Rye. I still haven't touched The Great Gatsby. I did browse the Moby Dick CliffsNotes in Barnes & Noble last year, just long enough to quell the bubbling guilt that accompanies my possession of a diploma from Davidson College that reads B.A. in ENGLISH. I am a fraud.

Anyway, by virtue of unmerited friendships with odd and inquisitive intellects (most of them deserving Davidson grads), and an active email account, I do enjoy a bevy of links (most of them PG and virus-free) to articles and stories and op-eds that usually divulge a more productive use of my time, especially considering that the same time would otherwise be devoted to stalking Lindsay Lohan’s twitter page in search of sultry tweets to Samantha Ronson.

Last night, I received a suggestion to take a glance at the “Modern Love” column published weekly in the Style Section of the New York Times. I have been at the office for almost 5 hours now, and I’ve read as many of these non-fiction columns as I could expressively digest in 5 hours – some uplifting, some devastating, some strange, some I could write and others I hope I will never be able to write. Bottom line: these are must-read contemporary love stories (not entirely unlike my fantasy twitter-a-trois), representative of the vastly diverse ways we fall in love, fall out of love, accept love, reject love, twist love, gouge love, resurrect love, and somehow weave our way through this fraught and tired world without being consumed by hatred for the ones we proclaim to love or hope to love. Some of the stories completely redefine love, so if you are like me, disillusioned enough to think that you know love, or at least your own capacity for love, you will stand corrected. And humbled.

Ironically, the most recent column (“Once Political, Now Just Practical”) outlines the author’s struggle with what to call her significant other. She oscillates between “wife” and “partner” and recalls the political, practical, and emotional evolution of both words in her marriage. Essentially, she explores the same topic that I explored the other day, but with 10 additional years of experience, not to mention added eloquence and elegance.

Announced this morning: The L Word Returns!

2009-09-01T07:10:00.000-07:00

... as a 9-episode reality series in 2010. Ilene Chaiken will be the executive producer. Cast is still pending. Great news for all of the lesbians mourning the loss of the one television series that actually provided a semi-accurate (and semi-flattering) portrayal of our lives.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid108594.asp

Shame on the Washington Post

2009-08-31T13:08:00.000-07:00

I don't want to link the actual article and give it any additional traffic, but check out Media Matters' response to what can only be described as an unbalanced and politically-driven Op-Ed piece masked as legitimate journalism from one of our nation's best newspapers: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908300016

I think it will be interesting and fun to follow "Letters to the Editor" and other blog responses over the next couple of weeks. But the damage is done.

Trying to find the words ...

2009-08-31T12:28:00.000-07:00

“I heard you say that you are married. Did your husband stay home tonight?”

I posed the question while waiting in line for beer and burritos at a professional basketball game in Atlanta, GA. I had known the woman standing beside me for fewer than 45 minutes, so conversation was still warming up, but this particular question escaped my lips with ease. I looked ahead, prepared to place my order as soon as the slender, gray-haired man in front of me pocketed his change and stepped aside.

“I don’t have a husband.”

The response startled me enough to tilt my head to the right, in the direction of my new acquaintance, who had repositioned herself to face me. Her eyes were slanted and the lines on her forehead pulsed slightly.

I quickly recanted: “Oh, I’m sorry, I thought I heard you say …”

She didn’t let me finish. “I am married. I have a wife, not a husband.” Her tone was alarmingly impatient, but also rehearsed. This was clearly not the first time she had been inconvenienced by the misconception, but this time, she was processing the added disappointment of hearing those words from someone who had no excuse to make such a mistake.

My girlfriend, positioned on the opposite side of me, came to my rescue as we all approached the counter by glossing right over the faux-pas: “How long have you been married? When did you move to Atlanta? How did you meet [our mutual friend]?” The conversation continued, outwardly unscathed, as I silently pondered the subtle impact of my own ignorance.

I am an openly gay woman who is borderline obsessed with gay people, gay life, gay rights, and all things gay. And yet I am not immune to the ignorance that fuels my own obsession. I can’t escape that I was raised in a society that assigns strictly heterosexual language to almost every act of living and loving. I can’t escape that I was raised in a society that completely ignores the presence or possibility of living or loving outside of the boundaries set by heterosexual traditions. I am tainted.

What makes my “husband” comment even more egregious is that I am going through a time in my life where I am especially sensitive to the language of love and marriage. 17 days ago, I asked my girlfriend to spend the rest of her life with me. Some would say I “proposed.” She said yes, and I slipped a diamond ring on her left ring finger. She has fielded several observations that it is a very “traditional” ring. In fact, she even “looks engaged.” Imagine that.

Our roommate, also gay, excitedly recounted the story of informing her Dad and stepmother that her two roommates were engaged. Her Dad asked, “What will they do now?” And her stepmother, a liberal supporter of equal rights, answered his question: “Well, they will do what all gay people do and go off and have a fake wedding!” My roommate wasn’t bothered by the comment; in fact, she laughed as she said it, all the while staring at my girlfriend’s (fiancé’s) finger through tear-filled eyes. She continued, “You just HAVE to do all of the traditional things. Like showers and bachelorette parties and all of that fun stuff.” She didn’t mention a fake wedding as one of those traditional requirements, but I assume she meant that, too. I don’t mind “fake wedding” as much as I mind “commitment ceremony,” (don’t ask me why – it just sounds so phony and insincere), but still, the words sting. They always have. They always do. I’m guessing that they always will.

What language (or even my own ignorance) cannot diminish is what I feel for the person I love. We met in August of 2006, and at the time, neither of us belonged in a relationship, but what started as a distraction from life’s obstacles evolved into a healthy relationship devoted to minimizing those obstacles, finding humor in the mundane, and loving each other along the way.

One task that lies ahead of me (and us) is figuring out what vernacular we will use in the months and years ahead. We both suffer from the sociological equivalent of Stockholm syndrome – as much as we want to escape the narrow-minded script of the heterosexual fairytale, we have been immersed in that world for far too long, and we sympathize with our captors. We have attended 3 (straight) weddings this month alone, and we desperately want something similar, even traditional, to make us “official,” but maybe not if it means making our friends and family uncomfortable. Hell, we even worry about causing discomfort for our gay friends, many of whom have not taken this route with their own significant others, likely due to a deeply ingrained inferiority complex, or worse still, a fear of rebuke from the more political members of the gay community for “trying to adhere to repressive heterosexual conventions.” Indeed, we don’t want to make ourselves feel uncomfortable. So we acquiesce. My girlfriend still calls me her girlfriend. We don’t talk about weddings; instead, we talk about “throwing a party.” She hasn’t gotten around to telling her parents that we are “engaged,” and I’m not pushing her. I told my mother, and she was happy for me, but not enough to mention it more than a couple of times since, and one of those times was to inform me that she “needs a guidebook” for this sort of thing. I think by “thing,” she meant our “fake wedding,” but I didn’t ask. Instead, I changed the subject.

Clearly, the relationship I share with my girlfriend is far from perfect, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. We protect that imperfect relationship like it is the most fragile thing in the universe, and truthfully, it is. Not only do we encounter all of the roadblocks that derail straight relationships, we also expend a great deal of emotional energy on the challenges unique to gay relationships. Whether it’s the disgusted sideways glance when we stand too close to one another, or the inevitable questions about “boyfriends” and “husbands” when we don’t stand close enough, I have a good feeling that very few straight couples could survive our world for more than a few weeks. I am immensely proud that we have survived for a few years, and confident that we will survive many more, regardless of whether we adopt the language we already know, or work to create our own language. Either way, the most powerful statement we can make is making it work – not for anyone else, but for us.

Random links from the first week of August

2009-08-11T13:09:00.000-07:00

I love the debate on “outing,” especially when it comes to celebrities. This Hot Topics blog link (see below) reviews both perspectives. I am extreme in my thinking – I believe that anyone who is using his/her image to make money implicitly agrees to live in a glass house, and the closet doors should be forced open as well. If you don’t agree, feel free to comment, but you will have a lot of trouble convincing me that dishonesty is the best policy. http://hottopics.gay.com/2009/07/poll-should-hollywood-alisters-come-out.html

In a nauseatingly repetitive declaration, the American Psychology Association informed us again that same-sex attraction is not a mental illness, and thus, psychologists and psychiatrists who inform patients that “gay” is a treatable or reversible condition are professionally reckless and should feel free to cross busy streets without looking both ways. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html.

In another story-you’ve-heard-before, Brad Pitt repeated that he won’t marry Angelina until “everyone can get married,” and by everyone, he means the gays. If gay marriage means Angelina will become legally bound to Brad Pitt and no longer open game for female supermodels, I might be okay with the status quo.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/05/brad.pitt.interview/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Episcopal Church leaders in LA and Minnesota nominated 3 openly gay priests for associate bishop positions last week. This is yet another mammoth leap in the direction of splitting the conservative and liberal factions of the Episcopal Church, who will never agree on the issue of ordaining gay clergy. The conservatives fear that diversity and inclusivity may drive down membership (read: wealthy, white, rural, heterosexual membership) and ignite the wrath of a white, wealthy, rural, heterosexual God. Liberals argue that God (and the business of God) is perhaps a little more complicated than that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/us/03bishop.html?_r=2&hp

Gay News You Should Know: July 2009

2009-07-28T08:16:00.000-07:00

GLAAD’s third annual “Network Responsibility Index” reveals few surprises. HBO, Showtime, ABC, and CW are rated “good.” CBS and NBC receive “failing” grades, and the biggest surprise of all? FOX improves from last year’s failing mark to “adequate” in 2009. But there is a (huge) caveat: some of FOX’s material is deemed “problematic,” meaning that the GLBT community may be better off when FOX is failing. I certainly wouldn’t mind if the FOX news and talk show studios experienced an infestation of mice dressed in drag, although the gentler part of my soul would be a little concerned for the ultimate fate of the mice, especially given the presence of sexually-repressed Bill O’Reilly.

GLAAD also noted that gay representation in mainstream media is predominantly white gay representation. Where are the black gays and lesbians? I didn’t consider the impact of this disproportionate representation in my most recent post (see: Something in Common), and perhaps I should have. The emerging (and somewhat inevitable) culture war between the white gay community and the black gay community is not without reason. I suppose it is easy for me to argue that we have to focus on what we have in common when my side is too slow to recognize racism as the tyrannical father of homophobia.

Another great link from the GLAAD website outlines the Best and Worst of National News in June 2009: http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=832. CNN and MSNBC lead the television pack; the New York Times and Washington Post do a great job of covering GLBT issues in print. Please support those news-sources and corresponding journalists, even Anderson Cooper (bless his Vanderbilt-cursed heart), as much as possible.

Political Happenings:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) will hold hearings on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during the Fall Senate Session, the first time any legislative branch has reviewed the policy since it was passed into law 16 years ago: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-27/finally-action-on-gay-soldiers. Over 11,000 men and women have been dishonorably discharged in that same time period, including many senior-ranking soldiers who spent years, decades in some cases, protecting a country that doesn’t give a shit about protecting them. I feel sorry for those guys, but not as sorry as I feel for the thousands who were killed in the line of duty while living a lie. I hope DADT is repealed in honor of their widows, the surviving victims of Clinton’s criminal compromise. I also hope that one day the United States doles out a little bit of retribution – at the very least, the rightful possession of the American flags that draped the coffins of their loved ones.

If you live in Georgia, dig out the old brown paper bag and drop it over your face. Our senators, Johnny Boy Isakson and Saxby "I miss my Bush" Chambliss, voted against a hate crimes measure (commonly and strategically known as the Matthew Shepard Act) designed to allow the Justice Department to intervene in the prosecution of crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill passed, of course, but not with the endorsement of Georgia’s illustrious leadership. Am I f’ing serious? Yes. Don’t believe me? Read it here: http://www.sovo.com/2009/7-24/news/national/10389.cfm

Oh! Before I forget! The little victories add up, and Georgia Equality and Florida Equality scored a little victory with AAA this week: gay couples are now eligible for “family rates.” Wahoo! This just means I no longer have to portray my girlfriend as my sister, a tic-inducing-lie indeed.
Thanks, AAA. http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=26405

Something in common

2009-07-23T15:21:00.000-07:00

Home, for me, is Atlanta, GA. I moved to Atlanta at 21, shortly after I unwound the tight noose of heterosexual asphyxiation. I say that in all dramatic and comedic sincerity. Not all gay people recall their closeted days with the same desperation that I do, but trust me when I tell you that it was a pyrotechnic-enabled horror show. I realize now that there were only two things that stood between me and happiness, and those were a blinding hatred of the former and the disillusion that the latter would be accomplished by nurturing that hatred. All of that began to change when I arrived in Atlanta, not entirely because of Atlanta, but because of the crossroads that defined my 21st year. I spoke the word “gay” for the first time. And a few weeks later, I assigned it a name – my own name – and embarked on the coming out journey, a journey that has no end.

My former home is High Point, North Carolina. With the exception of a small, lonely cloud that hovered over my middle and high school years, I was nothing less than a privileged kid. And let’s be honest, everyone has that pesky dark cloud, a mobile library of emotional potholes for a future therapist to search, catalogue, and interpret in vexing psychological detail. So I was not unique. And yet I was unique because I thought I was unique. I thought, in fact, that I was the only one. I didn’t know anyone who spoke of being attracted to the same-sex, although I was mysteriously drawn to certain individuals who I later learned were living openly gay lives, except that “openly” excluded any situation that might prove awkward or difficult. I didn’t see media depictions of my struggle, with the exception of the much-maligned Ellen episode – I hung on every word, never glancing up from my Geometry book for fear of my eyes giving away the mix of confusion, elation, and self-recognition that my mind wasn’t quite prepared to process. I was on the brink of the internet age, but not yet there, not yet able to google “gay” in the privacy of my bedroom as I battled sleepless nights. I was also on the brink of the gay age, a time when gay would be discussed in government, schools, and churches, and gay would mean big bucks for the Hollywood executives and marketing gurus who fed the hunger of a marginalized demographic. I have a friend who often exclaims, “I was gay before gay was cool.” I was too, but only in the shadowy depths of my subconscious, and I have to believe that those ominous ghosts will always harbor a place in my life, therapy be damned.

There is a point to this post, I promise. And a controversial point, to be sure. I am a little bit irritated by the recent outpouring of editorials from black, gay Americans who want gay, white Americans to understand that, despite the popular slogan, “Gay is not the new Black." Please reference this one example before proceeding: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/.

I want to clearly state that I appreciate the argument that the struggle of African-Americans is disproportionate to the struggle of any other minority group. I think that’s indisputable. What is disputable, and perhaps even irresponsible, is the journalist's refusal to remove the cloak of “black and gay” and examine what distinct parts of his personal experience can be attributed to “black,” what parts can be attributed to “gay,” and what parts can be attributed to both “gay” and “black.”

Gay Americans, for as long as black Americans, have been rendered invisible by a domineering majority that sets the tone in this country. Gay Americans are denied basic civil rights, subject to sordid stereotypes that are considered acceptable by mainstream society, victimized by most religious institutions, and marginalized (at the very least) by almost every other institution, many of which accept our tax dollars with a sideways smirk. Black Americans know that pain all too well; if not directly, then certainly in the form of a huge pay-out rendered by fathers and grandfathers, a debt that will linger for a long time.

But if there is something to be said about the difficulties of being gay over the difficulties of being black, it is that the majority of black Americans – then and now and forever – are born into a family and a community that doesn’t promote, or even permit, disassociation from self. Most black individuals are raised and nurtured by a community that attempts to instill cultural and individual pride. This doesn’t mean that black individuals are immune from the consequences of prejudice and injustice, and it certainly doesn’t make them impervious to self-pity, anger, confusion, addiction, or any of the other pitfalls birthed by prejudice and injustice, but despite all of this, I have not known one black person who, if given the option, would paint himself white. On the other hand, I think I would struggle to find a gay person who has not at some point in time entertained the thought of “flipping a switch” on his sexuality and never looking back.

As I attempted to illustrate at the beginning of this post, gay people are not bestowed with the privilege of childhood immunity. To fully appreciate the gravity of that statement, you must understand that many gay people begin to intuit their sexual-orientation at a very early age, sometimes before the alphabet is memorized. Regardless of when the dark cloud emerges, the overwhelming terror that accompanies it can logically be traced to a profound sense of loneliness, followed shortly by the fear of total rejection at the hands of the people who give life sustenance and shape. Gay children do not have many options. Those who take the risk of coming out often end up on the fringes of their former community – in some cases, homeless in the streets, and for the lucky ones, homeless in their own homes. Most do not take that risk, but that does not make the isolation and long-term damage any less significant. I came out to my parents 6 years ago, and I can’t return to my hometown without confronting the little girl that would dig her fingernails deep into the her neck in many futile attempts to displace the pain of knowing that she was not going to live the life her parents, teachers, friends, and coaches were investing so much to create for her. She was a fraudulent object of their love and admiration, and she was certain that at any moment they would discover and attack the perverse person living inside of her, and she would be left with no other option but to attack – and kill – whatever remained.

I can sympathize with the gay black community’s desire to protect Barack Obama. I want to protect him, too, and I am not black. I want to protect him because, despite his imperfections, he is the best thing this country has going for it right now. And I think, given time and a few political prods, he will help the gay community. But to suggest that white, gay Americans are going to alienate black, gay Americans by pushing Obama to make progress is simply absurd. Should Martin Luther King, Jr. have removed his foot from the accelerator to appease the “liberal” white Americans who professed support for black Americans, but cautioned against moving too fast? Remember that our President at the time was a vocal supporter of civil rights, but he did not move as quickly as most African-Americans deemed appropriate.

I see more similarities than dissimilarities in the civil rights movement of African-Americans and the civil rights movement of gay Americans. I do not see the same level of progress, but I see achievement and hope in both. Race can’t be eliminated from any equation, but I wish we could begin to eliminate some of the divisive politics that threaten to slow the progress of an increasingly diverse gay community in this country. I can’t deny that we have serious issues that need to be examined and resolved before that diversity is less of a stumbling block and more of a rallying call, but I don’t agree that giving President Obama a free pass is the necessary first-step to resolving those issues. The necessary first-step is so much more obvious than that: we must acknowledge that we do, after all, have something in common.

Oh, I aspire to such heights ...

2009-07-14T06:18:00.000-07:00

I am out of town this week, working from North Carolina. I have 20-minute pockets of time here and there, but hardly enough time to craft a post. For those of you who reguarly check the blog (all 2 of you!), I wanted to direct you to a few other blogs that I have followed over the years and remain highly indebted to as prime sources of gay news and gay discourse:

Pam's House Blend: http://pamshouseblend.com/ (Pam is one of the "original" gay bloggers - and one of the best)
Beyond Homophobia: http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/ (see post re: the politics and public opinion surrounding a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell from June 26)
Queer Visions: http://www.queervisions.com/ (featuring gay rights discussions in media - most recently, Anderson Cooper asking Obama about his timetable for addressing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Yes, ANDERSON COOPER. He finally touched it ... with a ten-thousand-foot pole. Come closer, Anderson, come closer. You are too cute for us to hold a grudge.)
365 Gay: http://www.365gay.com/blog/ (all things gay, all the time)
Back to Stonewall: http://www.back2stonewall.com/ (heavy emphasis on the marriage equality movement in California - most recent post indicates that the poor economy might force LGBT groups to push back the fight for marriage rights to 2012)
A Brown Girl: http://abrowngirl.com/ (the author is an African-American lesbian poet and writer who lives in Midtown, Atlanta)

Tea Party 2009: Massachusetts shoots another middle finger in the direction of DC

2009-07-09T07:50:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the State of Massachusetts sued the United States of America over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a monumentally positive step in the direction of repealing DOMA, the inevitably fate of any and all legislation engendered by dimwitted closet-cases. For more details of the legal argument made against DOMA, check out this quick and idiot-proof (I can vouch) synopsis of the lawsuit:

http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/breaking-massachusetts-ag-to-sue-u-s-for-marriage-recognition/

"He was a hero"

2009-07-07T06:45:00.000-07:00

My girlfriend is an Investment Consultant for three branches of SunTrust in the Brookhaven neighborhood of Atlanta, GA. A few months ago, an older gentleman walked into her office with a stack of papers and gingerly lowered his body into one of the two seats in front of her desk. The first thing she noticed was the discoloration of his skin; large liver spots on his temples made more noticeable by his pale yellow complexion. She also saw the goiter on his neck, and silently wondered if it was malignant. He did not look well. And when he spoke, his words were measured by each breath.

He asked her if she had moved. She was confused. No, she replied, I haven’t moved. Why do you ask, Mr. Alexander? I tried to email you, he responded, and the email came back to me, so I thought you probably moved your desk to a new office. He was energized by the story, going on to explain that he may be old, but he knew how to send an email. My girlfriend returned his proud grin with a large smile and a tilt of her head, very much drawn into his charm. But she also felt a pang of sadness and a slight repulsion. She flashed back to those automatic sliding doors at the entrance of her late grandmother’s nursing home; the quick release of cold, stagnant air, and a poignant odor that she will forever link to old age and illness. She could recognize that smell anywhere, and right now, it was in her office. She quickly transitioned from pleasantries to a discussion of Mr. Alexander’s financial assets, and how those assets should be managed going forward.

Last week, my girlfriend received a phone call from Mr. Alexander’s son. She was a little bit taken aback by the grief she felt when she learned that her client had passed away; she had only met him once, after all, and it was obvious that his health was rapidly declining. She called me at work to share the news, and I immediately recalled the "returned email" story, an exchange that we shared a laugh over in idle dinner chitchat. Well, I told her, rather unsympathetically, you work with a lot of senior citizens, so it probably won’t be the last one you lose. “Yeah,” she responded, but “there was something about him. I don’t know what it was, but I wish I could’ve talked to him for 10 more minutes.”

And that brings us to today. My girlfriend is scheduled to meet with Mr. Alexander’s son tomorrow, and she decided to Google Mr. Alexander’s name to see what popped up. A few minutes ago, an email arrived in my inbox with the subject line: “Mr. Alexander – I told you about him – He was a hero.” The following link was attached: http://www.mem.com/Story.aspx?ID=3058742.

Apparently, Mr. Alexander was a community and civil rights activist who fought against the “white flight” trend prompted by racial tension in the city of Atlanta throughout the late 60s and early 70s. He later served as a Georgia State Representative, and worked with then-Governor Jimmy Carter to investigate real estate agents who employed the devious tactic of “blockbusting” to incite fear, prejudice, and segregation. Prior to these accomplishments in civil service, Mr. Alexander was a member of General George Patton’s 87th Infantry in World War II. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and suffered a leg wound just prior to the U.S.-led offensive that ended the War. Mr. Alexander was awarded a Purple Heart.

To understate it, that’s a life well lived. The point of this story is this: Isn’t it amazing the people we randomly encounter in everyday life? I am sitting here thinking about how I treat those random encounters. Homeless veterans are the ones that really haunt me … I don’t know who they are, but I have no doubt that I’ve sneered at their outstretched hands more than a few dozen times in my short lifetime. I’ve also impatiently hustled past a bevy of senior citizens, perhaps even Mr. Alexander, visibly irritated by their crooked backs and unsteady gaits. How dare they slow me down? I have places to go. Things to do.

I wonder what I may be missing when I don’t slow down, look around, and pay attention. I may be missing history. Or I may be missing a hero. If I could give my girlfriend one gift, I would give her those additional 10 minutes with Mr. Alexander. Can you imagine the richness of stories untold?

Thank you, Alameda USD.

2009-07-06T13:47:00.000-07:00

Alameda Unified School District (CA - of course) recently posted proposed LGBT lesson plans for all k-5 classrooms beginning in Fall of 2009. Breathtaking, really. There are no words.

Make sure to read Robert Diagram's essay linked at the bottom of this post.

Grade K Welcoming
Grade K Welcoming Lesson
Grade 1 Who's In a Family
Grade 1 Who's In a Family Lesson
Grade 2 And Tango Makes Three
Grade 2 And Tango Makes Three Lesson
Grade 3 Talking About Families
Grade 3 Talking About Families Lesson
Grade 4 Becoming an Ally
Grade 4 Becoming an Ally Lesson

Grade 5 Stereotypes 1
Grade 5 Stereotypes lesson

Famous Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People ( LGBT )
Vocabulary Words

Handout Article by Robert
Diagram

President Obama then and now, authenticity, and the right time

2009-07-01T09:13:00.000-07:00

Barack and Michelle Obama hosted a “Pride Reception” in the East Wing of the White House on Monday, June 28th (the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall). The Leader of the Free World attempted to placate a constinuency currently excluded from many fundamental "freedoms" by advising that SLOW progress is still, by definition, progress. Check out his address on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmEpD2sh0HA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Equeervisions%2Ecom%2F2009%2Fpresident%2Dobama%2Dhosts%2Dreception%2Din%2Dsupport%2Dof%2Dlgbt%2Dequality%2F&feature=player_embedded

I appreciate the efforts of the President’s speech-writers. And, as always, I appreciate the President’s eloquence and charm. As for authenticity, the jury is hung. I was intrigued to discover that prior to his pursuit of the US Senate seat, Obama informed a Chicago newspaper that he supported not only civil unions, but full-fledged marriage rights: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/obamas-gay-marriage-flip_b_158009.html. In the world of politics, when professional aspirations conflict with personal beliefs, the latter is usually delegated to a file folder entitled "when the time is right." Gay people can certainly empathize - we spend a good percentage of our lives searching for the right time. The right time to be true to ourselves. The right time to be true to others. The search for the right time is usually futile, sometimes interminable, and always fraught with fear and hurt. Many of us discover that the act of waiting denigrates our authentic selves, and no matter how hard we try, we can rarely rediscover what is buried and lost. In other words, we understand the fragility of authenticity. So forgive us, Obama, if we don't acquiesce to your request for patience. The perils of patience are far too great, especially when the time is never right, and what's at stake is nothing less than our fundamental freedom to be exactly who we are.

Gay News You Should Know June 21-27: 40 Years After Stonewall

2009-06-26T10:00:00.000-07:00

If you only have time to read one article, please let it be this one:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_real_stonewall_legacy

I don't necessarily agree with all of the sentiments expressed by Ms. Friedman, but if 1/100 of the gay community shared her vision and her self-assurance, the other journalists I will feature in this post would not be speaking with hushed, cautiously optimistic voices about Hate Crimes Legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Speaking of Hate Crimes and ENDA, please, please, please pay attention to what is going on in Washington, DC right now, as we are definitely witnessing a mini-climax in the history books of a civil rights movement.

The US Senate should have voted a few weeks ago on the anti-gay hate crimes legislation passed by the House of Representatives in April. For whatever reason, the vote has been delayed. Apparently, the legislation might be wrapped up in another, completely unrelated tourism bill in order to ensure that it passes: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=25752

If you are blind to the consequences of not having federal hate crimes legislation on the books (ESPECIALLY in my beloved South), you owe it to yourself to read this article: http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/01/without-protection-anti-gay-hate-crimes-in-the-south-spur-calls-for-better-state-and-federal-laws.html

On Wednesday, June 24, Reps. Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis re-introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Mr. Frank has been working to get various versions of ENDA passed for years, but the new makeup of Congress engendered by the 2008 election gives this one a fighting chance: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=25894

If you live in Georgia, or one of the other 31 states where your employment can be terminated solely because of your sexuality, you might want to pay attention to the progress of ENDA. Fortunately, many employers have their own rules and regulations to protect employees from this type of discrimination, but hopefully that doesn’t deter you from caring about the hundreds of thousands of gay people who are not protected (and undoubtedly affected).

Back to Stonewall: This weekend’s Pride Celebrations across the country will undoubtedly attempt to recognize the 40 year Anniversary of Stonewall, and I hope (perhaps in vain) that people pause long enough to recognize the significance of June 28, 1969. And then I hope people go back to doing what the Stonewall patrons were attempting to do (also in vain) prior to the initiation of the police raid: dance, drink, laugh, and love.

Gay News You Should Know: June 14-20

2009-06-23T08:11:00.000-07:00

I just spent a good 10 minutes pondering the title of what will be the first of a weekly post outlining the gay news that made headlines (and conveniently avoided headlines) in the previous week. Final contenders included:

1) The Bare Minimum of Gay News You Should Know
2) The Apathetic Gay's Newsweek
3) This Week in Gay News You Didn't Have Time to Look For
4) This Week in Gay News that You Don't Think Applies to You, Because Your Gay Life is Pretty Comfortable and Easy Right Now. Why Rock the Boat?

I also considered using a unique title each week, descriptive of that week's news. This week's title would have been painfully obvious:

1) Log Cabin Republicans Boast: "Obama stole your money and your votes. We told you so, suckers."

I can't tell you how many of my gay friends (and I include myself) fail to pay attention to stories and current events that profoundly affect their lives - either near-term or long-term. I would say that the indictment is particularly true for the young members of the gay community who can "pass." We are gay, we are out of the closet (for the most part), but we live most of our daily lives passing as straight. If we are out with our straight friends, and we are hit on by the opposite sex, we acquiesce - if just for a cordial conversation as we plot our clandestine escape. If a colleague probes about our dating life ("I don't see a ring!"), we acquiesce - failing to mention that the only "date" we've been on recently was to celebrate the anniversary of a loving, committed relationship. If we overhear someone using the word "gay" in a pejorative manner, we acquiesce - we laugh right along, maybe no longer even feeling the punch to the gut and anxiety (do they know something?) that characterized our pre-coming-out days. We seem to think that as long as we are mostly out, we are doing our part. And to some extent, we are. But what if we couldn't pass? What about those who don't pass as easily as we do? I find that most of my friends are content to let those "really gay" people fight whatever fight needs to be fought. Hell - we don't even have enough time to grasp the difficulty and the significance of the inequalities and subtle discrimination we face on a daily basis. We are too busy passing.

So what are we missing? Let's start with last week. Not a great week for Obamanites (in the interest of full disclosure, I voted for Obama). Following his statement of support for the Defense of Marriage Act (which compares a homosexual relationship to incest), Obama pandered to his heavy contingency of gay supporters by extending partial domestic partner benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees (does NOT include healthcare or retirement). CBS has a great summary of the week's events, and the "really, very, not-so-chic gay" community's response to those events:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/17/politics/main5094529.shtml

ABC News has more on major donors dropping out of a major Democratic National Convention gay fundraiser to be hosted by Joe Biden this week: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/more-gay-donors-drop-out-of-dnc-fundraiser-protesting-justice-department-brief.html

If you are feeling especially ambitious, I encourage you to read the following articles as well:

"Gay Bias Killings Highest Since 1999": http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfiJDIIYGyqrVkfoQcxVwLcbbvjQD98RU8QO3
"Support for Gay Marriage Varies Widely Among Racial and Ethnic Groups in Los Angeles":
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage20-2009jun20,0,4871594.story
(the great irony of the 2008 election: the high turnout of black voters - many of whom voted for Obama - was probably the nail in the coffin of gay marriage in California - at least for the time being).

Links to get the blog ball rolling ...

2009-06-19T10:13:00.000-07:00

Gallup Poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118931/knowing-someone-gay-lesbian-affects-views-gay-issues.aspx

Harvey Milk Bio from Time Magazine as part of the "100 Most Important People of the Century" feature article (worth the read regardless of whether or not you have seen the movie): http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/milk01.html

Other notable articles from the TIME archives:

1969 ("The Homosexual: Newly Visible, Newly Understood"): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839116,00.html
Note: the opening paragraph manages to link Halloween and gay social gatherings. This year's Atlanta Pride Celebration will occur on Halloween Weekend (due to a drought that forced Pride out of Piedmont Park during the regular festival season). I have heard many gay Atlantans bemoan the date choice due to the subtle (or not so subtle) link it suggests between all-that-Halloween-represents and all-that-Pride-represents.

1979 ("How Gay is Gay?"): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920281,00.html

1998 ("The War Over Gays")
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989406,00.html
Coverage of Matthew Sheppard murder. Reading this article (and other articles from this issue, including "Showdown over Gay Marriage" will remind you how LITTLE has changed in the last 11 years.

DeKalb County Schools: 11-year-old commits suicide after being told he is "happy."

2009-06-19T10:04:00.000-07:00

Dear DeKalb County School System:

Jaheem Herrera moved with his mother from St. Croix, Virgin Islands a little under a year ago. He spoke English, but few recognized the accent. His skin wasn’t black. Or white. It was a handsome shade of brown, darkened by the sun. In the picture his mom provided media outlets, Jaheem appears slight in build. His eyes, one shade darker than his skin, are oval and animated. His smile is hesitant, but otherwise natural. The picture must have been taken prior to Jaheem’s first day at Dunaire Elementary School.

Jaheem’s mother was excited for the new start, mainly because of what it meant for her son. She never made space in her conscious to accommodate anything other than his happiness, and so she didn’t waste much thought when he struggled to make friends. She told Jaheem to keep trying with his new classmates. And so he did. He found a couple of other boys struggling to ascend the fifth-grade hierarchy, and he quietly befriended them; unfortunately, those alliances only bolstered the unwanted attention of school bullies.

We know that Jaheem came home in tears so many times that his mother lost count. We know that Jaheem’s mother called the school to ask if her son was doing something to anger or annoy the other kids. No, that’s not the case, she was told. She mentioned that his bullies seemed particularly bent on calling her son “gay” and “fag.” Don’t worry about it, she was told. She hung up the phone, and encouraged her boy to be tough. And so he was.

We know that Jaheem was good friends with Monique McMiller’s son. You remember Monique McMiller. Her boy has been bullied mercilessly, and the teachers and principal at Dunaire refuse to take action. So she came to you. She detailed his harassment for you. He had been called “gay.” He had been called “faggot” and “momma’s boy.” He had been shoved and kicked in the bathroom. You were unmoved by Mrs. McMiller’s pleas, and she had no choice but to send her boy back for more abuse, a pattern that was only relieved by the presence of additional targets, such as Jaheem Herrera.

We know that Jaheem’s tears were replaced with subtle clues that things were not improving. His eyes were deadened; his smile coerced. Jaheem’s friends recall the day he arrived at Dunaire with a pink book-bag. The bullies riddled him with taunts. His book-bag was gay. He must be a faggot. The laughter reverberated through hallways, bathrooms, and the cafeteria, and Jaheem’s head pounded and echoed. If he closed his eyes or covered his ears, he could see and hear it all again. He tried to think about summer break, only a month away, and the return to friends and family in St. Croix. One morning over breakfast, his mom told him that the tickets were already bought. He wasn’t listening to her, and she couldn’t hear the desperation in his distracted silence. An 11-year-old mind can only stray so far from the day that stretches in front of him.

The afternoon of April 16, 2009 was just like any other afternoon, except that Jaheem didn’t waste time telling his mom about the bullying he had endured that day. He arrived home, walked right past her in the kitchen, and into his bedroom. Later that afternoon, Jaheem’s mom found her son’s lifeless body hanging from a cloth belt in his closet.

In the aftermath, divvying blame was an easy task. Perhaps Jaheem’s mother didn’t take her son’s cries for help seriously enough. The parents of Jaheem’s small circle of friends knew that the bullying was ongoing, but they were tired of informal and formal complaints falling upon deaf ears, blind eyes, and a callous School Board. They gave up. Victims are not usually the most enduring victims’ advocates, after all.

I am writing this letter not because of the behavior of Jaheem’s peers at Dunaire Elementary, and not even because of your failure to correct that behavior, but because of your ghastly, repulsive, and bigoted response to the tragedy. Initially, the School Board declined to issue a comment. When the media reported on the emerging details of Jaheem’s nine months at Dunaire Elementary, you feared that your silence was damning, so you hired retired Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore to conduct a sole-source investigation into the alleged bullying that occurred immediately prior to Jaheem’s death. You did not provide details of Moore’s credentials, experience, connections with the School System, or possible political motives – you assumed that her former title would squelch that line of questioning, and for the most part, you were right.

Ex-Judge Moore swiftly returned her findings in a hastily organized press conference: There was no bullying. If there was any bullying, it occurred outside of the presence of a teacher. The emphatically black and white language – especially in reference to a behavior that has occurred since the dawning of social posturing – was astounding. But Judge Moore didn’t stop there. She wanted to further explain her findings, and specifically address the accusations of “gay” slurs:

“The children use ‘gay’ for anything and everything. The clothing is gay, the gesture is gay, what they say is gay, and that is the term they use. Now with these students we asked them, ‘Well, what does gay mean?’ They said ‘gay means happy,’ and this is many of the students. That is what their teachers tell them. Gay means happy.”

When the press requested a written report of Moore’s findings, you informed them that there would be no written report released to the public. You cited attorney-client privilege, and walked away from whitewashed gaze of a grieving community.

If not for the dead body of an 11 year old boy, I would be inclined to submit the transcript of Judge Thelma Moore’s press conference to Saturday Night Live. If not for the dead body of an 11 year old boy, I would forward the Judge’s comments to a gaggle of friends with the subject line: “Judge Thelma-and-Louise needs to brush up on her vocabulary a little bit Moore.”

If not for the dead body of an 11 year old boy, I could delude myself into thinking that I live in an oasis of the Deep South, in a city that desperately wants to embrace diversity and tolerance and doesn’t make asinine excuses when it falls painfully short of that ideal. If not for the dead body of an 11 year old boy, I could maybe begin to process the lies, the deceit, and the blatant ignorance and intolerance demonstrated by Ex-Judge Thelma Moore and the DeKalb County School System. If not for the dead body off an 11 year old boy, I would move on to bigger and better battles, as there are so many left to fight.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the underpaid, undertrained teachers of DeKalb County really do allow the word “gay” to be used freely in their classrooms and hallways. They ignore the word as much as possible, and when it becomes too painfully awkward to endure, they attempt to discourage the behavior by informing the students that “gay” means “happy.” By using that hypothetical scenario as your defense, you explicitly endorse deception and undermine the basic premise of education. You insult your students, your teachers, and the community you serve. And you are completely blind to the ramifications. Not even the dead body of a child arouses you from your disgraceful slumber.

My guess, however, is that your teachers and students are not as dim-witted as you would like for us to believe. Your students understand, even if only superficially, that “gay” is used in reference to a subjugated and oft-ridiculed minority group, and some of your students license the word as a weapon to demean classmates who do not easily fit into their already established idea of what is “normal.” When the weapon discharged one too many times and resulted in Jaheem’s suicide, you failed to recognize an opportunity for growth, progress, and disarmament. You failed to analyze where you might have intervened, how you might have turned teasing into teaching, and teaching into a vessel that might have saved Jaheem Herrera.

And, perhaps most disturbingly for a community of educators, you chose against examining the power of language, because it might have meant inserting your voice into a controversial dialogue. The word “gay” has been used by the homophile community for many decades – perhaps even as early as the beginning of the 20th century. The connotation of “happiness” has all but completely disappeared from public consciousness and civil consumption. To use “gay” and “happy” in the same sentence is an act of heterodoxy in the evangelical, fundamentalist churches that litter your district.

For the children you teach who are struggling with sexual identity, some as young as Jaheem, happy is not the first adjective that comes to mind as they trudge through the landmine of youth. And what about your students who know, admire, and love a gay aunt, a gay neighbor, a gay coach, a gay teacher, or a gay parent? Ex-Judge Moore emphatically dismissed the high wattage jolts that those young, pliable minds absorb every single time one of your students recklessly or deliberately uses the word to describe something or someone who has fallen out of favor with the majority.

You have in place an anti-bullying policy that does not address anti-gay language. Admittedly, the word “gay” is not anti-gay language, but context drives meaning and intent, and the meaning and intent behind the word “gay” drove one of your students to hang himself. You didn’t put the cloth belt around Jaheem’s neck, but his blood is on your hands. Even more damning, though, is the undeterred accumulation of emotional bruises on the students who still navigate your hallways, all of whom will have to fight for their lives in a world that uses language to politicize, oppress, persecute, and intimidate.

Jaheem thought he was taking the only way out. It wasn’t the only way, but DeKalb County School System makes a great argument that it might have been the easiest way.