August 10, 2009
What Obama can learn from gay marraige in VT (re health care reform)
Posted by: Andoni
What does trying to pass health care reform legislation have in common with trying to pass gay marriage in Vermont? Answer: in both cases there was/is a very vocal and energized opposition spewing lies about what passage would mean.
There is probably nothing one can say or do that would change the minds of the core people who find either gay marriage or health care reform repugnant. But there is something that can be done to immunize against those lies and help put a firewall in place between the liars and the public.
In Vermont one huge lie causing fear among the population was that if gay marriage passed, all churches would be required to perform them even if their core beliefs were against recognizing gay marriages. The solution to this problem was the inclusion in the bill of specific language saying that churches that did not recognize same sex marriages would not be required to perform them or recognize them. Although most of us who read this blog know that the First Amendment already protects churches on this, it was very helpful to be able to point to this specific provision to counter the arguments of the those lying to try to prevent gay marriage in Vermont. There is nothing wrong with putting in writing something that is already true.
The inclusion of this language in the Vermont bill swayed enough concerned and fearful minds, that it passed.
Similarly, opponents of health care reform are spewing lies about what is in the bill in order to excite people into opposing this legislation. If President Obama and Congressional leaders were smart, they could defuse a lot of the spreading fear by adding language to the bill that specifically addresses these concerns.
For instance, they can add a preamble saying that euthanasia is not part of this bill, there are no provisions for euthanasia and no one will be forced have euthanasia. After that, they can say the government will not nationalize the insurance companies, hospitals or your doctor's office.
I think you get the idea. Opponents of health care reform are stoking the flames of ignorant people by telling them things are in the bill that are not. Considering all the bills are over a thousand pages in length, no ordinary person can read them for himself to determine the truth or falsehood in the opposition's statements. But if all the falsehoods are addressed head on and on page one of the bill, proponents of health care reform will have something to point to, to counter the lies.
If I were advising President Obama, I would tell him to go on national television and say that he hears the public's concerns loud and clear, and that although what they fear is not in the bill, to prove it, he will ask Congress to add a preamble to all legislation guaranteeing that the points they fear are not part of the legislation. Then he can go through the points one by one and cite a web page for people to go visit to see the guarantees in writing. He could also say that he will not sign any bill that does not include these guaranteed protections in it.
President Obama needs to gain control over the health care reform discussion. By going on TV and saying he is asking Congress to specifically address these fears, I think he can do it. And he might even get credit for listening to the public.
If something is not true and you know it,you shouldn't be afraid to put it in writing. And when you do, you get a lot of credit for being an honest broker.
July 31, 2009
How to repeal DADT
Posted by: Andoni
We are 7 months into the Obama administration and DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) is still on the books. I believe anything the president does to initiate the repeal will cause a firestorm that is much, much greater than any of us activists anticipate and could significantly wound Obama politically. This is in spite of the fact that 75% of the public thinks gays should be able to serve openly in the military. Even though they are a significant minority, right wing reactionaries are waiting to ambush the president the minute he moves to repeal DADT.
So how should we repeal DADT with a minimum of damage? If I were speaking to the president, this is what I would advise him.
Wait until October when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen's two year term ends. In choosing a new Chief, make sure the general or admiral has impeccable military credentials and is firmly in favor of repealing DADT. Make sure he understands this is a top priority and it is his mission to accomplish this in the first few months of his term. Also instruct the future Chairman that he is to be open and honest about his opinion and plans for DADT during the Senate confirmation hearings.
During the Senate hearings make sure the nominee is asked several DADT questions and that he publicly states that he believes DADT is a bad policy and needs to be repealed. With the Democrats in control he should be confirmed. The hearings will put him on record about his intentions for the future of DADT. By confirming him, Congress has now approved the concept. The public is on notice and Congress is on notice that things are going to change. No one should be surprised when it happens.
Then a month or two later, the Chairman appears before Congress with numerous studies showing how DADT decreases national security, how we are losing talented men and women we cannot afford to lose during war time, and that the unit cohesion argument is a myth. He formally requests that Congress repeal DADT for the good of the armed forces. The repeal of DADT is initiated by the military.
The request was not initiated by a president who has no military service (a major Achilles heal for many). With the military requesting the change, it would give Congress the cover it needs to repeal DADT. It would also fly better with the American people. And if the military requests the change in the law, it would be much more difficult for the right wing to condemn it.
Had Obama directly requested Congress to do this, I am confident we would have a repeat of the political warfare that happened in 1993 when Clinton tried. Even with 75% of the country with us on this, the crazy right wingers can make a lot of noise, wound the president, and distract from other important issues such as health care reform, banking reform, and comprehensive immigration reform. This is not cowardice, it is smart politics.
I don't know if the White House is thinking along these lines, but I got the idea after reading "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln used this technique a lot. Whenever Lincoln ventured into military matters he found that he often got burned by the then third rail of politics - the military. The military was very political back then. Lincoln discovered that when it came to military matters -- it was often best if the order, suggestion or decision seemed to come from the military. Lincoln would make the decision, but then ask a general to announce it as though it were the general's. Lincoln learned that a controversial order or decision about the military was much better accepted if it came from the military.
I hope Obama has learned this from Lincoln.
July 30, 2009
Harvey Milk to receive Medal of Freedom
Posted by: Andoni
The White House announced today that slain San Francisco gay rights leader Harvey Milk will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom - America's highest civilian honor. The award will be made posthumously at a ceremony on August 12.
Lesbian tennis star Billy Jean King will also be among the 16 recipients of this award on August 12
Other recipients will be Senator Edward Kennedy, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Race for the Cure founder Nancy Brinker, physicist Stephen Hawking, and civil rights activist Rev. Joseph Lowery.
Former Rep. Jack Kemp, who died in May will also be honored posthumously.
I would say that two LGBT people out of 16 (12.5%) is quite nice for our community -- about our proper share of the medals. I really appreciate President Obama's broadening the definition of who is included in American heros.
A full list of the recipients is here.
July 23, 2009
DADT and the Senate
Posted by: Andoni
UPDATE 2: Andrew Sullivan, back from his sabbatical, doesn't believe that the Dems are serious about repealing DADT.
UPDATE: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced this morning that the United States Senate would hold its first ever hearings on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy this fall.
Perhaps many on you have read in today's Washington Blade that Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) has dropped her idea of attaching an amendment to the defense appropriations bill temporarily suspending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law (DADT) for 18 months while the military determines whether a full repeal should be done. She couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster by those who still support DADT.
This is very discouraging. The military needs more people, qualified people. Just yesterday Secretary Gates announced plans to increase the army by 22,000 servicemembers because we don't have enough with two ongoing wars. Yet since the inception of DADT the military has discharged about 13,000 trained and able soldiers because of the policy.
The saddest part of all this is that polls have repeatly shown that 75% or more of the public favors allowing gays to serve openly in the military. So why can't we repeal DADT? The problem is the US Constitution and the Senate rules. In the Senate you need 60 (out of 100) votes to pass anything. And each state gets two senators, no matter how few people they represent. So all those big (and conservative) states with not too many people in the mid-west get two votes.
Our government is set up to effectively allow 25 to 30% of the population to block the will of the other 70 to 75%. It's very, very hard to change things in this country. I guess that's good if you are trying to prevent a revolution from within, but not so good if you are talking about protecting the rights of a minority, especially when the courts are so reluctant to do so.
The only silver lining in all this is that when the people who hate us were in power, we could block a lot of their agressive anti-gay legislation, although not enough of it, because in the hysteria of the era, the Democrats did not block DADT or DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act).
So given this history, I think I would rather have had a parliamentary system. They still would have passed DOMA and DADT, but at least we might have been able to reverse those by now with simple majorities.
July 16, 2009
"Prejudice has no place in the United States of America"
Posted by: Andoni
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
From President Obama's address today at the 100th anniversary of the NAACP (National Association of Colored People): On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America." An interesting clause in Obama's recounting the history of the Civil Rights Movement, was, "and presidents had to be pressured into action...." He has told our community this very thing about our rights, as well. Let's not forget it. You can also view the full speech here.
"But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is
still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing
the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos
made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans
viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.
Did Sen. Graham endorse gay marriage?
Posted by: Andoni
I was shocked and delighted at the way Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) approached his questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during the Senate confirmation hearings today. He seemed to be laying the groundwork for Justice Sotomayor and the Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional.
Graham's two areas of concern in his questioning were whether the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and whether one state should be forced to recognize another state's same sex marriage. He indicated that these were two questions of potential major societal change that the Supreme Court will one day soon have to consider. Graham conceded that although he doesn't want activist judges, that indeed sometimes the Supreme Court needs to step in to secure certain rights because those rights make people uncomfortable and are so unpopular that they could never be achieved by the legislative process.
Graham then cited an example of where the Supremes imposed a major change on society -- Brown v Board of Education, the decision that desegregated the nation's schools. Graham confessed that if he himself had been a Senator from SC in 1954, he could not have voted to desegregate the schools because it made so many of his constituents uncomfortable and was so unpopular. It could not be done legislatively. He seemed to feel that this case of judicial activism and major social change was the right thing to do. He claimed that the case was well argued and that harm to that group was well documented.
Graham concluded his history, sociology and government lesson with this surprising statement praising Sotomayor:
"I think fundamentally, judge, you're able to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you, but for the group, they're necessary."
I have no idea if Graham only had the right to bear arms in mind when he encouraged Sotomayor to rule for rights that are necessary even if they make other people uncomfortable, but the two cases he told her (and us) were heading for the Supreme Court were gun rights and gay marriage rights.
To me it sure sounded as if he was arguing for Sotomayor to become part of a Supreme Court that would proclaim a fundamental right to bear arms as well as the right of gays to be married in every state of the union --- no matter how uncomfortable this made some people.
Who would have thought that Senator Lindsey Graham was a closeted freedom to marry supporter?
"Gratuitous cruelty" by the US
Posted by: Andoni
"This is simply gratuitous cruelty. It serves no interest of the United States to be cruel to these people."
That's how Congressman Jerrold Nadler describes the situation for the latest bi-national couple to undergo forced separation by the United States due to its arcane immigration laws.
You can read the full story in today's Metro Weekly.
In summary, Steve and Joe have been together for 9 years. They are legally partnered in DC and legally married in Connecticut. Steve is a US citizen and Joe was born in Indonesia but was educated in the US and has been here on a student visa and then a work visa, always legally. He was days away from gaining his permanent residency (green card), but was just laid off, which stops everything and gives him 30 days to leave the country. If Joe were a woman, the marriage would be recognized and he/she would have gotten a green card within a month or two of the marriage.
However, in the United States, the government does not recognize any gay relationship for immigration purposes.
I think "gratuitous cruelty" is the exact right description for this inhuman treatment.
I you think so too, please call and write your Senators and Congressperson to co-sponsor the Uniting American Familes Act -- UAFA, S 424 (Senate) or HR 1024 (House). Also tell them that gay and lesbian families must be part of any comprehensive immigration reform bill Congress passes.
There are few things in life as painful as the tearing apart of a family. Just imagine how angry you would be if this happened to you. Yes, "gratuitous cruelty" is a perfect description.
July 12, 2009
UPDATE: President Palin (not an obituary)
Posted by: Andoni
Anyone who read my original post should check out New York Times columnist Frank Rich's take on Palin today. It's worth a read.
He makes the following points:
1. the Palin phenomenon is largely emotional, not rational
2. almost 75% of Republicans say they would vote for her for president
3. this gives her a really good shot at the Republican nomination in 2012 if she wants it
3. Americans have very short memories
4. she could track Nixon's comeback after supposed death
5. it was Democratic divisions and failures that gave Nixon that opening
Palin is not dead politically. As I said in my post, only two things need to happen for her to become president: A.) she gets the nomination and B.) Obama is perceived as a failed president.
A.) doesn't seem like a problem for her. And B.) ....... we don't know yet, but I would bet that everything rides on the economy. Since Obama isn't a world renowned economist on his own, that puts him in the position of only being as good as the people around him who advise him, and right now, I'm not sure he is getting the best advise. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman agrees.
So whether you support health care reform, gay rights, global warming, energy independence, banking reform, immigration reform or some other interest, the long term success of all of these, depend on the economy improving starting very soon, then significantly before 2010 and greatly before 2012.
The public will not support all these great plans unless they start seeing improvement on the horizon. And if he convinces us that improvement is on the horizon, and it doesn't come, then he (and those who support these programs) are in serious trouble.
A large majority of the bloggers who are joyously dancing at the supposed end of Sarah Palin's political career were not even born in 1962 when Nixon supposedly fell. I was in high school and remember it clearly ....and how it felt. The overall Sarah Palin picture feels the same way that the Nixon exit felt. And that's scary.
I'm not going to lose sleep over the thought of President Palin for the time being, but I want everyone to know that it is more possible than you currently think it is.
July 10, 2009
New straight hero on DADT
Posted by: Andoni
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Congressman Patrick Murphy, a straight Congressman from PA, is taking the lead on repealing DADT. The above clip from the Rachel Maddow Show clearly demonstrates Murphy's passion and determination to get this done. The other clip at the end shows Murphy burying a right wing defender of DADT during Congressional hearings and is definitely worth watching. It demonstrates Murphy's ability to handle himself while under fire from the right wing. All the attributes of a good soldier are evident in the second clip. He both served and taught in the military and knows the culture and the rules inside out.
It's my opinion that we need more straight politicians leading on gay issues. It's fine that we have Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and now Jared Polis representing our interests as gay people in Congress, but I really think that when a straight person takes up a gay cause, it gives it much more credibility. When a gay politician is for gay rights, the sub text is that it is simply self serving for his community. When a straight person takes up gay rights, it truly becomes a civil rights/human rights issue and more people are convinced of its rightness.
Another problem is I don't think our gay Congressional leaders push hard enough. Maybe there is a bit of self censorship going on because they don't want to be perceived simply as the "gay" Congressman. They would rather be known as the the chair of this or that committee. As a result, they don't agitate enough on our issues.
The Civil Rights Movement did not really take off until white people began advocating for the rights of blacks as well as blacks themselves.
This may be our turning point, as straight politicians Congressman Jerry Nadler and Senator Patrick Leahy (two others we should consider heros) have become fierce advocates for the Uniting American Families Act, the bill that would recognize gay partnerships for immigration. Now we need a straight politician to take the lead on repealing DOMA.
Below are the co-sponsors of Congressman Murphy's DADT repeal bill. If yours is not on the list, get busy, call your Congressperson and ask him/her to co-sponsor. And don't let up until they do.
And don't forget the clip of Murphy in action at the end.
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 3/17/2009
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 7/8/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 3/12/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 6/16/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/3/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 3/3/2009
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 6/8/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/3/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 4/27/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 3/3/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 3/3/2009
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/3/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/3/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 4/27/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 3/3/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/3/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 3/3/2009
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 3/9/2009
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 3/3/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/2/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 3/3/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/3/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/3/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/3/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/3/2009
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 3/6/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 3/3/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 3/3/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 3/3/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 3/3/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 6/26/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 4/29/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 3/3/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 3/3/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 3/3/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 3/9/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 3/3/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 3/5/2009
Rep Kilroy, Mary Jo [OH-15] - 3/5/2009
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 6/9/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 3/3/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 6/23/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 7/8/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/3/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/3/2009
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] - 6/23/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/3/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 3/23/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/3/2009
Rep McMahon, Michael E. [NY-13] - 6/9/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 3/3/2009
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 3/3/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 3/3/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 3/3/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 3/3/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 3/3/2009
Rep Peters, Gary C. [MI-9] - 5/13/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 3/3/2009
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 3/3/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 6/2/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 3/17/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 3/3/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 3/3/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 3/3/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/3/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 3/3/2009
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 3/17/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 3/3/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 3/3/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/3/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 3/12/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 3/3/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/3/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 3/3/2009
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 3/3/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 3/17/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 3/3/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 3/3/2009
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/3/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 3/3/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/3/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 3/3/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 3/3/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 3/3/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 3/3/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/3/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/3/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/3/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 6/9/2009
And don't forget to watch this clip of Murphy in action.
July 09, 2009
GM goes beefcake gay, then pulls ad
Posted by: Andoni
UPDATE AT END
GM developed an ad aimed at gay buyers with two hunky guys in briefs washing a Camaro (read the original story here) then without explanation while I was writing this post, pulled it from YouTube (read the subsequent story here). The ad was online, cute and entitled "Bumble Bee Boys in Briefs."
Apparently, as the ad became more and more popular on YouTube (I would think this is the very purpose of an advertisement -- to be seen by as many people as possible), GM pulled it.
My advice to GM: If you want to be our friend, you can't just be our friend in private, then disown us in public. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Our self esteem as a community has grown a lot since those days. If we are your friend only in private and not in front of everyone, we are not truly friends. Nice try GM, but get with the 21st Century. Meanwhile, I am not tempted to buy your products.
P.S. Sorry for the fuzzy photo, but that's the only remnant left on the internet of the original ad where the two guys were teasing and spraying each other as the washed the car.
UPDATE: GM explained the pulling of the ad by saying that it had not been properly vetted before posting. If all the people who were supposed to vet it had done so, it would probably never have been posted in the first place.
July 08, 2009
Steve Hildebrand on Obama
Posted by: Andoni
Steve Hildebrand may be the closest gay person to Barack Obama. He was deputy national campaign director for Obama's presidential campaign last year. In a remarkable interview with Hildebrand, Rex Wockner gets to the bottom of some of the issues LGBT Americans have been worried about vis a vis President Obama of late. After the the Department of Justice brief defending DOMA, Hildebrand went to the White House and spoke one on one with the president about the anger in the our community, LGBT issues in general and the DOJ brief in particular.
Two items of particular note in Wockner's interview with Hildebrand are:
2. "(President Obama) did not read the ... pathetic (marriage) brief in advance but he subsequently has read the brief and was not happy at all with both the direction as well as the language that was used." --Steve Hildebrand
So all the brouhaha the LGBT community created following that "pathetic" brief was appropriate and most likely brought some results. The president thinks pressure is a good thing and apparently repsonds to it. I for one don't believe the White House cocktail party to celebrate Stonewall had been on the books for a long time. I really think the noise we made as a community had results and if we continue the pressure we will get more results. But as Hildebrand notes, we need more pressure on Congress. The president will sign all LGBT legislation that comes to his desk. But as Chris reminds us Congress initiates and passes the laws, not the president.
Finally, Steve Hildebrand thinks that we gays are not doing as much as we could be doing to advance our cause. That will be a topic of a post in the next few days.
In the meantime, read the Wockner interview.
July 07, 2009
President Palin (not an obituary)
Posted by: Andoni
I'm a little nervous that a lot of the liberal chattering class is proclaiming the death of Sarah Palin's political career. I'm old enough to remember a similar situation with Richard Nixon in 1962 after he told the press that they wouldn't have Nixon to kick around any more. The liberals were dancing in the streets with joy. By 1968 he was elected president.
The short version of how Palin can be elected president is as follows. In a 2 party system, your choices are either A or B. If the public turns on candidate A (or his party), they then vote for candidate B no matter who it is. The prime example of this happening is incumbent President Herbert Hoover losing to Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. The public turned on Hoover because of the economy. The Democrats could have run anyone against Hoover and would have won.
Only two things have to fall in place for Palin to become president: 1). she gets the Republican nomination in 2012 and 2.) Barack Obama cannot turn the economy (or the unemployment rate) around and it gets worse. When the public turns on A, the only alternative in a 2 party system is B, even if B was fairly well despised at one time (Think Richard Nixon). The public has a short memory.
Richard Nixon was much disliked by the public when he left politics in 1962. He was regarded as mean and not to be trusted ('tricky Dick"). But between 1962 and 1968 he traveled the country helping other GOP candidates raise money and win elections. The IOU's he gathered were immense. As a result he got the Republican nomination in 1968 largely due to all the favors owed him.
Sarah Palin's popularity among the base will put her in a position to raise enormous amounts of money for other GOP candidates and help them win in Red states. The IOU's she collects could help her get the Republican nomination, just as it did Nixon. The other half of the equation of course depends on Obama's ability (or luck) in turning the economy around.
Herbert Hoover was one of the smartest people of his day and he followed the advice of supposedly wise economic advisers .... who turned out to be wrong. As a result the public turned on Hoover and the Republicans after a 70 year dominance of the White House. Like I said, it didn't matter who the Democrats ran against Hoover, the people did not want Hoover.
Other examples of the public turning on a party in power and choosing the other candidate are as follows: Richard Nixon (the despised) beat Lyndon Johnson's chosen successor largely because of the public's turning on the Vietnam War ...as well as the disgust over the police beatings at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. The public turned on Gerald Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon and elected a rather inexperienced, unknown Jimmy Carter in 1976. In 1980 the public turned on Jimmy Carter because of rampant inflation and the Iran hostage debacle and turned to Ronald Reagan, someone the left thought could never, ever be elected president.
So the bottom line is the pundits don't know everything and don't have a good track record in predicting the political future. And when the public turns on the incumbent, the other person has a darn good chance of winning, no matter what their previous reputation was.
July 02, 2009
End 'special rights' for gays: allow them to marry
Posted by: Andoni
We are all familiar with the right wing mantra that gays are asking for "special rights" when in reality we are only asking for equality. Well, here's an example that turns the "special rights" argument on its head. In some situations, the very act of denying gays equal rights, actually creates "special rights" for gays, not vice versa.
Exhibit A is Martina Navratilova. She has been in two high profile long term same sex relationships. In both relationships she went through a "marriage" ceremony with her spouse, but these marriages were not recognized by the state. In the first marriage Martina escaped the usual division of assets that heterosexual couples must endure when they split because her marriage was not recognized by the state. It appears that the same thing is happening in Martina's second "divorce." The state of Florida will not recognize her New Hampshire union. As a result, Martina will most likely once again be able to walk away from this second marriage with all her assets.
It's possible some gays are happy with these special rights, because it indeed allows gay couples to dodge loss of assets in a divorce. However, if I were a straight person I would be quite unhappy with the special rights gays are getting in this area. I think I would come up with a bumper sticker that read:
Stop special rights for gays: allow them to marry.
June 29, 2009
White House hosts gay reception today
Posted by: Andoni
UPDATE: Watch a video of the speech here.
To commemorate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, President Obama has invited 250 LGBT leaders from across the country to the White House for a cocktail reception today. Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, makes note of this event on the official White House web page. And if you wish to be a witness to history, you can tune in to a live stream of the event here starting at 4:25 pm.
Can anyone imagine such an event ever taking place under President Bush? The message that this event sends to the American people is incalculable. President Obama is saying that LGBT Americans are a valued part of the American fabric. Certainly there is a lot of work to be done to achieve equality, but this is definitely a good first step. I thank the president and look forward to his leadership on ensuring that gay America gains its equality during his administration.
Now for the second step..........
June 27, 2009
Credit card scams (again)
Posted by: Andoni
I've reported before on the various shady ways credit card companies and currency exchangers (posing as ATM machines) are using to bilk customers and earn questionable extra profits.
Well, last night at a restaurant at the Bangkok Airport, I encountered it again in an even more blatant fashion.
Our food bill came to 609.90 Baht, and I decided to pay by credit card. However, when the charge slip arrived for my signature, I noticed the 609.90 Baht in big digits and then in tiny almost illegible digits was "USD 19.65." This alerted me that something wasn't right, so I asked if they had indeed charged me in Thai Baht or US dollars. The waiter answered that they charged me in Thai Baht. My next question was, "Well why does it have something in dollars here?" and he replied that it was there so I would know about how much to expect on my credit card statement. Then seeing that I was objecting, another person came over to assure me that the transaction had indeed occurred in Thai Baht (the proper way).
I believed what they said, so I proceeded to sign ----- until midsignature, my eye caught the following statement at the bottom of the slip:
"Please debit my account with the total amount in USD. I accept the I was given a choice to pay in Thai Baht and understand that the selected transaction currency is final. I understand that the currency conversion is provided by SCB."
I was livid. This was an outright lie and they wanted me to put my signature to it. I was not given a choice. And they lied to me when I asked. I had expressly asked that the transaction be in Thai Baht. Yet I was about to sign an "informed consent" that said I had requested the charge in USD after being informed of my options. This signed slip would be their proof in any court that I was totally informed and aware of what was happening and that I made that choice - when in fact the whole thing was a lie.
I immediately tore up the charge slip and simultaneously stood up, yelling at the waiter to call the manager, who by now had already heard me and had come out. My partner (a Thai national) was so embarrassed that he tried to shrink under the table.
Quite frankly I don't know exactly what I said from that point on because I was so mad, but I do remember telling my partner to tell them in Thai that I was going to call the Tourist Police.
That got their attention and they immediately starting working to calm me down. Everything was OK they said, and they would undo the transaction. After they undid transaction and gave me all the paperwork that goes with that, they presented me with a proper charge slip in Thai Baht. Needless to say there was no tip and as we stomped out of the place, with the manager and 3 waiters all at the door bowing in humility (maybe humiliation, who knows).
I encountered this kind of thing in London -- everywhere. Even Harrod's did it, but they at least they really did ask if you wanted the transaction in USD or Pounds Sterling. Most places just do the transaction in dollars -- resulting in an extra 10% profit for them (which probably gets split between merchant and currency trader) - and when you sign the slip, it looks like you were given the choice and chose dollars. You've just signed an "informed consent" even though you weren't informed and they did it without your consent.
All I can say is beware of this scam and it's variations. It's everywhere now. It's fraud. In fact it's more than fraud, it's outright stealing. When someone takes $100 from you for every $1000 you spend they are stealing real money from you. Now that I see this is global, this represents millions, no billions of dollars of ill gotten profit by banks, credit card companies, and currency exchange dealers.
June 24, 2009
Sanford's 'crime against morality'
Posted by: Chris
Following the admission by Republican Gov. Mark Sanford that he had disappeared to Argentina as part of an extramarital affair, some have been minimizing the legal dimension of his offense. Unlike Republican Sen. David Vitter (La.), who admitted to having sex with a prostitute, the South Carolina governor hasn't broken any laws.
That may be untrue under South Carolina's penal code:
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
CHAPTER 15.
OFFENSES AGAINST MORALITY AND DECENCY
SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.
"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.
The crime of adultery is listed along side not just prostitution, but bigamy and incest. I wonder if his relationship with his mistress will be compared to a same-sex marriage. The prohibition against "buggery" remains on the books in South Carolina in the same section of the criminal code.
Without additional information about the extent of "carnal intercourse" between the governor and his Eva Peron, it's impossible to know if it was so "habitual" as to constitute the crime of adultery. Also unclear is whether the South Carolina criminal prohibitions against adultery and fornication survive the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas, striking down state sodomy statutes.
No doubt Sanford disagreed strongly with the Lawrence ruling, at least until recently.
June 16, 2009
LGBT goes missing
Posted by: Chris
Update at the end of this post:
Tongues are wagging about the apparent delisting of Planet Out, Inc. -- which trades under the symbol LGBT -- from the Nasdaq stock exchange. A post today on Queerty speculates that Planet Out's stock was yanked because the company failed to comply with a 15-day warning from Nasdaq about maintaining a minimum of $10 million in capitalization. I wonder if that's really the reason, or if something less sinister is afoot.
Obviously there've been quite a bit more than 15 days since the March warning from Nasdaq, which makes that the unlikely trigger. Today's date does figure prominently, however, in a June 4 filing by Planet Out with the SEC. In that document, the company's management reveals an amendment to the merger agreement inked between Planet Out and Regent Entertainment Media -- which owns here! TV as well as the Advocate and Out magazines, formerly published by Planet Out.
Under the terms of an amendment to the plan filed back in April, either party could pull out by the end of May if the other party had not been able to complete the merger. The June 4 filing extended that pull-out deadline until yesterday, June 15. So was Planet Out delisted because the merger fell through or because it finally went through?
So far no word from either Regent or Planet Out; the latter's corporate site hasn't been updated and PlanetOut.com itself is carrying "breaking news" about "Bruno" and "how gay is too gay."
Stay tuned...
UPDATE:
We now have our answer, courtesy of a press release announcing that the PlanetOut merger with Regent Media/Here Networks was successfully completed. That's great news for gay media, considering survival at this point is an accomplishment in the current economic environment and the steep decline of media business fortunes:
New company will operate under name Here Media Inc.
June 16, 2009 (LOS ANGELES, CA and SAN FRANCISCO, CA) – Here Networks LLC announced today the completion of the business combination of Here Networks LLC and its publishing affiliate, which includes the LGBT publications The Advocate and Out, with PlanetOut Inc. (formerly-traded under the ticker symbol, LGBT). The new public company resulting from this business combination will be named Here Media Inc. with Stephen P. Jarchow serving as Chairman and Paul Colichman serving as CEO.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of PlanetOut Inc. common stock voted to approve the proposed business combination.
“The close of this deal represents an exciting moment for LGBT consumers across the globe,” said Stephen P. Jarchow and Paul Colichman. “We look forward to bringing new features that will enhance the user experience and keep our customers engaged.”
Here Media now becomes the premier global company for providing news and entertainment to the LGBT community. The company is also uniquely positioned to provide advertisers opportunities to reach its niche audience across platforms including television, online, print publishing, and filmed entertainment. Here Media’s unmatched reach positions the company as a leader in creating an interactive relationship with consumers across all its iconic brands.
Jarchow and Colichman, along with current PlanetOut Inc. Chairman Phil Kleweno, will serve as the initial board of directors of Here Media.
About Here Media
Here Media, Inc. produces and distributes niche content across all platforms worldwide. Here Media’s iconic brands distribute gay media and world cinema programming with universal, humanistic appeal. Its distribution platforms include theaters, television, VOD, broadband, online, print and mobile. It earns subscription, advertising and licensing revenue from its award-winning content.
Here Media owns and operates a variety of media assets including:
Here Studios, a full service motion picture studio. Here Films, a motion picture distribution company. here! Networks, a premium television network featuring programming that appeals to a gay and lesbian audience airing in 96 of the top 100 US markets, including every top 10 market. Iconic print brands including Out, Advocate and HIV Plus, as well as Alyson Books. Online properties including Gay.com, Planetout.com, Advocate.com, Out.com and SheWired.com which provide broadband video and social networking.
Paul Colichman is Chief Executive Officer of Here Media and Stephen P. Jarchow is Chairman. Together, they have produced and/or distributed over 200 motion pictures including Academy Award® winners “Gods and Monsters” and “Departures."
Obama's major speech on LGBT rights
Posted by: Andoni
Before you get too excited, this hasn't happened yet. When I was sitting on the island of Symi, Greece I was getting despondent over the inaction in Congress on LGBT rights. Remembering the president's promises during the campaign, I thought the answer was a major address to the nation by President Obama on LGBT rights -- to jump start things in Congress.
The president has a great way of explaining issues. Just think of his speech in Philadelphia on race and the one in Cairo on Muslim relations with America. When people listen to his well reasoned speeches, a lot more people nod their heads in agreement after the speech. Do I think LGBT rights warrants a major address by the president? Yes, I do. It is the civil rights issue of our time and should be one of the major issues of this presidency.
I began writing a post suggesting a major speech by Obama on LGBT rights sometime in the early fall, but couldn't quite get the words right on paper. Juan and Ken Ahonen-Jover, however, have done me one better. They wrote the speech the president should give. Juan and Ken are the founders of EqualityGiving an organization of major LGBT donors and activists. The link to the speech is here. And at the risk of eating up too much server space (sorry, Chirs), I copy it in its entirety below.
This is the LGBT speech Obama should give. The bold print are his actual words from this year's Pride proclamation.
"Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall
Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too
common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in
America was born.
"LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting
contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American
society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all
professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT
Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS
epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's
response to the HIV pandemic.
"I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates
to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an
Administration.
"The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done.
In the last four decades legislation has been enacted in many states to
ensure that we hold our most dear American Promise: that we are all
equal under the law. However, no state provides full legal equality to
guarantee that each person is treated equally independently of sexual
orientation or gender identity and expression.
"Other states fall far behind in what most Americans believe to be fair and just.
"Congress has not passed a single piece of legislation in the four
decades since Stonewall to ensure that Americans who are lesbian, gay,
bisexual or transgender are treated equally under the law. So, millions
of Americans remain denied this American Promise.
"In these same four decades, Congress has passed two pieces of
legislation that do the exact opposite and that actually openly
discriminate against those Americans. As I said in my campaign, I
support repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation, as well as the
repeal of the entire Defense of Marriage Act.
"I am here to tell you that yes, we can end discrimination. And that yes, the time for this is now.
"Many will argue that while equality is a worthwhile goal, civil rights
have been given incrementally. They will also tell you that we have
other important priorities.
"But I ask: Where is our moral compass when we knowingly continue to
allow members of our society to be unequal under the law? Where is our
moral compass when we have laws that openly discriminate against some
members of our society?
"How do you tell a parent that the daughters and sons they love so much
will not be treated equally under the law? That one will be able to
serve his country, while the other will be fired for doing the same
thing? That one will be able to marry and raise a family with all the
protection that the law affords, and the other will not?
"We may not agree with every person. But we have to respect them. And
the law has to apply equally to every person in the same way.
"Many of the problems that we face require solutions that are complex.
Many of these problems have different solutions, which some uncertainty
about which solution might be best.
"For instance, Congress already analyzed and enacted legislation on one
of our most important and difficult problems: the economic crisis. Work
is underway now on healthcare reform.
"But inequality under the law is not a difficult problem to fix. We
just have to ensure that all citizens are covered by our existing laws
in the same way. No more and no less. We also need to repeal two laws
which fly in the face of equal protection under the law: the Defense of
Marriage Act, which not only acts against the rights of the States, but
also religions, and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that acts against
the national security of our nation because it deprives our armed
forces of personnel we need.
"There is never an ideal time to enact legislation for equal rights.
Yet every moment that passes, and we don't act, injustice continues.
There are always reasons to delay. But ensuring that we live to our
highest promise of equality needs to happen now. It is our moral
imperative, since delays just end up denying the rights and protections
to those who do not deserve to be left out.
HATE CRIMES
"First, I want to commend the House of Representatives for approving
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As a
senator, I was a co-sponsor of this legislation, and I am asking the
Senate to act swiftly to approve it.
"Some say that a crime is a crime and there is no need to distinguish
crimes motivated by prejudice against a minority. The reality is that
our judicial system considers, as it should, the intention of the
criminal. The punishment is not the same, and it should not be, if
somebody kills a person by accident versus somebody killing a person
with predetermination.
"Hate has no place in our society. Respect for each individual is the glue that keep us together.
"Today, we already have hate crimes laws for those who are victims of
crimes based on their race, color, religion and national origin. It is
important to add gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and
disability to those laws." Rest assured that adding this language to
our existing laws in no way gives special rights to homosexuals, since
hate crimes against someone for being a heterosexual would be also
included in this law.
NON DISCRIMINATION
"Most Americans are very familiar with several pieces of civil rights
legislation that protect Americans against discrimination. Most people
naturally assume that those protections also cover lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender individuals.
"They do not.
"The first legislation covering LGBT individuals was introduced 35
years ago. I am asking Congress today to introduce an expansion of the
civil rights legislation to cover non-discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public
accommodation, public facilities, credit, and federally funded programs
and activities."
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL
"My most important responsibility as President is to protect our
country. Because our national security is at stake, we cannot continue
to fire personnel from the military, just because of their sexual
orientation. All of our dedicated service members are vital to our
national security, and we have spent large sums of money and time
training them.
"Since the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been in effect, more than
12,000 service members have been discharged to the detriment to our
national security, just for who they are, and not because of their
actions or performance.
"I am thinking of service members like Sergeant Eric Alva, a marine,
who was awarded a purple heart and was the first American soldier
wounded in Iraq. He was discharged for being gay; and Lieutenant Daniel
Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arab linguist, also discharged just
for being gay.
"Therefore, today I am signing an executive order asking for a
temporary suspension of investigations and discharges of service
members because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Of
course, behavioral problems will continue to be aggressively
investigated and prosecuted.
"I am also asking Congress to pass without delay the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009.
"Effectiveness and cohesion of our military forces is based on trust.
Each service member needs to trust each other with their own lives.
Critical to this trust is integrity and the ability of our service
members not to have to hide who they are and whom they love.
"As when the military was integrated with female service members, we
know that our troops are professional and capable of interacting
appropriately. We know that our allies, such as Great Britain, Israel,
Canada, and Australia have successfully integrated gays and lesbians
into their militaries. I believe that our armed services personnel are
capable of acting professionally.
"I have also asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to modify
regulations within the next 60 days to ensure that all service members
are treated equally and that inappropriate behavior is punished whether
it is between a members of the same gender or of different genders.
MARRIAGE
"Our country is very divided on the issue of same gender marriage. I have expressed my own opinion on the subject before.
"Yes, marriage has a religious component.
"Some religions do allow same gender couples to marry, others don't. It
is not the role of the government to interfere with religion or favor
one religion over another. For example, most religions do not allow
divorce. However, led by Ronald Reagan while he was Governor of
California, no fault divorce has been adopted by all states.
"Let me say this, in no uncertain terms, to all Americans: the
government does not currently, and will not, tell your church whom they
can or cannot marry.
"In addition, the rights of the States need to be protected: civil
marriage licenses have been and should continue to be the prerogatives
of each state. When the Defense of Marriage Act was approved by
Congress in 1996, no state allowed same gender couples to marry.
Today, six States do, while several others allow either civil unions or
domestic partnerships. Other states have their own Defense of Marriage
Acts or constitutional bans against same gender marriage.
"The principle at stake is that the federal government does not, and
will not, issue marriage licenses. However, the federal government
needs to honor all the licenses issued by the States, not just those of
opposite gender couples. Therefore, I am asking Congress to repeal the
Federal Defense of Marriage Act without delay and to ensure that all
the 1,138 federal benefits, such as social security, immigration, and
hospital visitation, that apply to opposite gender married couples are
applied without discrimination to all couples legally married or
otherwise joined by a civil union or domestic partnership legally
recognized by a State.
"Today I am proud to say that I signed an executive order providing
domestic partners of federal employees many of the benefits of married
spouses."
EDUCATION
"One of my main priorities is education. This is a requisite for our
country to be competitive in the 21st Century. Our hearts were broken
when in the space of two weeks in April, two young people committed
suicide after being repeatedly bullied because of a perception that
they were gay. One was a middle schooler. The other was in elementary
school. Our thoughts and prayers go to their families.
"I want to send a clear message to all children: in America you can be
free to express who you are. Bullying should not be part of our
vocabulary. Every child should grow up in a society that respects their
differences.
"Youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment.
One of the critical components of learning is to have a safe
environment for children to develop to their full potential. This
means, among other measures, schools free of drugs and free of
bullying. Bullies target other children based on their race, religion,
sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and others. I am asking
Congress to immediately pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2009,
which has bipartisan support.
THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW
"These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our
entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains
unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to
advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every
American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT
community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to
promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or
gender identity.
"Some people will argue that we cannot do so much, so fast, while the
country is dealing with an economic crises, is engaged in two wars,
desperately needs healthcare reform, needs education reform, and needs
to address the problems with the environment.
"I say: we cannot afford to NOT take care now of these blights on our
American Family to ensure that we live to our highest value: That we
were all created Equal.
"The time has come to live to our highest aspirations. To send the
message that while we may not agree with each other all the time, we
all share the aspiration of living in a society in which none of our
members faces discrimination. And a reminder that we were all created
equal.
"I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
"Because if some of us are not equal, none of us are equal."
June 15, 2009
Defending Obama's indefensible defense...
Posted by: Chris
... of the Defense of Marriage Act. OK not really. But at the risk of being labeled (once again) as an Obama apologist, I want to add a bit more context to the excellent analysis done by Andoni and others of the DOJ's brief defending DOMA.
Like most of you, I was profoundly disappointed by the filing, and my heart sank even further when I read some of the arguments used by the Obama Justice Department in favor of DOMA's constitutionality. The analogy to incest, in particular, was completely beyond the pale. Although (once again) it's not fair to say the brief directly compared same-sex relationships to incestuous relationships, it is ludicrous and insulting to suggest there is no meaningful legal distinction between laws that don't exclude gays from marrying and laws that permit an uncle to wed his niece.
It was also patently irrational to argue that DOMA doesn't discriminate against gay Americans because we, too, can enter into "traditional marriages." Its unfathomable that lawyers for a president who is the product of an interracial marriage would use an argument that was rejected some four decades ago in Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that anti-miscegenation laws weren't racist because both whites and blacks were equally restricted to marrying within their own race.
Even so, once my blood pressure came under control, I cannot join those who see the DOMA brief as a "betrayal" by President Obama or even as a sign that his administration will be "throwing us under the bus" like the last Democrat occupant of the White House did. Here's why:
First and foremost, candidate Obama did not make any commitment that I'm aware of to refuse to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That would have been an extraordinary promise for any presidential candidate to make about any piece of duly adopted legislation, and yet I don't know of a single time the question was even put to Obama or his competitors, or where he was even asked the more general question of whether DOMA is unconstitutional.
There's obviously a big difference between believing a law is wrongheaded or unfair or even discriminatory, on the one hand, and believing it is unconstitutional, on the other. Since Hillary Clinton defended her husband's decision to sign DOMA into law, and only favored half-repeal, it's fair to conclude she agrees with the Obama DOJ that DOMA's deficiency is a matter of policy, not constitutionality. Ditto the Human Rights Campaign, since "the nation's largest gay rights group" chose only to score the candidates on whether they support DOMA's half-repeal -- thereby equating Clinton's views with Obama's.
If this question of DOMA's constitutionality is so crucial and fundamental, then why did everyone -- all of us -- fail to raise it during the eons-long presidential campaign? We thought about DOMA enough to make a big deal -- or not -- about half-repeal vs. full repeal, and others questioned Obama about the positions the DOJ might take in defending Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court. So why didn't we ask for a commitment about refusing to defend DOMA as well? And if we didn't, maybe we should take a deep breath before accusing Obama of treason for how his lawyers ultimately answered our unasked question -- in a lawsuit that most gay legal experts wish had never been brought and hopefully will get dismissed.
A spokesperson has explained the DOJ brief saying that, "As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court." John Aravosis makes a good point by digging up examples of the DOJ under previous presidents declining to defend the constitutionality of certain statutes in court, but rather than proving the Obama administration is "lying," he accomplished the opposite. Four examples out of thousands hardly disproves the claim that "generally" the DOJ defends laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
Let's also pause long enough to consider whether we want to advocate the politicization of the Justice Department. Let us recall from the debate over the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" that the DOJ has an independent obligation to weigh questions of legality and constitutionality. Those decisions ought to be made on the basis of the law, not politics. It's not fair for us to switch sides on that argument when it suits our cause, however worthy.
Please, please don't take away from these observations any hesitation on my part about the constitutionality of DOMA. As someone whose entire life has been torn apart for years now because of this single federal law, I know its destructive force, and for years counted myself among those who see DOMA as a gross affront to the Constitution. Nonetheless, I think it's a bit too easy to condemn President Obama for failing to anticipate a complicated legal question that our own advocates either also failed to anticipate or decided was unworthy of raising during the presidential campaign.
Speaking of our own advocates, I will say it was refreshing to see Joe Solmonese at HRC actually speak out on the issue, even if he ultimately cops out by attempting to evade any institutional or personal responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in. Solmonese's impassioned letter to Obama calls on the president to "put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."
Is that the way Washington works, Joe? Are we really to believe that this consumate lobbyist -- who couldn't resist bragging about his own White House access in the same self-serving letter -- completely missed that "Schoolhouse Rock" episode on how a bill becomes a law?
Solmonese and his Beltway minions know damn well the president doesn't "send" legislation to Congress. Even on top administration priorities like the stimulus package and health care reform, the bills are drafted by legislators -- hence the name -- with public and private input from the White House throughout the process, including what importance the president puts on passage.
If pressure is to be brought to bear, and indeed it should, then it ought to focus first on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. So when the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles raised a public ruckus with the president over DOMA this weekend, HRC should passionately remind them that not one of the Democrats in Congress from these two gay meccas, including a certain Speaker of the House, has introduced, much less given priority to, a bill to repeal DOMA.
Why is it, then, that in the 13 years since passage of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act that HRC and its friends in Congress have failed to "put principles into action" and draft repeal legislation, identify House and Senate sponsors and co-sponsors, pressure for hearings or otherwise shepherd the bill through the legislative process?
I will answer my own question. Because anyone with even a passing familiarity with gay politics in our nation's capital knows that HRC long ago agreed with its cronies in the DNC and on the Hill not to even begin pressing for DOMA repeal until a whole laundry list of other (far less important and less controversial) legislation is adopted.
With all of this context in mind, I would humbly suggest that we take each of Andoni's five examples of direct action and aim them also (not instead) at your member of Congress, the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate, and our dear friends at the Human Rights Campaign. Has either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid even committed publicly to repealing DOMA, or half-repealing it?
Let's demand that HRC publicly release draft language for repealing DOMA and point us to members of Congress we should lobby to take on leadership roles in sponsorship. (And how about federal civil unions legislation while they're at it!) With those pieces in place, pressure on the White House can be much more concrete, and all this righteous anger might move the ball forward toward relationship equality.
The DOMA f*ck up
Posted by: Andoni
ADDENDUM AT END: (THE NEW YORK TIMES AGREES)
As you can read here and here, the Obama Justice Department filed a brief defending DOMA. This was no ordinary brief. It was way over the top with arguments that could have just as well been made by Pat Roberson or Jerry Falwell. I'm still scratching my head over how this could have happened.
One of the authors of the brief was a Bush appointee who happens to be Mormon. It's pretty obvious in reading the brief that his personal religious views got in the way of prudent arguments. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the office that filed the brief is Tony West, an Obama appointee, and by all accounts a progressive person. He is married to someone who was the ED of a major California pro gay non profit. (I don't want to drag names of uninvolved spouses or organizations into this, but a few googles will give this information if you are curious). The point being, I doubt the Assistant Attorney General -- the head of the office that filed the brief, is anti-gay.
So this is a major screw up that should never have happened. What do we do? So far, we've been complaining among ourselves. This is my advice to my friends and my email lists:
Complaining amongst ourselves about the horrendous brief that was filed by the Obama DOJ last Thursday afternoon defending DOMA does no good. We need to do something constructive, like TODAY -- when the government offices are open again in Washington after the weekend. I don't know how many people are reading this, but I bet if we all make a focused attempt to do the following, we will be heard:
1. Call or email the the White House (or do both) to register your strong complaint/disapproval/anger at the the Dept. of Justice's legal brief filed last Thursday defending the "Defense of Marriage Act" in US District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Smelt v United States). Make sure you reference DOMA, Dept of Justice, and filed in federal court in CA last Thursday so that when they tally the calls at the end of the day, our calls get lumped together. (Referencing Smelt v United States would be icing on the cake.) Emails to the White House can be made at: whitehouse.gov/contact/ and the comment phone line is: 202-456-1111. If you wish and have time, you can cite as an example some particular section of the brief that is particularly outrageous to you.
2. Ask/demand that the president fulfill his campaign promise to repeal DOMA by immediately introducing legislation to repeal DOMA
3. I would hope that all three (in concert if possible) of our representatives in Congress call or meet with the appropriate person in the White House to explain/protest how demeaning and over the top the DOJ brief was. They should stress that this was a completely avoidable fiasco if the White House had only consulted with them on this matter first. They should also point out that this is an example of why we need an LGBT senior staff liaison in the White House.
4. I would hope that every person who represents an LGBT organization would have that organization also contact the White House with the same above messages.
5. If you are a member of another email list, you would send the above suggestions to that list, so that the calls and emails snowball.
Taking action is preferable to complaining among ourselves. We've been run over here. If we don't make a loud noise and protest, the next time it will be even worse.
If we can't get enough people to take action over this -- to make our voices heard at the highest levels on this very justified complaint, I fear we don't have the energy, unity or passion to achieve equal rights in the near future.
ADDENDUM: The New York Times agrees with us. Here is their great editorial this morning. And I'm glad to report that Joe Solmonese, ED of the Human Rigths Campaign sent the president a strong letter that is well worth reading.Here's a key clip from the opening paragraph:
"I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."
