The Republic of T.

iii

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.

~

Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.

~

The time is always right to do what’s right.

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

During the presidential election, candidate Barack Obama had the following to say to LGBT voters, in an open letter posted at Obama Pride:

(more…)

ii

What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.

~

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.

~

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

The proponents of Proposition 8 are, of course, pleased with the outcome.

Gay marriage opponents, who in recent months have seen four more states join Massachusetts in extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians, praised the ruling.

“The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected,” said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative.

Proposition 8 proponents do not plan to challenge the existing gay marriages that were protected by the court, Pugno said.

“We see it as really a minor point in ultimately the will of the people being upheld,” he said.

“The voters have decided,” they’re fond of saying. Or “The voters have spoken.”

(more…)

i

Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

The morning of November 5th, 2008, was bittersweet. I awoke that morning, after Barack Obama’s historic, with a sense of hope diminished by a nagging despair following the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which attempted to snatch away the equality that that the state Supreme Court granted to same-sex couples just months ago. The Obama campaign slogan, “Yes we can,” was transformed into “Yes we did,” by revelers in the streets of D.C. and in other locations across the country and around the world. I couldn’t honestly join in the celebration without also reminding myself that “No, we didn’t.”

(more…)

OK. Rob Thomas was never all that hard to like. (At least not as far as I’m concerned. He’s easy on the eyes, and many of his songs work quite well for my voice, on the occasional karaoke night).

But then he goes and writes stuff like this, and makes it even easier to like him.

I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don’t think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you’re attracted. That’s why it’s called an attraction and not a choice.

I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a “Christian nation” has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn’t realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says “one nation under god” in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It’s not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)

I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn’t believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn’t live their life according to the King James Bible isn’t protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I’ve seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.

I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, “this god is not your god and he doesn’t love you.” There isn’t one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn’t be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I’m amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn’t it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone’s basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

But this isn’t a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I’m writing about basic civil rights. We’ve been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

Talented, good looking, and a straight-guy-who-gets-it?

I long ago gave up getting serious crushes on straight guys. But guys like this one have my respect and admiration.

Nancy Griffith has long been a favorite artist of mine, ever since my college days of deejaying at WUOG, the student run radio station where I first played “Love at the Five and Dime”…and loved it.
(more…)

Update: The ruling is in. Basically, they split the baby. The good news is that there are 18,000 gay and lesbian Americans who are that much closer to full U.S. citizenship status.

I’ll have more later, after I’ve had some time to read the decision and think about it. So, as usual, I’m not going to be one of those bloggers with a new post up immediately after the news breaks. It’s going to take me a little longer.

Today’s the day.

The California Supreme Court will rule this morning on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.

The decision will be made public at 10 a.m. at the courthouse in San Francisco and on the court’s website.

My heart is in my throat, and I’m holding my breath. I don’t think I’ll be able to concentrate on much today until I get the news.
(more…)

DC has approved a same-sex marriage law.

Washington DC city council has voted to recognise same-sex marriages conducted in other US states.

Because Washington DC is not a state, the decision will now have to be approved by Congress before it can become law.

Four US states – Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa – now permit gay marriage, and legislation to allow it is in progress in other states.

The resolution was passed in the council by 12 votes to one.

Council member David A Catania – one of two openly gay members of the body – explained his reasons for supporting the measure during the debate.

“This issue is whether or not our colleagues on a personal level view me and [Council member] Jim Graham as your equals,” he said.

This ought to be interesting.
(more…)

I’m digging through all the stuff I bookmarked to read later, and finally getting to some of it. (OK. I’m not bothering with anything that’s over a month old.). This video was near the top. You may have seen it, but give it a look if you haven’t.

I don’t know who this guy is, but he shreds the religious right’s arguments one by one, and isn’t afraid to say when they’re lying. He rocks.

See? Told ya.

This has been in the back of my mind for a while now, so I’m just gonna go ahead and say it: If the California Supreme Court upholds proposition 8, it will signify nothing less than the death of civil rights in this country.

Think I’m wrong? Well, which of these folks do you want voting on your civil rights?

(more…)

One of the most striking things about some hate crimes is how little it takes to provoke them. A look that lingers longer than usual. Words, or even a word, sometimes spoken casually and, yes, sometimes in flirtation. Any of these can be enough to warrant a beating, or even murder in the eyes of some people. At least when the object is someone of the same sex.

Among the many comments about Larry King’s murder, a few such as these served to remind that the “rules” are very different for LGBT people.

✂ (more…)

One of the most striking things about tracking hate crimes in such detail is how long it takes for any given case to play out, and how long those involved have to wait for resolution. I started to say “how long those involved have to live with what happened,” but — whether its a victim who survives an attack, or the love-ones and family who survive the victim — in most cases, some one will live with what happened for the rest of their lives. Some, like Jimmy Lee Dean, have to come face to face with it, everytime the look in the mirror. 

You might look at Jimmy Lee Dean’s face as one that has been scarred by hatred. And most reasonable people would agree. Someone kicking you and stomping on your face while yelling “gay ass motherfucker” and “punk ass bitch,” would probably seem to you like a hate crime, and one based on your real or perceived sexual orientation. If your assailants also tell police that they targeted you because they were looking to rob  gay man (beause they thought it’d be easier), and you fit or seemed to fit the bill. The police might even thing it’s a hate crime.

But once your case finally makes it to court, you may find out that — as far as the court or to D.A. is concerned — you weren’t a victim of a hate crime at all. Or, at least, the guys who stomped you a new face while calling you a “gay ass motherfucker” and “punk ass bitch” didn’t commit a hate crime, as far as the court is concerned. They won’t be charged with one, anyway.

✂——✂ (more…)

Two speeches from last night’s Oscars stood out to me.

(more…)

Wow. In one day, I’ve become a little prouder to be an American, and now I’m a little prouder to live in Maryland.

The days of unwarranted snooping by the Maryland State Police may be over.

Democratic state legislators on Jan. 22 introduced a bill to protect the First Amendment rights of dissenters.

Entitled the Freedom of Association and Assembly Protection Act of 2009, the bill would require the police to have at least “reasonable suspicion” before they could start collecting dossiers on individuals.

The bill is an outgrowth of the controversy that erupted last year when it was revealed that Maryland state troopers had been gathering intelligence on—and infiltrating groups of—nonviolent anti-war and anti-death penalty groups. Dozens of individuals and groups were surveilled, and the state police accused some of being suspected terrorists.

Nice to know my state is living up to its nickname once again.

I realize I should probably let it go. After all, there are some people you’re just never gonna reach.

Let me explain it this way. When I first came to D.C. to work in politics, and to work specifically on gay rights issues, I was told and came to understand that people fall into three categories when you’re working for social change:

1. The people who are on your side.

2. The people who aren’t on your side, but could be if they’re persuaded.

3. The people who are not on your side and never will be.

The first group you need to talk to in order to keep them informed and motivated. The second group you need to talk to in order to make your case and move them to your side. Talking to the third group is a waste of time and energy better spent shoring up support in the first group and winning support in the second group.

Some people are unreachable. The problem is they say things that must not go unchallenged.

(more…)

I don’t know if I’ve said it before, but I just love Jon Stewart too. Here’s a man who really gets it. From his recent interview with Mike Huckabee. (Favorite line: “At what age did you choose not to be gay?”)

In particular, he gets something that I’ve written about here before as Steve Benen explains.

(more…)

Somewhere out there in the universe there’s a concert going on, and with two legendary headliners — Odetta and Miriam Makeba.

I’ve been in meeting most of the afternoon, so I haven’t had a chance to read anything, let alone post anything. But it was nice that the first thing I read when I get back to my desk was that Florida’s anti-gay adoption law has been overturned.

Today a Florida circuit court today struck down a state law that bars lesbians and gay men from adopting (see yesterday’s blog post for more about the case). The court granted adoptions to our client Martin Gill, a North Miami resident who, along with his partner, has been raising two foster children since 2004.

The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it singles out gay people and children raised by gay people for different treatment for no rational reason. The court also found that the ban denies children the right to permanency provided by federal and state law under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

The court’s decision comes after a four-day trial in October where the court heard from experts on children’s health and development and the justifications offered by the state for the ban. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the false assumptions and stereotypes about gay people that the state offered to justify the ban, holding that many “reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”

There’s also a video about the family involved in the suit, talking about how the ban affected their sons.

(more…)

I wrote about this earlier, but another story about minority reaction to passage of prop 8 came to my attention via the LGBTPOC listserve.

California’s gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.

The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation.

…Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts’ ability to protect minorities.

“They could take away any right from any group,” said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

This is something I tried to convey, with varying degrees eloquence and success in my first ever appearance on bloggingheads.tv.

(more…)

Parenting, for those don’t know first hand, has many heartbreaking moments built in. Some of them are the same for almost all families, and some of them are different.

As an African American parent, I experience it as the moment I know is coming and that I dread, when both my sons will find out what it’s like to be held suspect because of their race. (For, though much has changed, much has remained the same.)

As a gay dad, I experience it in those moment when we have to explain to our son that some people don’t like his family, because his family is different. Particularly when we had to explain (because we’re always honest with our sons, in an age-appropriate manner) that “according to the rules” Daddy and Papa aren’t really married.

It’s not something we ever really discussed with him until recently, when we went to Annapolis for Equality Maryland’s Lobby Day. Our job was relatively easy, as our delegates are very supportive, and our state senator is a gay dad, but we felt it was important to take part.

When we explained to Parker why we were going, the hubby put it this way. “We’re going to see the people who make the rules, and ask them to change the rules so that Daddy and Papa can get married, because Daddy and Papa love each other very much.”

And when Parker asked if we were married I answered, “Daddy and Papa are married in our hearts, because we love each other very much, but someday we hope we can get married in front of everyone else too.”

A couple of days later, Parker turned to me and asked, “Did they change the rules yet so you can get married?”

I had to tell him no, but we were still married in our hearts, and someday soon the rules will change so that we can get married in front of everyone else. As much as it hurt me to have to say that, Parker seemed to understand, and wasn’t that bothered by it. (Why should he be? He’s happy and safe at home, and he’s got Daddy and Papa to love and care for him?) But it became even more important to me that our son know that his parents are married to each other, and what that means to us and for him.

Even as we were having the conversation with Parker, the hubby and I exchanged looks that wordlessly expressed our concern. Would he worry about something happening to our family? Would he worry about being taken away from us? Would he feel less secure?

Fortunately, I think the love and honestly we’ve tried to raise him with have gone a long way towards preventing that. But what if we’d lived in a state where one day we were legally married, and the next day w weren’t because that was taken away from us.

What’s that like a child, to find out that an awful lot of people voted that your family can’t be a family any more? Not legally, anyway.

Ed Swanson couldn’t move on.

The day after the election, the San Francisco lawyer and his husband, Paul Herman, a stay-at-home dad, had had to face the fact that Proposition 8 could mean that their marriage would be invalidated. They’d also had to go to parent conferences and tell the teachers that their five-year-old daughter, Liza, might be struggling in school because she was scared that her family might fall apart.

Liza, who has a twin sister, Katie, had peppered Swanson and Herman with questions once she’d realized that marriages uniting “a boy and a boy” were no longer allowed.

“They can’t take yours away, right?” she’d asked her parents. “They can’t take yours away when you have children, can they?”

“That’s when we realized she was afraid something would happen to us,” Swanson told me by phone on Wednesday. “We said, ‘They can’t take us away from you. We will be here for you forever.’”

“It’s difficult to explain to a five-year-old why it is people don’t want your parents to be married,” he continued. “They’re young enough that there was a chance they could have grown up thinking all their lives that their family was equal and accepted. Now they’re not going to have that chance. They’ll have to spend at least part of their lives knowing that their family is something that people don’t feel is acceptable.”

The Yes on 8 campaign made a great deal of political hay telling outright lies about what legal same-sex marriage could mean for children in schools, etc., and scaring people into thinking the purpose of proposition 8 was to “protect the children.” When the truth is they did a great deal of harm to a great many children. Dana points out that the 52,000 children being raised by 26,100 same-sex couples in California, or the 125,000 children being raised by LGB Californians (including single parents) were in the bullseye of the Yes on 8 campaign along with their families.

Would it have made a difference for parents to think about their children’s friends and classmates waking up on Nov. 5, feeling like their families were torn apart by the state? Having their self-confidence shaken when they were told their families were second-class? Hearing the hateful rhetoric from the right? Questioning the values that our country stands for? Would it have made a difference if parents knew that regardless of the curriculum, their children would learn about same-sex parents and relationships because they shared classrooms and playgrounds with the children of LGBT parents?

Yes, parenthood comes with many moments of heartbreak built in. But some of us get extras moments of heartbreak installed.

Well, the NAACP has shut my mouth on this one. I was pretty hard on them this summer, when I got wind of a PFOX exhibit at an NAACP event. But it looks like the outcome off the proposition 8 vote has raised some alarm with civil rights groups, including the NAACP. [Via Kip.]

Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California’s highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.

The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it’s the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

“The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality,” Paterson said. “Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?”

OK. there’s one thing that bears repeating here.

(more…)