Gays at the Oscars

I'll be brief, but I wanted to highlight how excited and touched I was by the two wins for MILK last night at the Oscars. Dustin Lance Black (only 34 years old) won for Best Writing in an Original Screenplay and Sean Penn won Best Actor.

It's not often that we sit down together as a country, and hell, with people around the world watching, it's not often we sit down as a global community ... and discuss gay rights. In a forum with as much viewership and impact as the Oscars, these two wins meant an enormous amount to me. My heart swelled listening to these two speeches ... I got the chance to truly feel proud about who I am.

Many will say that this is just the first step, there's so far to go, or the impact of this will be lost because of this or that ... but I'm going to savor it.


Black's acceptance speech:

" ... When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married.

I wanna, I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk."

Millenial Watch: 2 Openly LGBT Elected Officials... under 25

As usual, leave it to the young people to lead the way.

It seems that there's been a lot more news on the LGBT front in recent, months, but maybe that's just me. After Prop 8 there's been a general upswing in activism. We've also seen marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership progress in several states recently (Hawaii, Maine, DC... etc).

But for the second time in a week now I've seen news that, while creating little hubbub, seems to me just as (if not more) important. Twice now I've seen a young, progressive, LGBT leader acknowledge their sexuality and that it has no bearing on their candidacy for public office. By being out and part of the Millenial generation they're overcoming two massive hurdles most candidates don't have to encounter.

Of course it's big news anytime that an openly LGBT person declares their candidacy for, or wins, public office. We're emboldened by such leaders as the Mayor of Portland (sans scandal), Bruce Kraus of the Pittsburgh City Council, Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin in the U.S. House, and more. Each of these people are an inspiration and a unique, trailblazing part of the LGBT-equality movement.

But it's personally even more inspiring for me to witness members of my generation taking the reigns now in leading their communities. For all the talk of many of our leaders, activists, and policy makers, it's still very difficult for young people to get much cred in some circles. It's even harder still for Millenials to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to public office. Organizations like the Young Elected Officials Network and their Front Line Leaders Academy are fueling the movement by training young people with an interest in public service, and helping to remove that age barrier.

First, I saw a news story and several blog posts about Newark, Delaware City Councilman, and friend of the blog, Ezra Temko's announcement last week that he is bisexual. In his short time on Council, Ezra has been at the center of efforts to expand LGBT rights and nondiscrimination in Newark. Discussing his decision to come out and dating his boyfriend Drew:

When we started dating, it struck me how many rights we don’t have. I’ve always been very family oriented, so the limitations on our future made me recognize the level of privilege I had been assuming in my life, which motivated me to step up my advocacy in this area. From that, I began to see what states and municipalities around the country are doing and I asked myself, ‘Why isn’t Newark doing this'?

Nick Schalosky is a college junior in South Carolina who was just elected the first openly gay official in the state! Nick used Facebook to organize a last-minute write in campaign for the Charleston County Constituent School Board. After noticing that no one was running for the position, but too late to register for the ballot, he used online organizing tools to communicate with voters, organize his campaign, and reach out to (new) media.

Schalosky, 21, is also the Secretary of the local Stonewall Democrats Chapter and has written a great article about online organizing, community involvement, and a reflection on his candidacy here.

Congrats to both of you gentlemen! If you hear about any more Millenials or openly gay officials making waves, let us know!!

Warren Reversal?

Well, okay, not quite a reversal. But perhaps in response to the (unexpected?) level of outrcry from the gay community, the Inaugural Committee has announced that openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson is set to lead a prayer during Inauguration Week. While this is hardly the full-fledged bully pulpit that gay basher Rick Warren is set to enjoy at the inauguration itself, Robinson is scheduled to lead a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday in an inaugural kick-off event the Obama team is (surprisingly/creatively) calling "We Are One".

While I personally don't think this does much to remove the taint Warren brings to the Inaugural festivities, at least this is a sign that the Obama camp is acknowledging the the gay community's feelings about that choice. Instead of walking back the Warren announcement or asking for Warren to withdraw from the event they've simply added a pro-gay voice to balance out the anti-gay voice. Great policy? Probably not. Good precedent? I'd say no. But maybe it's a sign that Mr. Obama hasn't entirely sold the gay community up the creek.

I just hope that this whole episode isn't a sign of things to come in the new administration. If they somehow make a wrong step or upset one of their constituent groups the plan is to admit no error, call it "open-mindedness", and then just offer the wronged/upset party a consolation prize. Either you're being bold and 'audacious' by taking a brave stance (in this case by staying by Warren) or you aren't; nothing is accomplished by trying to appease everyone. That's just politics.

Barack Obama: Open Minded Uniter, or Cynical Pol? I'm tempted to say that latter. What are your thoughts?

Bob Barr's a...good guy?!

To most of us on the left, particularly people in the LGBT community, Bob Barr isn't exactly what we'd call a friend. The former U.S. Rep from Georgia has apparently had a change of heart on a few things lately. Barr made his name in the House by being fervently anti-abortion, favoring the war on drugs, and of course authoring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which banned same sex marriage nationally and effectively told states they needn't respect gay marriages performed elsewhere (which people on both sides of the aisle contend is unconstitutional). After leaving the House he went into quiet retirement... wait, no. Instead he went on what appears to be a spiritual journey and became a Libertarian. You know, the people who want the government to stop controlling things like abortion, drugs, and marriages.

In 2008 he was even nominated for President by the Libertarian Party. He must have really changed for them to love him. I'm not so sure.

However, this week he did take a big step away from nut-job-ism and wrote an editorial in the LA Times recanting his previous devotion to DOMA. He now claims (realizes may be a better word) that there is an unfair 'one sided' federalism that has unintended consequences for the nation. He further notes that then-Senator Obama was right to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006. Agreed.

Here's a quick excerpt from Barr's note in the Times:

"In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws — including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits — has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves."

A little political news...

****President Bush continues to surprise me this month. In a little bit of a Christmas present, it seems that Bush has signed a piece of legislation that actually helps gay and lesbian couples. I know, I'm as confused as you are. There must be a catch...

The Worker, Retireee, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 makes it mandatory for businesses to roll over retirement benefits to a same sex partner should an employee die. Married heterosexual couples already enjoy this right (and thus avoid tax penalties), but the right is now being extended to same-sex couples. I'm glad to see Bush is joining the civilized world and at least helping us gain just a little more of the equality cookie. Better late than never!



**** Blago is making a Senate appointment- Despite the conventional wisdom of... well everyone, the embattled Illinois Governor is going to go ahead and apoint Obama's successor to the U.S. Senate. Word is he's going to appoint former state Attorney General Roland Burris to the seat. Blago and Burris are former rivals, yet Burris seems to be a safe choice and relatively uncontroversial. Also of note: Burris will be the 4th African American Senator in the body's history, and the third from Illinois. You read it here first! (hopefully)

UPDATE: The Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate, via Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and others are now saying that they will NOT seat Blago's pick of Burris. They issued the following statement outlining that while they respect Burris, anyone appointed by Blago is not acceptable:

"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

"Next week we will start one of the most important debates of the year - outlining an economic recovery plan to create jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent, strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without delay.

"We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat."

There is some little precedent for individuals to not be seated in the Senate when there are questions about the propriety of the election that that individual won. Constitutionall, each house of Congress has the right to check the qualifications and election of all it's members. However, in the 1960s the House of Representatives refused to seat incumbent Adam Clatyon Powell due to charges of corruption. The case went to the Supreme Court and in an 8-1 decision the Court held that the House had no right to exclude Powell. The Court said that the House could only exclude members when they don't meet the basic qualifications or if they were not properly elected. Since Burris meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements of Illinois and Blago as Governor has the legal ability to appoint anyone, the question is: Does the Senate even have the option to refuse to seat Burris?? Let me know your thoughts

Clinton, Russians, and Gays

Hello and Happy Monday! I haven't had to work in almost two weeks due to my fateful trip to Pittsburgh, so it's been a bit of a rough and hectic morning back at work in DC.

Luckily, I've had the time to look at some of the day's goings-on. In addition to some of the stories from SHEAm (including the new library policies..) , here are a few I'm following:

** Bill and Hillary Clinton are among the most admired people in America! USA Today (I know, hardly a Pulitzer shoe-in...) conducted its annual poll and found that Barack Obama tops the list of admired men (the first president-elect to top the list in more than 50 years) while Hillary Clinton topped the most admired woman list this year and has won 13 of the last 16 years!. While it's admirable that Obama tops the list, President Bush has topped it for the last several years, and presidents are commonly the headliners.

More interesting to me is that Hillz can lose her presidential campaign and still hold the number 1 slot, especially given all the attention for Sarah Palin these days. Go Hillary!!

For the record, Palin was 2nd, Oprah was 3rd, Condi 4th, and Michelle Obama 5th. On the male side Bush was a distant 2nd, John McCain was third while Pope Benedict XVI, Rev. Billy Graham, and Bill Clinton all tied for fourth.


**In other political news, the Republicans are at it again. In the fierce fight for the Republican National Committee Chairmanship, the hits have turned racist. RNC candiate Chip Saltsman's gift to the members of the RNC (who elect the Chairman) was a CD supposedly set to lampoon liberals. Among the titles: "We Hate the USA", "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony," "The Star Spanglish banner," and worst of all "Barack the Magic Negro," a spoof of "Puff the Magic Dragon". Unsurprisingly, several of these first aired on Rush Limbaugh's show. While it's one thing for an 'entertainment' figure to broadcast these (though still hard for me to believe), it's much worse for the potential leader of a major party to flagrantly distribute these as a means of campaigning. It's so absurd it's almost comical to think that a candidate for the GOP (a party with at best a reputation (fair or not) for being a generally exclusive club of olf white rich men) sending out such blatantly racist material in an effort to gain votes. SNL couldn't have written it any better.

While many have come to Saltman's defence, including Ken Blackwell, an African-American competitor for the RNC Chairmanship, even some in the GOP leadership are reaizing how bad this kind of stuff is for the party. Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer had this to say:

"As the GOP Chairman in one of our nation's most ethnically and culturally diverse states, I am especially disappointed by the inappropriate words and actions we've seen over the past few days," Greer said. "I am proud of those party leaders who have stood up in firm opposition to this type of behavior."

“In Florida we have worked hard to reach out to ALL citizens to promote the Republican Party's principles and values while ensuring that our commitment to African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority communities is sincere and credible. Actions such as the distribution of this CD, regardless of intent, only serves to promote divisiveness and distracts us from our common goal of building our party.

“Today, the GOP has an unprecedented opportunity to embrace change and inclusion, and we are either going to welcome this opportunity fully or watch it slip through our fingers. We can only achieve success if Republican leaders reject racial or any other acts that divide us and instead embrace what unites us as a nation.”

At this rate maybe the Republicans will just continue to implode no matter what happens with President Obama and the new Congress.


**The Sky is Falling! Now from the WSJ courtesy of Hayes: A Russian academic predicts the end of the U.S.... in 2010. Igor Panarin has been predicting for years that the US would fall apart due to moral and economic collapse that would spark a civil war. Only now he's getting media attention. He's not a crackpot and seems to be well respected in Russia, this is a bit unnerving. While I have a really hard time thinking there is much behind his predictions, it's still a little scary to think about, especially since he's being given some real attention and being taken seriously by some. How will it happen? Well:

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

But what happens to the rest of country?

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

Scary thought! What do you think? Is this possible in the next year or two? In 10 years??

Be sure to check out the map at the bottom of the article showing what used to be the US...


** Other news from the wide world of Russia: In a television poll, Russians selected Josef Stalin as the third-greatest Russian ever. Yes, the same guy who killed millions of his citizens in the purges in the 1930s... Good job Russia! Maybe we shouldn't take that last story so seriously...


***Now for some stories from the gay world:

*A direct link has finally proven what most people have known all along: that homophobic families who reject LGBT teens cause great harm to the teenagers. While the findings won't as a surprise to most people, this is one of the first times a peer-reviewed article with significant data will appear in a major medical periodical.

The article, entitled "Family Rejection as a Predator of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Young Adults", will appear in a January edition of Pediatrics.

Dr. Caitlin Ryan, the Director of the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, who led the project had this to say:

"For the first time, research has established a predictive link between specific, negative family reactions to their child’s sexual orientation and serious health problems for these adolescents in young adulthood—such as depression, illegal drug use, risk for HIV infection, and suicide attempts.

"The new body of research we are generating will help develop resources, tools and interventions to strengthen families, prevent homelessness, reduce the proportion of youth in foster care and significantly improve the lives of LGBT young people and their families."

Some shocking statistics from the study:

LGBT young people who are rejected are 8.4 times as likely to attempt suicide, 6 times more likely to be depressed, 3.4 times more likely to use drugs, and 3.4 times as likely to engage in unprotected sex as others their age.

Hopefully this leads to some changes in policy and practice!

*Marriage! A member of the New Hampshire state house has introduced a measure to allow gay marriages! While NH is ahead of many states by already allowing civil unions, State Rep. Jim Splaine is introducing a bill for full marriage equality. Hopefully he's successful! While there have been some major setbacks recently (read Prop 8), luckily we can still look to the progressive northeast for some sanity. Read the entire story here.

* Victory in LA! A gay couple that has already adopted a young son (who remains unidentified for his own sake) won a victory in Federal Court over an issue in Louisiana. LA authorities had refused to list both fathers' names on a birth certificate for the son (who was adopted out of state). Because both men were legally recognized as the adoptive parents of the child in New York, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution is in effect. Federal District Court Judge Jay Zainey didn't even require a trial, but ruled on the face of the issue that Louisiana must publish the birth certificate with both men's names! Congrats!

More to come later, but this will do for now...

Gay Parties

Once again SHEAm has SHAMED himself and the gays by misquoting, misstating, and misunderstanding the politics of the GLBT world. Maybe he's tired of the Warren-flap, and maybe he's right that the issue shouldn't be surprising or isn't that important. But his assertion that McCain and Obama and in fact bot major parties are the same on gay rights is simply absurd.

I 100% agree that the two major parties on the national level are not in favor of gay marriage, but that is only one small piece of the pie. By and large (and yes there are exceptions on both sides of the aisle) Democrats want to pass the employment nondiscrimination act (Republicans have blocked and filibustered it since the early 1990s); Democrats (now) want to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" which is patently unconstitutional (remember the full faith and credit clause?) while Republicans think it essential; many Republicans (including our current president) want to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage, Democrats don't; Democrats (now) want to allow gays to serve openly in the military, Republicans don't. The list goes on and on. There are severe differences between the two parties (at large and in Congress in particular).

Will Obama do all he has said on these issues? I don't know. I certainly hoped that he would deliver on some of the issues that are popular amongst large swaths of the public, especially protecting gays and lesbians in the workplace. My main point in this Warren-flap has been that Obama is signaling that at the very least he doesn't seem to be bothered even consulting with the leadership of the gay community (even the Human Rights Campaign. Coincidentally, I echo many of SHEAm's critiques)

Am I an Obama-booster? No. Did I vote for him over McCain? Absolutely. And maybe that's part of the problem. When it comes to social issues and any of the equality issues important to the gay community there is little choice but to support the Democratic nominee in nearly any national race.

The gays

1. Morgan, please stop copypasting wikipedia entries about Pittsburgh on this blog. It's a lovely city, I'm sure, but we are all capable of researching the merits of Pittsburgh at our own leisure. I promise to prepare a 20 page research paper of the wonderful contributions that Pittsburgh and its people have made to society ... if you simply stop copypasting from Wikipedia.

2. Jon Stewart recently had a great bit on his show about gay marriage while interviewing Mike Huckabee. I think Jon Stewart really hit the nail on the head in this interview. The core of the gay marriage issue is, in my opinion, the social conservative notion that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. My favorite line:

Stewart: “I live in New York City, so I’m going to make a supposition that I have more experience being around [gay people],” he told Huckabee. “And I’ll tell you this: religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality.”

Until the masses understand that homosexuality is not a choice, we will continue to hear the arguments that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, marrying animals, etc. Until people understand that you have as much choice on your sexual orientation as you do on your race or ethnicity ... we're never going to get anywhere. Beyond the complex legal or religious arguments, people need to understand that homosexuality isn't a choice. Plain and simple.

Check out the clip:

More on Warren

I know I keep posting about this, but here is a great explanation of just how insulting the Warren pick is from a civil rights perspective (from Obama's hometown paper the Chicago Sun-Times)

Also, here is a link the the petition started by Equality California.


More Pittsburgh posts to come, I know you're excited!

A Quickie

Hey gang, just wanted to send out a quick post on a few small topics. I have to run in a few minutes, but here goes:

** First of all, TIME has a nice little post on Swampland about the Rick Warren flap, the gay community's response, and what it all really means for the Obama team. The author looks at a slightly different angle, noting that it's the underlying ideology of Obama's decision that perhaps is really sparking such discontent. Some great points are made about the potentially positive impact of pragmatically seeking the 'radical' (and to some people it is) agenda of guaranteeing nondiscrimination policies in the military and the workplace and strengthening hate crimes laws, while virtually ignoring the marriage question. The article also pulls some quotes from the campaign when Sen. Obama espouses a position akin to separate but equal. Here's a quick excerpt:

This is a remarkably complex, if only subtly controversial, argument. He suggests that laws preventing gay marriage are as unjust as laws preventing interracial marriage, the very union that led to his own birth. But he further argues that the best way to fight this injustice is to indefinitely cede the central moral argument--that in America all men (and women) must be treated equal--and rather score incremental victories that push the nation in the right direction. In Obama's formulation, it would have been indefinitely acceptable for interracial couples to be denied the rights of civil marriage, if other progress was being made to advance racial equality. In the same way, it is indefinitely acceptable for gay couples to be denied the right to civil marriage, if other progress is being made to give gay couples similar rights. There is an unstated assumption here: If Obama is successful he will clear the way for a subsequent politician to support gay marriage, just as the broader civil rights movement cleared the way for an end to anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 by the (activist?) U.S. Supreme Court.

Whatever advantages this approach scores tactically, it also carries with it a cost. Namely, Obama effectively cedes the clarity of a moral argument for gay rights equality. He cannot argue that separate is not equal, because he is endorsing a separate system for gay and lesbian couples, an accommodation that seems, on its face, to contradict a central principle of the civil rights movement, as laid out in 1954 by the (activist?) U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education.

It's certainly worth a read and the full piece may be found here

** While I have been very clear in my condemnation of the whole Rick Warren affair, there's another perspective besides the TIME article that's worth mentioning. One of my more favorite writers, Andrew Sullivan had this to say as his final word on the issue. He makes a good point that perhaps this is an important (even teachable) moment. Maybe we can use this chance with Rick Warren to show our compassion and engagement in the future of this modern civil rights movement. While I don't always agree with Sullivan, what he writes here really made me think. Here's just an excerpt of his post:

Gay people contribute disproportionately to the religious and spiritual life of this country and we seek no attack on free religion freely expressed and celebrated. I find the idea of silencing my opponents abhorrent. Many gays voted for McCain. I believe in family, which is why I have tried my whole life to integrate my sexual orientation with my own family and finally two summers ago, to become a full part of it as a married man. I love my church, however much pain it still inflicts on itself and others. And I am not alone in this, as I have discovered these past two decades.

If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is.

The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.

It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way.

**In other news, Al Franken has now gained a lead in the Minnesota recount for the first time. While this makes me happy personally, it is hardly the end of the long process. Regardless of who wins, this is just one more example of how badly we need national election standards and how far we still have to go in the wake of the debacle in Florida in 2000. Minnesota thankfully has rather open election standards that allow officials to follow the intent of the voter (if it is at all clear). The Franken campaign has taken a very steadfast position that each and every vote that can count should count, while Coleman has taken to the courts a few times now to prevent blocs of votes from being counted (first the 133 ballots that were lost in a Franken stronghold, then an attempt to prevent absentees from being counted because they were erroneously thrown aside, and then claiming a few hundred Franken votes were double-counted.).

I have absolutely no illusions that were the vote count reversed so would the positions of the respective campaigns. If Coleman were initially behind he'd be trying to get more counted, and had Franken been ahead he'd want to end the process. Hopefully this can help the country move to a more uniform election system, with the same standards, the same process, the same machines/methods. I'm not holding my breath though...

**

Letter to President-Elect Obama

Ok, so I admit this is getting to full-fledged rant mode, and I doubt Obama will reverse himself on this issue (and like I said, probably relishing the rants from the left...). I rarely find the Human Rights Campaign to be a very effective organization when it comes to fighting for equality, but below please find a letter from HRC President Joe Solomonese that states things pretty well.

Dear President-elect Obama -

Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, “there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it's a lie today.

Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on. Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans, many of whom also share a strong tradition of religion and faith.

We have been moved by your calls to religious leaders to own up to the homophobia and racism that has stood in the way of combating HIV and AIDS in this country. And that you have publicly called on religious leaders to open their hearts to their LGBT family members, neighbors and friends.

But in this case, we feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination. Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement.

Further Reading:
Here are some places you can visit for more info/actions-
Change.org
Petition
Daily Dish
HRC Action Center
Prop 8 Foe Rejects Inaugural Invite


Let me know if you see other places to visit/petitions/op-eds

Obama Drama Day 2

Ok, so maybe this pales in comparison to the Illinois Governor flap, but this one is 100% Obama's responsibility, so I'll call the choice of Rick Warren the real Drama.

Anyway, the President-Elect and his spokespeople have issued a few statements since the blogosphere has gotten riled up that basically amounts to, "We hear you. But deal with it." This 'tough luck' attitude has only served to further show that the transition team didn't only anticipate this anger, but were quite likely looking forward to it. As a chance to show the rest of the country, and most importantly the right, that he doesn't have to cow-tow to his base and he's willing to take some heat from the left, Mr. Obama is making a small political gamble that he hopes will pay large political dividends.

I for one am particularly disturbed by what seems to be the purposeful exclusion of anyone in the GLBT community in this decision making process. It would have been courteous to at least consult (or even inform!) any of Mr. Obama's many allies in the gay community about this decision. That would have shown the incoming administration at least understands what a slap in the face this decision really is for many of us.

Furthermore, while the religious right is getting a tip of the hat with the selection of Pastor Warren, would it be too much to ask for even a gentle acknowledgment of the other side here?

In any case, here is a great article from Salon by Mike Madden. Check it out and let us know what you think.

Great Ideas...

While perusing my Reader I found a great image used to show just how few places recognize GLBT equality. It's the same idea used by suffragettes to show just how few states granted them voting rights.

I found it here

I Don't Mean to Rant...

But what is with the President-Elect's decision to invite Rick Warren to speak/give the invocation at the Inauguration?! I've spoken with a good number of people about this today, and while I see some of the calculation that likely went into this decision, and even some of the potential payoffs for Obama, I'm left scratching my head. What happened to the principled man we heard so much about in the run-up to election day?

Now in the interest of full disclosure I'll reveal a few things: I initially (and quite fervently) supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. After much soul-searching and a much-needed catharsis I supported and voted for Senator Obama. While I realize identity politics is a murky bog to wade in to, I think it's clear in today's political climate that identity politics plays a role (whether we like it or not) in governing, elections, and politics.

Apparently I wasn't alone. Approximately 73% of LGBT Americans supported Senator Obama and his pledge of support for equality issues. We raised and donated money, called our friends and neighbors, canvassed, and rallied just like every other community supporting Senator Obama. Unlike many other majority Democratic constituencies, GLBT Americans are not being quite as insistent for Cabinet representation and other concessions. We'd be happy to be certain we can't be fired from our jobs for being gay (though a Presidential appointment here or there would be nice).

I'll admit, I really liked that in many of his major speeches, including his election night speech, Obama mentioned gays and lesbians and promised to be inclusive and sensitive to the needs of this oft-neglected community. Even if he doesn't support full marriage equality, at least he has pledged to work on the military policies, workplace discrimination, and hate crimes that so greatly effect us. But beyond lip-service, the new president must be ready to actually put his neck on the line and be that change he so often speaks about. Will it be popular? Not with everyone, but often the most ingrained injustices are the hardest to make this country face. As the first African-American president I'm sure he's experience that first-hand. But after all the effort we as a community put into his election, the supposed avatar of new politics is ignoring all our work and giving one of our greatest detractors a very prominent victory. How sobering.

I completely support reaching across the aisle, speaking to those who disagree with us, and seeking a common understanding to accomplish the many things Americans will need from our 44th President. But there is a time and place for that. Whatever happened to 'dancing with the one who brung ya'? Or 'to the victor goes the spoils'? Using this time and this place to let a man who has called for a veritable jihad on the marriage equality movement and helped to pass Prop 8 in California is dastardly. Meet with him. Talk with him. Find a middle ground on the issues you can work together on. But granting him this grand pulpit emblazoned with the Seal of the President is simply reprehensible.

I'm sure Rev. Warren has given a sermon or two about turning the other cheek when one has been wronged - but how many more times must the GLBT community be slapped in the face?

Community Issues- Hate Crimes

While hardly a topic in the spirit of holiday cheer, just a quick post on a serious issue: hate crimes. Those who follow the news closely will recall that there has been a spate of bias-related crimes in the area, particularly directed at members of the LGBT community. DC is ahead of the curve in many ways, particularly by having a specific unit of MPD that specializes in LGBT issues, but this hasn't stopped hate and bias crimes from being perpetrated. Moreover, the number of hate crimes in DC is believed to be greatly underreported, partly because of hesitance on the part of victims to come forward and partly due to a lack of recognition of a crime as hate-motivated.

Recently the DC Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary held hearings on the issue. Our friend and Dupont ANC Commissioner Jack Jacobson presented enlightening testimony on the matter that can be found here. Jack's testimony includes a set of suggestions to help increase the reporting (and accuracy) of hate crimes as a starting point to reassess how to curb the incidence of these crimes. Interested in getting invovled? Check out Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, MPD's Gay and Lesbian Liason Unit, get in touch with your Council member
or keep up with Commissioner Jacobson and his important public safety work.

Lazy Sunday Musings

**This morning I walked past the Adam's Morgan Festivus pole and caught the end of one of the readings. I read over a few of the festivus posts and thought I'd share (well, paraphrase) one of my favorites:

Also, GW Undergrads:
If it's cold enough to wear those boots with fur on them, then it's also too goddamn cold to wear short skirts and skanky tops.


**Dominos pizza always serves as a deliciously greasy solution for weekend hangovers. For those days when you're so hungover you can't even get off the couch, you can order Domino's right from your tivo remote. While Tim and I were impressed at the ease and overt laziness convenience of the service, we find that it's still easier to order from a computer.


**If you've been looking for some cute boys in faerie wings (honestly, who hasn't?!), or perhaps you're in need of a reprieve from overdosing on holiday music ... check out the musical Were the World Mine, playing at the Landmark E Street Cinema this week. Totally gratuitous and absurdly gay, but enjoyable nonetheless. I don't know that I agree with the review that suggested the movie was so great that "Hedwig had better move over," but any music-loving homo (or hag) should check it out during its one week engagement at E Street (it first aired during the GLBT Film Festival a few weeks back).