LGBT Rights and Politics
Should LGBT People Be Losing Patience With Obama?
Published September 08, 2009 @ 04:26PM PT
There's that leftover line from the 2008 Presidential campaign that "you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose." Lately for President Obama, it seems that his administration might have hit a streak of writer's block when it comes to the art of governing. And that's leaving some people -- including the openly gay man who ran candidate Obama's field operations - a bit frustrated. Especially when it comes to LGBT rights.
Steve Hildebrand, who by many respects helped launch Obama thru Iowa and into the heart of the primaries last year, said in an interview with Politico today that he's losing patience with the 44th president, and with Democratic leaders in Congress. "I am one of the millions of frustrated Americans who want to see Washington do more than it's doing right now," said Hildebrand. "I gave up a lot to elect Democrats, and I expect them to give it up for me. I'm going to speak loudly."
For many, Hildebrand is speaking truth to power here. There are countless people who think that Obama and Congress are taking too long to affect the type of change they were elected to make. They're seeing that on the issue of health care. They're seeing that on the issue of labor. And certainly they're seeing that on the issue of LGBT rights.
To his credit, Obama has made some changes. Under Obama's watch, the U.S. has signed onto a UN statement in support of the global decriminalization of homosexuality. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that protecting the human rights of LGBT people worldwide would be a priority for this administration. Earlier this summer, Obama commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots with a reception at the White House for scores of LGBT leaders and allies. And most recently, Obama awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom to two LGBT icons -- Billie Jean King and (posthumously) Harvey Milk.
But while these steps have been welcomed, many LGBT folks are seeing nothing but delays and Congressional hold-ups when it comes to some of the campaign promises Obama made last year. That includes passing a hate crimes bill, passing an Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and integrating the U.S. military, and overturning the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). To make matters worse, Obama's administration has tripped up a few times, most notably with the Justice Department's bizarre brief defending DOMA in U.S. courts.
Hildebrand allows the slow progress on LGBT rights -- as well as issues like health care -- to be shared all around. Yes, it's partly Obama, Hildebrand says. But it's also the Blue Dogs in Congress who try to compromise too much on the issues that Democrats were resoundingly elected over this past year.
"There's basically three different parties, and one of those parties tends to be the barrier to getting anything done — and that's the Blue Dogs in the House and the moderates in the Senate," said Hildebrand. "Change is not going to come by people in the Beltway deciding we should have change. It’s going to come because they’re feeling pressure from all over the country."
So who's to blame for the slow progress? Congress? Obama? Both?
Perhaps the biggest concern, one could argue, is that if these historic pieces of legislation can't make it through the 111th Congress - ending DOMA, repealing "Don't Ask," enacting hate crimes legislation and passing an employment non-discrimination bill - could they possibly be even more delayed in the 112th Congress? Especially, as experts ranging from Charlie Cook to Nate Silver point out, Democrats lose seats in 2010?
Now that's something that gets the blood pressure going. With control of the White House, U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House, there's a feeling that everybody is governing as if they're stuck in a big bowl of Cream of Wheat.
But moreover, how is it that the Bush administration, with a bare majority of Congress, was able to shove so much down our throats, but the Obama administration, with majorities not seen by any party in decades, is seemingly stuck?
Perhaps that's the source of the frustration. Both for those passionate about LGBT rights, as well as those working for better labor practices, a national health care system, and a whole host of progressive causes that have been largely dormat for more than eight years.
A Transgender Political First
Published September 08, 2009 @ 04:21AM PT
A transgender political glass ceiling is about to be busted wide open this week, with the official appointment of Babs Casbar Siperstein to as a member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Gov. Tim Kaine, the chair of the DNC, appointed Siperstein to fill one of the 75 at-large seats available on the DNC, making her the first openly transgender person ever to serve on a major national political committee.
Siperstein currently serves as President of the New Jersey chapter of Stonewall Democrats, and as a Vice-Chair with the New Jersey Democratic Party. Or, in other words, she's darn qualified to be nominated to this position.
Gov. Kaine made the announcement this past weekend, and in addition to Siperstein, he also nominated five other LGBT people for at-large seats on the DNC. Joining Siperstein will be Evan Low, a city councilmember from Campbell, California; Lupe Valdez, the sheriff of Dallas County, Texas; Earl Fowlkes, the President of the International Federation of Black Prides; Terry Bean, a real estate broker from Oregon and a former member of Barack Obama's National Finance Committee during the campaign; and Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers.
Damn. Talk about an all-star line-up of LGBT politicos. And what a great way to start the Fall, by smashing political glass ceilings and seeing that LGBT people will have more seats than they've ever had before on the DNC.
Getting a Real Fierce Advocate for LGBT Rights Into Barack Obama's Old Senate Seat
Published September 05, 2009 @ 07:11AM PT
The old Senate seat held by President Barack Obama is up for election in 2010, and at least one of the candidates running is taking a firm and concrete stand for equal rights. Alexi Giannoulias, who is currently serving as State Treasurer of Illinois, made some bold statements this week for equality. And if he's lucky enough to win next year, he's making it pretty clear that when it comes to being a fierce advocate for LGBT rights, he's your guy.
For many LGBT folks, getting a strong advocate for equal rights in Obama's old seat is a bit of a political coup. After all, despite Obama's campaign promises to work for the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, hate crimes legislation and an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), LGBT rights has largely remained on the periphery of Obama's first year in office. Obama may have promised to be a fierce advocate for LGBT rights, but for many, it seems like he's being a far too patient advocate.
Giannoulias, on the other hand, isn't pulling any punches.
"While marriage as a religious institution should be governed by people's faith and the tenets of their religion, marriage as a civil institution should be governed by principles of fairness. Civil marriage should be equal for all people and provide the same protections under the law, with all legal rights and responsibilities."
Uh-oh. A statement that reasonable is bound to get the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, or the crazy folks at the Illinois Family Institute who compare LGBT people to Nazis, all up in a bunch.
Of course, the real test of Giannoulias's commitment to LGBT issues won't be on the campaign trail, but once he's elected to office. Fierce advocates for LGBT rights only remain fierce advocates when they keep their campaign pledges for equality once elected.
Bobby Jindal, Conservative Fail
Published September 04, 2009 @ 07:18PM PT
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal certainly likes to pretend that he's an economic conservative. Earlier this year, Gov. Jindal gave the official response from the GOP to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, and criticized wasteful government spending. Huh...for someone who criticizes wasting taxpayer money, why has he spent upwards of $45,000 in taxpayer money for helicopter rides to attend various churches in Louisiana?
That's a story that the Advocate paper in Louisiana broke this week. According to the paper, "In May, June and July, there was rarely a Sunday when the governor didn’t board a taxpayer-funded helicopter to attend church services in far-flung parts of the state." Going back the last five months, Jindal has taken roughly 36 helicopter rides at the expense of taxpayers. Fourteen of these trips were to visit conservative religious churches. Should the state of Louisiana be in the business of providing helicopter rides for their governor, so that he can attend Church?
A progressive religious organization known as the Interfaith Alliance called Gov. Jindal out on his massive hypocrisy. The Interfaith Alliance's Preisdent. Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, said that Gov. Jindal ought to pay the state of Louisiana back the $45,000 in taxpayer funds that these helicpoter rides have rung up for Louisiana voters. Bobby Jindal's response to the Interfaith Alliance? "Don't listen to them! They're a bunch of gay-friendly heathens!" Well, not quite. But pretty damn close. Here's the official response from Gov. Jindal:
This political group opposes putting crosses up in honor of fallen policemen, has attacked the National Day of Prayer and advocates for same-sex marriage, so it's not surprising that they are attacking the governor for accepting invitations to speak at Louisiana churches.
The fact that the Interfaith Alliance advocates for same-sex marriage has nothing to do with why the organization called Gov. Jindal out on his evil spending ways. The reason Gov. Jindal got called out is because (1) he's a big huge hypocrit who rails on liberal Democrats for wasting taxpayer money, only to throw more than $45,000 down the drain traveling to church, and (2) because voters shouldn't be funding their political leaders' rides to Mass every Sunday.
Looks like there might be another Gov. Mark Sanford on our hands. Although instead of it being a conservative who blabs on and on about family values while cheating on his wife, it's a conservative who blabs on and on about wasteful spending, only to go and waste tens of thousands of dollars. That's a fail, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and you deserve to be called out on it.
Rumors Swirl About Retirement of LGBT-Friendly Supreme Court Justice
Published September 03, 2009 @ 06:50AM PT
Journalist Shana Alexander had a quote that said "trying to stop a rumor is like trying to unring a bell." If that's the case, then there must be a bell ringing somewhere near the U.S. Supreme Court building this morning, since rumors are swirling that Justice John Paul Stevens is gearing up for retirement. If that's the case, then yet another advocate for equal rights will be departing the court.
Sure, Justice Stevens is approaching his 90th birthday, and his rumored retirement shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. But on the heels of Justice David Souter's retirement earlier this year, it's certainly a reminder that the times - and the U.S. Supreme Court - are, to paraphrase Bob Dyle, a-changin'.
The rumors about Justice Stevens are swirling because as the Court finishes its selection of law clerks for next year, Justice Stevens has only hired one clerk. So either that clerk is superhuman (Jean Grey from X-Men, Number 5 from Short Circuit?), or it's a sign that Justice Stevens is thinking about hanging up his robe.
Nobody will know for some time, it seems. But the eventual departure of Justice Stevens will leave a hole in the Court when it comes to having a defender of equal rights. Justice Stevens has long been a proponent of decriminalizing homosexuality, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should have invalidated laws prohibiting same-sex relations more than twenty years ago (it didn't until earlier this decade, in large part because of the leadership of Justice Stevens). Justice Stevens also sided with the majority in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 Supreme Court case that struck down an illegal Colorado law which prevented municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances protecting LGBT people.
If rumors of his retirement end up being true - which again, won't be known for a while yet - it will mean that Justice Stevens won't be on the court for any future rulings challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That's sad, because given his history, it's pretty clear that he would see DOMA for what it is - an unconstitutional, reactionary piece of legislation that discriminates against a big chunk of U.S. citizens.
Whenever the time comes, someone is going to have awfully big shoes to fill when Justice Stevens retires.
Martha Coakley - The Next Sen. Kennedy?
Published September 01, 2009 @ 12:30PM PT
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley picked up nomination papers to run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. While surprisingly quick, the move places one of the state's biggest advocates for LGBT rights - and herself somewhat of a national LGBT hero for filing a federal lawsuit challenging DOMA - in the spotlight to become the 100th member of the Senate.
Coakley is the first nominee to jump into what could be a crowded field. Already, Massachusetts Reps. Edward Markey, Stephen Lynch and Michael Capuano have expressed an interest in the seat. The primary election for Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat will be held on December 8, with a general election scheduled for January 19, 2010.
In July 2009, Coakley filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In the lawsuit, Coakley said that DOMA undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and "codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."
"Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside," Coakley said when filing the lawsuit. "However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law."
Coakley now has to gather 10,000 signatures in the next five weeks to qualify for the ballot. Her timing is definitely soon, given that Sen. Kennedy's funeral was only four days ago. But when it comes to LGBT rights and working on behalf of LGBT constituents, she's certainly on par with the legacy of Sen. Kennedy.
Bob McDonnell Used to Think that Feminists and Homosexuals Were Scary
Published August 31, 2009 @ 08:04AM PT
Bob McDonnell is currently running as the GOP candidate for Governor in Virginia. His current campaign literature talks about how he's worked hard to lower taxes and enact "tough on crime" policies. What they don't tell you is that before he became a politician, he was a student at Regent University (founded by Pat Robertson), and that he wrote a thesis arguing that feminists were "real enemies of the traditional family" and that government should favor married heterosexuals over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators."
It's been nearly 20 years since McDonnell wrote the thesis, but one certainly has to wonder: Does he still believe in these radical right-wing policies?
Among the other issues championed by McDonnell in his thesis is covenent marriage (which makes it harder to all couples to obtain divorces), and bans on contraception for unmarried people (McDonnell himself referred to a Supreme Court decision in the 1970s legalizing contraception as "illogical").
Want more?
McDonnell also argued that public schools should teach Judeo-Christian values, and that religion should influence more avenues of government. "Leaders must correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state," McDonnell wrote. "Historically, the religious liberty guarantees of the First Amendment were intended to prevent government encroachment upon the free church, not eliminate the impact of religion on society."
Interestingly enough, in his current campaign for Governor, McDonnell is trying to water down some of his rather conservative positions - whether they were questioning if LGBT people could serve as public officials, or saying that working women harmed their families. Why the cover up? Because it's a whole lot easier to get elected if people don't think you're anti-woman, anti-gay, and a proponent of the type of policies that Pat "The U.S. deserved 9/11 because of tolerance of homosexuality" Robertson supports.
As one Democrat in Virginia put it, according to The News Leader, "There is a just a massive effort under way to rebrand Bob McDonnell, and his whole legislative career speaks otherwise. The voters have a right to know who these candidates really are."
It may have been 20 years since Bob McDonnell first penned these ideas down on paper. But if he plans to legislate any of these, he might as well have written them yesterday. Virginians deserve to know whether they've got someone who is anti-LGBT and anti-women's rights on their ballot this fall.
