LGBT Rights and Politics
Obama vs. "Insert Anti-LGBT GOP Candidate Here" in 2012
Published August 31, 2009 @ 05:05AM PT
Not wasting any time before focusing in on the 2012 Presidential elections, a new poll out surveying the Republican field in 2012 shows that the top four vote getters have a lengthy record of homophobia and trying to take away the rights of LGBT people.
Clarus Research Group ran a poll of 1,003 registered voters between August 14-18, 2009, and their results show that among the GOP, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads the field with 30 percent, followed closely behind by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee at 22 percent. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin? She's in there, too, coming in third at 19 percent, and then former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at 15 percent.
Wow, don't those four names read like an anti-LGBT barbershop quartet?
So the bad news is, of course, that four extremely anti-LGBT candidates are leading the way. The good news? In Clarus's poll, Obama pounds them all in a general election match up.
Being more than three years away from the Election, much of what can be read into this research poll probably revolves simply around name recognition. At the moment, people just don't know Republican names like Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, or Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, or South Dakota Senator John Thune - all of whom have expressed an interest in running.
But it should be telling that the four most popular people in the Republican party are not only anti-LGBT, they pride their careers on advocating for discrimination toward LGBT people. It should also be telling that after a disastrous 2008 election and eight years of George W. Bush, the GOP top contenders are all to the right of Sen. John McCain, if not to the right of George W., on the issue of LGBT rights.
For Romney's part, he tried to push a constitutional referendum in Massachusetts that would have stripped gays and lesbians of their right to civil marriage. Romney also used an archane law from nearly 100 years ago to prevent out-of-state couples from getting married in Massachusetts. Sure, in the 1990s Mitt Romney said he would be better for gay rights than the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. But in the 2000s, he hit the trail hard opposed to almost any and all LGBT issues.
Huckabee might just be the most anti-LGBT candidate for the Republican Party in history. He's railed about gay people committing sodomy on Fox News. He champions a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He'll be appearing before the extremely anti-LGBT (and once defined as a hate group) Illinois Family Institute (IFI) in Fall 2009, despite the fact that the IFI has compared LGBT people to Nazis. He also told "Meet the Press" in 2007 that LGBT people are aberrant and unnatural.
Palin essentially needs very little explanation. She fought efforts to recognize National Coming Out Day in Alaska. During her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden this past year, she trashed the idea of same-sex marriage. And earlier this year, she jumped to the side of former Miss California and Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean, after Prejean said that "opposite marriage" was superior to same-sex marriage.
And Gingrich, of course. Gingrich helped usher the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) through Congress in 1996. Since then, he hasn't quit in railing against LGBT rights. Most notably last year, Gingrich spoke of a gay fascism that was taking over the country, as LGBT rights groups organized and fought back against California's Proposition 8. Gingrich also has become buddy-buddy with a controversial pastor, Rev. Lou Engle, who has not only fought to deny rights to gays and lesbians, but has called for Christians to become martyrs when it comes to defending issues like "marriage" or fighting against abortion.
Yup, there's not buts about this one. We still have at least another year and a half or two years before we know who's all in for the GOP in 2012. But if polls right now are any indication, the GOP is lurching right-ward on civil rights issues and will be far to the right of Sen. John McCain when it comes to issues pertaining to LGBT rights.
Though they deny it, it sure as hell seems like this is just one more step toward the GOP becoming nothing but a regional party of very conservative elements of the South.
Iowa's Gay Marriage Tourism Boost
Published August 31, 2009 @ 01:41AM PT
Iowa is one of six states that currently recognize marriage equality in the United States. It's the only one outside of the northeastern United States, and as might be expected, it's serving as a tourist destination for gays and lesbians from neighboring states looking to tie the knot. And that's not only a good thing for same-sex marriage, that's a good thing for Iowa's economy.
According to statistics released by the Des Moines Register, there have been 676 same-sex marriage certificates issued in Iowa between April 2009 and July 2009. Of those, more than 300 were issued to couples from outside of Iowa. That includes 57 from Illinois, 38 from Nebraska, 37 from Missouri, and 36 from Minnesota - all Iowa's neighbors. Nine couples from Minnesota alone got married this weekend in Iowa.
As the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School has documented, when states legalize same-sex marriage, their economy stands to improve. Why? Because of an injection of income into their state from couples planning weddings, and (in the case of Iowa) from couples and wedding parties from other states (where same-sex marriage is not legal) traveling and visiting. It's a small benefit of marriage equality - after all, civil rights are not at all about doing what's financially profitable and all about doing what's morally right. But it's still an important distinction to note.
This week will mark the five-month anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Sadly, organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are looking to attack LGBT rights in Iowa, making it one of their state priorities to repeal marriage rights.
Broadway for Equality
Published August 30, 2009 @ 06:51PM PT
A group of theater folk rallied this past weekend in Central Park with one clear message: it's time for equal rights for LGBT people. The group? Broadway Impact. And they'll be taking their message to Washington later this Fall to support a nationwide gathering for equality.
Organized by Hair actor Gavin Creel, Broadway Impact is organizing 42nd street (and the neighboring vicinty) to support the National Equality March, which is scheduled to happen the weekend of October 10-11 in Washington, D.C.
The National Equality March is being organized by Equality Across America. They're working to get grassroots leaders in all 435 Congressional districts to come to Washington, DC on the weekend of October 10-11 to stand for issues that are near and dear to all of us: Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing inclusive hate crimes legislation and an employment non-discrimination act, and standing for full marriage equality.
Broadway is stepping up to the plate, which should take care of NY's 14th Congressional District. The entire production of Hair will be suspended on October 11 so that the cast and crew can travel down to DC and attend the National Equality March. And if this past weekend's rally in Central Park is any indication, more Broadway folks will be heading down as well.
Oskar Eustis, the Public Theater's artistic director, said that the message of Hair dictates that the production ought to be supporting rallies like the National Equality March. "Hair has never been just a show; its message of change and hope and inclusion is one we try to live, not just preach. This is the moment when we need to recognize the right of all citizens, gay and straight, to have their love and their unions acknowledged by the state," Eustis said. "Peace now! Equality now! Justice forever!"
Rally cries! We look forward to hearing the same message come October 11.
(Photo from http://broadwayworld.com)
Every 24 Hours, Two Gay People are Kicked Out of the Military
Published August 30, 2009 @ 11:15AM PT
Since the inception of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during President Bill Clinton's first-term in office, more than 13,000 well-qualified U.S. soldiers have been removed from the military for being gay or lesbian. This week, Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida sent a letter to current President Barack Obama spelling out just how sad that statistic is. Doing the math, according to Rep. Hastings, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means that every 24 hours, at least two gay or lesbian soldiers are booted from the military. In other words, every 24 hours, America's ability to defend its national security gets diminished by two.
Rep. Hastings letter this week to President Obama comes on the heels of a message that Hastings sent to Obama in June - and endorsed by more than 75 members of Congress - urging a suspension in investigations and discharges because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." With almost 20 percent of Congress writing to Obama in June about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," one might wonder what the President's response was.
According to Rep. Hastings, it was deafening silence.
"More than two months later, I have yet to receive an official response," said Rep. Hastings. That lack of response precipitated the letter fired off this week. And the letter this week pulls no punches. To quote part of it:
As you know, we lose approximately two service members every day to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. While I commend Secretary Gates and the Pentagon’s general counsel for their continued efforts to identify possible provisional measures, you can take action right now. I sincerely hope that your administration will make Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a priority and do everything in its power to repeal this ridiculous, bigoted law once and for all.
The U.S. is about to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. We're also currently still in the midst of war in Iraq. As Rep. Hastings notes, we simply can't afford to be kicking qualified people out of the U.S. military on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers United are currently in the midst of a nationwide tour, known as "Voices of Honor," to call attention to the injustice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and urge the Obama administration and Congress to work to overturn the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers. Formerly discharged soldiers, as well as straight allies, are appearing at events in cities throughout the country, in both red states and blue states, to build support for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
We will eventually win on this issue. But until then, it's all the more important to call out discrimination for what it is. And in this case, it means that every day, our national security suffers because gays and lesbians are told they're not worthy.
Reluctant Activism: Stepping Up With the National Marriage Boycott
Published August 28, 2009 @ 07:01PM PT
The guest post below is written by Kenzie Seal, the Chief Financial Officer for the National Marriage Boycott (NMB). NMB is a student-led movement for marriage equality, and they could win a $10,000 grant from Ideablob if they get enough votes. Read Kenzie's reflection below, and please vote for them at Ideablob. (Photo above by Urvashi Nagrani.)
A reluctant activist—that’s what I’ve always considered myself.
When I walked onto Stanford’s campus as a freshman last year, I had no intention of getting involved in activism. I wanted to focus on settling in and making friends and going to parties—oh, and school too. The last thing I wanted to do was distract myself by picking up a wealth of extracurricular activities.
But the placement of Proposition 8 on California’s ballot last year left me with no choice. As a gay man, I couldn’t not get involved in the No on 8 Campaign. The idea of doing nothing but watch as my civil rights were put up for popular vote was absolutely inconceivable—really, I had no alternative but to do something.
And so I begrudgingly joined Stanford’s No on 8 Campaign, and soon found myself getting steadily more involved. Before I knew it—and I’m still not quite sure how I let this happen—I was leading phone banks twice a week and helping to run Stanford’s entire No on 8 infrastructure.
I took solace in the fact that, come November 4th, I would be done. If I did my job right, Proposition 8 would go down in flames—and I’d be able to lay aside all this political, activisty kerfuffle and go on my merry way, content that I had done my civic duty, fulfilling my obligation to my fellow man. I was just taking a brief hiatus from my simple life of personal endeavors and self-centered concerns—but I would be back in no time.
Yet, as we all well know, the voters of California had a different future for me in mind, and I would not be let off the hook so easily. My job was not done—and I found I could not walk away.
Sometime around midnight on election night, a group of Stanford students who had fought against Proposition 8 gathered, regrouped, and pondered our next move. The result? A student organization “dedicated to justice and liberation for queers across the nation”—a tall order of business, to be sure. And while we promptly set about organizing all the protests and rallies we college students are so fond of, I still maintained my doubts about our abilities to achieve this goal.
That is, until the idea of boycotting marriage altogether was proposed. The idea was simple: members of the boycott would pledge not to marry until everyone could, and, as a symbol of their pledge, they would wear an Equality Ring on their left hand.
The idea was simple—but it was also immensely powerful.
And as we launched this campaign at Stanford we began to realize its full potential. The campaign’s reception was tremendous; people clamored to take the pledge and make such a strong and public a commitment to equality. We began to explore the idea of taking the boycott to other schools, and soon found a host of other student leaders equally eager to join and spread the boycott.
As this amorphous marriage boycott campaign evolved into the concretely defined and increasingly recognized National Marriage Boycott, I found myself more and more inextricably involved. As we transformed NMB into its own entity and reached out to campuses across the nation, a few hours of my time a week gradually became a full-time job.
Somehow, when I wasn’t looking, that reluctant activist had become an executive officer in an emerging non-profit organization. It was a baffling transformation—and clear evidence of occult forces at work in the world.
But be that as it may, here we stand: nearly a year after the passage of Proposition 8, with more than 20 branches of National Marriage Boycott organized in more than 10 states—and dozens more sure to come. From where I stand, it is pretty clear: I see a national movement coming, poised for action and demanding change.
And this is a movement like no other. This a political campaign which is not run by politicians, and this is a grassroots movement which is not run by seasoned organizers—this is a movement which is run by a high school kid struggling against an oppressive school system, and a college kid trying to stir his complacent classmates into action, and by a legion of self-proclaimed activists at Stanford, and by so many more people from as many different worlds—gay, straight, married, unmarried, and everything in between.
But we do have one thing in common: we are all young and naïve enough to believe that we can change the world—and that’s what gives us our power. Because we are so committed to this issue, and we care so much more than our opposition.
Because we care about every little detail: we care about tax benefits and social security, we care about the dignity of official governmental recognition, we care about family visitation rights, and we care about next-of-kin status in medical emergencies. We care about the very ideals of justice and equality.
And we care about the often-unseen bigger picture too: the fact that LGBTQ youth are four times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers—no doubt largely due to the unequal and inferior status their government bestows upon them. Let me tell you, that’s not an easy thing to live with—and let me also tell you, this fight is about a lot more than just marriage.
At the end of the day, we care about these things because we can see the severity of the problem, even when others may not.
And so I remind myself, reluctant or not, I have an obligation to help fix this problem. After all, somebody’s got to do it.
And so I have no choice.
Come join me in this fight.
Join the National Marriage Boycott: go to www.nationalmarriageboycott.com to sign the pledge and get your Equality Ring.
(Photo above by Urvashi Nagrani.)
Who is Going to Be the Next Sen. Kennedy When it Comes to LGBT Rights?
Published August 28, 2009 @ 02:23PM PT
Senator Ted Kennedy was the type of straight guy most every LGBT person could like. He was ahead of his time by championing LGBT rights for decades, fighting to pass inclusive hate crimes legislation, and an employment non-discrimination act that covered sexual orientation and gender identity. He was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. And contrary to what many politicians were thinking when Massachusetts became the first state to enact marriage equality, Sen. Kennedy celebrated that moment for its importance in civil rights history.
With Sen. Kennedy's passing, a giant hole is now left in the U.S. Senate when it comes to a tried and true supporter of LGBT rights. Who will fill that mantle?
Below are five U.S. Senators who are working hard for equal rights legislation in the Senate and/or in their own states. Senator Ted Kennedy is in many respects irreplaceable. But these five might just be able to carry on his legacy and become the voice for LGBT rights in the U.S. Senate.
Sen. John Kerry: OK, like him or leave him, Sen. Kerry has a bit in common with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kerry was a former Presidential contender, and Kennedy was a former Presidential contender. After losing their respective races, both returned to the U.S. Senate and (more or less) ruled out higher office. And both are champions of LGBT rights. For his part, Sen. Kerry is a vocal spokesperson for lifting the travel ban on HIV individuals imposed by the U.S. government, and is a support of hate crimes legislation, an employment non-discrimination act, and for overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In 1996, Sen. Kerry was the only U.S. Senator up for re-election who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (even out-progressiving Sen. Paul Wellstone on the issue). As recently as July 2009, Kerry has called the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. But...and it's sort of a big one...Sen. Kerry hasn't personally come out in favor of marriage equality. This video right here will likely send shivers down people's spines with memories of 2004, as Kerry tries to say that he's for equal rights but not personally for marriage. Sen. Kerry is going to have to get over this obstacle if he wants to have the same legacy as Sen. Kennedy on LGBT rights issues.
Sen. Russ Feingold: One of the most independent Senators out there, Sen. Russ Feingold's support for LGBT rights runs pretty deep as well. He was also one of the 14 no votes in the U.S. Senate on the Defense of Marriage Act, and has long advocated for hate crimes and employment non-discrimination laws. More good news? He's also on record with a forceful statement supporting marriage equality. "[Marriage equality] is something ultimately that people throughout the country will accept," said Sen. Feingold, adding that bans on same-sex marriage have no place in the nation's laws. The weird news? Sen. Feingold voted for Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Huh. Well, at least he voted no on Alito?
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Sure, she has to survive re-election to her first full-term in office before becoming anyone's champion. But Sen. Gillibrand is already positioning herself to be one of the strongest LGBT allies in the entire Congress. She's the lead sponsor behind efforts in the U.S. Senate to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." She's encouraging state politicians throughout New York to support marriage equality in the state. And she herself? She's a strong believer in same-sex marriage, saying right here on the Women's Rights blog at change.org earlier this month: "Marriage Equality is the equal rights battle of our generation, and we should all be strongly united in our efforts to make progress." She needs more years perhaps to reach Sen. Kennedy status. But she's clearly building a ton of street cred when it comes to LGBT issues.
Sen. Barbara Boxer: Sen. Kennedy was often vilified by the right-wing as part of the liberal establishment. But for as much as Sen. Kennedy was targeted, Sen. Boxer may be even more so. People on the right just don't like her, which makes people on the left (and a bunch in the middle) like her even more so. Sen. Boxer has been an adamant supporter of LGBT rights, including earning a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for her support of pro-LGBT legislation. And last year as same-sex marriage was assaulted in California with Proposition 8, Sen. Boxer came out forcefully and strongly against the ballot measure. Her opinion of Prop 8 before it narrowly passed? "Prop 8 is a statewide ballot initiative that would put discrimination against same-sex couples into the California State Constitution. It is unfair, unnecessary, and wrong." Her sage words of inspiration after Prop 8 passed? "This is so not over. The fight for equality goes on and on. The fight for a more perfect union goes on and on." Here's hoping Boxer's Senate career goes on and on, too.
Sen. Patrick Leahy: When Sen. Patrick Leahy isn't helping shape the judicial system in this country through his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he's often times pushing equal rights legislation on behalf of LGBT Americans. One of Leahy's biggest missteps was voting for the Defense of Marriage Act. Since then, Leahy has come down hard on the side of LGBT rights. He's now the third-most senior Senator in the entire legislative body, and the highest-ranking one at that to support marriage equality. Which he made clear earlier this year after Vermont's State Legislature enacted same-sex marriage rights. "If I was voting – if this matter was coming the first time, I'd vote differently than I did [when I voted on DOMA]," Leahy told Vermont Public Radio. "Because I think the states are now ahead of the Congress on this." Other reasons we like Sen. Leahy? In 2006 he called out the bullshit that conservative Congress members were trying to pull in pushing a marriage protection amendment, and he's a lead sponsor of a bill that would completely expand immigration rights for LGBT couples.
Any other allies in the Senate that you think might take the reigns that Sen. Ted Kennedy leaves behind on LGBT rights?
The National Organization for Marriage Practices a Kinder, Gentler Form of Gay Bashing
Published August 28, 2009 @ 07:13AM PT
If you need anything to line your bird cage or cat box with this morning, might we suggest today's Washington Post, which features an article by Monica Hesse on the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), run with one of the sleaziest headlines traditional media has dared venture: "Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity and a Smile." The article is a profile of Brian Brown, the Executive Director of NOM, and literally holds Brown up as a hero for his crusade to take away the rights of gays and lesbians.
Who knew that NOM had hired the Washington Post to do their public relations for them.
Hesse characterizes Brown's rabid anti-LGBT work has "reasonable," part of mainstream America, and part of an overall campaign to change hearts and minds. The reality? Brown and NOM regularly call LGBT people a threat to children, think that same-sex marriage is intrinsically evil, and worry that LGBT people will bring the downfall of the family and western civilization. This is the type of thinking that the Washington Post wants to hightlight in a four-page feature article?
Here are some of the more egregious lines offered up by Hesse in today's profile.
"[Brown] tries to help people see that opposing gay marriage does not make them bigots, that the argument should have nothing to do with hate or fear, and everything to do with history and tradition. The reason Brian Brown is so effective is that he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane."
If you like that one, try this one on for size.
"[Brown] sends out regular e-mail updates to NOM's mailing list, conveying his excitement on the issues with exclamation points. Some pro-gay marriage activists then get hold of these e-mails and mock them. But his more informed opponents know that scoffing is a response born of fear."
Someone should let Monica Hesse know that when people mock NOM, it has little to do with fear and more about not letting anti-LGBT people off the hook for their homophobic statements. Sometimes it also has to do with the fact that NOM makes stupid mistakes, like their campy "Gathering Storm" ad that used paid actors instead of real, live believers, or their Web site 2M4M which failed to realize that when you type 2M4M in Google, you better be looking for a third sexual partner.
Instead, Hesse paints Brown as the type of activist that people should fear. A Tom DeLay or Boss Tweed of the family values sect. And by doing that, both Hesse and the Washington Post make homophobia and bigotry all that much more mainstream.
The final line of the article is so bad, and so unobjective, that one has to wonder how an editor let this thing slide through.
"And then [Brown's] out the door, going off to quietly crusade for the hearts and minds of people who, like Brown, pride themselves on being rational, mainstream and sane."
Despite the praise heaped on NOM in this article, let's make on thing crystal clear: there is nothing rational or sane about taking away the rights of gays and lesbians. There is nothing rational or sane about people who think that gay or lesbian couples are a threat to children. There is nothing rational or sane about people who think that LGBT folks are intrinsically evil.
These people are anything but rational and sane. They are homophobic, and while they may practice a kinder, gentler form of homophobia than Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps, homophobia is still homophobia.
For the Washington Post to give such a glowing profile of NOM and Brian Brown is, frankly, a disservice to journalism.
Degrees of hate may be subject do interpretation. But suggesting that NOM doesn't hate on LGBT people, while they're out there openly calling for legislatures to write discrimination against LGBT people into constitutions, is repulsive.
