Huffington Post and others have been reporting possible voter fraud in North Carolina, including ballots that exclude Amendment 1, which bans same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. This, however, takes the cake when it comes to intimidating voters:
I was given a ballot that was already filled out for Amendment One. I made them give me a new one. – N. King
In spite of being legally married in the U.S. State of Iowa, Inger Knudson-Judd and Philippa Knudson-Judd don’t get to spend much time together or with their 12 year old daughter. In fact, prior to this most recent 5 week visit, the couple hadn’t seen each other in 6 months. Why? The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) allows the Federal Government to refuse to recognize Inger and Philippa’s marriage and Philippa is not a U.S. citizen. These stories are all too common.
In early April, 2012, five same-sex couples who are not able to obtain green cards for their foreign-born spouses filed a lawsuit challenging DOMA’s prohibitions against gay couples petitioning for legal status for their spouses. Victoria Neilson, legal director for Immigration Equality who is leading the charge, stated that their group has asked that the Obama Administration to change these policies, or at least suspend green card applications rather than rejecting them until DOMA challenges can be resolved. Neilson explained:
We have recently gotten a definitive no from the administration on that request, so we sort of feel like we’re at the end of the line on advocacy. Our next step is to take it to the courts.”
Which brings us to the photo. Yesterday, Inger had to drive her wife to the airport after a five week visit and they don’t know when they will next see each other. So when I opened my Facebook news feed, I saw this photo from Inger:
Inger and Philippa say Goodbye
And my heart broke.
Via Wipe Out Homophobia on Facebook, Inger released this response:
We have a 12 year old daughter and so are trying to do things the legal way…, but [we] have hit road blocks every step of the way. *** It is really hard to hold your family when their hearts are breaking, my arms just aren’t that long. After 4 1/2 years of trying to find a solution, nothing has changed.
Some say that DOMA protects families, but does this family look protected? These are the faces of our families; this is the real suffering caused by discrimination.
About a hundred years ago, then Governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson remained *undecided* on the issue of women’s suffrage. Although he was a dedicated progressive, taught at a women’s college and had two daughters who were suffragists, his opinions were still evolving on whether or not women should be allowed to vote. Giving women the right to vote, it was argued, would lead to federal interference in elections and, *GASP* voting rights for African Americans. Thereafter, Wilson became President of the United States, and his position on women’s voting rights remained ambiguous during his first term.
A parallel can be drawn between then-President Wilson and now-President Obama. Although President Obama’s stance on human rights (more particularly gay marriage) is evolving, one cannot truthfully say that President Obama supports full LGBT equality. In fact, President Obama, in spite of stating during his 2008 campaign that he would sign an Executive Order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, has now refused to do so. Further, even though he declared support for ENDA, he failed to fiercely demand it when the House and Senate had “hope” of passing the legislation.
The Suffragists of the Congressional Union (later known as the “National Woman’s Party” [NWP]) began staging petition drives and demonstrations to get President Wilson’s attention and demand he endorse the right of women to vote. At first, these demonstrations were largely met with bemusement and condemnation. In spite of the demonstrations and petitions, Wilson failed to act. The NWP stepped it up a notch and threatened to actively campaign against Wilson and the Democratic Party during the 1916 election. But war broke out in Europe and the issue of peace became more important to many, but not all, of the suffragists, and they in turn supported the re-election of Wilson.
When the United States joined World War I, many thought the demonstrations by the suffragists would come to an end, believing that no one would dare protest a war-time President. However, the NWP continued its demonstrations outside the White House, including chaining themselves to the White House fence. They were met with great hostility from both men and women, many of whom had also been and perhaps were still suffragists. Banners were torn from their hands, they were spit on, insulted and demeaned all because they refused to bow to an establishment which ignored them – or worse, treated them with hostility. They were arrested and often jailed for substantial lengths of time on trumped up charges, but their actions made headlines around the world giving momentum to their cause. The suffragists who were more moderate took advantage of their more radical counterparts and presented themselves as a more obvious alternative. This rebel/reformer approach is discussed in detail in Bill Moyer’s book Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements.
Fast forward again to 2012: Many LGBTQ organizations have also stepped it up notch to demand President Obama take action to protect employees from discrimination. Leading the way in this endeavor is the grassroots organization GetEQUAL, which is best known for protest actions that lead to arrest, including chaining members to the White House fence and blocking Las Vegas Boulevard. Like the suffragists, these more radical activists are facing severe criticism of their tactics from the “more moderate” human rights groups; however, the mantra is slightly changed. No longer is the criticism because of war-time, but because this is an election year for President Obama.
Like Wilson, Obama’s position on LGBT equality is ambiguous in many respects. For example, Obama has clearly stated that he does not support marriage equality, but that he supports equal rights for LGBT people under the law. Some LGBT advocates argue that this is his way of winning the upcoming election, at which point he will “evolve” on the subject of marriage equality, while others see it as mere subterfuge and the President putting his own safekeeping ahead of the safety of the people he represents.
Many LGBT bloggers have condemned the actions being taken by GetEQUAL and others as a childish, fame-seeking approach to activism that will result in the election of Mitt Romney. Some have gone as to declare that our “real enemies” are out there and we should go after those “real enemies.” This attitude assumes that a person who does not support marriage equality and who has failed to take action to protect workers from unfair discriminatory practices is not a “real enemy.” But the assumption goes far further – it assumes that these activists are “going after Obama,” when they are clearly designed to defeat the injustice created when another campaign promise by the LGBT’s “fierce advocate” was broken.
While many remain content to be beaten as long as the blows don’t break the skin, I for one prefer not to be beaten at all. That is not criticism of my reformer friends who are accepting of the blows of the President without question, but it is where I stand within this equation as a rebel.
“When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Flour Bluff School District came under fire last year when its Superintendent refused to allow a Gay Straight Alliance to form on campus. After significant pressure and national media attention, the District tentatively allowed the group to form. This year, the failures of the administration are again coming into the spotlight.
Teddy Molina, a 16 year old student at Flour Bluff High School, took his own life this past weekend after enduring the wrath of a gang of football players known as “The Wolfpack.” Although Flour Bluff administrators deny knowledge of The Wolfpack, students have indicated that teachers are certainly aware of the gang and have even asked them to remove their Wolfpack t-shirts in the past.
Teddy was familiar with the Wolfpack. After being tormented by the group, Teddy turned to his parents. They withdrew him from Flour Bluff High School shortly before his untimely death. Some students have stated that the Wolfpack threatened to invade Teddy’s home and harm his mother and sister if “He didn’t do something about himself.”
Of course, none of the accusations can currently be proven, but there is one thing that is clear – Flour Bluff, like many school districts, has a bully problem.
In fact, at an anti-bullying rally this afternoon, things turned violent. One of the students, alleged to be member of The Wolfpack gang, jumped from the SUV driven by his father and began attacking rally attendees, including family members of Teddy and other students. The gang member’s father, Tommy Martin, accused rally attendees of throwing rocks at them as they passed by.
Koby Ozias, a District Lead for GetEQUAL TX, was present. According to Koby, the rally had been going for approximately 2 hours prior to the attack. Several students had noted that members of The Wolfpack gang had been driving by and flipping off the crowd, but no other incidents had occurred. When the attackers hit children, several rally attendees fought back, while others attempted to seperate the grieving family from the assailants.
After the attack, police demanded the rally attendees leave the site. Although attendees complied, they hope to plan another event for tomorrow.
While there may be much debate around the circumstances involved in the murder of Trayvon Martin, one thing is now for certain: Racism is still alive and well in the United States. One has to look no further than comments on news articles relating to the murder or online forums to find such fabulous tidbits as this:
But really, who is surprised? Go ahead and pick an article or forum for yourself and I’m sure you will find similar commentary.
The right-wing majority in this county has been waging war against any non-white, non-christian, non-heterosexual, non-cisgendermale person since the birth of the United States. Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender People, Women and more have been wrongfully imprisoned, brutalized and made to fear what will happen if they rock the boat. In spite of this commonality, those oppressed by the system are entirely failing to unite.
I originally believed this was the result of having been ostracized into our own communities for so long, that joining forces was something else to fear. Will the Latinos push forward without me? Will the “LGB” sell out the “T” again? Will Black men stand-up for the ERA?
One anti-human rights organization recognizes that uniting our voices would put a crushing end to their ability to continue to degrade, belittle and intimidate our communities. Recently released Court Documents illustrate that the National Organization for Marriage [NOM] (a voice in opposition to marriage equality), has a TWENTY MILLION DOLLAR plan to make sure the “gays and blacks” remain divided. According to NOM’s $20 Million Strategy for Victory:
The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks – two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.
Sadly, even before NOM’s $20 million budget, the plan has been successful. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s youngest daughter lit a torch at her father’s tomb to kick off an anti-human rights campaign to prevent marriage equality for LGBT people in 2005. The purpose was to dehumanize LGBT people so that “human rights” and “civil rights” would not be associated with the apparently “inhuman” gays. Sound familiar?
I Am Man - Withers
Of course, Coretta Scott King and many of Dr. King’s children disagree, invoking the teachings of Dr. King to show the need for equality and “tolerance” of LGBT people.
But a similar battle plays out between women, Latino groups and labor unions. Perhaps the most glaringly obvious division is marked annually with the Cesar E. Chavez March for Justice. Cesar Chavez was a labor leader and civil rights activist who fought for better working conditions for farm workers. He, along with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association. After his death, he became an icon for the Latino community. While city streets and statewide holidays rightfully celebrate Chavez’s work, Dolores Huerta is all but ignored in spite of her significant contribution.
Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. — Cesar Chavez
Currently, a similar wedge exists between Latino Community leaders and the LGBT community. In fact, the founder of the San Antonio Cesar E. Chavez March for Justice, Jaime P. Martinez, is alleged to have provided no assistance in fighting for hate crimes charges against the murderer of his son, Troy Martinez Clattenburg , in spite of his position as a civil rights leader in the Latino Community.
It is not enough for us to claim to support human rights when the rights we purport to support are not across the board. Gay rights, Transgender Rights, Immigrant Rights, Worker’s Rights, Women’s Rights, etc., should be based solely on our status as human beings. As Hillary Clinton said in recognition of Human Rights Day:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.
Every Valentine’s Day several mass wedding ceremonies are held in front of the Bexar County Courthouse in San Antonio, Texas. For over 20 years, Pastor Joe Sullivan, a former Democratic candidate for US House of Representatives – Texas District 23, has presided over the ceremonies. Last year, a group of same-sex couples participated for the first recorded time with no incident. Although after the event, Sullivan stated, “They don’t have a license. If they took vows, it really means nothing.”
This year, however, after the Direct Action Network of San Antonio (“DANSA”) encouraged community members to participate again, the ceremony almost didn’t proceed.
The above video was compiled by John Dean Domingue, an organizer for DANSA who was present at the ceremony. According to organizers, Pastor Sullivan noted that the same-sex couples were there solely to be repulsive and would be subjected to punishment by God. Of note was the commentary that people should be respectful of the law. It is obvious (in the most sarcastic way possible) that respect for unjust laws has been a traditional tool used by minorities when laws are unjust. Showing respect for oppressive laws resulted in the removal of Jim Crow, women’s rights to vote and a slew of other injustices being repealed by the majority.
But this is not the focus. After the attacks by the pastor, one of the event’s organizers, Julie Pousson, contacted County officials to request a time slot for a more affirming ceremony next year. She was advised that Past Sullivan had the Courthouse booked for “the foreseeable future.” In response, Ms. Pousson has launched a petition requesting a change in the policy and will be requesting a timeslot to be set aside for a more affirming ceremony at a Commissioner’s Court hearing on Tuesday.
In an interview with the San Antonio Current, Sullivan stated that he doesn’t hate homosexuals, but hates homosexuality and noted that the behavior of the approximately ten LGBT couples present was an embarrassment:
The behavior I’m taking about is they were hugging and kissing and licking each other’s faces, acting like, you know, like – I don’t even know if animals act like that. … They were very, I think, disturbing and almost animalistic there, a couple of them. They were trying to make a display of what they call, I guess, affection. It wasn’t affection to me. It was almost assault.
The Current reporter who was present noted that they did not see any heavy petting from the couples.
The irony of this situation is that Pastor Sullivan’s ceremony is held on a day which celebrates St. Valentine. As Ms. Pousson stated, St. Valentine is the patron saint of marriage equality. Although the exact history of Bishop Valentine’s life is unclear, it is well documented that he was executed by the Roman Emperor for performing illegal marriages. Some stories state that he married Christians under Roman rule, which insisted the Roman Gods be worshipped, while other stories claim he performed marriages for Roman soldiers, an act explicitly forbidden by the Emperor.
Thus it seems that, in order to celebrate St. Valentine who disrespected the law, Pastor Sullivan and his ilk demanded respect for the laws banning marriage between consenting, loving adults. For this and many other reasons, Pastor Sullivan wins a featured spot here in Stupid Things People Say About Gays.
The Macy’s store at Rivercenter Mall in San Antonio, Texas, recently came under fire for its termination of Natalie Johnson, who was employed by Macy’s until a few days before Thanksgiving. Ms. Johnson refused to allow a transgender woman to use the lady’s fitting room. According to the organization representing Ms. Johnson, Liberty Counsel, she was fired for her religious beliefs. To clarify, they argue she was fired for being Christian.
Blog posts and comments abound, telling the story of the oppressed Natalie. Most of the stories indicate that Liberty Counsel is a pro-Christian rights organization, a claim which is designed to sway the public to rally behind a suspect class: the religious. But Liberty Counsel is anything but pro-Christianity. Their purpose has not historically been to walk in the steps of Christ, but instead to demand our government provide them, as moral superiors, with the infinite power to bend others to their will.
In her recent address in honor of Human Rights Day, Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton highlighted these sorts of religious justifications for discrimination noting:
The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal.
But even though Liberty Counsel wants you to believe this is about Ms. Johnson’s religion, it is not. Liberty Counsel is not a “Christian rights group,” but rather an organization devoted to preventing the human rights of LGBT people. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:
In 2009, J. Matt Barber, formerly with Concerned Women for America and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality…, joined Liberty Counsel as director of cultural affairs (also becoming Liberty University’s associate dean for career and professional development). A year earlier, Barber had argued that given “medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,” it should be considered “criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.”
The Counsel also has been active in battling same-sex marriage, saying it would destroy the “bedrock of society.” In 2005, the group’s blog said: “People who … support the radical homosexual agenda will not rest until marriage has become completely devalued. Children will suffer most from this debauchery.” A 2007 blog posting said same-sex marriage would “severely impact future generations.”
Like other anti-gay groups, Liberty Counsel argues that hate crime laws are “actually ‘thought crimes’ laws that violate the right to freedom and of conscience” — an opinion rejected by the Supreme Court.
The claims by Liberty Counsel are not a declaration of freedom, but instead further desperate attacks by a group of people protected by Federal Non-Discrimination Laws (religious people), on a group that is not (transgender people). Freedom of religion is a protection from worshipping as one chooses, not from forcing your opinions on others.
From protest of ousted Bexar County DP Chair, Dan Ramos.
The Texas State Democratic Party bowed to fear this past week when the Executive Committee met to vote on proposed primary ballot referendum. In a move that silenced one of the most staunch populaces aligned with the Democratic Party, the LGBTQ community, Texas Democrats voted 33-22 to exclude a marriage equality referendum on the 2012 Democratic Primary ballot. However, legalizing gambling will be on the ballot.
According to a press release received from Dan Graney, President of the Texas Stonewall Democrats, arguments against including the marriage equality measure were:
As to the first argument, the Republicans are going after the Democrats anyway. All that was accomplished by excluding even a chance for marriage equality in Texas was that Democrats were silenced and we will now see Democrats going after Democrats in Texas for their blatant disregard for their own party platform, which states:
Democrats believe that we all have a part to play in promoting equality and protecting Americans against discrimination, and we continue to work vigorously toward greater freedom and equality in America.
Working vigorously toward greater freedom apparently means bowing to political pressure, fear and intimidation, as is noted by the second opposition view that supporting freedom and equality will negatively affect Democratic candidates. In this instance, the lack of integrity and moxy will do more to negatively impact candidates than standing up for your party values EVER would have.
Perhaps the most disturbing argument presented in keeping marriage equality off of the primary ballot is the argument, “What if the measure should fail?” For that, I turn to other thinkers and provide the following motivational quotes:
“The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try nothing and succeed” – Lloyd Jones
“Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.” – Unknown
“Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, “I will try again tomorrow.” – Mary Anne Radmacher
“Try and fail, but don’t fail to try.” Stephen Kaqqwa
“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.” – Dale Carnegie
“The worst thing one can do is not to try, to be aware of what one wants and not give in to it, to spend years in silent hurt wondering if something could have materialized – and never knowing” – David Vicsott
“I am not judged by the number of times I fail, but by the number of times I succeed: and the number of times I succeed is in direct proportion to the number of times I fail and keep trying.” – Tom Hopkins
“You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don’t try.” – Beverly Sills
“There is no comparison between that which is lost by not succeeding and that lost by not trying.” – Francis Bacon, Sr.
Try as I might, I was unable to find any motivational quotes encouraging people not to try. However, I was able to find a quote by an unknown person that sums up my feelings toward the Texas Democratic Party:
Fuck you for giving up on me.
The Facebook group titled “Gay San Antonio” will be marking the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by “coming out” from the “private” setting to the “public” setting on Facebook. When the Administrators formed the group, they originally set the privacy settings so that, without an invitation, the group postings and its members remained hidden. The chosen method of celebration seems appropriate and symbolic, but not all members support the change. Several of them announced that once the group goes public, they will be removing themselves from it for fear of retaliation by their family, co-workers and friends.
One of the group members who is leaving stated:
Sorry I can’t be a part of it but being a part of a political organization like this in the public eye will greatly harm my credibility at work. I’d rather be semi-in-the-closet and employed than openly gay and broke.
This is a very real and reasonable fear shared by many. “Coming out” of the closet as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is far too often a career killer. It’s no wonder that the repeal of DADT is so bittersweet for me. I see through the rose-colored, celebratory glasses and look directly at our oppressors and oppressions ruling us with fear. The reality that our lives are still governed by this fear is a grotesque ode to the heavy toll denying dignity and freedom to a people has on their lives.
So to all members of Gay San Antonio (past, present and future), I offer you this video of Ms. Nina Simone, answering the question, “What’s freedom?”:
*WARNING: The below commentary contains links to subject matter that may not be appropriate for all viewers. Some of the information contained on “The Gathering of Pastors” website may cause nausea, vomiting and/or increased blood pressure and heart attack or stroke.*
The City Manager of San Antonio, Sheryl Sculley, completed and introduced the new budget for San Antonio with an included provision to allow for financing of Domestic Partnership benefits for city employees in same-sex relationships. While providing healthcare should not be controversial, the right wing attacked. Cult leaders began organizing against the budget initiative under the title “The Gathering of Pastors“. The City Council endured countless hours of hearings, hundreds of emails and telephone calls and listened as lie after lie poured from the mouths of purportedly Christian people.
I had the pleasure of being actively involved in support of this initiative. In spite of my objections to the fact that Domestic Partnership benefits are only needed because same-sex couples are not afforded equal protections under present marriage laws, it was clear to me that no one deserved to be denied access to affordable healthcare. After all, “Why shouldst thou not take even as much pleasure in beholding a counterfeit stone, which thine eye cannot discern from a right stone?” (Thomas More)
With the assistance of an entire community of peoples, we worked tirelessly (o.k. I got pretty damn tired) to counter the arguments against the benefits package.
But The Gathering of cult leaders did not stop. They argued that domestic partnership benefits lowered the bar from marriage and allowed more people to receive benefits, which would prohibit or limit the motivation of an employee to commit to a legally binding relationship (i.e. marriage). They went on to indicate that the unwillingness of an employee to make such a commitment reveals selfishness and a weakness in morality. However, according to the Cult’s website, “Homosexual couples can never be married per definition.” Therefore their argument fails.
A “homosexual” employee of the city who is in a long term relationship is barred by law from entering into the very “legally binding relationship” to which the Gathering refers. To prohibit someone from conforming to an action, then to punish them for not having undertaken that action is the truest form of selfishness. It is for the jail keeper to do these things, not kings (and yes, that is a paraphrase of Thomas More).
On Wednesday night, September 14th, I joined other community members in council chambers for “Citizens to be Heard,” a moment when citizens may address council regarding matters before them. Many spoke in favor of domestic partnership benefits, but without surprise, the cult spoke in opposition. One of the opponents (and some day I will catch her name) was a woman who assaulted members of the Direct Action Network of San Antonio with holy water for unfurling a banner at a hate rally that read “Homophobia and Transphobia Kills.” Another man, who declared himself a minister, stood at the dais and compared domestic partnership benefits to “the morning after” pill and abortion. He then noted that the City has the moral authority to be a “no kill animal” city, but supports murdering babies. All of which were blatantly lies, but most notable his assertion that the City maintains a “no kill” status.
At the end of the meeting, this same man returned to address city council and posed this question in front of all attendees (including children):
What is more dangerous, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, riding an iron horse or riding somebody bareback?
Although the question was improper and likely rhetorical, I still fail to see the relationship between barebacking (having sex without a condom) and domestic partnership benefits. While I assume he was making reference to the risk of HIV infection (as accusations were made repeatedly that nearly all gays have AIDS), he failed to address the fact that the subculture of “barebacking” is not strictly a homosexual phenomena. In fact, the appeal and marketability of pornography depicting barebacking is prevalent in both heterosexual and homosexual pornography. See Chapter 2, “Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Bare Backing.”
One thing that became clear from the Cult commentators – they are obsessed with sex, more particularly, that gays have sex. In fact, I was very much reminded of the anti-gay cult leader in Uganda who constantly refers to gays as eating “da poo poo” of their partners.
These cult leaders often ignore the fact that sexual subcultures do not exist solely within the framework of “homosexuality.” The moral objections are misguided, misdirected and misconstrued – but even so, consensual sexual practices should not be grounds for denying healthcare benefits. If it were, no politician and fewer evangelicals would be safe.
For the record, the city passed the budget with the inclusion of domestic partnership benefits for City employees.
