Gay Families Attend White House Easter Egg Roll Hoping for Eggs, Workplace Protection Executive Order

One of the great American Easter traditions, along with lying to children about bunnies and discounted candy on Monday, is the White House’s Easter Egg Roll. Allegedly, the event began in 1814 with First Lady Dolley Madison, and pretty much ever since it’s been a way for the White House to connect with the common people of America while at the same time espousing the current administration’s values. For instance, this year’s Easter Egg Roll “theme” is “Let’s Go, Let’s Play, Let’s Move,” which echoes Michelle Obama’s longtime campaign for healthy eating and exercise choices. Easter Egg Rolls have also marked social progress; the event was opened to black children for the first time during the Eisenhower administration, and in 2009, the Obamas opened the event to same-sex families.

This isn’t the first time gay families have attended the Easter Egg Roll, however. In 2006, during the Bush administration, gay families attended the Easter Egg Roll as well — but as an “organized presence,” in protest of their treatment by the President and his supporters. Although they were some of the first people in line, the gay families who attended were given entry times for midday, well after the Bush family had left. Six protesters showed up to counter-protest the gay families’ statement with messages like “I am fed up with the homosexual agenda. It makes me want to vomit. And it makes God want to vomit.”

The Obama’s approach to dealing with same-sex families for the Easter Egg Roll — explicitly inviting them — is a hallmark of how different the Obama administration is from the one before it. The fact that the administration considers it important to differentiate itself in this way is another hallmark — they actively want to be perceived as pro-equality, and be associated with same-sex families, not associated with the movement against them. Which is why one same-sex couple, Jarrod Scarbrough and Les Sewell, are taking this opportunity to ask Obama to step up and back same-sex families even more fully. They’ll be attending the Egg Roll today with their eight-year-old daughter, and with the mission of asking Obama to sign an executive order that would ban federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Scarbrough works for a federal contractor, and his family would have a lot more security if he knew that whatever risks his job security suffered, sexual orientation wasn’t one of them. Recent polls show that 73% of Americans would support passing an executive order like this.

Activists have been pushing for a workplace protection executive order for months now, arguing that it falls into a long tradition of presidents using executive power to give employees rights that the normal legislative process is too slow to provide. Scarbrough and Sewell’s move today also falls into a long tradition of the White House Easter Egg Roll, ostensibly an opportunity for children to play on the White House lawn and for the President and First Lady to have some photos taken with their kids, serving as a kind of milestone for social progress and our fits and starts towards equality in America. It’s more likely that Scarbrough, Sewell and their daughter will head home with a commemorative White House keepsake egg than an executive order, but if the Obamas have invited us and our families to spend time with them — and they have — then they’re also going to hear about what we need from them to keep our families safe and secure.

Obama Supports Planned Parenthood, Trusts Women

There’s been plenty of coverage of the Republican Party’s recent “war on women” — from their gazillion violating and unconstitutional attempts at restricting abortion access to their reluctance to continue supporting the Violence Against Women Act. Maybe you even remember how Republicans waved around the threat of shutting down the US government via lack of funding because it was that important to them to keep Planned Parenthood from doing its work. So it’s a nice thing, in the midst of a constant deluge of news about politicians who are willing and even enthusiastic about throwing women and other marginalized communities under the bus in order to further their own interests, to see someone who’s willing to stand in solidarity with women instead. Which is what President Obama is doing with the statement that he recorded in support of Planned Parenthood and those it serves:

In culture wars where a sharp dividing line is drawn, political instinct often calls for tiptoeing around it — the way many politicians do when talking about, say, marriage equality. “I have the utmost respect for my gay friends, and that’s totally unrelated to my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.” It’s almost shocking, then, to hear a politician (our President, even) take such an unapologetic stand: saying that “Planned Parenthood will continue providing care no matter what,” and affirming that some decisions are “best made between a woman and her doctor” are a decision to stand decisively on one side of the line in the sand as far as women’s health. Obama reminds us that Planned Parenthood provides dozens of services besides abortion, and for many women serves as crucial preventative care. Anyone, a politician or otherwise, who wants to inhibit women’s access to that is also opposing basic health and equality for half of America. It’s good to know that even if sometimes it feels like no one else in public office understands that, at least our President does.

Columbia Decries Barnard’s Dumb Man-Stealing Lesbian Sluts’ Success Snagging Obama For Grad Speech

Barack Obama at Columbia University in New York

I woke up this past Saturday morning to the sounds of my girlfriend, a current Barnard College senior, shouting excitedly on the phone with her Dominican relatives. Between her high-pitched screams and nonstop jumping, I could hear her speaking to her mother,

“¡Oye! El presidente Obama va hablar en mi graduación!!”

I’m pretty terrible at Spanish, but I knew what she was saying: President Obama will be giving the commencement speech at Barnard College’s upcoming graduation ceremony.

My first thought, after wondering how I could convince my girlfriend to give me her last available graduation ticket (instead of giving it to her Abuela), was: Oprah made this happen. Followed by: Columbia is going to be pissed.

Let me explain.

We all know that Oprah is queen of the universe and that she got Obama elected and that she cures blind people with just the touch of her hand (duh). A couple of weeks ago, this deity woman came to Barnard to tape a special feminism episode for her show, “Oprah’s Next Chapter.” She brought Gloria Steinem to interview, set up her camera crew in Barnard Hall and taped the show in front of an audience of about 40 Barnard students. By the end of this magical morning (I was there, I made eye contact with her, I shared my feelings about lady gay stuff, my life has been changed forever) both Gloria and Oprah were in tears—happy tears because they had been so inspired by us Barnard women.

Here’s where Obama fits in. In my mind, Oprah and the Obamas have a dinner date every Sunday night to discuss how wonderful they all are. During one of these dinners, Oprah entertained the Obama family with tales of her inspirational visit to Barnard College. She also mentioned that she decided not to give Barnard’s commencement speech this year because she is waiting to give it next year, the year that that nice gay girl who was wearing the salmon-color shirt (ME!) is going to graduate. She then of course suggested to Barry (that’s what she calls him) that he should give the commencement speech for the Barnard class of 2012. Because Oprah is his spiritual advisor, the President picked up his phone and called Barnard to tell us the good news.

Ok, so maybe that whole conversation didn’t happen (I mean I think it did, but whatever) but Obama is coming to speak at Barnard in May and I couldn’t be more excited. However, our friends across the pond/street at Columbia University are decidedly less excited, as reported by The New York Times:

Ivy League schools usually cloak their jealousies in politesse, but President Obama’s decision to give the commencement speech at Barnard, and not Columbia, his alma mater across the street, has unleashed online exchanges as nasty as any hair-pulling, eye-gouging schoolyard brawl.

Yikes. Okay then! Let’s get into it.

+

Columbia Tensions

The relationship between Barnard College and Columbia University is a confusing one. Barnard is an independent women’s college with its own president and board of trustees but it is still technically under the umbrella of Columbia and is considered an undergraduate college of the University. Because of this, Barnard is often subject to a lot of criticism and mean-spirited jokes that come from the Columbia side of Broadway.

+

Common Criticisms and Jokes Include:

+ Barnard is the backdoor of Columbia: because Barnard students get a degree that comes from Barnard College of Columbia University but went through a different admissions process.

+ Girls who go to Barnard just couldn’t get into Columbia: maybe this is true for some but I know a number of girls who were accepted to both schools and ultimately chose to attend Barnard.

+ Barnard girls are sluts: Ugh. People suck.

+ Barnard girls are lesbians: Many still take this as an insult, which is in itself incredibly insulting. Also, there is already so much drama between the like 50-100 lady loving ladies at this school that I’m pretty sure the school would self-destruct if we were all lesbians.

In a nutshell, Barnard girls are unintelligent lesbian sluts who are out to steal all of the men at Columbia. So that makes sense.

I wholeheartedly believe that most Columbia students do not take part in these jokes and criticisms but unfortunately those who have negative opinions are often the most vocal.

So when I heard that President Obama would be speaking at Barnard College and not his Alma Mater across the street, I knew that outrage would ensue. Within minutes after receiving an email from Barnard that announced the Obama news, I found that the Facebook statuses of my peers were ranging anywhere from “OMG OBAMAAAA!” (a Barnard College senior) to “This is ridiculous and unfair” (a Columbia College student). I knew, however, that the anonymous comments on Columbia’s various campus blogs would be far more vile and insulting than what I found on Facebook.

There are over 750 (and counting) mainly anonymous comments on the article that Columbia’s own bwog.com wrote—an article that merely announces the news that Obama would be speaking at Barnard. Many of the comments are full of scathing words about Barnard, Obama, Columbia, Women, and anything else that a stressed out college student could think to complain about.

+

Some Fun Samples of Lovely Comments:

Though I know that most of these negative comments were written by bored Columbia freshmen who had nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon, they still suck to read. I am tired of constantly feeling like I need to prove my intelligence to Columbia.

I have spent so much time in the past couple of days sticking up for Barnard and for Obama that I haven’t been able to think about the other issues surrounding this news. Like, why is a man speaking at a women’s college graduation? Why isn’t Michelle the chosen Obama speaker? What does it mean when a women’s college bumps a female speaker for a male speaker? (Barnard had originally chosen Jill Abramson, the executive editor of The New York Times, to give the commencement speech). Granted, I think that the answer to all of these questions is quite simple: If the President of the United States offers to give the commencement speech of your college, you say yes.

The Barnard/Columbia/Obama “controversy” seems to be rooted in nothing deeper than jealousy. I hope it blows over soon so that I can focus my time an energy on a much more important matter—figuring out how to steal an extra graduation ticket from someone’s grandmother.

The State of the Union: Obama Shares Feelings and John Boehner Claps Reluctantly

Last night President Obama, wearing a tie that I personally think outshone either John Boehner’s or Joe Biden’s, addressed the nation and discussed where it’s been for the last year, and where it’s going in the year ahead. (Sidenote: Boehner’s facial expression throughout the address leads one to believe that his pet gerbil may have died shortly beforehand, or perhaps that he was passing a kidney stone.) It’s theoretically possible that this could be Obama’s last State of the Union if he loses the election in November; as such, it also functioned as an advertisement for him continuing his presidency. Sort of an “If This Was Still Your President, You’d Be Doing This Stuff” billboard.

While the SOTUS included requisite appeals for gratitude to our troops and an extended reminder of Osama bin Laden’s death that seemed like it was aimed at proponents of the war on terror, it also talked at great length about relief for teachers, students, and homeowners, as well as a series of references to “everyone playing by the same rules” that seemed to call out to the Occupy Wall Street protests.

A quick recap:

+ The economy is getting better, and we’re working on the problems that caused the recession. “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.” Part of fixing the economy is keeping jobs in America. “Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.”

+ Education! That includes encouraging people to get more training in science and technology, give schools the resources to get and keep good teachers, stop interest rates on student loans from doubling, and reward universities that keep tuition down (while punishing those who don’t). Obama also wants to make it mandatory to attend high school until age 18 or graduation.

+ Immigration reform and the DREAM Act — while he didn’t actually say the words “DREAM Act,” he did talk about how people who came to the country as children and want to get an education and contribute to the nation should be provided with a path to citizenship.

+ Energy! Mostly he really wants to develop natural gas as an energy source, largely so we rely less on foreign oil. Also, renewable energy use! That sounds like a good thing, right? Obama has promised to ” allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes” and also says that the Department of Defense is making one of the “largest commitments to clean energy in history” by purchasing a lot of it.

+ Hey homeowners this one’s for you: in the most late-night-TV-commercial moment of the address, Obama promised that you can “save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates.” That sounds neat!

+ Military! “Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way. That’s why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.”

+ Gays! Just kidding he mostly only mentioned us sort of in passing when he talked about the military and how “When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight.” Colonel Ginger Wallace, an openly gay member of the Air Force, did sit with the First Lady during the address, though!

Last but not least, the GIANT AMORPHOUS CONTROVERSIAL GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Occupy Wall Street! While I do not believe the President said those words at any point exactly (although he does say “98%”, which, is that an intentional joke?), here are some words he did say:

“I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules… So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over… We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender… So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis…

…we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief. Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense… I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad – and it seems to get worse every year. Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that.”

 While this stops short of, say, “picking a side,” Obama does choose his State of the Union address, one of the most important interactions with the American people he’ll have all year, to come down firmly on the side of higher taxes for the wealthy and place the blame on Wall Street for a variety of national problems.  Has the Occupy movement gained enough momentum (or at least sympathy) that Obama’s move will endear him to voters? Unclear as of right now! It has been called a “populist challenge” at least once by now, however, so there’s that.

The rest of the address largely discussed similarities between the character of the United States with the bravery of soldiers, Osama bin Laden’s death, and the American flag. If you’d like to read a full transcript, complete with a comments section, the internet is your oyster. Overall, though, it would seem that Obama is promising us a foreseeable future that’s in keeping with his past performance — that of a moderate with a commitment to bipartisanship, who does’t necessarily espouse liberalism but is acutely aware of what the people are going through. Romney told his supporters that “the detachment between reality and what he says is so extraordinary, I was just shaking my head at the TV last night.” Conveniently, it was also revealed this week that Romney and his wife made $40 million in income over the last two years,  and were taxed on a significantly lower percentage of their income than they would have been in a lower tax income bracket. He went on to accuse Obama of hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Between that and the State of the Union, you have what I suspect is a fairly accurate picture of the next ten months or so.

This Is A Marriage Equality Roundup: New Hampshire and New Jersey Edition

A vote on the bill that would repeal marriage equality in New Hampshire is expected to come next week, possibly on January 18. Although no one can be sure how the vote will go, a poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center in October found that 62% of New Hampshire citizens support marriage equality, and 44% would vote against a lawmaker who worked for repeal.

In a last push for support for marriage equality, Standing Up for New Hampshire Families has released an ad in which Craig Stowell, a Republican and Marine veteran who served in Iraq, asks that New Hampshire preserve his gay brother Calvin’s right to marry so that he can someday be best man at Calvin’s wedding like Calvin was for his.

The White House has also issued a statement on the potential for repeal in NH, which, while not perhaps explicitly in support of same-sex marriage, isn’t in support of bigotry, either.

“While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” said White House spokesperson Shin Inouye. “The president believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.”

The situation in NH is a unique one; like Prop 8, this wouldn’t just be a state attempting to gain marriage equality and not succeeding, this would be a state that’s already given the right of marriage to its citizens retracting it. (Although in this case that decision would be made by state lawmakers, not a voter initiative.) The White House’s statement is no insignificant thing in this case, and hopefully it will remind legislators that they’re the ones who are responsible for not “denying rights and benefits” to their constituents.

The push for marriage equality in New Jersey is still ongoing. While the New Jersey bill for marriage equality could very easily fall apart at Governor Chris Christie’s will, that doesn’t seem like a completely 100% foregone conclusion so far. He’s avoided making any kind of statement about his plans for the bill, which isn’t necessarily heartening, but is still better than announcing that he plans to veto it. While the Star-Ledger reminds us that this bill “is not likely to succeed while Christie remains in office” and claims that “he will veto it, as promised,” we can at least take comfort in the fact that he may not have already decided to do so. Maybe.

It’s a time of uncertainty for marriage equality in the northeast; this time next year could see much more freedom and equality across the eastern seaboard, or we could see rights that families rely upon right now being taken away. But this wouldn’t be the first setback that marriage equality activists have had, and if these initiatives fail, it will only be temporarily.

Obama and Hillary Officially Care About Global Gay Rights, a.k.a. “Human Rights”

This week, President Obama announced that the US will begin taking into account the experiences and treatment of gays and lesbians in foreign countries when making decisions regarding aid for those nations. It’s a move not unlike David Cameron’s in October, when he said threatened countries that criminalize homosexuality with losing foreign aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech accompanying the announcement, in which she noted (among other things) that “gay rights are human rights.”

While queer people in the US aren’t guaranteed any real kind of personal safety, and are in fact under threat from both physical and emotional violence fairly regularly, it’s become increasingly clear over the past few years that the struggle for equal treatment and full equality for queers in other countries is often much more urgent — a matter of life or death. The international community was in an uproar earlier this year over Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill, and South Africa’s pandemic of “corrective rape” against the lesbian community wasn’t even worth classifying as a hate crime. If a newly introduced bill passes in Nigeria, citizens could be jailed for same-sex cohabitation or even “organizing, operating or supporting gay clubs.” In many of these countries, activists don’t have the freedom to organize against these threats or fight for their rights. In Russia, almost any public display or action having to do with homosexuality could be criminalized by a new law; a rally or protest for human rights for queers would be even more out of the question than it is now.

While physical safety is still a major concern for many queer and especially trans people in the US, it’s telling that much of the public conversation around gay rights centers around marriage equality. With political rhetoric especially, it sometimes feels like not just the biggest issue, but the only issue for the gay community. With the recent epidemic of suicides of young gay people and subsequent discussion on bullying, the conversation has started to change, but the trickle of It Gets Better videos from politicians and local government officials aren’t the same as a firm and committed plan for protecting anyone’s personal health or wellbeing.

That’s why the Obama administration’s announcement earlier this week was historic — because not only did it establish a firm stance on human rights abuses, which is always an admirable thing for a group in authority to do, but it recognizes the ways in which being queer truly is a defining and terrifying fact of life for our global community. Although it hasn’t gotten much time in the spotlight, the Obama administration has quietly gone about addressing some of the more pressing day-to-day issues that face the more marginalized members of our community — like funding pilot programs to help homeless queer youth, or working towards ensuring that gay and lesbian parents have hospital visitation rights and medical decisionmaking powers for their children. And while DOMA is still hanging on, this statement from the White House is also part of a new kind of rhetoric around gays. It’s not about just tolerating us, or granting us symbolic freedoms, even very meaningful and important ones like marriage — it’s about keeping us alive. And in a move that’s surprisingly rare for any American administration, it’s recognizing that the experiences of people on a global scale are often much more extreme than those of people at home, and the US is in a position to possibly alleviate some of that.

There is, of course, a fine line between using the West’s power and influence to protect marginalized  communities, and using our power and influence to strongarm developing nations into obeying Western cultural standards — a claim that countries like Jamaica often make when experiencing pressure to treat their gay community differently. But while it’s worth questioning our relationships with developing nations with an eye to imperialism in general, there’s no question that what some citizens of Nigeria or Uganda have suffered are indeed human rights abuses. And Secretary of State Clinton is right — our rights are human rights. And while marriage is important, the question of our human rights and our actual human lives is a more important one, and a much harder one to answer. Whatever else one can say about the Obama administration, it’s hard not to be glad that someone is finally at least trying.

We Are Super Close To Getting Our First Lesbian Federal Judge

If Lady Justice is real, she definitely seems to be of the opinion that slow and steady wins the race. It’s been a long time coming, but during his time in office President Obama has nominated several openly gay or lesbian judges to serve as federal judges, including the first openly lesbian nominee Alison J. Nathan.  The ten new judicial nominees, including Nathan, are moving forward in the nomination process and a vote in the upcoming weeks, as soon as October 11th.

In a statement regarding his decision to nominate her, President Obama spoke of his gratitude for her decision to serve the American people and explained, “Nathan is a distinguished individual who has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to justice throughout her career.”

Photo ops with the president and her partner and their two kids is a plus too, given that clearly America has a long way to go in understanding what lesbian families with values look like as illustrated by the whole Leisha Hailey getting kicked off a plane for kissing her girlfriend thing.

President Barack Obama greets departing Associate Counsel to the President Alison J. "Ali" Nathan, left, Meg Satterthwaite, and their twin sons Oliver and Nathan, in the Outer Oval Office on July 7, 2010. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

Earlier this year we watched Paul Oetken, the first openly gay federal judge, confirmed as a U.S. federal judge to serve in Manhattan. The appointment was upon recommendation from the Democratic Senator of New York Charles E. Schumer, who noted:

When there are so many qualified gay and lesbian people and none of them get on the bench, you scratch your head and wonder why, but the old barriers that existed in society are crumbling. That’s what this will say.

And cheers to that. Alison J. Nathan has years of experience including working as an assistant to President Obama (2009-2010) and  years working in academia including holding a position as visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Fordham University of Law (2006-2008) and then a Fritz Alexander Fellow at New York University School of Law (2008-2009).

Basically, everyone she has worked with seems to have a friend crush on her according to a letter in support of her nomination, from 27 law clerks she worked with on the Supreme Court to Justice John Paul Stevens.

Ms. Nathan’s work since her clerkship confirms that she has the experience, skills, and demeanor well-suited for the bench. She has worked in demanding legal environments: practicing at a large corporate law firm, teaching law students, advising the President, and serving as a senior lawyer in the office of a state attorney general. The breadth of experience she has gained during the course of her career will serve her well on the federal bench. Many of us have kept in touch with Ms. Nathan over the years since clerking, and we can attest that, throughout all of this time, she has continued to exhibit the intellectual curiosity and levelheadedness that defined her work during our clerkship year. We are happy to report that she is the same thoughtful person whom we all got to know in our year together at the Supreme Court. She still relates easily to people from all walks of life and from all political persuasions.

Considering what it could mean to have a lesbian federal judge reminds me of how many landmark legal decisions have been made recently, and how important it is to have representation for the LGBTQ community on the bench.  Reflecting on the case of potential discrimination of a lesbian juror due to sexual orientation reminds me of how far we have to go.  Here’s hoping Allison J. Nathan becomes the first lesbian federal judge, making history for our community and our country.

Gays May Win “Most Effective Activist” Award When It Comes to Obama

Obama and his administration have been, to most liberal ways of thinking, on fire lately. DADT is over. Deportations are being more carefully reviewed. To a lot of liberal voters, he’s looking more and more like the man they elected back in 2008. What’s behind his sudden reprise? Kerry Eleveld thinks it’s because someone finally got angry at him— namely, the gays. Eleveld says that the motivating factor for Obama to maintain the progressive principles that won our support in 2008 is being goaded by the activism of the progressive community. When he’s faced with the anger of people like the National Council of La Raza, as Eleveld’s article explains, he’s motivated to do something like work towards suspending the deportation of immigrants who ‘pose no threat to personal safety.’ Which is an interesting proposition — in terms of the 2012 election, it’s hard to say whether the progressive bloc will be Obama’s best bet for re-election. But most interesting of all is that Eleveld feels like the queer community were the pioneers of the old-is-new-again Obama administration — that our activism over the past year has led to the repeal of DADT, but also to a culture of demanding change, and therefore getting it.

Maybe it’s because we were tired of paying the same taxes and not being able to pursue our happiness with equal fervor. Maybe it’s because for decades we had been told by Democrats, “Elect us and we’ll help you,” yet we had only seen discriminatory measures like “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act enacted into law. Maybe it’s because once your intelligence has been insulted flagrantly enough and your humanity denigrated deeply enough, you’ve got nothing left to lose. Whatever it was, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans had had enough.

Activists like Dan Choi, GetEQUAL and Queer Rising have incited controversy and debate, with their daring and demanding planned actions around DADT and marriage equality standing in stark contrast with the more patient and cooperative approach espoused by organizations like HRC. As Eleveld notes, plenty of people, queer ones included, felt like alienating Obama and his administration with angry protests when he remained the closest thing we had to a supporter was a bad idea. But if Eleveld is right, then not only did it work, but it’s provided a model for others to demand change as well. Months ago, Dan Choi and other gay veterans made headlines by handcuffing themselves to the White House fence in an act of civil disobedience intended to result in arrest. Eleveld points out the group of environmental activists who flew themselves into DC to be arrested in an “elaborate protest” outside the White House back in August; in the end, roughly 1,252 arrests were made. Is it because of a trend of openly expressing politicized anger with tactics that recall the protests of the 60s and 70s begun back in 2010 by gay veterans? It’s possible, and it’s honestly flattering to think so. It would be nice for the blood, sweat and tears shed by generations of gay activists, from the Mattachine Society to Stonewall to the angels of Laramie to finally get credit for something. But what Eleveld identifies it as is “the  beginning of dawn — the start of a new era fulfilling the promise of America for the GLBT movement.” The end of DADT is an unquestionably good thing, and it’s hard not to feel at least encouraged by the DoJ’s refusal to defend DOMA, and it’s probably impossible to ever know for certain what motivated the upper levels of government to make those changes. But it also doesn’t feel like quite the whole picture to paint Obama as a stereotypically reticent politician who’s turned out to be unwilling to fulfill his promises to our community. Back in June, Obama’s administration released a helpful infographicof what he’s been able to achieve for the gay community. A selection:

A National Resource Center for gay and lesbian elders. Ensuring that trans people can have accurate passports. An Institute of Medicine study on LGBT health. Clarified that the Family and Medical Leave Act includes LGBT families. Ended the ban on people with HIV/AIDS entering the country, and proposed more funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and education, as well as bullying and suicide prevention. Put millions of dollars of federal funds towards supporting homeless LGBT youth. 

It’s true that two things — the end of DADT and some major work against DOMA — happened later on, and after a certain amount of protesting was ratcheted up. But does it follow that he would have copped out on following through with them otherwise? We’ll never know for sure, but Obama’s track record doesn’t necessarily imply a distaste for dealing with queer issues. If anything, it seems like he’s been really willing to engage with issues that actually affect the day-to-day needs of our community, whereas while the principle obviously matters, DADT and DOMA only affect part of our population. Did planned protests outside the White House single-handedly end DADT? It’s possible. But do they account for Obama’s entire track record with the gay community? No. Everyone’s relationship to the current President will shift as the election creeps closer; already some of the people who helped him get elected are joining those protesting his administration’s decisions. Obama’s top youth lieutenant from 2008 was among those arrested this August while protesting an oil pipeline he has the authority to approve or veto, Eleveld reports. Protests and demands for our needs to be recognized, for DOMA to finally end, won’t go away. And there’s no reason they should — it’s unquestionably our due. Will it change Obama’s decisions as president? We have a year to find out.

Obama is on Fire, Just Like Rick Perry’s Home State

In The Bay Area of all places, Obama was doing a fundraiser when the subject of the Republican presidential debates came up. Los Angeles Times, take it from here:

President Obama, speaking at a fundraiser in the Bay Area on Sunday night, said the behavior at the Republican presidential debates was at odds with core American values.

“Has anybody been watching the debates lately?” the president said at the home of John Thompson, chairman of Symantec.

In a reference to the GOP front-runner, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Obama said: “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It’s true.”

“You’ve  got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have healthcare and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay.

“That’s not reflective of who we are,” Obama said.

When I finished reading this article, I laughed to myself, and then thought, god, won’t it be really fucking awesome if he just keeps going like this? This is How He Lives, Several Outstanding Fucks to Give. Now that we’ve recognized that the job creators aren’t creating jobs and proposed “The Buffet Rule,” things are looking, as I think I said earlier this week, increasingly rad.

Obama made four campaign stops yesterday — two in Seattle, the Bay Area visit and then to Silicon Valley, where Lady Gaga attended as a paying guest, wearing very tall shoes. Today, he’s expected to cause a traffic jam in West Hollywood later today, where he’s going to attend a fundraiser at The House of Blues (but probably he just really wants to be on The Real L Word).

Obama Tells All the Nations to Stand Up For Gay and Lesbian Rights Everywhere!

Jesus Christ on a Cracker this has been a good week for my relationship with Barack Obama and it’s only Wednesday! Speaking of Wednesday, Obama gave a shout out to gay rights in his address at the United Nations today:

“No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere. And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs… this week the us signed a new declaration on women’s participation next year we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down the economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. This is what our commitment to human progress demands.”

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6G0UF4Twi4&t=5m20s’]

As I’ve said ~45 times, to mixed results, I’ve felt all along that Obama has the right idea and would do right by us soon enough. I also believe, as it was written by a former GOP staffer who left the party after 28 years due to his disgust over how it was operating, that Obama’s intentions have been consistently and honestly quite contemptibly obstructed by a political party which seeks to destroy him for their own personal gain and the wealth of their lobbyists, rather than for the well-being of the American people. (Also, racism plays a significant role in this situation.) A brief excerpt from the essay written by that aforementioned ex-GOP staffer:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

I’m thrilled that Obama put forth a debt reduction bill that aims to address the enormous wealth inequity in this country, as other countries have already started doing. I’d recommend Mother Jones‘ piece on “6 Dumb Arguments Against Taxing the Rich” if you’re having trouble making your case at the dinner table.

From day one with Obama, just as I’m beginning to wonder if it’s officially time to lose faith, he does something to reignite my seemingly unrequited love for him. Let’s hope this left-leaning run keeps plowing forward into the 2012 election season, because if Mitt Romney is our next president, I am legitimately seriously not-just-saying-it-cause-that’s-what-everyone-says moving to Canada.

What Happened On Wall Street This Weekend

Some people are calling it the “American Tahrir Square,” which might surprise those who have managed to make it through the weekend and into the beginning of the work week without even hearing about the protests on Wall Street.  If you didn’t know about them, it’s not surprising; they’ve been covered by very few mainstream media outlets, especially on TV. The facts are, basically, these: beginning on Saturday, protesters “took over” Wall Street, marching through the financial district with signs and blocking much of the traffic through the area.  They haven’t left since. Numbers peaked around 5,000 on Saturday, and have settled at about 200 for those who appear to be in it for the long haul. Many are sleeping as well as working and organizing out of nearby Zucotti Park. They plan to stay for as long as is necessary.

To accomplish what? That’s more complicated. For the most part, the broad thrust of the protester’s goals seem pretty clear: to protest the ways in which politics and money have become unrepentant bedfellows, and to demand that at least some of the power that’s disproportionately held by corporations be put back in the hands of the people. This is the specific unrest of the underemployed and overeducated, people who locate ‘the problem’ as being with capitalism, not necessarily a government that isn’t allowing capitalism to work its magic. In that sense it’s a far cry from Tea Party ideology, although the sense of helpless rage finally finding form feels familiar. From the Wall Street Journal: 

“There is plan to basically stay here until we can build enough people to bring a strong message,” said Joel Atkinson, 21, of Columbus, Oh. Referring to the spring’s mass uprising in Tahrir Square in Cairo that eventually unseated President Hosni Mubarak, he added: “We’re trying to model this after the uprising in Egypt.” Members of the group banged drums and carried signs that read ‘Yes to Equality, No to Austerity,’ and ‘No such thing as ‘too big to fail”.

VIA THE NEW YORK TIMES

So far five people have been arrested; many, though not all, of the arrests seem to be about the Guy Fawkes masks (a reference to Anonymous) that are popular with protesters. Apparently it’s illegal for “two or more individuals to wear masks” in New York. One man was arrested for jumping over a police barrier and resisting arrest; one woman, Andrea Osborne, was arrested for reasons that bystanders can’t explain.

The protests are generally agreed to be non-hierarchical and ‘leaderless,’ but they originate from OccupyWallStreet, whose mission statement reads:

On the 17th of September, we want to see 20,000 people to flood into lower Manhattan, set up beds, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Like our brothers and sisters in Egypt, Greece, Spain, and Iceland, we plan to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in America. We also encourage the use of nonviolence to achieve our ends and maximize the safety of all participants.

Right now the site’s subheader is “The resistance continues at Liberty Plaza, with free pizza ;)”. As of today, they are accepting donations.

There are some differences between the current Wall Street protest and Arab Spring. For instance, the fact that “police, though out in large numbers, have remained low-key.”  Or the fact that, rather than broadcasting their efforts worldwide with grainy cell phone video or trying to communicate through a state firewall, there’s a table set up in the square with laptops, next to the stations of peanut butter and scavenged food. Or the fact that they can walk away from this protest at any time without fearing repercussion for participating in it. Or the fact that none of these protesters are dead because of risking their lives by courting brutal assassination from a violent regime. Or maybe most importantly, while the protests in Tahrir Square had an extremely specific and urget goal — to successfully demand the resignation of Hosni Mubarak — the protest of Wall Street has a goal that is, at best, nebulous, and at worst nonexistent. The only mention of goals on OccupyWallStreet’s site are “restoring democracy” and “using nonviolence to achieve our ends.” It takes some digging to figure out more specifically what those ends are. The most concrete aim that seems to be floating around the internet is the desire to ‘take over’ Wall Street until President Obama establishes a commission on “the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.” It’s sourced to the original AdBusters call for a “Day of Rage”  style protest. “In other words, an end to “corporate cronyism.” That seems like a different thing, one that the creation of a commission will not necessarily accomplish, but maybe that’s not the point.

There’s actually something like a commission already being established — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Eileen Myles has helpfully written a little about. It’s not precisely in charge of keeping money and government separate, but it is a recognition of the fact that the way the government (“the system”) is dealing with money isn’t helping anyone, and someone needs to keep an eye on it because no one is now. Part of its purview is overseeing the behavior of banks, which seems like it would be a primary concern for people protesting Wall Street. Its creation was advised on by Elizabeth Warren, whose significant body of work on poverty, bankruptcy, and how the average citizen is failed by “the financial system” seems like it would make her fairly expert. You can read the latest on what they’ve been doing here.

It’s unlikely that any commission the Obama administration could create will be better able to respond to what the protester’s demands seem to be than what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau already is. It seems equally unlikely that “corporate cronyism” will end in the next few weeks or months, regardless of what any 200 people do. If they stick to their guns, the Zucotti Park protesters may be there forever. But that might be okay, because unlike the Tahrir Square protesters, they’re being supplied with free pizza.

They spent Saturday and Sunday night in the small square, feasting on donated peanut butter, salads and cheese. On Sunday night, supporters of the protesters ordered the group pizza—so much pizza that the nearby pizza shop announced it would have to stay open until 1 a.m. just to fulfill orders. On Monday morning the group marched down Wall Street proper, beating drums and blowing whistles, and broadcasting a live stream of the whole thing on their website.

Everything You Never Knew About The Modern GOP And Were Afraid To Find Out

If your idea of a good start to the week is with an incredible and engrossing tirade against the modern Republican party, with bonus anecdotes about their incoherent and dangerous behind-the-scenes decisions, then this is going to be a great Monday for you!

Mike Lofgren, a GOP staffer on the House and Senate Budget Committees for the past 28 years, has retired this year and decided to share the concern and disgust that finally led him to leave the party.  It’s a fascinating read — I like to think that it’s even edge-of-your-seat for people who usually care less about John Boehner and more about Jo Calderone. I keep trying to find a good passage to make that clear, but honestly, there are too many. The stories of the insane difficulties heaped on FAA employees to bully them into union-busting provisions; the conspiracy theories entertained in the dark corners of the Republican side of the Hill because “it is also a fact that Republicans think that no Democratic president could conceivably be legitimate;” the fact that the GOP is so desperate to defend against tax increases for their richest friends, like the Koch brothers, that they ended up refusing Obama’s deficit-reduction package and pushing one that had less deficit reduction and fewer spending cuts in order to preserve as much income for the rich as possible.

So that doesn’t sound like fun lunch break reading? Well, to each their own. The takeaway is this: Mike Lofgren left the GOP after almost thirty years not because he’s no longer a conservative (upon reading that will become immediately clear) or because he’s been won over by the cause of Obama and the Democratic party (upon reading, that will become REALLY clear). He left because he perceived that the machinations of the GOP had progressed past being bad for the nation due to misapplied principles and ineffective policies and become actually intentionally destructive to America and the people in it. Lofgren contends that the GOP’s goals and objectives as a party are no longer aligned with those of America, and that they are in fact willing to work against America’s best interests to get what they want. Sound like what you’ve been thinking already? Lofgren has the stories and inside knowledge to back it up.

He outlines what he considers the three major tenets of the modern GOP — 1. The GOP cares more about its rich contributors than anything else, 2. They’re committed to militarism, and 3. The party is now based fundamentally on conservative Christianity. These aren’t really shocking ideas; anyone who’s paid even casual attention to the GOP’s actions and priorities over the last election cycle would come to similar conclusions. But you wouldn’t necessarily conclude (although you could!) what Lofgren has: that the GOP has explicitly decided it’s in the GOP’s best interest to essentially sabotage the workings of the entire US government.

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

Well! That’s really special. Anyone who followed the debt ceiling “crisis” at all will maybe recognize some of the above-mentioned behavior. Most pundits, however, described that debacle as an instance of Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad in front of what Lofgren calls “low-information voters.” In short, that the GOP’s aim was to make Democrats look greedy and financially irresponsible, and make the GOP look very sober and levelheaded in comparison. If we take Lofgren at his word, it was actually much worse than that. The GOP was trying to convince voters who are unlikely to have been well-educated on issues like federal fiscal responsibility and the national deficit via a mostly made-up “crisis” that the entire institution of government is unreliable, unstable, and full of incompetent liars.

There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

Since at LEAST John McCain’s “maverick” campaign for the 2008 Presidential election, the Republican party has seen increasing numbers of “mavericks” and “rogues” and other candidates who bill themselves as being somehow “outsiders” when of course they are part of arguably the most powerful insider’s group in America. This appeals to a sort of individualist “rugged” streak, but apparently also has a larger purpose — to keep Americans loyal to “rogue” politicians and their government once they have been successfully convinced that the government as an entity can’t be trusted. The recurring theme of fear and politically expedient anxiety has been a mainstay in American politics for a while now; some would say well before 9/11. Lofgren makes the point that the GOP has been using a variety of different scapegoats to manufacture that fear for a long time:

You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn’t look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama’s policy of being black.  Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some “other,” who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.

But the difference now, if you believe him, is that along with fearing everyone the government “protects” them from, Americans (especially “low-information voting” Americans) are now being conditioned by the GOP to also fear the government.

What does that mean for the queer community, which has been a cardholding scapegoat for generations? Well, we’ve noticed a trend over the last few months with Republican inside strategists indicating that marriage equality just isn’t an issue that they’re going to make a priority anymore. Michele Bachmann, one of the most historically vocal anti-gay candidates in the race, has begun refusing to answer questions about her views on gays. We speculated about what these trends could mean at the time; ideally, it was a sign that activists and gay families had successfully changed the connotation of legislating against gays from “pro-family” to “hateful,” and so it was becoming a political faux pas to do so. That could still be true, and hopefully is. But if you believe Lofgren’s story, there could be another factor: it could just be a completely calculated shift in Republican strategy. Maybe the Gay Scapegoats weren’t working out quite as well anymore, hopefully because of the work we’ve been doing, but maybe that’s also fine, because Republican strategists were already working on a new, much bigger scapegoat — the American government itself. This isn’t necessarily bad news for gays specifically — whatever their motivation is, if Republicans decide to stop expending energy and legislative power on hurting us and our families, it really will be possible to push through a lot of rights that we need badly. But it could be really bad news for everyone, gays included, if  the GOP manages to convince a large portion of the population that it can’t trust the government, only the “anti-government” GOP politicians that are in control of the government.

Despite the political and policy disagreements you may have with Mr. Lofgren (I personally have many!) I think what he has to say is more than worth a read. While I’m hesitant to say something as inflammatory as “know your enemy,” it is true that knowledge is power. And the queer community should know as well as anyone that when facing people like the ones Mr. Lofgren describes, we need to make our own power, because they’re not going to let us have any without fighting for it.

Joe Solmonese Announces He Will Leave HRC In 2012

Joe Solmonese is leaving the Human Rights Campaign in early 2012, the HRC announced on Saturday. The story first broke at Pam’s House Blend on Friday.

Solmonese will not renew his contract, which ends March 31 2012. According to Pam’s House Blend, his departure will prompt a larger staff change.

You may know Solmonese as the guy who emails you a lot. Solmonese was appointed president of the HRC when he was 40 years old, in 2005. In the press release, he stated that leading the HRC “has been an inspiring experience and a complete privilege. I could not be more proud of our staff, our volunteer leadership and of the extraordinary progress we’ve made together as a community.”

Since Solmonese has taken over, the HRC has seen same-sex marriage become legal in 6 states, the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, among other things. The HRC now has more than 1 million members. Here is a full list of things Joe Solmonese has done (with the HRC).

Solmonese and the HRC have also been on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism during Solmonese’s time with them. Many felt that he was “too patient” with Obama on issues like DADT and DOMA, and urged activists to wait and see what the President could accomplish instead of demanding change. HRC under Joe Solmonese was criticized by gay conservatives for being too leftist, by leftists for being too moderate, and by trans* people and activists for leaving them behind. Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend went so far as to call for his resignation last year.

By any sane performance metrics, he has failed to successfully lead. Promises like those made in the “This year we are going to bring down DADT” video at the HRC Carolinas dinner on Feb. 27 were used to extract money from low-info, fat wallet attendees. It’s rinse and repeat at events like that around the country and there is precious little to show for it in terms of the major promises made by Solmonese — and this President… Joe Solmonese should do the honorable thing and step down. It is shameful to cash all those checks without the follow through on the job. The White House was never put under serious pressure; the late calls now in the e-blasts for the President to do something ring hollow after the toadying that has gone on for two years.

But Solmonese is not retiring for good; he will continue his work despite critics, albeit outside of the HRC. He will keep fighting for gay and lesbian rights, he says: “As I explore new professional possibilities, I plan on continuing to pour my heart and soul into improving the lives of members of our community – from battling proposed marriage amendments to creating more equitable workplaces to ensuring the President Obama is reelected for a second term.”

There’s no doubt that Solmonese has been incredibly influential for the HRC and his departure may change the game for the organization.

So which direction will the HRC head in after March? There’s hope that the new leadership will take a more bi and trans-inclusive stance, though it’s hard to say until a new president has been announced. Members of the HRC’s volunteer board will work with an executive search firm to help find a replacement.

Making Sense Of The Debt Ceiling Crisis, Sort Of

Rachel’s Team Pick:

Ordinarily the debt ceiling crisis is the kind of thing that is important enough for us to write something on, like healthcare reform was. We actually tried to write something on it, going so far as to read several news articles and open up numerous other Chrome tabs on the same subject. But ultimately, it was really hard to decipher what was going on beyond a lot of adults acting extremely childish, and also reading anything about it required looking at a lot of  pictures of John Boehner, and the President made an address about it on the TV but none of us really own them and my mother didn’t send me an email about how I should watch it so I didn’t. Anyways, I found this Visual Guide to the Debt Ceiling Crisis, and having viewed these helpful infographics, I feel much more able to fully digest and comprehend what our current financial situation is as a nation. I hope you feel the same way.

Infographics via the Visual Guide to the Debt Ceiling Crisis from John Methven at the Awl.

New York State Doesn’t Just Allow Gay Marriage, It Opposes DOMA

Everyone is waiting with bated breath to see if and how the New York marriage equality victory will impact the progress of marriage in other states and even on a federal level. Today we may have gotten a preview. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the ACLU in their opposition of DOMA. (Read a PDF of the brief here.)

Schneiderman isn’t the first to do this; Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, also filed a lawsuit against Section 3 of DOMA (the same section that Obama has declared unconstitutional) back in 2009. Aside from acknowledging the unconstitutional and discriminatory aspects of DOMA, Coakley also argued that DOMA “undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples,” effectively bringing the argument into the realm of states’ rights. While the hurtful, discriminatory effects of DOMA feel more important to our day-to-day lives, a states’ rights argument might be the most effective way to end it. Box Turtle Bulletin explains how DOMA violates states’ rights, and what New York’s suit has to do with it. (Read the whole thing if you can – it’s very helpful.)

It presumes, in paragraph 3, that the federal government holds veto power over marriage and can – for any matter that impacts any federal program – replace the state’s criteria with its own. If the marriage criteria in Vermont doesn’t meet the approval of the Senator from Alabama or the Congressman from Mississippi, then by securing a bare majority of fellow legislators they can dictate to Vermont which of its citizens can be considered married for Social Security, taxation, and health care, and which are deemed by Alabama and Mississippi to be unworthy.

While the DoJ has already declared that it will no longer defend DOMA in court, and the recent hearing on the Respect for Marriage Act seemed to indicate pretty conclusively that the anti-gay side doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on, this brief still won’t end DOMA on its own. Ultimately, that will probably need to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision. What it does instead is is lend weight to the forces already aligned against it — as Pam’s House Blend says, “the weight of yet another major state objecting to DOMA may be too much for this discriminatory law to bear.”

New York’s court brief will support Windsor vs. United States, the lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Edith Windsor, the 81-year-old widow of her partner of 44 years, Thea Spyer. They married in Canada in 2007. Hers is one of the suits in which the DoJ has refused to continue defending DOMA, ceding her the ethical if not legal victory. With the support of New York and the President and hopefully others as well, maybe she will finally get the justice she’s looking for.

Obama Supports Respect for Marriage Act to Repeal DOMA, Make Gay People Happy

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, AP Photo

Today Senators Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy and Kristen Gillibrand introduced the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which aims to repeal all three sections of the Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise known as “DOMA.” As you’re aware, DOMA strictly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Feinstein, a California democrat, was one of 14 Senators who opposed the legislation when it was first introduced in 1996.

You can read the entire Respect for Marriage Act bill here.

Guess who’s endorsing this bill? Barack F*cking Obama, that’s who. White House spokesman Shin Inouye:

“The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people – our families, friends and neighbors.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney:

“Obama is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act.”

For a look at “how far we’ve come,” here’s what our BFF Slick Willie Clinton said about gay marriage in 1996:

“I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered.”

Clinton has obviously since reviewed and reconsidered his position.

Many wish that Obama would take the next step and actually endorse marriage equality instead of “leaving it up to the states” — but as public opinion tips in our favor, it’s possible state-by-state legislation might be a very realistic means to our collective ends. It’s also worth noting that a bulk of Obama’s campaign funds are coming out of California this year, and more specifically The Bay Area, which is the gayest place on earth.

The Senate Committee Hearing takes place tomorrow and will include testimonies from same-sex couples. The bill has 27 co-sponsors and none of those sponsors are Republicans.

Feinstein says that if they don’t succeed this session then they’ll try again next session. For more about the Obama Administration’s relationship to DOMA, read this.

Court Appeals Injunction Of DADT and The Painted Pony Goes Up and Down

Four days ago there were unsettling rumors that the Department of Justice might appeal the courts’ injunction of DADT – basically, deliberately allow discharges to continue until the Pentagon completes its full “review process” around repeal of DADT. Now it appears that those rumors were completely, horribly true! A federal appeals court in California has ordered the military to continue the policy for now, apparently a direct request from the Obama administration.

What kind of sense does this make? As Grace wrote on Wednesday, “many people might think that a Congress- and Pentagon-supported repeal of DADT has greater legitimacy than a court-ordered injunction, especially when the court ordering the injunction is not the Supreme Court, but the liberal Ninth Circuit…”  The court had a slightly different and more mysterious explanation:

In its three-page ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling was based on new information provided by the federal government, including a declaration from Major General Steven A. Hummer, who is leading the effort to repeal the policy.

“In order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented in the light of these previously undisclosed facts,” the court wrote, that it would uphold an earlier order to keep the policy in place.

What is that new information? So far no one seems to know. NPR reports that “The Department of Justice said in a statement that it asked the court to reconsider its order “to avoid short-circuiting the repeal process established by Congress during the final stages of the implementation of the repeal,” which wouldn’t be new information at all – John McCain and the Pentagon have been insisting since day one of even considering a repeal process that without a full “review” and opportunity for every senior military leader to weigh in, and also a full 60-day waiting period after that point, a repeal would be a reckless idea.

Since it seems likely that the repeal will happen anyway, albeit maybe with a slight delay, this move comes off as childish at best, and deeply frustrating to currently enlisted gay soldiers and those who support them. It could be read as a bid by Obama to prove he can compromise on controversial issues in an election year; it could be read as pure bureaucratic nonsense. No matter how it’s read, though, the actual intended effect of the bill seems unclear. The Associated Press says that “…The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is back in place for the time being, with one major caveat: the government is not allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who is openly gay.” So… what’s different?

There doesn’t seem to be an explanation of that either – if the reported statement is true, then the appeal of the injunction seems like more of an insult than any actual attempt at changing or maintaining policy. But maybe there’s something lost in translation there as well – in its statement on the issue, the Justice Departement claimed that “the Defense Department has discharged only one service member since Congress voted to repeal the policy, and that was done at the request of the service member,” making the case that this won’t harm servicemembers one way or the other. But that’s not what was being said only a few weeks ago, when the Service Members Legal Defense Network spoke out on behalf of the soldiers they represented, at least one of whom they claimed was being discharged against their will:

…Unfortunately, SLDN has a client right now who was recently recommended for discharge at a board hearing, and his paperwork is headed to the Navy Secretary. He made no statement, and he wants to continue serving. We have another client who is having a board hearing later this week, and if this senior enlisted person is recommended for discharge, her paperwork will likely be before the Navy Secretary in short order. She, too, wishes to continue serving. Let me be clear. At SLDN, we have scores of clients who have been advised they are under DADT investigations. Some of these clients have between 10 and 15 years of honorable service, few made voluntary statements, and none to my knowledge has asked to be ‘separated expeditiously.’ 

AP/BERNADETTE TUAZON

It’s a messy situation, and the things that should be becoming clearer as time goes on and a post-repeal military approaches are becoming more impenetrable. Based on the information released about this injunction appeal, it’s not easy at all to determine what any gay soldier’s status in the military actually is right now – is there threat of a discharge, or no? If so, for how long? These are people’s careers on the line. And on top of that are the mounting questions about how exactly things will work after the repeal — the Pentagon is reportedly still studying the issue of whether any benefits can now be extended to same-sex couples, and definitively says there will be “no change” to major benefits like healthcare or housing for same-sex couples. It could be argued that this is what a ten-month review process is for. But then it would have to be asked: The (fairly major) issue of benefits is still undecided, and at this point repeal is slated for the fall (it was originally scheduled for mid-summer). What were the last ten months spent doing? And more to the point, what does appealing this injunction do to help that process?

The Log Cabin Republicans, the group whose lawsuit brought us to the point of progress we’re at now, have maybe said it best in their statement: “The Log Cabin Republicans asked the court Friday to deny the motion, saying “an on-again, off-again status of the District Court’s injunction benefits no one and plays havoc with the constitutional rights of American service members.” It is indeed, and for the sake of our servicemembers, it needs to end soon.

The Tragic But Ultimately Inspiring True Story of Gay Homeless Teen Brian Dixon

The issue of homeless and displaced gay teens has been one of the most heartbreaking and persistent problems facing the community for far too long, and unfortunately their struggles are ongoing. In 2009, the National Coalition for the Homeless reported that a full 20% of homeless children and teens identified as LGBT, which at least twice the number of LGBT kids in the general population, especially when you take into account the fact that many people don’t come out to themselves or others until post-adolescence or adulthood. The problems these kids are often homeless because of – sexual abuse, neglectful or homophobic foster parents, being disowned by their biological parents – are just as bad.

Many of the problems that face young queer people are present in the story Brian Dixon, who is now 21 and spent much of his youth homeless and openly gay.

Brian was born into an abusive home, which he left at 14 to live with his grandparents, whose care he left and entered the Georgia foster care system in a few months. He earned a G.E.D. and aged out of foster care, to be forced into a series of shelters. When it comes to support for the homelessness, the gaps in care left by federal authority are often filled by religious groups. While their passion for helping is genuine, Christian shelters’ desire to help often also comes with a religiously motivated distaste for homosexuality; Dixon describes being kicked out of a Christian group home despite taking great pains to conceal his sexual orientation. Shelters for adults rather than teens were dangerous as well- Dixon tried them, but describes many as being centers for adult predators to find needy kids to prey on. At his lowest point, Dixon found himself in the place that, unfortunately, many kids on the street do – surviving by prostitution and developing a serious drug addiction, as well as surviving rape.

Today, Dixon is clean and sober and participates in a life skills program that teaches job skills, provides counseling, and offers educational support. He credits his turnaround to God and his strong faith, and also to youth-focused homeless nonprofits like CHRIS Kids and Covenant House. He now has a home all to himself – a one-bedroom apartment in which all the furniture has been generously provided by CHRIS Kids supporters. His apartment community specifically supports gay youth ages 17-24, either as single young adults or young parents, especially those who have been homeless, who have aged out of foster care, or who have emotional or behavioral issues. It’s the only apartment community of its kind in the Southeast.

“There are a couple of organizations doing a lot for the young LGBTQ community [in metro Atlanta] but not nearly enough,” says Covenant House Executive Director Allison Ashe. “Resources for homeless kids in general are scarce here. At Covenant House we have an open intake process at our crisis shelter. We have 15 beds and can overflow to 20 and we’re full every night.”

PHOTO CREDIT: FLICKR USER FRANCO FOLINI

Covenant House and programs like it are the result of enormously dedicated individuals who have given over much of their lives to try to offset the deeply unfair landscape that kids like Brian Dixon face – and at least in the case of Covenant House’s parent organization, they’re 99% privately funded. Summit House, the apartment complex where Dixon is living currently, is federally subsidized – which means that in order to continue receiving money from the government, its residents must swear off drinking and smoking as well as submit to a background check to stay there. While there’s no information on what kind of background information would disqualify someone, it’s ironic that the things that would usually mean failing a background check, like addiction or prostitution, are what these kids are meant to be rescued from. There’s an overwhelming need for the services these organizations provide, and it seems like they rely largely on the support of private foundations and individuals to make it happen.

Obama’s administration has recently publicly committed to making gay teen homelessness an issue; as far as putting their money where their mouth is, they’re putting millions of dollars into a five-year pilot program in LA County meant to increase support for gay homeless teens. Obviously that’s a good thing, but in light of the work that smaller, local organization like the Georgia Covenant House are doing, it seems very high-level compared to the daily reality that these kids live with. Pilot programs, while they do mean change in the moment, are conceptually aimed towards exploring a problem and possible solutions for it. It seems heartbreakingly clear that kids like Brian Dixon and the overwhelmed organizations that have supported him need solutions now.

There are plenty of issues that, in real terms, locally based activist groups are always going to be more effective at addressing than bureaucratic entities. They know what the problem is like on the ground, and don’t need years of surveys and fact-finding to determine what to do about it. But on the other hand, they are almost always working with infinitesimal resources, and strained to the limit of their ability every day.

Obama’s move on this issue is undoubtedly positive, and one of the most insightful recognitions of the problems facing the gay community of any president in history. But in the press release around it, there were only facts and figures; so far there are no personal stories of survival attached to that plan, because it comes from an office, not a shelter.

On the other hand, you have places like the Covenant House and Summit House, which are built entirely out of stories of survival and those who made them possible – but who are struggling every day. Another local organization, run by YouthPride to provide emergency resources around things like eviction or dangerous situations, has had to cease operations because of lack of financial support.

Brian Dixon’s story isn’t over, nor are the stories of the thousands of queer homeless teens in America right now. There are still a million questions to be answered – Dixon has begun the process of becoming a Pentecostal minister, and it remains to be seen where his journey will take him. But one question that should be answered sooner rather than later is: why does there have to be such a wide gulf between state and activist support for the kids that need help most? And what can be done to fix it?

“Defendants’ Brief in Opposition of Motion to Dismiss” is a Great Summer Read

you could read it in a meadow

Nothing will ever be as glorious as Judge Walker’s 138-page ruling on Proposition 8, which was epic in every way possible — but this 31-page Brief in Opposition of Motion to Dismiss Golinski v. The United States of Personnel Management is also extremely validating and the best thing I’ve read all week (well, this was pretty good too).

I recommend you print it out and bring it to the pool with a cocktail and some kleenex. But first, in order to understand how this 31-page feast of excellence came to be and what purpose it serves, you should read What the Heck is Going On With Doma?.

I’m sure you’re going to read it anyhow, but if you still need convincing then listen up: because gay history isn’t usually taught in schools (YET!), it’s likely many of you homogays will learn quite a bit from Section 1i: “Gays and Lesbians Have Been Subject to a History of Discrimination”, a.k.a. “The Most Heinous Examples of How the Federal and Local Government and Private Parties and Have Persecuted Gay People Throughout History.” It goes through custody fights, gay bar raids, the whole shebang, right up ’til the present day.

Did you know that the Postal Service used to provide the government with names of people who subscribed to “physique magazines” and then fired federal employees based on those suspicions? I did not.

But the fun doesn’t end there. You will also enjoy other gripping sections like “Gays and Lesbians Exhibit Immutable Characteristics that Distinguish Them as a Group” and “Gays and Lesbians are Minorities with Limited Political Power” and my future ‘zine name, “Sexual Orientation Bears No Relation to Legitimate Policy Objectives or Ability to Perform or Contribute to Society.” and the grand finale “DOMA FAILS HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY” (their all-caps, not mine).

As you read this I want you to remind yourself “this is from the Obama administration.” I know that many people have issues with Obama, but I personally will be giving his campaign a round of applause.

I don’t know, I almost cried when I read “This record evidences the kind of animus and stereotype-based thinking that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” and I almost laughed when I read “There is no evidence in the legislative record that denying federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married under state law operates in any way to encourage responsible child-rearing, whether by opposite-sex or same-sex couples, and it is hard to imagine what such evidence would look like.”

Check it out and let me know what you think!!!!

And On the Sixth Day, Obama Made News on Same-Sex Marriage

Karen Golinski (right) with her wife, Amy Cunninghis

The Obama Administration filed a brief Friday in Federal court in San Francisco in support of a lawsuit filed by a lesbian federal employee which claims the government wrongly denied her spouse the health coverage she should have been entitled to as a spouse. This “strongly worded legal brief” says DOMA was motivated by “animus” against the gays and is therefore unconstitutional.

Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the press that “though the administration has previously said it will not defend the marriage act, the brief is the first court filing in which it urges the court to find the law unconstitutional.”

Furthermore:

“This brief represents the concrete manifestation of a complete paradigm shift in the federal government’s position on anti-gay discrimination and the constitutional rights of married same-sex couples.”

From The MetroWeekly:

Unlike in other cases where DOJ has stopped defending DOMA in accordance with President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision that Section 3 of DOMA — the federal definition of marriage — is unconstitutional, DOJ lawyers today made an expansive case in a 31-page filing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Previously, the government had attached the Feb. 23 letter from Holder to House Speaker John Boehner (R) that announced the DOJ position to filings to courts about the decision to stop defending the law, but it had not laid out any more expansive reasoning. But, for Golinski’s case, DOJ did so. In describing why heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation, for example, the DOJ’s lawyers — in describing how “gays and lesbians have been subject to a history of discrimination” — write, “The federal government has played a significant and regrettable role in the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals.”

This comes shortly after the DOJ made a confusing move on a bankruptcy court case in California that seemed to go against its affirmation not to defend DOMA in court. To be perfectly honest, I’m not an expert in the matters of the law and I’m not going to pretend like I am. I do believe we have enlisted an expert of some kind to help explain some of this to you relatively soon, as we are wont to do, but THIS IS A BIG F*CKING DEAL, Y’ALL.

Some may call it an evolution — the DOJ went from saying they’d defend DOMA in court to saying that they wouldn’t, because it was unconstitutional, but not really going into the details, to now fully speaking out against DOMA with 31 pages on why they’re doing so. They are specifically citing “animus” towards gays and lesbians as THE ONLY REASON DOMA EXISTS — that’s a big deal.

Interesting that they did it on a Friday night, therefore keeping it relatively out of the news cycle — nobody started reporting on it until Saturday morning. I assume on the Seventh Day, there will be rest.