Over these next several days, the newspapers and the TV stations will talk about Ted Kennedy’s lineage, triumphs, scandals, speeches, and most certainly his loving relationship with his wife and his grand role as patriarch to America’s foremost dynasty. Very few are talking about his role as one of the LGBT community’s fiercest supporters.
I’m watching his memorial service live on CNN as we speak. Legions of leaders and celebrities have commemorated what Kennedy has done and what he’s meant. So far (and maybe I just missed it) I haven’t heard anybody talk about his extensive work and unwavering support for gays. It’s too bad that may end up being his most unsung quality.
In a moment to where our president seems to be waffling about his support of us, and when ignoramuses seem to be making a second career of quashing work done for marriage equality, someone as unwavering as Ted Kennedy feels refreshing.
The senator proved to be a brave ally way back in the 80s when he was an advocate for HIV/AIDS, a remarkable thing in a climate when many people, including his colleagues on the Hill, were antagonistic to gays and ignorant of the big disease with the little name. Since then, he repeatedly struck against those, including Jesse Helms, who disparaged gays and actively worked to discriminate against us legally.
Recently, Kennedy had mightily voiced his support Kennedy in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to the Senate floor in 2004, Kennedy spoke passionately against banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake, a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law,” Kennedy said. “It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.”
I met him in person very briefly over two years ago when I worked for a nonprofit that sponsored at an event where he spoke about, among other things, income inequality. He was very nice and passionate about what he believed.
He also proudly and consistently identified him as a liberal. He believed in universal health care, eradicating poverty, and equal rights for all. He frequently reached out across the aisle and was even good friends with Orren Hatch of all people. But that didn’t mean he abandoned his beliefs for political expediency or survival. That’s instructive as we watch President Obama concede large swaths of his health care proposals because of protests and GOP disapproval and refuse to curb the sweetheart deals insurers are receiving in this proposal (and receive on a daily basis).
Obama can take a cue from Kennedy over the coming months (or years?) and show us the support of LGBTs that he pledged in the campaign. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage are just two topics up to bat. The president has been distressingly quiet on our issues, but he can stand to swallow down a cup of courage and prove his convictions.
The Lion of the Senate has given the Lamb of the White House a lot of lessons to learn.
For a full list of Sen. Kennedy’s leadership on LGBT issues, please visit: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08/sen-kennedys-leadership-on-lgbt-equality/
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
One Moment In Time
The NAACP just turned 100 and we’re at a crossroads in more ways than one.
In an address to thousands of civil rights leaders, President Obama marked the centennial of the NAACP by paying tribute to its history but calling on activists to tackle modern-day problems. One of these problems was homophobia, and Obama addressed it head on in his discussion of how the pain of inequality long felt by African Americans is felt by people everywhere.
Obama said: "By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."
Considering the historical reluctance of the African-American community to embrace gays – not to mention the inherent furor for some that gay rights can ever be mentioned along with what’s traditionally seen as “civil rights” – I can imagine that statement was met with polite applause if not a stony silence by some members of the audience.
But that tide is turning. The NAACP's LGBT Equality Task Force was unveiled at a session that spotlighted anti-gay hate crimes and discrimination in schools, employment and marriage. Even five years ago, you wouldn’t have caught me guessing that LGBT issues would be dealt with directly inside the NAACP.
And luckily there are some who are eradicating this false line between the black and gay world. As the National Black Justice Coalition's "At the Crossroads" reported, black LGBT men and women can be disproportionately hurt by government policies harming gay families because, for example, black same-sex households are nearly twice as likely as white ones to having children.
While the traditional civil rights movement is becoming more gay-friendly, it is also incumbent upon gay rights leaders to be more black-friendly. If there was one thing that the Prop. 8 debacle called attention to is that black and gay leaders were not communicating with each other.
The NAACP’s new president Benjamin Jealous seemed to throw down the gauntlet. In an interview, he said, “If gay rights groups want to change the opinion polls in the black community, they have to invest in it. It’s a long-term conversation. The battle to oppose Prop 8 could have been much better run. They came to the black community late, with the expectation that they were going to get certain results.”
Jealous clearly expects gays to mobilize African Americans instead of the other way around, and that’s not a bad idea. There will be a moment that, despite our different histories, we will see that we’re fighting some of the same battles against larger society. And we’ll remember there are those who are African-American AND gay, and we need to fully acknowledge that.
There’s no reason that moment can’t be now.
In an address to thousands of civil rights leaders, President Obama marked the centennial of the NAACP by paying tribute to its history but calling on activists to tackle modern-day problems. One of these problems was homophobia, and Obama addressed it head on in his discussion of how the pain of inequality long felt by African Americans is felt by people everywhere.
Obama said: "By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."
Considering the historical reluctance of the African-American community to embrace gays – not to mention the inherent furor for some that gay rights can ever be mentioned along with what’s traditionally seen as “civil rights” – I can imagine that statement was met with polite applause if not a stony silence by some members of the audience.
But that tide is turning. The NAACP's LGBT Equality Task Force was unveiled at a session that spotlighted anti-gay hate crimes and discrimination in schools, employment and marriage. Even five years ago, you wouldn’t have caught me guessing that LGBT issues would be dealt with directly inside the NAACP.
And luckily there are some who are eradicating this false line between the black and gay world. As the National Black Justice Coalition's "At the Crossroads" reported, black LGBT men and women can be disproportionately hurt by government policies harming gay families because, for example, black same-sex households are nearly twice as likely as white ones to having children.
While the traditional civil rights movement is becoming more gay-friendly, it is also incumbent upon gay rights leaders to be more black-friendly. If there was one thing that the Prop. 8 debacle called attention to is that black and gay leaders were not communicating with each other.
The NAACP’s new president Benjamin Jealous seemed to throw down the gauntlet. In an interview, he said, “If gay rights groups want to change the opinion polls in the black community, they have to invest in it. It’s a long-term conversation. The battle to oppose Prop 8 could have been much better run. They came to the black community late, with the expectation that they were going to get certain results.”
Jealous clearly expects gays to mobilize African Americans instead of the other way around, and that’s not a bad idea. There will be a moment that, despite our different histories, we will see that we’re fighting some of the same battles against larger society. And we’ll remember there are those who are African-American AND gay, and we need to fully acknowledge that.
There’s no reason that moment can’t be now.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Married to the Idea
Geez, my mourning over the Prop. 8 debacle had barely subsided when, all of the sudden, gay marriage opportunities seem to be popping up over the place. Like just this past week.
I know President Obama ushered in change but April is proving to be a watershed for us at a ridiculous speed. First, the Iowa Supreme Court approved gay marriage. Then on Tuesday, Vermont's lawmakers defied Governor Jim Douglas with a veto override, making their state the nation's first to establish gay marriage by a vote rather than by judicial decree. That same day here in Washington, D.C., the city council chose to give legal recognition to gay and lesbian residents who have been married elsewhere, similar to New York state’s current policy.
All of that news was good to hear and I smiled at each development I heard. Being a DC resident, it felt like marriage rights were within grasp. But I have a bucket of lukewarm water to throw. On a federal level, we’re still behind and may never catch up in our lifetime.
Let’s not forget about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that makes it illegal for the U.S. government — as opposed to individual states — to recognize gay couples as married regardless of the marriage or civil union laws of a particular state. Even talk of federally recognized civil unions is meaningless until DOMA is repealed, since the act also prohibits the appearance of marriage, no matter what the relationship is called.
Remember, even in Massachusetts, we can't enjoy the tax benefits that straight couples do. For example, when one half of a gay couple who live together and co-own their house dies, the survivor still has to pay an inheritance tax. Spouses of gay federal employees cannot be covered by government health plans.
And federal immigration laws can still force couples apart with deportation regardless of marital or civil union status I just read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a lesbian couple – registered as domestic partner for 23 years - with twin 12-year-olds. But one of them, who is not a U.S. citizen, will have to be deported to the Philippines in a couple of weeks. Can you imagine a situation of being plucked from your partner and family suddenly and being deposited in another continent?
But that’s the rub, and that’s why these recent marital victories are short-lived when you put them under the glare of the big picture. It’s like getting 65% of your rights.
Considering that Obama and many members of Congress have pledged support for civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, it’s difficult to imagine who would champion gay marriage as at the federal level. And let’s not forget many federal judges, including a few Supreme Court justices, are conservatives put into power by President Bush. A national gay marriage victory is very unlikely if a case goes to the higher courts.
So while we may have won a few battles, we are hardly winning the war. It will take a long time for truly full and equal rights, I suspect. Perhaps I should be more joyful about celebrating what we have earned. Some prominent evangelicals interviewed concede they feel the ground shifting beneath their feet. Could we truly be reaching a new era?
This is an instance to where I hope I’m proved wrong and it all will be in our grasp. Cool. I can have fun imagining being registered at Bed, bath & Beyond.
I know President Obama ushered in change but April is proving to be a watershed for us at a ridiculous speed. First, the Iowa Supreme Court approved gay marriage. Then on Tuesday, Vermont's lawmakers defied Governor Jim Douglas with a veto override, making their state the nation's first to establish gay marriage by a vote rather than by judicial decree. That same day here in Washington, D.C., the city council chose to give legal recognition to gay and lesbian residents who have been married elsewhere, similar to New York state’s current policy.
All of that news was good to hear and I smiled at each development I heard. Being a DC resident, it felt like marriage rights were within grasp. But I have a bucket of lukewarm water to throw. On a federal level, we’re still behind and may never catch up in our lifetime.
Let’s not forget about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that makes it illegal for the U.S. government — as opposed to individual states — to recognize gay couples as married regardless of the marriage or civil union laws of a particular state. Even talk of federally recognized civil unions is meaningless until DOMA is repealed, since the act also prohibits the appearance of marriage, no matter what the relationship is called.
Remember, even in Massachusetts, we can't enjoy the tax benefits that straight couples do. For example, when one half of a gay couple who live together and co-own their house dies, the survivor still has to pay an inheritance tax. Spouses of gay federal employees cannot be covered by government health plans.
And federal immigration laws can still force couples apart with deportation regardless of marital or civil union status I just read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a lesbian couple – registered as domestic partner for 23 years - with twin 12-year-olds. But one of them, who is not a U.S. citizen, will have to be deported to the Philippines in a couple of weeks. Can you imagine a situation of being plucked from your partner and family suddenly and being deposited in another continent?
But that’s the rub, and that’s why these recent marital victories are short-lived when you put them under the glare of the big picture. It’s like getting 65% of your rights.
Considering that Obama and many members of Congress have pledged support for civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, it’s difficult to imagine who would champion gay marriage as at the federal level. And let’s not forget many federal judges, including a few Supreme Court justices, are conservatives put into power by President Bush. A national gay marriage victory is very unlikely if a case goes to the higher courts.
So while we may have won a few battles, we are hardly winning the war. It will take a long time for truly full and equal rights, I suspect. Perhaps I should be more joyful about celebrating what we have earned. Some prominent evangelicals interviewed concede they feel the ground shifting beneath their feet. Could we truly be reaching a new era?
This is an instance to where I hope I’m proved wrong and it all will be in our grasp. Cool. I can have fun imagining being registered at Bed, bath & Beyond.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Silent Prayer
Next Tuesday, I’m braving a crowd of millions, cold weather, and a wickedly high people-Porta Potty ratio to see Barack Obama sworn in as our next President. Yes, I’ll be huddling on the Mall with my partner and possibly a few friends watching the ceremony from a JumboTron screen if truth be told, but I’ll be there.
I’ve been asked how I’ll react when Rev. Rick Warren steps to the podium to deliver the invocation. In case you’ve been living under a rock, Obama’s pick of Warren to open the ceremony in prayer caused a furor from the LGBT community because of his vigorous support of Prop. 8 and his past remarks comparing gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And until just last month in fact, his Saddleback Church in California had language on its Web site stating gay people would not be accepted as members.
When Obama announced his pick of Warren, I was truly disappointed. If he wanted a massively popular evangelist to prove he was reaching out to the other side of the aisle, why not someone like Joel Osteen? At least from what I’ve seen on his recent “60 Minutes” profile, Osteen is all about extolling the positive qualities of Christianity, not the divisive ones. He avoids politics and “those people” talk.
But I won’t boo or hiss Tuesday morning. I’ll listen to what Warren will have to say, albeit without applause. I’ve learned over these few weeks, though, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Despite being a lackluster choice, I don’t think it reflects Obama’s character or the progress we will enjoy with him in the Oval Office.
First, if Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is a sore spot, then that inauguration platform would be mostly empty. Remember, even Obama (yet) doesn’t endorse full gay marriage. And not very many pastors, even those who are affirming, do.
Yes, Warren is ignorant about homosexuality, despite professing that he loves us and he had a very nice talk with Melissa Etheridge at some event. (I had a nice talk with my calculus professor freshman year, but he still gave me a C.) But here’s why Warren’s presence fades when the big picture arises:
1. Obama chose Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay bishop who advises him on gay issues, to open the inaugural festivities Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. The Episcopal bishop said he was not asked in reaction to the furor over Warren. "They made it very clear with me, and I certainly do believe them, that this was in the works for some time," Robinson told USA TODAY.
2. The families accompanying Obama on a train ride to DC from Philadelphia on Sunday include a lesbian couple.
3. Obama has recently made several gay appointments. Nancy Sutley, a Los Angeles deputy mayor, has been named to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Gay advocates say they believe more gay appointments are in the offing. Fred Hochberg will head the Export-Import Bank, and Brian Bond will be deputy director of public liaison.
4. Incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently declared that Obama plans to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that requires gay members of the military to hide their sexual orientation.
Obama fancies himself showcasing different voices, even ones that offend, and encouraging reconciliation and that in of itself is not a bad goal. It’s worth noting that when Robinson’s role was announced, the Christian right started making declarations that Obama was remiss for selecting someone whose views offend some Americans (sound familiar?). And let’s not forget the ceremony will be closed out in prayer by Black minister and civil rights leader Joseph Lowery.
The bottom line is that Obama can and, I believe, will do more for gay rights and gay equality than any previous president, or any leading politician for that matter. So when Warren does his thing, I will quickly forget about him and think about the man who will later place his hand on the Bible, take his oath, and lead our country out of this mess.
I’ve been asked how I’ll react when Rev. Rick Warren steps to the podium to deliver the invocation. In case you’ve been living under a rock, Obama’s pick of Warren to open the ceremony in prayer caused a furor from the LGBT community because of his vigorous support of Prop. 8 and his past remarks comparing gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And until just last month in fact, his Saddleback Church in California had language on its Web site stating gay people would not be accepted as members.
When Obama announced his pick of Warren, I was truly disappointed. If he wanted a massively popular evangelist to prove he was reaching out to the other side of the aisle, why not someone like Joel Osteen? At least from what I’ve seen on his recent “60 Minutes” profile, Osteen is all about extolling the positive qualities of Christianity, not the divisive ones. He avoids politics and “those people” talk.
But I won’t boo or hiss Tuesday morning. I’ll listen to what Warren will have to say, albeit without applause. I’ve learned over these few weeks, though, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Despite being a lackluster choice, I don’t think it reflects Obama’s character or the progress we will enjoy with him in the Oval Office.
First, if Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is a sore spot, then that inauguration platform would be mostly empty. Remember, even Obama (yet) doesn’t endorse full gay marriage. And not very many pastors, even those who are affirming, do.
Yes, Warren is ignorant about homosexuality, despite professing that he loves us and he had a very nice talk with Melissa Etheridge at some event. (I had a nice talk with my calculus professor freshman year, but he still gave me a C.) But here’s why Warren’s presence fades when the big picture arises:
1. Obama chose Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay bishop who advises him on gay issues, to open the inaugural festivities Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. The Episcopal bishop said he was not asked in reaction to the furor over Warren. "They made it very clear with me, and I certainly do believe them, that this was in the works for some time," Robinson told USA TODAY.
2. The families accompanying Obama on a train ride to DC from Philadelphia on Sunday include a lesbian couple.
3. Obama has recently made several gay appointments. Nancy Sutley, a Los Angeles deputy mayor, has been named to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Gay advocates say they believe more gay appointments are in the offing. Fred Hochberg will head the Export-Import Bank, and Brian Bond will be deputy director of public liaison.
4. Incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently declared that Obama plans to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that requires gay members of the military to hide their sexual orientation.
Obama fancies himself showcasing different voices, even ones that offend, and encouraging reconciliation and that in of itself is not a bad goal. It’s worth noting that when Robinson’s role was announced, the Christian right started making declarations that Obama was remiss for selecting someone whose views offend some Americans (sound familiar?). And let’s not forget the ceremony will be closed out in prayer by Black minister and civil rights leader Joseph Lowery.
The bottom line is that Obama can and, I believe, will do more for gay rights and gay equality than any previous president, or any leading politician for that matter. So when Warren does his thing, I will quickly forget about him and think about the man who will later place his hand on the Bible, take his oath, and lead our country out of this mess.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Voting For Change
We did it!
Barack Obama will be our next President! I’m already planning where I’ll be planted on the inauguration parade route.
But the refreshing thought of a progressive Democrat dismantling the conservative and devastating Bush regime made me wonder. Will DC feel gayer now?
People who are from DC or who’ve lived here more than a decade tell me that under the Clinton years, DC distinctly felt freer and more liberal. Bill was never quite the P-FLAG-equivalent politician (he did after all sign the Defense of Marriage Act), but he denounced discrimination and homophobia – more than any other president ever did. And his White House made small but meaningful gestures like recognizing the gay community through official resolutions.
You know W. stopped all of that. And those same people I talked to said that antagonism filtered downward and somewhat stained their optimism. Things just felt different.
But Obama is ushering in new way of thinking and riding a wave of a public seeking a sea change. It’s not a leap to suggest that the actions of policymakers have some influence on how we feel about ourselves, our relationships, and our status as a sexual minority without many rights shared by heterosexuals. We can pretend like our daily lives don’t hinge on who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but that’s not so.
Think about it. While Bush was in the White House, many officials in his administration were unabashedly conservative and anti-gay. And in the 2004 election campaign, Bush’s architect Karl Rove and his minions shied away from real issues and pumped up the “threat” of gay marriage and other bullshit red meat for the conservative base. We had leaders occupying our own city, denouncing us.
Considering we now have elected Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, there will be more policymakers merely miles or minutes away from us who will be more respectful of the LGBT community and responsive to our demands.
A real test for DC – and the clincher – will be early next year, when a gay marriage bill is likely to be approved by the D.C. City Council as early as April 2009, according to local activists and City Hall insiders. Apparently, the vast majority of the council would approve such a measure and, most important, a Democratic congress would be less likely to intervene and overturn that.
Imagine the country’s capitol approving gay marriage, especially as it looks like California’s Prop. 8 squeaked to a victory and (for now) will ban gay marriage in the biggest state. DC would enter an exclusive club and I’m convinced would set the tone for a re-thinking of homophobia and a realization that gay marriage and other rights for us are not a breakdown of the family, but creation of full equality. Such a victory would make me a prouder and happier DC resident.
Over the years, several people who have hailed from Philadelphia and even New York have told me that they see DC as a more gay-friendly city, in terms of little gestures like seeing two men and women openly hold hands.
But come Inauguration Day on January 20, we could begin to be even more gay-friendly on a deeper level. Hopefully, we all just won’t be holding hands. We’ll be changing hearts and minds.
Barack Obama will be our next President! I’m already planning where I’ll be planted on the inauguration parade route.
But the refreshing thought of a progressive Democrat dismantling the conservative and devastating Bush regime made me wonder. Will DC feel gayer now?
People who are from DC or who’ve lived here more than a decade tell me that under the Clinton years, DC distinctly felt freer and more liberal. Bill was never quite the P-FLAG-equivalent politician (he did after all sign the Defense of Marriage Act), but he denounced discrimination and homophobia – more than any other president ever did. And his White House made small but meaningful gestures like recognizing the gay community through official resolutions.
You know W. stopped all of that. And those same people I talked to said that antagonism filtered downward and somewhat stained their optimism. Things just felt different.
But Obama is ushering in new way of thinking and riding a wave of a public seeking a sea change. It’s not a leap to suggest that the actions of policymakers have some influence on how we feel about ourselves, our relationships, and our status as a sexual minority without many rights shared by heterosexuals. We can pretend like our daily lives don’t hinge on who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but that’s not so.
Think about it. While Bush was in the White House, many officials in his administration were unabashedly conservative and anti-gay. And in the 2004 election campaign, Bush’s architect Karl Rove and his minions shied away from real issues and pumped up the “threat” of gay marriage and other bullshit red meat for the conservative base. We had leaders occupying our own city, denouncing us.
Considering we now have elected Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, there will be more policymakers merely miles or minutes away from us who will be more respectful of the LGBT community and responsive to our demands.
A real test for DC – and the clincher – will be early next year, when a gay marriage bill is likely to be approved by the D.C. City Council as early as April 2009, according to local activists and City Hall insiders. Apparently, the vast majority of the council would approve such a measure and, most important, a Democratic congress would be less likely to intervene and overturn that.
Imagine the country’s capitol approving gay marriage, especially as it looks like California’s Prop. 8 squeaked to a victory and (for now) will ban gay marriage in the biggest state. DC would enter an exclusive club and I’m convinced would set the tone for a re-thinking of homophobia and a realization that gay marriage and other rights for us are not a breakdown of the family, but creation of full equality. Such a victory would make me a prouder and happier DC resident.
Over the years, several people who have hailed from Philadelphia and even New York have told me that they see DC as a more gay-friendly city, in terms of little gestures like seeing two men and women openly hold hands.
But come Inauguration Day on January 20, we could begin to be even more gay-friendly on a deeper level. Hopefully, we all just won’t be holding hands. We’ll be changing hearts and minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)