More Saturday Male Beauty

New York Times Challenges Obama and DOJ on DADT Lies

To me it has been clear for some time now that Barack Obama, a/k/a the Liar-in-Chief, never intended to push through the repeal of DADT. His lies to LGBT Americans during the campaign were a great way to get votes and LGBT dollars. We all should have been tipped off that Obama was a liar when he picked Christianist blow hard and tub of lard Rick Warren to give the Inaugural invocation. Now, the Liar-in-Chief's DOJ is fighting tooth and claw to uphold DADT in court - most recently in its filing with the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Judge Virginia Phillips' injunction barring discharges under DADT be stayed through the duration of the appeals process. The New York Times has likewise figured out that the Obama DOJ song and dance is disingenuous. Here are highlights from today's editorial:
*
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to allow the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to remain in effect is a victory for theory over reality and a defeat for America’s system of checks and balances.
*
It also underscores the bravery and competence of Virginia Phillips, the federal judge who mustered logic and persuasive evidence in September when she struck down the statute enacting the policy. She did the same in October when she issued a ban on its enforcement.
*
Sometimes the courts have to act when Congress lacks the sense or the courage to do so. The Senate could have joined the House in repealing the antigay law in September. It did not. Given the sharp rightward turn of Congress in the elections, how can the Justice Department now make that argument with a straight face?
*
The filing itself reminds us how the executive branch has affirmed Judge Phillips’s wisdom. Mindful of her role in the system of checks and balances and with no concern about politics, the judge struck down the law and banned its enforcement. Given the choice of these two courses, the Supreme Court picked the wrong one.

A Bullying Suicide Close to Home - Part II

Early in the week I wrote about the bullying induced suicide of Christian Taylor, a student at Grafton High School in Yorktown Virginia (pictured at left). Like so many victims of bullying victim induced suicide, Christian's mother sought to have school officials intervene in a meaningful way and protect her son. Sadly, as seems to be the norm in these cases, school officials did nothing. To my amazement, Christian's mother left comments on the post and her phone number which lead us to have a conversation yesterday. Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the story is that even after her son's death, the principal bully in the sad story remains in school having faced zero consequences. How can this be? Because in Virginia there is no anti-bulling statute that requires real and severe consequences for bullies or indifferent school officials. In fact, the existing law bends over backwards to protect teachers and administrators from liability. Here's the basically worthless anti-bullying statute provisions§ found in 22.1-279.6. Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended:
*
Each school board shall include, in its code of student conduct, prohibitions against bullying, hazing, and profane or obscene language or conduct. School boards shall also cite, in their codes of student conduct, the provisions of § 18.2-56, which defines and prohibits hazing and imposes a Class 1 misdemeanor penalty for violations, i.e., confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
*
Unfortunately, Sec. 18.2-56 only pertains to hazing in the context of clubs and fraternities and, therefore, there is no criminal penalty for bullying no matter how severe or how horrific the results. As for school officials, § 8.01-220.1:2. of the Code of Virginia provides in part as follows:
*
A. Any teacher employed by a local school board in the Commonwealth shall not be liable for any civil damages for any acts or omissions resulting from the supervision, care or discipline of students when such acts or omissions are within such teacher's scope of employment and are taken in good faith in the course of supervision, care or discipline of students, unless such acts or omissions were the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

B. No school employee or school volunteer shall be liable for any civil damages arising from the prompt good faith reporting of alleged acts of bullying or crimes against others to the appropriate school official in compliance with specified procedures.
*
Under this language, all a negligent and indifferent school official need to claim is that they acted in good faith. To say that this situation is outrageous is a huge understatement. Christian Taylor's mother is on a mission to create change (she is launching a foundation) and I hope Virginia readers will begin demanding that something be done to change the existing in adequate laws. Here are highlights from one event where ChristianTaylor's mother, Lisa Williams was speaking out:
*
The keynote speaker was Lisa Williams, a Yorktown, Va., mother whose son, Christian Taylor, committed suicide May 31 after being bullied. Mrs. Williams has founded a nonprofit foundation in her son’s honor aimed at stopping bullying. She’s also working with a Virginia lawmaker to strengthen that state’s anti-bullying law. The law has been named Christian’s Law.
*
“I don’t want any parent to feel what I’ve gone through,” she said. “Schools need to protect our kids. Parents shouldn’t have to send their kids to school afraid if they’re going to be OK.” Mrs. Williams said a business has also given, at a low cost, a car to her foundation. She plans to have names of children who have committed suicide because of bullying since May 2009 printed on the car.
*
Mrs. Williams said she’s angry about what happened to her son, but wanted to use that anger to do something positive.

*

To effect real change in Virginia it will be necessary to take on one of the most insidious and toxic organizations in Virginia: The Family Foundation ("TFF"), the Virginia affiliate of Focus on the Family. TFF has consistently opposed efforts to enact a comprehensive anti-bully statute that would impose serious consequences on both bullies and school administrators who fail to protect students from bullies. Why? Because TFF wants bullies to have carte blanche when it comes to targeting LGBT students. Moreover, TFF doesn't want school officials to be forced to stop homophobic bullying. According to TFF, the current statute is just fine. Here's some of the bullshit TFF was disseminating this past summer:
*
Efforts to increasingly sexualize our children will be at an all time high this fall. The Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a national organization, recently selected its Richmond Chapter to conduct a pilot program to promote the homosexual agenda in 60 Central Virginia middle schools.
*
Bullying, no matter the content and no matter the target, is not tolerated in Virginia public schools, making GLSEN’s middle school initiative that much more inappropriate and unnecessary. GLSEN’s materials regularly undermine both parental authority and religious teaching. They seek to separate children from their families and from their faith upbringing.
*
While no child should be bullied, the fact is that GLSEN and other pro-homosexual groups are using harassment as a way to promote a dangerous lifestyle and attack the values taught by families across our commonwealth.
*
It's the typical wink and a nod that Christianists take when it comes to bullying: they claim to oppose it, but are the principal obstacle in passage of truly effective anti-bullying statutes. We need legislation that has teeth and will (1) hold school officials liable for their failure to protect students, (2) not only lead to the expulsion of students who bully others, but can impose jail time, and (3) make the parents financially liable for the consequences of their child's bullying.

Saturday Male Beauty

Leaked Details of Pentagon DADT Study Upsets Gates and Wingnuts

Even before the unnecessary Pentagon study on DADT was launched, I had an insider at the contractor doing the study indicate that efforts would be made to slant the study so as to build justification for retaining the discriminatory religious based bigotry embodied in DADT. The leaked findings demonstrate that this effort failed and I suspect the leakers wanted the results out before they could be doctored and altered by those in high positions who oppose repeal. As Joe By God has reported, Klu Klux Klan loving demagogue Tony Perkins of Family Research Council has his panties in a major wad over the leaked information. Here's a sample of Perkins' spittle flying rant:
*
"We have criticized this study from the outset because the CRWG was forbidden to explore the central question before the country-not how to implement a repeal of the current law, but whether doing so is in the best interest of the armed forces.
*
"Despite this critical flaw, Secretary Gates had at least pledged that the effort would be 'carried out in a professional, thorough and dispassionate manner.' That effort is gravely undermined by leaks to the media which are unprofessional, selective and blatantly biased. I urge Secretary Gates to have the DOD Inspector General launch an immediate investigation into the source of these leaks, which have seriously damaged the credibility of the CRWG process."

*
The vast majority of Americans want DADT ended. As a result, the Christianists and the fossils at the Pentagon are fighting an ultimately losing battle in the effort to retain this failed policy. They know it and are becoming increasingly hysterical and underhanded in their defense of what is nothing less than stark religious based discrimination written into the nation's laws. The Christianists have loved DADT because it has allowed them for 17 years to point to the civil laws as a justification for their own blatant anti-gay discrimination. If DADT goes the way of the Dodo, a major tool of the Christianist propaganda machine will be lost. Worse yet, openly gay service members will quickly show that all of the whining of doom and gloom if DADT ends were nothing but deliberate lies.
*
Unfortunately, Gates and the Liar-in-Chief are apparently on choke chains held by Perkins and those of his ilk because Gates - who I trust about as far as I could throw an ocean liner - has announced that an investigation will be launched over the leaks. Here are highlights from a Pentagon press release:
*
“Secretary Gates is very concerned and extremely disappointed that unnamed sources within the Department of Defense have selectively revealed aspects of the draft findings of the Comprehensive Review Working Group, presumably to shape perceptions of the report prior to its release.
*
“The Secretary strongly condemns the unauthorized release of information related to this report and has directed an investigation to establish who communicated with the Washington Post or any other news organization without authorization and in violation of Department policy and his specific instruction. “The full report will be made public for all to review early next month. Until then, no one at the Pentagon will comment on its contents.”
*
Yep, Gates is pissed - because it will now be far harder to alter the study results to please Christianists and anti-gay senior brass now that the initial results have been leaked.

Coming Out at Work Remains a Dangerous Prospect

An article in the Guardian looks at the continued difficulty that far too many LGBT employees experience in the workplace: the fear of the consequences of coming out. Even in states and countries that afford non-discrimination protections, coming out can be a career killer because of all the insidious ways that homophobic superiors aand/or co-workers can undermine one's job security. Where there's a will to fire someone, with time and subtrifuge, it can be done. In the long term, I believe that the USA's failure to match the employment protections becoming more and more common in other nations will hurt the nations competitiveness in the global economy. The best and the brightest from other nations don't want to live under a pall of bigotry. For the time being, coming out at work can be daunting.

*
So the question becomes one of "should I come out at work or not?" Having been in the closet at work I know first hand the added daily stress it factors into the mix, thus impairing job productivity. Moreover, it's hard to build true comraderie with co-workers when you cannot be honest about yourself or your partner and family. In my case, I did ultimately came out at work and it was fine until my law firm was basically acquired by a firm called Wolcott & Rivers and I was booted. In the view of bigots within that firm, an openly gay partner might offend the sensibilities of conservative clients. I have my own law firm now and the irony is that clients do not seem to give a damn whether or not I'm gay or straight. In fact, I have found that minority clients of all types - including Mulsims - often seem more comfortable with my firm simply because they do not feel they will face any form of discrimination. Something that assuredly is not true at many of the larger area law firms where bigotry remains alive and well despite pretenses to the contrary.

*

So what does an LGBT employee do? It comes down to a personal choice of how you want to live. With laws like DADT daily telling the larger public that anti-gay discrimination is perfectly fine, know that there are very real risks involved in backward states like Virginia. On the other side of the equation is the liberation that goes with not having to hide who your are all day, every work day. Here are highlights from the Guardian article that reflect a far better situation in the UK than here in America:
*
"Coming out is still a huge risk for a lot of people, especially in blue collar industries and smaller businesses, but with businesses becoming more switched on and the next generation expecting more equality, things are changing," he says.
*
Stonewall runs an Equality Index for workplaces – normally for those with 500 staff or more that have the best policies – and also has a leadership programme to help gay people. "People at the top are often the most scared about coming out because they feel they have the most to lose," says Thomas.
*
He says that while those on the index have some very impressive policies and initiatives aimed at making LGBT staff feel more comfortable, general diversity training in UK workplaces is often more focused on issues of race rather than sexuality, which leads to a lack of confidence.
*
But even at workplaces with strong policies, some staff are not happy to come out, as Gemma, a gay accountant in London knows. She says that despite her company's high ranking on the Stonewall index, she doesn't have enough trust in her managers to be honest about her sexuality. "It's a very straight, conservative working environment. There is an LGB group but it is virtually invisible, unless you specifically seek it out. And, there is rarely any internal publicity about what the group is and what it can do for staff," she says.
*
Even in higher education, only 38% of staff are comfortable enough to come out – and 34% have been treated negatively because of their sexual orientation, according to research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year.
*
Changing attitudes is partly about the visibility of LGBT people in the workplace, says Thomas. "I would always encourage people to come out at work if they can, because it's good for others in the company who might be gay to see representation." He is also keen to encourage LGBT people to see that their sexuality can be pitched as an asset. "Plenty of companies and organisations appreciate the value of a diverse workforce. They know that allowing staff to feel comfortable about who they are makes them more productive," he says.
*
Confidence is likely to increase further following the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 last month. This act is designed to strengthen LGBT employee rights and promises to take direct and non-direct sexuality discrimination more seriously. It is another milestone we can be thankful for, particularly when we look at the situation in countries such as the US, where – shockingly – you can still be sacked for being gay in 28 states.
*
Yes, people do notice the legalized bigotry in the USA. I suspect more and more people around the world are coming to see that America's image of itself as land of the free and a nation with religious freedom for all is a huge lie.

Friday Male Beauty

Cindy McCain Speaks Out Against DADT

UPDATED: Things must have gotten REALLY hot in the McCain household. Now Cindy McCain claims she still supports DADT notwithstanding her unequivocal statements in the video in this post. Perhaps she needs to remind her husband that while he's the Senator, she's the one with the serious money, not him. Invoke the "golden rule" if you will.

*

Conversations must be interesting around the McCain household what with Meghan McCain supporting gay marriage and now Cindy McCain joining in a NoH8 Campaign's Anti-Bullying PSA and in the process slamming DADT. Sadly, unlike these strong women in his family, John McSenile continues to kiss the bigoted asses of the homophobes and Christianist even though most detest him. As Towleroad reports (and as can be seen below) Cindy McCain specifically mentions DADT in her portion of the PSA. Would that there were more conservatives that would face the fact that religious tradition has no place in the civil laws in a nation that claims to guarantee freedom of religion for all of its citizens. These highlights from Towleroad:
*
The NoH8 campaign has just put out an anti-bullying PSA highlighting a range of topics contributing to the way gay and lesbian youth are perceived by their peers, including religion-based bigotry, the disciminatory ban on blood donation by gay men, marriage inequality, and bans on gay adoption.
*
Notable is Cindy McCain speaking out about gays not being able to serve openly in the military considering her husband is perhaps the biggest impediment in the U.S. Senate to getting the ban lifted. McCain has threatened a filibuster if DADT is attached to the Defense authorization bill, and was recently reported to be trying to make a deal to strip the DADT provision from the bill.
*
Kudos to Cindy McCain. Here's the video (McCain first appears at about the 0.52 minute mark):

Ricky Martin Wants a Legal Gay Wedding in Puerto Rico

In an example of a celebrity using their star power to push the march for equality, Ricky Martin has discussed his desire for the right to legally marry in Puerto Rico. Given Martin's popularity on the island, his comments definitely help push the conversation and highlight the unfairness of the current anti-gay laws. He also is helping Puerto Ricans and others to realize that other Latin nations already have marriage equality, thus exposing the ridiculous backwardness of Puerto Rico and the USA where religious based discrimination is supposed to be illegal. Of course, that claim of religious freedom is a lie and Christianist religious beliefs are afforded special rights and intertwined with the civil laws. Here are highlights from Martin's remarks in Movies NDTV:
*
Pop star Ricky Martin, who publicly admitted that he is a homosexual earlier this year, wishes to legally marry his boyfriend in Puerto Rico. The Un Dos Tres hitmaker wants gay marriages to be legalised in his native land and is ready to wait until then to tie the knot, reported Contactmusic.
*
"I would get married... There are many countries around the world where same-sex marriage is a right. Not in Puerto Rico, unfortunately. And not in many states in America. "Yes, we could go to Spain and get married. We can go to Argentina and get married. But why do we have to go somewhere else?
*
"I can go to Spain. I have many friends in Spain. And get married. And make it very beautiful and symbolic. But... I (can't) do it in the backyard of my house. I want to have that option. I don't want to be a second class citizen anymore. I pay my taxes. Why can't I have that right?" said Martin.
*
Like Martin, more and more of us in the LGBT community are tired of being second or third class citizens. The nation's laws are supposed to protect everyone, but they don't protect LGBT citizens and underscore that the America that self-described patriots like to project is, in fact, a lie. A lie that is increasingly underscored as other nations move forward granting full civil law equality to their LGBT citizens.

Focus on the Family Takes Over "Day of Truth" Lie

One thing that can be always counted on when it comes to Focus on the Family (FOTF") is that its propaganda against gays will be toxic and that it will always be based on lies and untruths. Sadly, it is all to typical of alleged "family values" and professional Christian organizations which have apparently excised the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness from the Ten Commandments. Earlier this year Exodus International - itself not exactly an organization known for truth and veracity - dropped the promotion of the so-called :Day of Truth" which is the Christianist response to the "Day of Silence" that originated at the University of Virginia back in the 1990's and then went nationwide. Exodus' reason for dropping the "Day of Truth" was that it was considered too divisive and insensitive in the wake of the much publicized gay teen suicides. Hence, enter FOTF which I personally believe savors and feels a sense of triumph with each gay teen who dies at their own hand, unable to tolerate the hate and abuse their experience due to the efforts of FOTF, the Mormon Church, Roman Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention - all of which have a great deal of blood on their hands. FOTF is changing the name of the effort to "Day of Dialogue," but do not be fooled by this attempted slight of hand. My blogger friend Jeremy Hooper true to form goes after FOTF and is lying spokeswoman, Candi Cushman, pictured above, for its/her foul hypocrisy and untruthfulness. Here are some highlights:
*
"Day of Dialogue"? Of course that's what they're calling it. Because this matches perfectly with the new "nicer, softer" strategy that Focus on the Family executives have been trying to cultivate in the days post-Dobson (and that less image-focused "pro-family" peeps have been calling out ever since).
*
But here's the thing: Just yesterday -- JUST. YESTERDAY! -- we saw FoTF's schools official, Candi Cushman, pushing an article that called on Christian students to see their gay classmates as "messed up sexually." As embracing "sexual brokenness." As in need of "change." There is no room for dialogue there! At the end of the day, Focus on the Family is still pushing anti-scientific "ex-gay" rhetoric that wishes to put wholly unbacked, entirely faith-based teachings on the same level as credible, peer-reviewed information. In America's PUBLIC SCHOOLS, they wish to do this. They want us to "agree to disagree," in a conversation where we are we are saying that the millions of the LGBT people who make up this planet are normal parts of the world's spectrum, while they continue to say, "No, I don't think so, sorry. But I'll pray for you."
*
The new version of Focus on the Family is all about telling us that they are more modern and less divisive. Telling us that their new leader is less into anti-gay politicking and more into conversation. Telling the public that the controversial religious right is gone for good. That the Dobson boat has sailed, and less choppy waters are ahead. It's all hollow. And in many ways: It's more dangerous.
*
Like Maggie Gallagher (and Victoria Cobb at FOTF's Virginia affiliate, The Family Foundation), Candi Cushman makes the sleaziest, nastiest whore look down right reputable. Their stock in trade is lies, bigotry and hatred and, if there is a God, one can only hope there's a special place in Hell for such vile and dishonest individuals.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Pentagon Study Finds There is Minimal Risk to Repealing DADT

Even as the Liar-in-Chief's DOJ has just filing another brief with the U. S. Supreme Court seeking to stay the injunction banning discharges under DADT (filled, of course, with the usual disingenuous blather about a repeal of DADT negatively impacting military readiness, etc.), a source has leaked results of the Pentagon's own study that shows the DOJ's claims to be LIES. Truly, there is no polite way to otherwise describe the DOJ's claims. But then what else can the LGBT community expect from the Liar-in-Chief at this point? His actions over the last two years have proven that virtually ALL of his campaign promises and statements of support to LGBT Americans were lies. It will be interesting to see how Axlerod tries to spin this one. Frankly, unless one is delusional or otherwise has impaired mental faculties, things are to the point where no LGBT citizen in his or her right mind should believe a single word coming from this White House pertaining to LGBT rights. It's all bullshit and has been all along - we simply hadn't wanted to accept the sad reality. If Obama's lips are moving on any gay issue, then we know he's lying to us. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.
*
More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report's authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.
*
One source, who has read the report in full, . . . said he felt compelled to share the information out of concern that groups opposed to ending the ban would mischaracterize the findings.
*
The document totals about 370 pages and is divided into two sections. The first section explores whether repealing "don't ask, don't tell" would harm unit readiness or morale. It cites the findings of a survey sent over the summer to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, a separate questionnaire sent to about 150,000 military spouses, the responses submitted to an anonymous online drop box seeking comments, and responses from focus-group participants.
*
The second part of the report presents a plan for ending enforcement of the ban. It is not meant to serve as the military's official instruction manual on the issue but could be used if military leaders agreed, one of the sources said.
*
Despite the predictions or fears of groups for and against repealing the ban, the report does not anticipate a large "coming out" by gay men and lesbians serving in uniform, said the person who had read the full draft.
*
Among several recommendations, the report urges an end to the military ban on sodomy between consenting adults regardless of what Congress or the federal courts might do about "don't ask, don't tell," the source said. The report also concludes that gay troops should not be put into a special class for equal-opportunity or discrimination purposes, the individual said.

ACLU Files Class Action for DADT Military Separation Pay

Not only are LGBT service members subjected to religious based discrimination in the form of DADT, but to make maters worse, often they are further penalized upon their discharge by being awarded only half of what others honorably discharged receive in separation pay. It's definitely a case of being screwed over twice - all because these discharged service members refuse to live their lives to please Christianist religious sensibilities. Fortunately, the ACLU has filed a class action law suit seeking redress of this discharge pay travesty. The case is Collins v. United States in which Richard Collins (pictured at left), a decorated former staff-sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, is the lead plaintiff. The ACLU is looking for additional plaintiffs to participate in the class action lawsuit. This includes all United States service members who at any time from November 10, 2004 through the present were involuntarily separated from the military and were, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1174. To determine whether you qualify, please click here. I likely know a number of folks locally who need to look into this case since they may well qualify. Here are more details from the ACLU webpage on the lawsuit:
*
Congress made a judgment that military personnel who serve their country for at least six years and are honorably discharged should get separation pay. The Department of Defense decided to cut that separation pay in half for any service member who is discharged for "homosexuality." The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit challenging that discriminatory internal policy of the Department of Defense as unconstitutional. The separation-pay policy is not part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Department can change it immediately without waiting for congressional approval.
*
The lead plaintiff in the case is Richard Collins, a decorated former staff-sergeant in the U.S. Air Force who served for nine years until he was discharged from service under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Mr. Collins's superiors learned that he is gay when two civilian co-workers observed him exchange a kiss with his civilian boyfriend. Mr. Collins received an honorable discharge from the Air Force but discovered after the discharge had been completed that his separation pay had been cut in half on the grounds of "homosexuality."
*
The ACLU and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network first contacted the Defense Department in November 2009 to request that the separation-pay policy be revised to eliminate the discrimination against gay and lesbian service members, but the department has refused to do so. Because of its refusal to change this discriminatory policy, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico have filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
*
This discriminatory policy is but another example of Christianist religious beliefs being given special rights in the form of punishment against those who do not subscribe to the Christianists' dogma. It's clearly unconstitutional if the First Amendment promise of religious freedom is to mean anything.

Thursday Male Beauty

The Christianist Attack on the Judiciary

With the courts proving to be the one arena where LGBT Americans are achieving success in the struggle for full equality under the civil laws, it's not a surprise that the Christianists and professional Christian set - who one could call Christians for pay (think Maggie Gallagher raking in over $250,000 a year) - have now targeted the independent judiciary in their effort to push the country more and more towards theocracy. I find the trend extremely troubling and ALL minority groups needs to wake up and realize that the power of a simple majority of voters to block judicial protection of minority rights is a step down the road to fascism where any minority group can be stripped of legal rights at the whim of the ignorant who listen to demagogues. This is precisely what Hitler did to the Jews in his lead up to the Holocaust. Evan Wolfson has a column in the Advocate that is a must read for anyone who gives a damn about the rule of law and constitutional protects of minority rights. NOM and similar organizations are a cancer on a society that supposedly honors the rule of law and constitutional government. If the Christianists are not stopped, I question how long it will be advisable for LGBT citizens to remain in the USA. Here are some column highlights:
*
Election Day in Iowa saw a vicious attack from some of the nation’s most notorious antigay organizations and leaders. Politicizing for the first time ever a low-attention, normally routine down-ballot vote regarding whether to “retain” three of the justices, these groups flooded the state with an unprecedented amount of money — more than $700,000 — targeting judges who, out of respect for the judicial selection system, did not campaign for retention or run ads defending themselves. Sadly, the three went down.
*
At the same time as they were warping the retention vote, NOM (the so-called National Organization for Marriage) and its fellow antigay groups (Focus on the Family and American Family Association) also went after Iowa attorney general Tom Miller, who was attacked by his opponent for not challenging the ruling that led to the freedom to marry.
*
NOM’s real target was not just Iowa and the freedom to marry, but rather, the American judiciary. They will wave their bloody shirt around the country in a thuggish effort to intimidate courts and deter judges from fair and independent consideration of cases challenging antigay discrimination. The attack on the Iowa judges was a new low, even for NOM — a despicable and dangerous assault on bedrock American principles. The antigay forces’ desperate tactic displayed their contempt, not just for gay couples, but also for the court, our Constitution, and the American system of checks and balances.
*
Without the courts, our country would not have made the changes we needed to end legal race discrimination, to advance the equality of women, to ensure freedom of speech, or to protect religious minorities against stigma and oppression. While courts do sometimes get it wrong, they have a vital and legitimate role to play in our American constitutional system.
*
With the law clearly not on their side, without any facts to rely upon, and with a majority of Americans on the side of fairness, antigay forces are desperate and willing to lay waste to our courts and our most cherished American principles in order to get their way and punish same-sex couples. As the losses continue to pile up for these extremists, their attacks become more vicious and they resort to shoveling torrents of money into one-sided elections, as they have done in Iowa.
*
There is a reason why everything does not get put up to a vote. There are certain basic rights and protections that belong to each individual and cannot be taken away — not even by the majority. As Americans, we count on our Constitution and courts to safeguard the inalienable rights guaranteed to all of us.
*
America’s courts are under attack by antigay forces, and we can’t leave defending the Constitution to judges alone. All of us, gay and nongay, have to create the climate of receptivity in which judges, legislators, and politicians are emboldened, encouraged, and, indeed, enlightened to do the right thing. . . . We must not allow them [NOM and its allies]to trash the basic rules of the American constitutional system or subvert the courts whose job it is to protect those rules, including constitutional safeguards, for all of us.

Obama DOJ Continues Offesive Against Gay Servicemembers

Once again proving that with a "fierce advocate" like Barack Obama, now known as the Liar-in-Chief on this blog, one truly needs no other enemies, the Obama DOJ has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the Log Cabin Republican's ("LCR") appeal asking that the Supreme Court over turn the stay of Judge Phillips' injunction against enforcement of DADT. Time and time again, the Liar-in-Chief has been given the opportunity to demonstrate that he's not a total liar in the context of DADT repeal and each time he proves that he hasn't meant a single word of his blather to the LGBT community. I have less than zero respect for the man who I increasingly see as a pathological liar and, frankly, no longer believe anything the man says. It's all spin and bullshit. It's too bad I and many others did not recognize this reality about Obama back in 2008. First some highlights from Metro Weekly on this latest betrayal:
*
In a filing at the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon, the U.S. government, represented by acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, asked the court to leave in place the stay of U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips's injunction of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The government's argument would keep DADT in effect while the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
*
Via Toweleroad, the LCR's lead attorney, Dan Wood of the mega law firm White & Case, had the following to say about the DOJ filing which merely regurgitates the same old tired excuses for maintaining DADT:
*
"We have reviewed the government's opposition to Log Cabin's application to vacate the stay of Judge Phillips's injunction by the Ninth Circuit. In our view, the government's lengthy, detailed, 29-page brief does not address the two key arguments we presented to the Supreme Court. First, we argued that the premise of the government's position--that it needs time to conduct an orderly process of repealing DADT--is entirely speculative because Congress has not and very well may never repeal DADT; the government's filing today does not address that issue. Second, we argued that the Ninth Circuit order did not take into account the harm to servicemembers and potential enlistees resulting from the stay; the government's filing today does not respond to that point either. At this point, all we can do is to look forward to a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court."
*
A*dded R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans:

"It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court to halt this failed policy. At the same time, President Obama remains far from the front lines of the fight for legislative repeal while commanding his lawyers to zealously defend 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in court. This week Log Cabin Republicans have conducted meetings with numerous Republican senators potentially in favor of repeal, all of whom are waiting for the President's call. The White House has been missing in action on Capitol Hill, undermining efforts to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the final session of this Congress, potentially leaving the judiciary as the only solution for our brave men and women in uniform."
*

One can only conclude that Obama in truth supports DADT and has done a masterful job of playing the LGBT community for complete suckers. When are we going to wake up to this reality and utterly abandon this president?

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Canadian Op-Ed Blames Churches for Homophobia

This isn't the first time that I have written about the direct responsibility the majority of churches bear for the active promotion of homophobia and as a result, the acts of violence against gays and the too numerous incidents of gay suicides. It is a message that needs to be shouted from the roof tops over and over until the larger public recognizes that hate and intolerance are too often the main stock in trade of the majority of churches. Pardon my "french" but the claims that conservative Christians that they don't condone violence and mistreatment of LGBT individuals is bullshit and their hypocrisy in even daring to make the claim is incredible. An op-ed in the National Post looks at the hypocrisy and the direct link between churches and the fostering of homophobia. The piece starts out referencing the arson committed against the home of a gay couple (shown in the photo at right) and goes on a roll there after, including demanding that non-anti-gay Christians need to speak out. Here are some highlights:
*
The Bishop for the Diocese of Charlottetown Richard Grecco responded to a recent homophobic attack in Prince Edward Island in an interview with The Charlottetown Guardian on Friday. The incident involved a gay couple whose house was set on fire during the night of October 18. In the months leading up to the arson, the couple says that it was subjected to a series of disturbing events, including an anonymous letter condemning the sexual orientation of the men as sinful.
*
In the article, Grecco was quick to announce his support for the victims of the attack, but was even quicker to absolve religion of any responsibility for the incident. According to Grecco, his church “preaches love for everyone, even [for] those with whom it disagrees.”
*
What Bishop Grecco purports is actually quite false. In reality, religion is indeed responsible for homophobia because churches have great power to influence the opinions and actions of those who subscribe to their teachings. Church doctrines are the most important parts of morality for devoutly religious people and as such, religious contempt for homosexuality can manifest itself as hatred toward gay people.
*
In the arson case, it appears that those responsible were religiously motivated because of the language used in the anonymous letter received by the victims, which specifically addressed the sinfulness of homosexuality. Sin is a uniquely clerical concept and the religious connotation in the letter is clear. To suggest that religious opinions against homosexuality had no possible connection to the committing of this crime is not taking responsibility in any adult sense.
*
Sexuality is an inseparable part from a person and thus to attack a gay person for being gay is a personal assault. The victims of this crime were not attacked for what they do but rather for whom they are. . . . when gay rights issues are discussed, religion is there at every possible opportunity to stall the pursuit of gay people to have themselves and their relationships deemed as valid and as productive parts of society. This hypocrisy simply will not do; churches cannot have it both ways.
*
A religion or ideology simply cannot preach against a group of people for centuries but claim to be innocent when such preaching leads to violence against that group.
*
Many moderate Christians may interpret this message as a direct attack on the foundations of their faith, but it is not intended as such. Rather, its goal is to highlight the hypocrisy of churches that try to wear two hats at the same time when it comes to gay rights. Gay people are getting tired of being told that Christians care about them when these same people appear to be road blocks in their goal of equal treatment. Such moderate Christians have real power to help bring about change if they will commit to confronting homophobic sentiments in their churches.

Justice Alito Violates Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Perhaps Justice Alito - who in my opinion should never have been approved for a position on the U. S. Supreme Court - has been emboldened by Clarence Thomas' flouting the long standing conduct of federal judges and partisan political involvement via Virginia Thomas' outrageous conduct and acceptance of large amounts of anonymous donations for her PAC that lobbies for ultra conservative policies (Ms. Thomas, of course, draws a salary from her PAC). Whatever the motivation, Alito believes that he's above the rules. Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides in relevant part as follows:
*
A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY
A. General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
* * *
C. Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity.

*

Pretty clear an unambiguous language, right? Apparently not if one is Samuel Alito. Then you think it's fine and daddy to attend a far right political fundraiser that backs far right Republican candidates and policies. Unfortunately, Alito's behavior is typical of the far right (especially far right Christians) who feel that the rules apply to everyone except them. ThinkProgress has coverage on this shocking improper conduct by a sitting Supreme Court justice. Three justices were relieved from the bench in Iowa by religious extremists for respecting the law. Meanwhile, justices like Alito and Thomas who violate ethical codes remain on the court. A pretty f*cked up state of affairs. Here are some highlights:
*
Last night, the American Spectator . . . . held its annual gala fundraising event. The Spectator is more than merely an ideological outlet. Spectator publisher Al Regnery helps lead a secretive group of conservatives called the “Conservative Action Project,” formed after President Obama’s election, to help lobby for conservative legislative priorities, elect Republicans (the Conservative Action Project helped campaign against Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23), and block President Obama’s judicial appointments. The Spectator’s gala last night, with ticket prices/sponsorship levels ranging from $250 to $25,000, featured prominent Republicans . . . .
*
As Alito entered the event last night, I approached the Justice and asked him why he thought it appropriate to attend a highly political fundraiser with the chairman of the Republican Party, given Alito’s position on the court. Alito appeared baffled, and replied, “it’s not important that I’m here.” “But,” I said, “you also helped headline this same event two years ago, obviously helping to raise political money as the keynote.” Alito replied curtly, “it’s not important,” before walking away from me. . . .Before I could come close to him, his security guards threatened me with arrest.
*
Documents exposed by ThinkProgress last month revealed that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have also attended secret political fundraisers. We published a memo detailing fundraising events, organized by oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, to fund Republican campaigns.
*
That Code [of Conduct for United States Judges] provides that in almost all circumstances, “a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.”

Wednesday Male Beauty

The GOP's Continuing "Palin Problem"

For years to come John McCain will likely be cursed for creating the GOP's version of the Frankenstein monster by selecting Sarah Palin as his 2008 running mate. But for that act, the lunatic of the north might have remained safely obscure in the wilds of Alaska where she could do only limited harm. Instead, the ignorance embracing (she seems to revel in her stupidity) and seemingly mentally unstable Palin is wreaking havoc on the GOP and represents perhaps the strongest force of all that will drive away sentient voters should she somehow gain the GOP nomination in 2012. With the GOP base increasingly made up of the ignorant, religious extremists and less than discrete white supremacists, the nomination process is tilted in Palin's favor. Meanwhile, the few rational folks still in the GOP leadership likely know that Palin as the nominee would likely guarantee the re-election of the Liar-in-Chief if for no other reason than he's not insane. Kathleen Parker, one of the few conservative intellectuals, if you will, left has a column in the Washington Post that looks at the GOP's Palin problem. Here are highlights:
*
Despite its considerable gains in the midterm elections, the GOP has a problem looming in the margins named Sarah Palin. She who can rouse the base like none other is now She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid. Like it or not.
*
Many within the so-called party establishment don't quite know what to do about Palin. She's adored by Tea Partyers, to whom she conveniently attached herself as soon as she sensed a shift in the air. A rogue like Palin isn't going to let a rogue movement fill a stadium - or a desert - without her.
*
Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama recently had the audacity to assert what heretofore had been relegated to whispers behind closed doors: "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate." Bachus, who is likely to replace Barney Frank as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, noted that Palin endorsed some Senate candidates who couldn't possibly win, such as Christine O'Donnell in Delaware
*
Although Tea Party members tend to be over-45 white men - no implication intended regarding Palin's popularity, but infer at will - there is considerable overlap with the demographic formerly known as the GOP base, a.k.a. white Southerners and social conservatives, libertarian streak notwithstanding.
*
Watching Palin drop foreign policy and economic nuggets into the twitterverse confirms that the real agenda for Palin is President Palin, and therein lies fresh terror for Republicans. She's too powerful to ignore, and too (fill-in-the-blank) to take seriously. She is - in a word yet again whispered rather than uttered - "Dangerous."
*
Not only would Palin the presidential candidate drive away other Republican candidates, but she would most certainly lose a national election. Thus, the GOP finds itself in a pickle: How to shed itself of this attractive nuisance? The answer, alas, is the stuff of all complicated relationships: Can't live with her, can't live without her.
*
As much as I can't stand her, it WILL be fun watching Palin perhaps sound the death knell for GOP victories in 2012 if the Party leadership can't get rid of her. There is obviously, no controlling her.

Gay Couples to Sue Over U.S. Marriage Law

I frequently am asked the question of why LGBT couples shouldn't just settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships by those who do not understand that a huge number of laws - over 1,000 in fact - use the word "marriage" in dispensing rights, privileges and benefits. Such being the case, civil unions and domestic partnerships leave same sex couples at a huge disadvantage on many. many fronts. And supporting this huge disparity in rights ad benefits is the federal Defense of Marriage Act which intertwines religious marriage with the civil laws - something that makes a mockery of the nation's alleged freedom of religion for all. Under DOMA, religious freedom extends only to those who conform with a particular religious definition of marriage. DOMA was never about "defending marriage" but all about legalizing religious based discrimination. The New York Times looks at the now two new laws suits pending in the federal courts to end this discriminatory law. Here are highlights (Note the nasty comment from that fat, self-enriching, bigoted cow, Maggie Gallagher):
*
The problem is that while Ms. Pedersen is legally married to Ann Meitzen under Connecticut law, federal law does not recognize same-sex unions. So a health insurance matter that is all but automatic for most married people is not allowed for them under federal law.
*
Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen plan to file a lawsuit Tuesday against the government in an effort to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples. They are plaintiffs in one of two lawsuits being filed by the legal group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a gay rights legal organization based in Boston, and by the American Civil Liberties Union.
*
The two new lawsuits, which involve plaintiffs from New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, expand the attack geographically and also encompass more of the 1,138 federal laws and regulations that the Defense of Marriage Act potentially affects — including the insurance costs amounting to several hundred dollars a month in the case of Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen, and a $350,0000 estate tax payment in the A.C.L.U. case.
*
The civil liberties union filed suit on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, whose spouse, Thea C. Spyer, died last year of aortic stenosis. The two women, New Yorkers who had been together for 44 years, married in Toronto in 2007. New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Had the two been man and wife, there would have been no federal estate tax to pay.
*
Traditionally, Ms. Bonauto noted, the federal government has left the definition of marriage to the states. “The federal government has respected those [state law] determinations, except in the instance of gay and lesbian couples marrying,” she said. The result, she said, is a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
*
Maggie Gallagher, the chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage, said court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act showed that gay rights advocates “continue to push a primarily court-based strategy of, in our view, inventing rights that neither the founders nor the majority of Americans can recognize in our Constitution.”
*
I truly hope the day comes when Christians like Ms. Gallagher are a minority and I and others can vote away her legal rights.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Gay Brazilian Legally Wed in US May Still be Deported

As noted in prior posts, one of the insidious results of the federal DOMA is that same sex couples legally married in their state of residence receive none of the legal recognitions under federal law afforded to heterosexual couples. The goal - which like every anti-gay law whether state or federal - is to punish LGBT citizens for their failure to conform to Christianist religious beliefs. Once again, one particular religious beliefs has been given special rights and codified into the federal statutes notwithstanding the U. S. Constitution's alleged promise of religious freedom to all. Not just conservative Christians. In the present story, the gay couple, Genesio Oliveira and Tim Coco (Oliveira is on the left), were in every respect legally married in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, under DOMA their marriage is not recognized by INS and the non-citizen spouse is given not rights that a straight spouse would receive under the immigration laws. To add insult to injury, the Liar-in-Chief's attorney general is the one pressing the deportation efforts against Oliveira. Thus, once again the Liar-in-Chief's actions show the lie to his claims to be a "fierce advocate" to LGBT individuals. Here are some highlights from the Boston Globe:
*
A Brazilian man who was recently reunited with his Massachusetts husband when federal officials temporarily allowed him into the United States said he could face deportation because the attorney general will not reverse the immigration ruling that first separated the couple.
*
In June, at US Senator John Kerry’s urging, federal officials temporarily allowed Oliveira back in the country on humanitarian grounds. Oliveira said the couple believed Holder would reverse the initial immigration decision. Oliveira, whose nickname is Junior, said that would have allowed him to apply for permanent residency, either on the basis of his marriage or as an asylum-seeker who feels threatened by anti-gay violence in his country.
*
The US attorney general’s office did not immediately return e-mails and phone messages yesterday.
*
The couple is looking at all options, including trying to reapply for asylum, suing the federal government, or trying to persuade Congress to pass a bill that would allow Oliveira to stay, Coco said. “But each one of those options come with risks,’’ he said. “Junior could be forced to go back.’’

National Association of Realtors Aproves LGBT Anti-Discrimination Policy

Little by little the Christianists and homophobes are losing the larger war although, admittedly the current pace of advancement is far too slow for my satisfaction. Now, the National Board of Realtors has adopted a resolution that Article 10 of the Realtor Code of Ethics to include sexual orientation. This action will mean that member Realtors (1) cannot discriminate in representing buyers or sellers based on their sexual orientation, (2) cannot participate in transactions involving discrimination based on sexual orientation, and (3) cannot discriminate in hiring based on sexual orientation. Article 10 previously read in relevant part as follows:
*
REALTORS® shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. REALTORS® shall not be parties to any plan or agreement to discriminate against a person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. (Amended 1/90)
*
REALTORS®, in their real estate employment practices, shall not discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
*

The resolution received a 93% vote of approval. The notice to member Realtors read in part as follows:
*
The NAR Delegate Body approved an amendment to Article 10 of the Code of Ethics to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a roll-call vote, more than 93 percent of the Delegate Body voted in favor of the amendment. The Delegate Body decision confirms a vote by the Board of Directors in May.

A Bullying Suicide Close to Home

I'm not sure how I missed this story other than the fact that during the week after Christian Taylor's suicide the boyfriend and I were in Ft. Lauderdale and then Key West and as a result I did not see the initial stories. Fortunately, blogger friend Mike Rogers shared a link to a follow up story in the Washington Post to those that had run in the Daily Press earlier in the year. While Christian Taylor (pictured at left) was not gay, the pattern is all to familiar: (1) those who are deemed different are tormented and (2) indifferent school administrators and indifferent law enforcement officials who do nothing to protect the victims of bullying. First a little background on York County, Virginia, where Grafton High School is located: York County (located about 20 minutes from Hampton) is VERY Republican and is pretty much mutually exclusive with the word progressive. When one of my sisters liver there in 2006 and had yard signs up in opposition to passage of Virginia's anti-gay marriage amendment, she worried that the sign and/or her home might be vandalized. True to form, the haters of all things different tend to be the "godly Christian" and uber-patriot set. Here are highlights from the Washington Post story:
*
The birthday boy is dead. He killed himself five months before the party. Christian Taylor's friends and family say he was bullied to death, harassed daily until he would rather die than go to school another day. The grim birthday party was the best way they could find to deal with the horrible way they lost him.
*
"I'm all cried out," Ariel Mullins, 13, told me, after she and others released balloons into the sky at 5:58 p.m. on Nov. 5, the moment when Christian was born 17 years ago.
*
For those left behind, a world of could-haves and should-haves. "That was one of the signs I really missed. He said he didn't want to go to school, and I kept telling him he needed to go to school," said his mother, Alisa Williams, who has filed a $10 million lawsuit against Grafton High School officials. The suit alleges that they failed to protect Christian from his tormentors.
*
Taylor's mother has done the right thing in suing school administrators (I suspect that the school system was not a named defendant because typically in Virginia public school divisions invoke the defense of sovereign immunity, leaving the aggrieved plaintiff only able to sue individual employees of the school division). I also agree with Taylor's mother that their need to be statutes imposing liability on both those who bully and their parents. If individuals and school officials will not stop severe bullying for the right reasons, then I'll settle for good behavior motivated solely out of fear of crippling financial liability. For more background, here are a few highlights from previous Daily Press stories. First, the June 3, 2010 Daily Press:
*
Christian Taylor, a freshman at Grafton High School, committed suicide Monday and his mother said he had been bullied at school ever since the family moved here in January. "All I remember is looking into my son's eyes, because he had the most beautiful blue eyes, and he was staring and he was cold," said Alise Williams.
*
She said Taylor, 16, hung himself at the family home Monday. The military family had moved to York County from Fort Hood, Texas, in December and Taylor's step-father is currently deployed to South Korea with the Army.
*
"He didn't want to get in trouble because my thing is don't fight, take it out and tell an adult so it can be handled on a different level," Williams said. "That happened on a Monday, then on Tuesday this kid said to my son you need to just go commit suicide and get it over with. Not only that, but said something to my son's girlfriend, who had her head down on the table at lunch. I don't know how my mood was, but he told her to just go slit her wrists and die.
*
A second June 3, 2010 Daily Press story:
*
Williams said she contacted the York-Poquoson Sheriff's Office about filing charges against the student, but officials refused to take her report. Alise Williams said she contacted officials from the York County School Division and York-Poquoson Sheriff's Office about her son's harassment by another student, but she didn't feel school officials did enough to alleviate the situation.
*
"They didn't do anything," Alise Williams said. "I had five meetings. I asked them if I needed to pull my son out of school to keep him safe, and they assured me that he would be safe."
*

And then a later Daily Press stry after a local court rejected the defendant school officials' attempt to have the law suit dismissed:
*
A civil lawsuit against four York County School Division employees alleging negligence for not protecting a student from bullying will proceed, but a school security officer was dismissed as a defendant Thursday.
*
Alise Williams of York County filed a $10 million wrongful death suit against a Grafton High School principal, two assistant principals, a counselor and school resource officer. Williams claims that the officials failed to protect her son, Christian Taylor, from bullying at school and that it contributed to the teenager committing suicide on May 31.
*
Substitute Judge R. Bruce Long heard a demurrer — essentially a motion to dismiss the case — in York-Poquoson Circuit Court Thursday. It was the first court date for the suit, which Williams filed July 30.

Tuesday Male Beauty