Finding "Someone who Completely Gets Me"

I have had the pleasure of meeting Dustin Lance Black - or Lance as he calls himself - on three occasions and have found him to be a sweet, thoughtful and unassuming individual.  He is also someone who has been on a mission to bring marriage equality nationwide and was a founding member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.  Now, Black is engaged to marry Olympian Tom Daley and he has made some touching statements.  The Christofascists seek to denigrate same sex love, but Lance's statements cut through to the beauty of loving same sex relationships.  Here are excerpts from Gay Star News: 

Newly engaged, Oscar winning screenwriter and LGBTI activist Dustin Lance Black is opening up about his feelings for fiance Tom Daley and their relationship.

‘I met someone who completely gets me,’ he tells the podcast Defining Marriage.

‘I definitely know that we’re better for having each other. We dream bigger. Things seem so much more possible together. Two and a half years in and it still feels like every day is a dream.’

The couple announced their engagement with an announcement in a British newspaper last month.

He says of getting married: ‘There’s power in the word, that the word is understood by society and it means that when you say “I’m married” or getting married, it’s a promise you make to the person you love, and I think that promise creates so much. It creates so much potential, and is understood by so many people.’

Black, who won the Academy Award in 2009 for his screenplay for the film Milk, has been deeply involved in the fight for same-sex marriage in the US. He was a founding member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights which successfully fought in the US Supreme Court for marriage equality in California.

He recalls the dreams he said in his speech the night he accepted his Oscar: ‘There’s two things I said: I said full federal equality, and we have that now in terms of marriage; I also said that one day I hoped that I’d be able to fall in love and get married. I never dreamed in that time I would meet somebody and fall in love and get engaged. I just never knew if that was something I’d be able to appreciate in my own lifetime.’

I wish them both much happiness.  I was especially touched by Lance's comments because my husband often describes me to others as "Someone who Completely Gets Him."

There is a great interview of Olympic diver Tom Daley in The Guardian today.  In addition to talking about his grueling training schedule Daley talks about coming out and the fact that he "always knew he was attracted to guys."  It is something that I believe that every gay male knows from a fairly early age even if, like myself, we try to deny it to ourselves, seek to explain it away through mental gymnastics, and go to great lengths in self-deception before admitting the truth.  Finally accepting one self and the reality of who you are attracted to and love is such a liberating experience.  Word truly do not adequately describe the phenomenon.  Here are highlights from the interview:

“I think I’m diving as well as I am now because of Jane, and because of Lance.”

In March 2013, Daley went for dinner at a friend’s home in Los Angeles and met Dustin Lance Black, a screenwriter 20 years his senior who won an Oscar for Milk, the biopic of gay rights campaigner Harvey Milk. Daley says it was love at first sight. Until then, his only relationships had been with girls, but he had never been in love. Had he thought he might be gay? “I guess it has always been in the back of my head, but you never really know. I’d never had feelings for a person along those lines. I’d been in relationships with girls where I’d had sexual feelings, but it became so much more intense when I met Lance. I thought, ‘Whoa, this is weird. Why am I having these feelings for somebody?’”

Did that freak him out? He nods. “It freaked me a little bit initially, but then it was like, ‘OK, this makes sense’. Lots of things started to make sense.”  Is this his first relationship…? He cuts me off before I can finish the question.  “With a guy? Yes.”

Does he think he’s unusual in discovering his sexuality so late? Well, he says, it’s more complicated than that. “I always knew that I had that attraction to guys, but I just thought that was a usual thing, being attracted to guys and girls. It was only when I met Lance I started having such strong feelings.”

Did Black encourage him to come out? “Yes, he was supportive, but it never got to a point where he said, ‘You should do something about coming out.’ He was just always there, supportive. At no point was he at all pushy.”

Did he discuss coming out with his mother? “Oh yes. My mum had known for six months, and so had my friends. Mum was like, ‘Whatever makes you happy, I’m completely OK with.’” It couldn’t have been more different from the reaction from Black’s family. “He was Mormon, so homosexuals were put in the same group as serial killers.”

Daley says he was unsure how, and whether, to come out publicly right until the last moment. “I thought, should I just not say anything and get caught out, which would be horrible?” And would he have regarded it as getting caught out? “It was more a case of, ‘Oh screw it. I don’t care what people think. I’ll do my own thing. I can still dive, I can still do what I want to do.’ Then I was thinking I could do a newspaper interview, but you wouldn’t want somebody to twist your words. You could do a TV interview, but you don’t want to be asked questions you don’t want to answer. So I just said exactly what I was comfortable with saying at the time. And nothing could be twisted.”

Was there anybody directing him when he made his video? “No, I did it on my phone. I was the only one in the room. That was the way I talk to people anyway, through my YouTube channel.”

How did he feel once the video was out? “It was a massive weight lifted off my shoulders. I was terrified before. And then when it finally happened I was like, great, I don’t need to worry about it any more, people know, who cares, whatever…”

I am happy for Daley and for Lance Black.  Having met his three different times, he's not only beautiful in person, but also one of the nicest unassuming guys  one could ever meet.  I think him profusely for all his work in bringing same ex marriage nationwide. 

Oral Arguments Underway in Bostic v. Rainey on Virginia Marriage Ban

 

As the U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia hears oral arguments in Bostic v. Rainey which challenges Virginia's ban on same sex marriage two groups demonstrated outside the federal courthouse: gay rights advocates in support of striking down the ban and on the other Christofascists with ties to The Family Foundation and the hate group Family Reseacrch Council on the other who want the ban upheld so that LGBT Virginians remain stigmatized and inferior under the civil laws.  The Virginian Pilot looks at the beginning of the Court's hearing:

In a case that could give gay marriage its first foothold in the old Confederacy, a federal judge will hear arguments Tuesday on whether Virginia's ban on gay marriage should be struck down — the position the state's newly elected Democratic attorney general has endorsed, angering many Republican lawmakers.

On Tuesday morning, a handful of protesters gathered at the courthouse. They shouted phrases decrying his position and carried signs: "Herring's herring. AG's must uphold the law."

Across the street, gay-marriage supporters — in about equal numbers — shouted their support for the plaintiffs and carried signs saying "Marry who you love."

Newly elected Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe has rebuffed calls to appoint outside counsel to defend the ban. On Monday, Republicans in the House passed a bill that would give lawmakers standing in lawsuits where the attorney general and governor have chosen not to participate.

With Herring's office deciding to side with the plaintiffs in the case, the job of defending the law during verbal arguments will fall to the legal team of Norfolk's Circuit Court clerk. In addition, an attorney for the religious group Alliance Defending Freedom will present arguments on behalf of the Prince William County's clerk, which has been allowed to intervene in the case, as to why the law should be upheld.

Herring plans to attend Tuesday's hearing, although Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael will argue in court on behalf of the state.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal rights are the same ones that successfully challenged California's ban on gay marriage in court there.

After Herring's office decided not to defend the law, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen considered not even hearing verbal arguments in the case because of the "compelling" filing by the attorney general's office. Wright Allen is a former public defender and assistant U.S. attorney who was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

Herring's announcement last month came on the heels of court rulings in which federal judges struck down gay-marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma.

Currently 17 states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. Most are clustered in the Northeast; none is in the former Confederacy.

Nationwide, there are more than a dozen states with federal lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.

Religion has no place in deciding the rights of citizens under the civil laws, yet as the sign below indicates, Virginia's Marshall-Newman Amendment is all about forcing Christofascists beliefs on all.  

 

Virginia Marriage Case Hearing Postponed

Plaintiffs Tim Bostic and Tony London

Due to the snow storm that hit the Hampton Roads region of Virginia overnight, tomorrow's hearing for oral arguments in Bostic v. Rainey, the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that challenges Virginia's ban on same sex marriage is being rescheduled according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights.  Here is the press release from AFER:

One of the most severe snow storms in a decade has swept through the South, dumping almost 10 inches of snow in southeast Virginia and creating dangerous conditions for an area that rarely sees such inclement precipitation.

Because of the weather, the federal district court announced that it will be closed tomorrow. AFER attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies were scheduled to appear before the court to argue that the state’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional.

The Court will soon reschedule oral argument for a later date.

Frankly, I am not surprised.  The roads in this area are a huge mess and, if I go to my law office tomorrow, I will be driving our old Ford Expedition with 4 wheel drive.  Making matters worse, temperatures will be in the teens tonight causing whatever thawing has occurred today to refreeze.  

In a subsequent post, I will review the competing arguments before the Court.

Plaintiffs Carol Schall and Mary Townley

Why the Oklahoma Gay Marriage Ruling is a Blueprint for Virginia's Marriage Cases

Virginia plaintiffs Tim Bostic and Tony London

I was quoted yesterday in GayRVA on the federal court ruling this week in Oklahoma that struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban.  The opinion was well written and relied on both the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor which made it clear that moral disapproval and animus, respectively, toward a particular group could not justify deliberately discriminatory laws.  While the Oklahoma and Utah rulings are not technically binding precedent on either the Eastern District or Western District of Virginia, they lay out a reasoning easily applicable to the two pending gay marriage lawsuits in Virginia.  Especially when one looks at the anti-gay animus and moral disapproval of gays which was a steady current in the propaganda war led by The Family Foundation and its allies to push passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment in 2006.  The New Civil Rights Movement reviews the Oklahoma ruling and the reasoning is 100% on point for Virginia.  Here are excerpts:

The Judge notes that Oklahoma’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage “intentionally discriminates.”

He labeled Oklahoma’s ban “a classic, class-based equal protection case,” and cited numerous press releases noting animus as the reason the law was passed, like this:

State Representative Bill Graves said, “‘This is a Bible Belt state . . . . Most people don’t want that sort of thing here. . . . Gay people might call it discrimination, but I call it upholding morality.’”

And he effectively slammed every so-called “pro-family” anti-gay group, every evangelical and every Christian organization’s arguments against marriage equality.

The Court recognizes that moral disapproval often stems from deeply held religious convictions… However, moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification for a law.

But wait — it gets better!

Judge Kern writes “there is no rational link between excluding same-sex couples from marriage and the goals of encouraging ‘responsible procreation’ among the ‘naturally procreative’ and/or steering the ‘naturally procreative’ toward marriage.”

Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the “procreative” origins of the marriage institution, any more than marriages of couples who cannot “naturally procreate” or do not ever wish to “naturally procreate.”

And then, bingo!

If a same-sex couple is capable of having a child with or without a marriage relationship, and the articulated state goal is to reduce children born outside of a marital relationship, the challenged exclusion hinders rather than promotes that goal.

Kern keeps on hitting it out of the ballpark, exploding the so-called “every child deserves a mom and a dad” claim groups like NOM and the Family Research Council use.

He writes “the Court cannot discern, a single way that excluding same-sex couples from marriage will ‘promote’ this ‘ideal’ child-rearing environment. Exclusion from marriage does not make it more likely that a same-sex couple desiring children, or already raising children together, will change course and marry an opposite-sex partner…”

“The Court concludes that denial of same-sex couples from marriage “does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting.””

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far, as Oklahoma consistently has one of the highest divorce rates in the country.

And then, finally, this:

“Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived ‘threat’ they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships.”

What happened in Oklahoma is identical to what happened in Virginia and, if the judges in Virginia are responsible jurists, they have no option but to rule as the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma ruled.

Ordinary People Working to Effect Great Change - The Norfolk Marriage Lawsuit

L to R: Laurel Quarlberg, a past Legends honoree, Tony London, Bob Ruloff, and Me

On November 9, 2013, my partner and I attended Equality Virginia's 2013 Legends Gala which honored Miles Burcher, a person friend, as the 2013 "legend" for past service that he has provided to the Hampton Roads LGBT community and his efforts to achieve full equality for all Virginians.  An added bonus of the event was that The American Foundation for Equal Rights ("AFER") was one of the sponsors of the event.  Better yet, all four of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit pending in the Norfolk Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that challenges the toxic Marshall-Newman Amendment to Virginia's Constitution (which bans any legal recognition of same sex relationships, not just marriage) were in attendance.  The plaintiffs are Tim Bostic and Tony London from Norfolk, Virginia, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley from Richmond, Virginia.  I had the good fortune to speak with all four of these self-described ordinary people as well as representatives of AFER.   In fact,  Carol Schall and Mary Townley said several times that they felt that they were in a sort of a dream - "we're just ordinary people who find themselves in something they never expected."

An article in the Richmond Times Dispatch reports on an interview with Tim Bostic and Tony London where they say something very similar: 

There is nothing special about us. We care for our dogs, we try to be good neighbors, we try to volunteer and give back to our community,” he said.

A few days after the Supreme Court decision, London was closing a loan for a real estate deal with Norfolk attorney Robert E. Ruloff. They talked about the ruling on DOMA and Proposition 8. “Then Bob offered to marry us,” London said.

At home, London discussed the idea with Bostic. Both knew that because of Virginia’s marriage amendment, a federal lawsuit would be inevitable. They also considered the consequences that national scrutiny would bring.

“We figured that if we didn’t do it, who would?” Bostic said. “If people like us won’t stand up for what’s right, who is going to do it? We can do it without worrying about our children getting harmed or our careers, or having financial difficulties because of that.”

In October, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies — the legal team that successfully argued California’s Proposition 8 case — announced that they would join Shuttleworth and Ruloff in representing the couple.

Bostic and London are also joined by Chesterfield County couple Carol Schall, an autism researcher, and Mary Townley, who also works with special-needs youths. The couple has been together for 28 years and has a 16-year-old daughter. They were married in California in 2008.

The message to all of is that it takes ordinary people living their lives openly and authentically and standing up to discrimination to change the world.  Eddie Windsor is yet another example.  We cannot wait for someone else to do what needs to be done.  We need to have the courage and fortitude to step up and endeavor to make a difference.  Just like Carol Schall and Mary Townley and Tim Bostic and Tony London.  It was a privilege to spend time with these four great people and to reconnect with my former law partner, Bob Ruloff, one of the attorneys representing the four plaintiffs.  All of us can be "legends" if we but have the courage to do so.

Yours truly with Carol Schall and Mary Townley

Bills Introduced in Virginia General Assembly to Repeal Gay Marriage Ban

State Senator Adam Ebbin

With two federal lawsuits underway in Virginia to strike down the vile Marshall-Newman Amendment to the Bill of Rights Section of the Virginia Constitution - that's right, anti-gay discrimination was written into the Bill of Rights - Virginia's ban on same sex marriage is likely facing a well deserved death.  But  at least two Virginia legislators also seek to begin the legislative death knell for religious based anti-gay bigotry.  They have thus introduced a bill to be taken up in the 2014 session of the Virginia General Assembly.  The prospect of the legislation passing the House of Delegates which is little more than an arm of the foul theocrats at The Family Foundation is likely slim to none.  The Washington Blade looks at this development.  Here are article highlights:

Two Virginia lawmakers on Monday introduced bills that seek to repeal a state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage.

Gay state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and state Del. Joseph Morrissey (D-Henrico) introduced identical bills in their respective legislative chambers.

A referendum on whether to repeal the amendment would take place in November 2016 only if members of the General Assembly approve Ebbin and Morrissey’s bills during the 2014 and 2016 legislative sessions. A Virginia House of Delegate subcommittee in January killed a proposal that state Del. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) introduced seeking to repeal the commonwealth’s gay nuptials ban.  Surovell is expected to co-sponsor Morrissey’s measure.

“Change is coming across the country and eventually we’ll have marriage equality in Virginia,” Ebbin told the Washington Blade on Tuesday. “The road to marriage equality in Virginia might not be a short one, but we’ve got to make sure we’re on our way.”

Timothy Bostic and Tony London of Norfolk filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court found a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and issued a ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8. Carol Schall and Mary Townley of Richmond joined the case in September as attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who successfully argued against California’s Proposition 8 before the U.S. Supreme Court, took up the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Virginia in August filed a class action federal lawsuit on behalf of two lesbian couples who are seeking marriage rights in the commonwealth.

A poll that Greenberg Quinlan Research and Target Point Consulting conducted on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign in late June found 55 percent of Virginians back marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The Christofascists and their political whores in the GOP are fighting a losing rear guard action against modernity and the expansion of equality.   Whether it is via court rulings or legislative action, gay equality is inevitable.

Yours truly with Plaintiffs Carol Schall and Mary Townley

Cuccinelli Responds to Norfolk Marriage Lawsuit Citing Elizabethan and Church of Enland Definitions and Procreation

I always knew that Ken Cuccinelli and his allies at the Family Foundation Foundation wanted to drag Virginia backwards in time and to have religion define the civil rights of citizens.  But I never expected him to cite Elizabethan laws and 17th Century Church of England definitions of marriage to justify Virginia's constitutional ban on any recognition of same sex relationships.  Yet that is precisely what the Memorandum of Law filed on behalf of the State defendants in Bostic v. Rainey, et al, today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia does [Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 44 Filed 10/01/13].   Yes, it also among other things makes the same tired Christofascist arguments that marriage is to be reserved for those who can procreate children and that, therefore, Virginia's decision to stigmatize same sex couples survives rational basis scrutiny.  

The Memorandum also incredibly claims that the Marshall-Newman Amendment wasn't motivated by anti-gay animus despite the anti-gay campaign mounted by The Family Foundation and religious extremists like Cuccinelli himself.  Having lived through the period leading up to the passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment, the motivation of its sponsors was in fact to "harm a politically unpopular group."  Here are some excerpts from Cuccinelli's memorandum of law (which sounds as if it were co-authored in part by folks at The Family Foundation):

Marriage in Virginia Has Always Been Defined As Between One Man and One Woman. 

1. The Act of Uniformity of 1559, 1 Eliz., c.2, required the use of the Book of Common Prayer of 1559 in the Church of England, the church established by law. An Act for the Uniformitie of Common Praier, and Service in the Church, and the Admistracion of the Sacramentes, http://justus.anglican.org.resources/bcp/1559/front_matter_1559.htm. Both the rubrics and the liturgy of marriage required a man and a woman.

2. The General Assembly passed acts of uniformity in March 1623/24,1 1 WILLIAM WALLER HENING, STATUTES AT LARGE 123 (1823), February 1631/32, id. at 155, and September 1632. Id. at 180. In February 1631/32, marriages were ordered to be performed in churches absent some necessity. Id. at 158.2

4. The English Act of Uniformity of 1662, 14 Car. 2, c. 4, required the use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The liturgy and rubrics limit marriage to a man and a woman. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 362-73 (Oxford University Press).

The Memorandum of Law then proceeds to describe Virginia's sometimes bizarre and church dominated laws on marriage which typically were worded to only recognize marriages performed by "ordained ministers of the gospel."  The Memorandum, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that after American independence, there was to be no established church.  It also, perhaps by accident, contains an admission that marriage laws are not necessarily right just because they are of long standing:

24. When African-American marriages forbidden by antebellum laws were ratified, the operative language provided that those who "shall have undertaken and agreed to occupy the relationship to each other of husband and wife, and shall be cohabiting together as such at the time of its passage, whether the rites of marriage shall have been celebrated between them or not, . . . shall be deemed husband and wife." 1865-66 Va. Acts c. 18, p. 85.

As for why there is a purportedly rational basis for discriminating against same sex couples, the Cuccinelli Memorandum of law sounds like a replay of the arguments put forth in the Proposition 8 trial in California.  Here are highlights:

Fundamental rights are those that "are objectively, 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' . . . and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that 'neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.'"

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has held that homosexuality constitutes a suspect class entitled to heightened scrutiny.

Because the Virginia definition of marriage does not deny homosexual individuals a fundamental right or burden a suspect class, it benefits from a "strong presumption of validity." Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993). The traditional definition of marriage must be upheld "'if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.'"

Civil recognition of marriage historically has not been based on state interest in adult relationships in the abstract. Traditional marriage was not born of animus against homosexuals, but is predicated instead on the positive, important and concrete societal interests in the procreative nature of opposite-sex relationships. Only opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate, and the responsible begetting and rearing of new generations is of fundamental importance to civil society.

"[A] central and probably preeminent purpose of the civil institution of marriage (its deep logic) is to regulate the consequences of man/woman intercourse, that is, to assure to the greatest extent practically possible adequate private welfare at child-birth and thereafter."

For an ultimate irony, the Cuccinelli Memorandum even cited an article by NOM's Maggier Gallagher - a woman who has likely made over a $1 million peddling anti-gay animus, has been caught seeking to engender racial discord, and is extremely challenged when it comes to truth and veracity - as follows "States have a strong interest in supporting and encouraging this norm. See, e.g., Maggie Gallagher, What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law, 62 La. L. Rev. 773,. . . "

The Memorandum also cites a favored justification for Christofascists and Tea Party extremists (Cuccinelli is both) by citing supposed virtuous reaction to "judicial overreach":

Under the rational basis test, it must be supposed that the purpose and effect of Article I, § 15-A was to prevent Virginia judges from changing the definition of marriage under the state constitution as state judges had done elsewhere. This is the most salient contextual explanation of Article I, § 15-A. That provision can most reasonably be understood as a popular reaction to judicial overreach. Its supporters might reasonably have concluded that in other states the wrong branch of government had wrought a fundamental societal change; they might reasonably have concluded that they did so employing an improper means by treating a word having a fixed meaning with post-modernist insouciance; and they might reasonably have concluded that this judicial activism justified state constitutional correction.

[T]here is nothing in the holding in Windsor that brings into question the power of States to adhere to the long-standing, conjugal view of marriage. The holding in Windsor is instead that when Congress took the unusual step of intruding into the exclusive state domain of domestic relations law, in a way that made state decisions in favor of the newer view of marriage "second-class," it was then guilty of a "'bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group.'"

Where a State has defined marriage in the first, traditional, conjugal fashion since its original settlement in 1607, the Windsor analytic framework is simply unavailing in support of Plaintiffs.

There's much more bullshit and disengenuous dissembling in the Memorandum of Law.  Again, the lead up to the passage of the Marshall -Newman Amendment was filled with anti-gay animus that flowed in huge waves from The Family Foundation and individuals like Cuccinelli himself. In fact, the proponents of the Marshall-Newman continue to engage in anti-gay animus in the form of seeking to bar gay adoption, depicting gays as sexual predators of children and a parade of other horrible accusations.  One can only hope that the attorneys for the Plaintiffs (the plaintiffs are pictured below) fill the trial record with statements from the anti-gay elements as was done in the Proposition 8 trial in California.

More on AFER's New Role in thr Norfolk Marriage Equality Lawsuit

Back when I first wrote about the lawsuit filed in the Norfolk Division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia there among the issues was the condemnation by certain of the "gay elite" if you will who were peeved that the original plaintiffs had not come before them, genuflected and received prior permission before filing their lawsuit.  For my criticism of these "gay elites" - they know who they are - I suffered some nasty back biting and personal attacks (be assured that while I have held my tongue so far, these personal attacks will be responded to when the time is ripe).  Now, the last laugh seems to be on some of my critics and those who bad mouthed my friends who are the plaintiffs.  Why?  Because today it was announced that American Foundation for Equal Rights ("AFER"), including its legal eagles, Ted Olsen and David Boies.  The video clip above introduces my friends Tim Bostic and Tony London.  Here highlights from AFER's announcement:

[We are] thrilled to announce that AFER and our incredible legal team, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, are joining a federal marriage case in the great state of Virginia.

So much has changed in the 5 years since we started the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We overturned Proposition 8. We took the fight for full marriage equality all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And as Prop. 8 and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act fell, we stood vindicated in the fight against injustice.

Along the way, we transformed the national dialogue. We broke down partisan barriers and changed the discussion from right vs. left—to right vs. wrong.  We now have the support of our President, from elected leaders on both sides of the aisle, and from a solid majority of the country.

Today, nearly 30% of Americans live in a state that allows any committed couple to marry.

But for couples in the 37 states, not enough has changed. Gay and lesbian Americans are still denied basic freedoms, rights and protections based solely on who they love and where they live.

AFER's work continues in Virginia, home to the landmark 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. As in the Loving case, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriage, our plaintiffs want nothing more than to be treated by their home state like any other couple in love.

We will not rest until we have achieved full federal marriage equality for every single American.

I am thrilled to have AFER involved right here in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia.  Meanwhile, my monetary support will go to AFER, not the self-anointed "gay elites."  To contribute to AFER, click here. 

Broadway Stars Sing "It Gets Better"

A group of young Broadway stars came together to record a song with a theme from Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project in the hopes of calling further attention to the problem of suicide among LGBT youth. Among those involved are Marty Thomas of Xanadu and Kyle Kleiboeker of Hairspray who the boyfriend and I met last month in New York City at a party to benefit the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Our LGBT youth need as many positive messages as possible. Meanwhile, Republican Colorado Senate Candidate Ken Buck (pictured below) has compared homosexuality to alcoholism and says being gay is a "choice"and provides one more bit of proof that the Tea Party candidates are thinly disguised Christianist extremists. Here's a video of the Broadway group:
*

As for Mr. Buck and his statements on Meet the Press, here's some of his disgusting batshitery that can only help push gay youths to consider suicide:
*
GREGORY: In a debate last month, you expressed your support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and you alluded to lifestyle choices. Do you believe that being gay is a choice?
*
BUCK: I do.*
GREGORY: Based on what?
*
BUCK: Based on what? I guess you can choose who your partner is.
*
GREGORY: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?
*
BUCK: I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice.
*
I guess to Buck, breathing is a choice too - after all you could stop breathing.

New York City - "Promises, Promises" and the "Glitter Ball"

We head back to Virginia this evening and it’s been a truly great trip. Yesterday we saw “Promises, Promises” and Sean Hayes and Kristin Chenowitz were each great in their roles. After the show we stopped for cocktails at the King Cole Bar at the St. Regis Hotel - originally owned by John Jacob Astor – and it’s mural by Maxwell Parrish which depicts flatulence. The mural (at far bottom of post) is said the be the result of a bet where Astor challenged Parrish that he could not paint a picture of the indicated subject. The faces of the guards - which feature Parrish's own face - indicate that he won the bet.

*
Later after a light dinner we went to the Monster Bar where there was a party called the "Glitter Ball" the proceeds of which were to benefit the American Foundation for Equal Rights – the organization funding the plaintiffs’ case in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Please consider going to AFER's webpage and making a donation. There were a number of show business people in the crowd and a number of them sang some of the disco themed songs of the evening. And there was definitely some major league eye candy (see photo below). Among the show business crowd was Randy Jones (pictured above), one of the original Village People who sang, as one might expect, "YMCA."

*
It will most definitely be dull and depressing to be back in Tidewater Virginia with its all too prevailing backwardness, religious based ignorance and prejudice. We are lucky that the boyfriend’s client base and our friends and neighbors do not fit the norm for the area, but I nonetheless have to wonder how long we will want to stay in the area once we lose our elderly parents. Life is too short to live it surrounded by ignorance and bigotry.

Glitter Ball eye candy.

King Cole mural

Closeted Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman: I'm Gay

Wow! Talk about being the last one to know. Most of us had RNC hack Ken Mehlman figured out long ago. In fact, Mike Rogers and John Aravosis called Mehlman out as gay as far back as 2004. It is unfortunate that his self-loathing led him to do so much harm to so many LGBT Americans through his support of the gay hating GOP for the better part of a decade and serving as campaign chair for Chimperator Bush who used anti-gay hatred to win himself re-election in 2004. With Mehlman's announcement, part of me believes that there'd be some divine justice if the Republicans and conservatives reject him and that Democrats and everyone else does the same. The pragmatist in me recognizes that IF Mehlman sincerely wants to get on board in the fight for LGBT equality, then his efforts ought to be accepted.

*

For the record, I will admit that I spent many years in the closet myself, but at NO TIME did I actively support anyone who sought to denigrate gays or deny LGBT citizens of full civil rights. The same cannot be said for Mehlman, who now, after being a total Judas to gays, claims that he wants to become an advocate for gay rights. Marc Ambinder has more details at the Atlantic. Here are some highlights.
*
Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.
*
Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would arise about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8.
*
Mehlman's leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities -- such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party's platform ("Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country..."). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus.
*
Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.
*
Mehlman is aware that his attempts to justify his past silence will not be adequate for many people. He and his friends say that he is aware that he will no longer control the story about his identity -- which will simultaneously expose old wounds, invite Schadenfruede, and legitimize anger among gay rights activists in both parties who did not hide their sexual orientations.
*
He was the subject of an outing campaign by gay rights activist Mike Rogers, starting when Mehlman was Bush's campaign manager. Rogers's crusades against closeted gay Republicans split the organized gay lobby in Washington but were undoubtedly effective: he drove several elected officials, including Virginia Rep. Ed Shrock, from office, pushed out a would-be presidential campaign manager for George Allen well before Allen was set to run, slung rumors about Sen. Larry Craig's sexual orientation well before Craig's incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, and even managed to make homosexuality a wedge issue within the party's activist circles.
*
Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award winning writer of "Milk," said, "Ken represents an incredible coup for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We believe that our mission of equal rights under the law is one that should resonate with every American. As a victorious former presidential campaign manager and head of the Republican Party, Ken has the proven experience and expertise to help us communicate with people across each of the 50 states."

LGBT Organizations Rebuffed in Prop 8 Suit

In an interesting turn, the American Foundation for Equal Rights - which is backing the Olson-Boies legal team in Perry v. Schwarzenegger which is challenging Proposition 8 and seeking to put the question of marriage equality before the United States Supreme Court - has told a number of LGBT rights organizations who typically see themselves as the arbiters of the struggle for LGBT equality to basically get lost. As you will recall, when the lawsuit was filed by Olson-Boies, Lambda Legal and these others organizations issued a warning that "ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back.

*

My experience has been that typically these organizations do little for the cause of everyday LGBT citizens even as they constantly solicit donations to "fight for equality." Lambda Legal has provided some limited assistance on occasion in respect to transgender issues and the ACLU's LGBT unit recently assisted in some legal brief writing. I'm sad to say that HRC has been largely worthless to date whenever contacted for support or assistance. The result is that LGBT citizens seeking legal help are largely left to their own devices and may find themselves hard put to even find an attorney who will take their case. Difficulty finding gay friendly legal counsel can be a problem here in the Hampton Roads area and is an extreme problem in more reactionary parts of the state.

*

In any event, in the Perry case the American Foundation for Equal Rights sent a letter out to these often self-aggrandizing organizations and told them DO NOT try to intervene in the case. A copy of the letter can be found on Towleroad here. Here are some of the highlights:

*

"On behalf of the plaintiffs and our board, donors and supporters, I am writing to ask that you not intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

"Given our willingness to collaborate with you, and your efforts to undercut this case, we were surprised and disappointed when we became aware of your desire to intervene.
*

"You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed. In light of that, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene."

*

Ouch!! Sometimes the truth hurts, but I am pleased that these organizations have been called out. They do not have a monopoly on deciding strategy and dictating how the rest of us are to work to gain full equality for LGBT Americans under the civil laws. As Andy Towle notes, they may now realize that they missed the boat on this lawsuit or are out to sabotage the work of a rival organization:

*

It would appear Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU LGBT Project are either realizing the case might actually be successful and therefore want to ride its coattails for credit and relevancy, or—depending on your capacity for cynicism—are intentionally dragging down a suit from a rival group working for the same cause.