Captain's Log

Obama's Invocation

Note to Barack: You are not "campaigning" anymore. You now represent the United States of America. As well as all Americans.  The campaign is over. 

As, apparently, is the honeymoon - and you haven't even been sworn into office yet.  And to 'invoke' your presidency, you picked Rick Warren - a controversial figure, not a unifying one.  Thanks for pissing off one of your most supportive groups, the LGBTQ community.  If you don't know what that means, google it.  Your 'transition team' should certainly have done that.

You threw us, as well as other minorities in America, under the bus.  The man has called for the assassination of a foreign leader.  Nice choice.  NOT.

This "choice" was yours, and a poor one at that. There are many more inclusive pastors, priests, rabbis and reverends that would have been much more appropriate for your idea of "coming together."

Warren IS NOT one of them. No one expects you to change your mind, that would be a sign of weakness. But "your choice" of Warren was more than a sign of weakness - it was weak.

As well as ignorant of how it would be taken by not just the gay and lesbian community, but others this 'pastor' has offended. 

Your "choice" was and is wrong. And you know it Mr. Obama.  But now you have to live with it.

I know there are many pressing, very important issues facing this country and this planet right now.  I'm not saying your choice of Warren 'invoking' your presidency is the elephant in the room. But it is an elephant in our room.

With a little thought about 'governing' versus 'campaigning' - this wouldn't be on the radar.  But it is.  And that is unfortunate.

Captain John

 

News reference articles of note regarding this blog:

Barney Frank Criticizes Obama Choice of Warren for Invocation

What Obama Should Do

The Human Rights Campaign's Proactive Response

Salon Weighs In

Obama's Inaugural Invocation and Pastor Warren

Lose the invocation. We are a nation founded on freedom of religion.

It seems, however, we are not free 'from' religion.

Does separation of church and state mean anything? If it did, there would be no 'So help me god' - invocation or otherwise. And don't get me started about the legality of a church-sanctioned marriage in this country.

Any basic civics classroom knows the difference. And yet we continue to embrace 'the almighty' while espousing our secular state.

It's pure bull, and we all know it. We just fail to recognize it, or do anything about it.

As for Warren, the 'mute' button works just fine for me.

News and Views

My rundown of the top stories of the day:

INTERNATIONAL:

You won't find this on the front page of a Greek Newspaper.  Odd.

China, Stepping up to the Plate in the Gulf of Aden.  It's about Cargo.

NATIONAL:

The Economy, and it's Slow but Steady Movement Closer to Home.

Closing a Convent.

Love Obama's Inauguration, but Crowd Crush and other concerns May Mar the Celebration.

OP-EDS:

The Great Unraveling.

I'm not a big fan of David Brooks, but this is an interesting column.

Building bridges, instead of walls.

LOCAL:

A needless murder in Logan Circle.

Inauguration 101.

JUST FOR FUN:

It's all about Butter.

The Evidence, or Lack Thereof

Back to the Future: O.J., Iraq and now Illinois Governor Blagojevich.

Watching the NBC news with Brian Williams on Tuesday was like looking in a rearview mirror: The O.J. Simpson trial, the 'marketing' of the war against Iraq by the Bush Administration, and now Governor Blago.

A few days ago the 'news' was that Governor Blago was resigning.  Now, after hiring a good lawyer, the "media" is reporting 'not so fast,' he's not going to resign, and SCOTUS may not even be able to figure this one out.

Good soundbites make for easy journalism. And you don't have a story unless you have video.  Welcome to the dumbed-down version of the news.

By basically taking the talking points from "authorities," the media first reported that "Whoa~! Can You Believe This?" to "He's Resigning" to "Not so fast."

Can you see the curve on this one?  From "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" to Condoleezza Rice's "mushroom cloud" analogy to now Blagojevich - the real story here is the media's ineptitude when it comes to investigative journalism.

Googling the subject matter doesn't cut it.  Boots on the ground do.

Anything less than that is bad 'journalism,' - if that's what we are calling it these days.

Words Matter.

"Good Morning."

It started with that simple phrase to my partner, but quicky devolved after - without thinking - he said something totally off base and had nothing to do with anything.  We both had interesting events from the day before and wanted to share them, but a single comment changed our entire morning dynamic.

What transpired after that simple interaction changed our entire day, and has meaning for every one of us as we traverse our lives.  And all I said was 'good morning.' 

Ichigo Ichie.  It's a Japanese term for one time, one meeting.  What each of us does during any particular merging of time and space with others is up to us, but our actions affect countless lives - some close to us, and some further removed.

Words matter.  And, in our own personal interactions with everyone from loved ones to those we pass on the street, actions matter.

Yes, we are all living our lives - both as an individual and as part of our friends, families and social networks - but that does NOT make us experts on what is going on in anyone else's head, or heart. 

To believe you have the faintest idea of what another may be thinking when you say hello and they may or may not see/acknowledge you is ludicrous.  Same thing goes if you walk past a dear friend without seeing them because you are deep in mental or emotional thought.  It happens to everyone, so why personalize it?  Or form an opinion you may or may not have any clue about?  Or judge one another?

To give a couple of examples:

I called a friend today to introduce her to another friend who is interested in developing a professional relationship to further his career.  In the first part of the conversation, she told me she wouldn't be available in the next few days because of a death in the family, something I did not know until I called.  Adjusting our conversation, we hit all the main issues facing us, and vowed to have lunch in February after everything settles down. 

Flexibility is the key to thought.

Secondly, my partner (a professor) is smart enough to realize that his students have things that happen in their lives that affect their work.  We're not talking 'the dog ate my homework' here - these are college students with family and friends in sometimes crises modes.  To throw a few words their way without understanding that their grandmother just passed away or some other significant life event is insensitive and rude, not to mention unprofessional.  He understands this, but sometimes forgets he's not the only person in the room.  I have to break that bubble sometimes. 

To let yourself get sucked into assuming whatever you are going through is the most important thing in the lives of those you care about is self-centered, to say the least.  We should all know better.

So, as you pass people on the street or say things to your family and friends, remember to listen first.  You might just learn something.

As for my partner, I'm hoping he listens to his student's presentations today, and aims for what they are trying to say and do in what are trying times for all of us, before he throws out a flippant remark that may be way off base, and rude.

Words matter.

Let's Drop the Word 'Marriage'

An op-ed piece of mine that was published in last week's edition of The Washington Blade regarding the D.C. same-sex marriage bill:

http://washblade.com/2008/12-12/view/columns/13753.cfm

The DC Marriage Bill Community Forum

I was pleasantly surprised by both the turnout and the comments at the DC Marriage Bill forum last night at the Human Rights Campaign.

First off, kudos to HRC and The Center for bringing such a diverse group to speak about an issue that is near and dear to our hearts.  Spending most of my life in California, I expected a knock-down drag-out fight, as is usual at gay and lesbian community events.

What followed, however, was a reasoned discussion regarding the D.C. marriage bill, its chance of passage, and importantly what impact such a bill brought up by the City Council in January 2009 would do to pending federal LGBTQ legislation.

Everyone agreed that equal rights for same-sex couples were very important, and yet most were cognizant that if we pushed same-sex marriage for our nation's capital we may just torpedo two major LGBTQ bills pending in Congress, as well as face a backlash if D.C. voters voted to overturn the council's action.

What do we want?  Equal rights.  That includes, first and foremost, every voter in the District to have equal representation in the halls of Congress.  It also includes federal legislation for the LGBTQ community across the country - including ENDA and an enhanced hate crimes bill.  Same-sex marriage can wait a bit, as we build our coalition and fight first for equal rights for everyone residing in the District of Columbia.

Equal "marriage" or civil-unions for same and opposite sex couples will come.  Now is, however, not the time.  There are other, more pressing items on our agenda regarding the rights of every citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Change is coming, but - as always - it requires patience.

Peace,

John

Today's News and Views

I couldn't call in 'gay' yesterday, so I'm doing so today.  Instead of my usual Thursday blog, I'm going to blog on Friday about the community meeting at HRC regarding the D.C. same-sex marriage bill under consideration for 2009. 

Until then, here are a few top stories making news:

World Issues:

India, Pakistan and the massacre in Mumbai.

The Executions in Congo.

Afghanistan and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

National Issues:

U.S. Blocks United Nations statement on Gay Rights.

Obama on Blagojevich.

Senate Republicans say Let Detroit Fail.

The Healthcare Crisis.

LGBTQ Issues:

Pat Boone Equates the Bombings in Mumbai with Prop 8 Protesters.

Jon Stewart debates Mike Huckabee on gay marriage.

Women and homosexuals in the military.

Slogans are not movements, and seizing on them belittles everyone involved.

Straight to the Heart:

The Downside of the Economic Downside, specifically regarding 'Extended Family'.

French Cashier Cashes in on her time in the Checkout Line.

The War of the Words

“What Do We Want?”...
“Equal Rights!”
“When Do We Want It?”...
“Now!”

Those were the chants I was leading to a large crowd of protesters in West Hollywood in 1991.  On that autumn day nearly 20 years ago, California Governor Pete Wilson vetoed AB101, the California assembly bill that would have prohibited most discrimination based on sexual orientation, prompting a week of riots directed at the Republican governor across the Golden State. 

Meanwhile, after nearly 15 years, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is continuing its slow march towards passage in Washington, as is a hate-crimes bill including sexual orientation.  These two bills will do more for the entire LGBTQ community than any single legislative, judicial or voter approved action in any single state.

And yet, same-sex marriage, specifically Proposition 8, continues to be the elephant in the room.  And now the D.C, City Council is considering, as one of its first legislative acts in 2009, a same-sex marriage bill for our nation’s capital.

This has to stop.  This war of the words between “straight marriage” and “gay marriage” must end.  There is no adjective when it comes to the word “marriage.”  And that single polarizing word threatens pending federal legislation outlawing gay and lesbian discrimination in employment and housing, as well as another bill adding protection for hate crimes motivated by prejudice related to sexual orientation - for every crime in every corner of our country.

In 1996, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that there was no good reason for the state to deny marriage to same-sex couples, prompting a voter-approved state amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.  That case also led to enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by then-President Clinton in that same year.

What has followed in those intervening years has been a steady erosion of same-sex rights in nearly every state in the union.  From the eastern seaboard, across the great plains, and to now what we once thought were the ‘enlightened voters’ of the west coast, Americans have attempted to define a single polarizing word to mean one thing: “between a man and a woman.”

During this battle over the word ‘marriage,’ a consensus has not appeared within the gay and lesbian community about whether we want to follow the model of traditional marriage, or strike a new path in our own queer way.  Many think we should be allowed to marry anyone, regardless of gender.  Others think we should ditch the whole idea of marriage and remove the church from what they consider a state matter.  And some simply don’t want anyone prying into their personal relationships, legally or otherwise.

Back to D.C., and the same-sex marriage bill being considered by the City Council.  As members of a broader coalition, we have to ask ourselves if this is the best time to fight this fight.  Where does it get us?  Once we leave the district and travel to surrounding states, it doesn’t matter if we are married or not.  And what about statehood?  What about legislative autonomy for the district?  Building coalitions takes time, yet destroying them can happen in an instant.

Is “taxation without representation” just a bumper sticker we sport on our license plates?

It is realistic to wonder whether bringing this matter to the forefront of the American public at this moment in time is a good idea.  It is appropriate to ask if this action will withstand another voter rejection, this time in our nation’s capital.

If we are fighting over equal rights, then no time is as good as the present.  If we are, however, fighting over a single word, then it’s time to shed ourselves of that constraint.

It is time to stop focusing on a single word that empowers our enemies while disabling us, as well as our friends and allies.  It is time to knee-cap the polarizing words ‘sanctity, and ‘marriage.’  It is time to aim for what we want - which is civil, legal unions for everyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

By letting go of the term “marriage” - and the battle lines being waged over it - in a shorter amount of time we will win that war.

It’s time to drop the war of the words, and aim for equal rights for all. 

As for the term ‘marriage.’ 

Just lose it. 

The War of the Words

“What Do We Want?”...
“Equal Rights!”
“When Do We Want It?”...
“Now!”

These were the chants I was leading on Santa Monica Boulevard to a large crowd of protesters in West Hollywood in 1991.  On that crisp autumn day nearly 20 years ago, California Governor Pete Wilson vetoed AB101, the California assembly bill that would have prohibited most discrimination based on sexual orientation, prompting a week of rage directed at the Republican governor in the Golden State.

Skip two years forward to the inauguration of Bill Clinton, and you’ll find the gay and lesbian community demanding the new president allow homosexuals to serve openly in the Armed Forces of the United States.  The backlash was immediate and almost torpedoed his presidency.  And we were left with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - a battle that still rages on.

In 1996, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that there was no good reason for the state to deny marriage to same-sex couples, prompting a voter-approved state amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.  That case also led to enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as dozens of voter-approved state constitutional amendments defining the word marriage.

What has followed since has been a steady erosion of same-sex rights in nearly every state in the union.  From the eastern seaboard, across the great plains, and to now what we once thought were the ‘enlightened voters’ of the west coast, Americans have attempted to define a single polarizing word to mean one thing: “between a man and a woman.”

During this battle over the word ‘marriage,’ a consensus has not appeared within the gay and lesbian community about whether we want to follow the model of traditional marriage, or strike a new path in our own queer way.  Many think we should be allowed to marry anyone, regardless of gender.  Others think we should ditch the whole idea of marriage and remove the church from what they consider a state matter.  And some simply don’t want anyone prying into their personal relationships, legally or otherwise.

Fast forward to January 2009, and our nation’s capital: the historic inauguration of President Barack Obama, a country in deep economic peril mired in two wars with a military beyond the stretching point, and a planet clinging to life-support.  And one of the first actions the D.C. City Council is strongly considering is passing same-sex marriage rights legislation. 

What about statehood?  What about legislative autonomy for my city?  What about taxation without representation?  Is that just a bumper sticker we sport on our license plates?

It is realistic to wonder whether bringing this matter to the forefront at this moment in time is a good idea.  It is appropriate to ask if this action will withstand another voter rejection, this time in our nation’s capital.

If we are fighting over equal rights, then no time is as good as the present.  If we are, however, fighting over a single word, then it’s time to shed ourselves of that constraint.

Queer Nation accomplished that task in the early 90s, and seized the word ‘queer’ back.  It no longer has any power.  It’s time to do the same thing with the word marriage.

Marriage is not an institution, and it does not mean equal rights. The meaning of the word has changed over time, and continues to evolve.  Yet the word itself is charged with an emotional response that is hard to deny. 

We can continue to deny that particular reality exists, but we would be mistaken.

It is time to stop focusing on a single word that empowers our enemies while disabling us.  It is time to knee-cap the polarizing words ‘sanctity, and ‘marriage.’  It is time for us, as a community and as a nation, to shape our future instead of being shaped by events of the past.  It is time for the gay and lesbian community to let go of a single word, and to instead demand equal rights under the rule of law.

We are more likely to gain same-sex civil rights from Atlanta to Anchorage and from New England to New Mexico if we aim for what we want - which is the same legal status as any opposite-sex couple anywhere inside the United States of America.   

By letting go of the term “marriage” - and the battle lines being waged over it - in a shorter amount of time we win the war for equal rights.

It’s time to drop the war of the words.   

As for the term ‘marriage.’ 

Just lose it.