Captain's Log

Let's Call it a "Queer Quilt Across America"

In recent weeks, the gay and lesbian community has been in a serious and, at times, contentious debate about the wisdom of holding a March on Washington this October.

The concerns range from there isn't enough time to organize any type of event that would garner national attention to the rationale of spending limited resources when they could be used in targeted states to the fact that Congress is out of session that weekend.

Event proponents, meanwhile, say the power of social networking can bring people together in one place, there should be no delay in fighting for equal rights, and it only costs about $300 to fly from the west coast to D.C.

What nearly everyone does agree on is that if the "event" goes forward, the most optimistic projections of people who will attend will number in the tens of thousands - if that. And if less than that show up on the west side of the Capitol, the gay and lesbian movement will look disorganized and weak.

It is time to alter course, and - while we still have it - it is time to stitch together a "Queer Quilt Across America" - not just one on the west side of an empty U.S. Capitol Building.

A little context is in order here. Anyone who knows their gay history or has seen the movie Milk (about the life and times of gay icon Harvey Milk) will know who Cleve Jones is. He worked right alongside Milk as he became the first openly gay elected official in California. Jones also conceived of the Names Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.

At a small rally in Utah on June 8th, Jones declared (almost unilaterally) plans to organize a national March on Washington. An article from the Boston Globe will provide some context to the Salt Lake City rally:

An activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk announced plans yesterday for a march on Washington this fall to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights for the lesbian, gay, and transgender community.

Cleve Jones said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Coming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.

The call for a LGBTQ "March on Washington" drew nearly instant criticism from gay rights groups, activists and bloggers.

The founder of The Bilerico Project, Bil Browning, listed 10 reasons a march was a bad idea, including several I mentioned, as well as these two:

4. None of this has been coordinated with anyone other than a small circle of people. None of the large organizations have been consulted - although that's not necessarily a bad thing if you've got the grassroots behind you. A small circle of people is not the grassroots though; it's just a different cadre of wanna-be movers and shakers.

6. A march on Washington will not bring marriage equality to flyover country. It will help to prod conservatives to rally and focus energy and money into states like Maine (that could repeal marriage) or Indiana (where we've successfully fought off an amendment every year for almost a decade). In their zeal to bring marriage back to California, the coastal queers are willing to sacrifice us on the alter of domesticity.

Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend, had this to say about the idea:

It is not the time for a march, IMHO. People who would scrape up the time, energy and enthusiasm to get to DC to march should at the very least be able have the opportunity to learn how to lobby elected senators and reps, since we all know people love to turn out to demonstrate en masse, but rarely show up to speak with lawmakers with the same enthusiasm. Also, direct contact with lawmakers is something the right wing far surpasses us at in terms of effectiveness -- this has to be the goal of any effort of the scope of a national march.

Give people tools they can use back home at the state level, not just provide an offline social networking opportunity to hear feel-good speeches in the equivalent of an echo chamber. Stonewall 2.0 grassroots efforts like the initial Join the Impact rallies showed us that we have to take advantage of online direct action to spur  targeted offline action. And it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

In a blog posting of his own on Bilerico, Jones defended the idea of a march, saying there was time to organize the march and there was "a large and growing network of grassroots activists from throughout the country is coordinating the march."

The October 11 march and rally in Washington, DC, offer our community a powerful opportunity to protest the lack of action from President Obama and the Congress. It's an important way to express our anger while building the foundation for a nationwide grassroots movement to change votes in Congress. The organizers are all volunteers, operating with a stripped down, barebones budget and committed to doing the hard, often tedious work of organizing in all 435 Congressional districts.

There you have it - at least the history of the idea of a March on Washington. So far, however, most of the major national gay and lesbian groups have been standing on the sidelines - waiting and wondering.

Some have called for renaming the event to lessen the public relations fallout from a small band of disorganized protesters yelling at an empty building, but one thing is clear: You don't "gather" or have a Woodstock-style "event" on the National Mall - you March. That's a rather well-established fact - unless you are attending the Smithsonian's annual kite-flying festival.

Holding a rally on the west side of the Capitol is a well-intentioned, but highly ineffective, idea - Especially when Congress is out of session, there is no lobbying involved, and there is no clear agenda.

Many have suggested smaller, targeted rallies in all 50 states - and the District of Columbia. Now that's more than simply an idea, that's real grassroots action - and the media coverage would multiply by a factor of at least 50.

It's not just time to "re-brand" the ***idea*** of a March on Washington this October, it is time to nix "it" entirely.

And it's time, in its place, to stitch together a "Queer Quilt Across America" for National Coming Out Day in October. Rallies and marches included.

//

Cross-posted from Bilerico.com

The F-22 v. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill

Woo Hoo~!

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed cloture in the United States Senate last night. How awesome is that?

Not much.

For starters, hate crimes legislation is a no-brainer and should have been passed as a stand-alone bill - on its own merits - months ago. My political friends will say "that's not how it works," but I have one thing to say to that: Bull. The U.S. House of Representatives passed it as a stand-alone bill in April. The Senate - still missing in action.

The Matthew Shepard bill was first attached to a Tourism Bill - if you can believe that - before being shunted off to a military funding bill.

Secondly, President Obama has repeatedly said he will veto the military authorization bill due to the politics behind the F-22 aircraft. And you can bet the Republicans will argue for funding for a war-fighting aircraft that is over-priced and past its prime to shoot down hate crimes legislation.

To me, this is ridiculous. A bit of leadership from both Capitol Hill and the White House, and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act would now be law. As a stand-alone piece of legislation. And, yes - symbols matter.

I'm seeing a larger problem here, with everyone from the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With high poll numbers, a commanding lead in both houses of Congress and a popular president, I don't get it. I'm not seeing any action here, and actions speak louder than words.

First, some history regarding the hate crimes legislation, courtesy of The Washington Post:

The Senate on Thursday approved the most sweeping expansion of federal hate crimes law since Congress responded four decades ago to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The legislation, backed by President Barack Obama, would extend federal protections granted under the 1968 hate crimes law to cover those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

"This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

The Post goes on to say that "the measure still has a way to go." With President Obama promising to veto the defense bill because of the F-22 fighter, it's still not certain the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act will be enacted. For what it's worth, the United States House of Representatives - to their credit - passed a similar bill - but as independent legislation.

But enough about those more-words-and-no-action senators (as we saw with the Sotomayor hearings this week). Here's what a few gay rights organizations are saying about the vote late Thursday in the Senate to end "cloture" and attach the hate crimes bill to military spending.

From the Human Rights Campaign, which always seems to want to trumpet its own horn before it gets to the point (check out the first sentence):

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, praised the U.S. Senate today for successfully invoking a motion for cloture to proceed to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) Amendment, which would provide local police and sheriff's departments with federal resources to combat hate violence. The cloture motion to consider the Amendment to the FY 2010 Department of Defense Authorization bill was adopted on a vote of 63 to 28.

Or this, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund applauds the U.S. Senate's approval today of an inclusive hate crimes amendment, as part of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Hate crimes legislation cleared the House in April with a vote of 249 to 175. After the Senate finishes debate on and passes the Department of Defense authorization bill, the legislation will likely move to conference committee where differences will be ironed out.

I'm not suggesting that President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will let the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act fall through the cracks. But the fact of the matter is, despite Mr. Obama's and Senator Reid's promise to get the hate crimes portion of the bill passed - until it becomes law, it's all talk and no action.

And the politics of a fighter jet versus the reality of the need for a hate crimes bill should make everyone stop in their tracks for a moment and wonder: What's going on and what are we paying these people for?

Actions speak louder than words. Show me some action.

//

Cross-posted from Bilerico.com

The 14th Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act

Today is the 141st anniversary of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the amendment, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws."

According to the United States Government, the 14th Amendment "greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment."

And then along comes Congress, and in a fit of ignorance in 1994, enacts the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm no lawyer, but if I played one on television, it would seem to me that the 14th AMENDMENT trumps the Defense of Marriage ACT.

If I read the 14th Amendment correctly, the United States Congress is more than compelled to use its constitutional power to force states to recognize marriages performed in other states - same-sex or otherwise. But DOMA clearly states that no state has to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

So, listen up Amendment 14~! Don't break out the champagne just yet. We have acts to consider. Or do we?

I guess a brief history lesson is necessary at this point. More, from the Library of Congress:

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.

By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

Expanding on the information provided by the Library of Congress, and making it easier for the average citizen to read, there's this from Wikipedia:

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away.

The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

And this, specifically regarding the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Defense of Marriage ACT.

The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA.

A right to marriage -- at least "marriage" defined as one man and one woman -- overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia.

Seems to this television lawyer that Congress over-stepped its bounds on this one. DOMA appears to violate the 14th Amendment, violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Amendment.

But wait, it gets more interesting...

On Wednesday, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit challenging DOMA, titled Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Here's a pdf copy of the complaint.

In the lawsuit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley alleges DOMA violates the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically the Spending Clause of that particular Amendment. The 10th Amendment, by the way, is the 12th article and the 10th and final amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Among several things, the lawsuit argues DOMA requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by directly interfering with Massachusetts' longstanding sovereign authority to determine who it determines are "married" and places the state in the position of choosing whether to adapt its programs to fit federal law or limit the ability of the tax-paying residents of Massachusetts from having full equality, as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

It seems clear to this journalist (and television lawyer) that the United States Congress cannot compel the various states to violate their responsibilities to uphold the constitutional rights of their own citizens, in violation of both amendments.

Nor can they write an act that violates at least two amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

//

Cross-posted from Bilerico.com

Same-Sex Marriage Law Goes into Effect in Washington, D.C.

At 12:01 a.m. today, our nation's capital began recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, however, remains illegal.

The D.C. City Council overwhelmingly approved the new ordinance in a 12-to-1 vote in May. Democratic Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed the bill into law.

And so that was that. Right? Wrong...

Laws passed by the District are subject to a 30-day review period by the United States Congress. That review period has now expired, but not after a few homophobes tried to get in the way. Several Republican members of the U.S. Congress objected to the law, but Democratic leaders refused to take up the issue.

As our own Michael Crawford said in a detailed post on how this has played out in our nation's power center, it is "worthy of a soap opera."

In June, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE) issued a ruling denying a request by a group of anti-gay clergy members to collect signatures to place on the ballot whether or not the District should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

The BOEE cited a provision in D.C, election law that prohibits a popular vote on a matter covered by the D.C. Human Rights Act - which includes sexual orientation.

The drama continued for a while, until the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics said enough.

Bilerico's Nancy Polikoff updated us, with this post:

DC Superior Court Judge Judith Retchin cleared the path for the D.C. law recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

The 15-page opinion rejects every ground put forward by Reverend Harry Jackson and others, who asked the judge to allow a referendum on the law to go forward and that, pending the referendum, the law be prevented from going into effect.

And so the marriage equality football moves two steps forward, one step back. Even the conservative Washington Times newspaper did an in-depth article on the issue today.

The D.C. Council has openly acknowledged their next move is to legalize marriage equality in the District.

Same-sex couples currently can get married in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa; with Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont following suit in the next several months.

The city will also recognize the marriages of 18,000 same-sex couples in California before Proposition 8 reversed the legalization of gay marriage in the Golden State.

Legal marriages in foreign countries will also be recognized.

The rights include the ability to file "state" taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, benefits for spouses of employees at private companies and in District government, and spousal immunity from testifying against each other.

Freedom

Being the Fourth of July weekend, I thought it important to remind us of part of the Declaration of Independence. After all, it is Independence Day...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

As we go about our July 4th celebrations - wherever they may be - it is important for every single one of us to remember that there are many men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America defending the very freedoms we take for granted. And, yes, many of them are gay or lesbian and have to serve in silence - due to the onerous federal legislation known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Here's just one of the stories of someone, code-named "Sarah" to protect her identity, having to serve her country, fighting for our very freedoms, in silence:

"Sarah's" story is not unique, but it is heart-wrenching. As I have said before,

Nearly 13,000 gay and lesbian members have been kicked out of the military since DADT was enacted, including dozens of Arabic translators. Thousands more gay and lesbian servicemembers have died or been injured while serving their country - the same country that doesn't want to even acknowledge their existence."

And that was in March 2009 of this year. Add a few more hundred to that list, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian American citizens that either do not enlist in OUR military, or decide to leave because they either do not want to live a lie, fear for their lives, or find it unacceptable to live in an environment where they are treated as second class citizens.

As you go about your holiday festivities, please remember those members of the U.S. military serving in silence. In 1993, in an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise to end the policy of homosexuals serving in the military, former Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law the infamous Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation. For the first time in the history of the United States, a federal law was enacted that mandated anyone who acknowledged they were gay or lesbian was to be automatically fired.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, reads in part:

Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.

In simpler form, the Don't Ask part says mere suspicion of homosexuality does not grant a superior officer the power to initiate an investigation of a service member's sexual orientation. That hasn't necessarily stopped many a dishonorable discharge against a possibly gay or lesbian service member based on rumor or innuendo.

The Don't Tell part prohibits any homosexual (or bisexual) from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, while serving in the U.S. military.

Numerous studies have shown that gays and lesbians openly serving in the military do not in the least bit undermine unit cohesion, morale, or the security of the United States of America.

And yet the beast goes on: DADT@ DADT@ DADT@, dumb...

Numerous editorials and op-ed pieces have been written calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

From the editorial board of the NY Times:

The ostensible rationale was that the known presence of gay men and lesbians would undermine morale and unit cohesion, but as it turned out, the policy caused its own kind of damage to military readiness. Thousands of service members have been discharged from duty at a time when the military is stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of highly skilled interpreters and intelligence analysts has been especially damaging.

From an opinion piece in the Air Force Times:

DADT is a failed policy on three counts: moral, humane and national security.

It is morally wrong because it legitimizes a politically expedient lie of omission that violates military values, such as trust, respect and integrity. What's the effect of justifying lies of omission in other military affairs?

It is inhumane because we ask gays and lesbians to endure the hardships of military service and be subjected to the emotional pressure of being outed -- forced into the shadows as second-class citizens by the institution they serve.

Finally, DADT is a threat to national security at the strategic level because one day, the 65,000 currently serving gays and lesbians might choose to out themselves, thus devastating military capabilities and readiness, to say nothing of a recruiting and training nightmare. At the tactical level, it creates a threat in that foreign agents could use the threat of outing gays and lesbians holding high security clearances to secure their cooperation.

Back to the personal for a moment, and another story from "Sarah," who deploys to one of America's battlefields later this year:

The cost of discharging me at this point in my career is not as significant as my partner. But it's significant. I would say it's at least half a million dollars, plus the experience, the 20 years of experience of leading soldiers, the maturity. You don't just put another one of me, in my spot, and make more widgets. We're leading soldiers in life and death situations everyday.

I get emails like this all the time. One soldier told me of how she was cleaning the blood out of Humvees one day in Afghanistan when she got called into the field commander's office to sign a sworn statement saying she was not homosexual.

Think about that, and picture in your mind and feel in your heart what that must have felt like.

And then watch this powerful video - not from a gay and lesbian group, but a group of veterans looking out for other veterans. Many of whom were standing beside a group of gay and lesbian former and current military members, on a cold winter day in March 2009, lobbying Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Or this, from an Army veteran writing on Pam's House Blend, calling on President Obama to fulfill his campaign promises regarding equal rights for ALL Americans.

However, since Obama's election we have watched DADT continue-unabated, full stop, despite two wars that included a military escalation in Afghanistan. For me, especially as a veteran who served in the Army, this policy and its process has become even more repulsive and counterintuitive because we elected Barack Obama; this once in a generation gifted orator who said he was a fierce advocate for the LGBT community-and yet, since his historical election, his growing silence on the question of DADT is stunning, dismissive even.

Or this video, which tells the tale of "Chad" and his partner serving is silence. The film was produced by the great people at In Their Boots. Their next project, entitled "Silent Partners," premieres on July 4, 2009.

As I said in a Washington Blade Editorial in March:

Traditions, whether right or wrong, are steered like battleships -- over time.

It is time to steer this particular battleship. It is time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And it's time to let service members, straight or gay, place a picture of a loved one on their desk, whether stationed in a foreign land, or in an office at the Pentagon.

It is time to end this. Otherwise, we are only fighting ourselves.

And so, as each of us goes about our Independence Day celebrations, please take a few minutes to remember every member of the United States Military fighting for our independence. And say a little prayer for all those serving our country - in silence. As they're hoping and praying that we'll do the right thing for them, and their loved ones.

Our nation's collective independence, and security, is waiting. It's well past time to make that call, and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. For all of us.