Thursday, September 30, 2010

Michigan AG Mike Cox Refuses To Discipline Deputy For Anti-Gay Hate Speech

From ThinkProgress.org: For nearly six months, Michigan’s assistant attorney general Andrew Shivrell has been engaging in a bizarre internet campaign against Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student assembly president at the University of Michigan. Shrivrell has attacked Armstrong’s “radical homosexual agenda” and has published posts on his blog “Chris Armstrong Watch” with photoshopped pictures of Armstrong with rainbow flags and swastikas. This week on CNN, Shivrell maintained the legitimacy of his campaign against Armstrong, saying, “I don’t have any hate in my body at all.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper last night asked Shivrell’s boss, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, if Shivrell should be reprimanded in any way for his actions. “We have this thing called the First Amendment, which allows people to express what they think,” Cox said defending Shivrell.

Cooper noted that Cox has even “made Internet safety one of the main initiatives” of his department and has “done public service announcements” on cyber-bullying. Cox conceded that Shivell is bullying Armstrong but added that his actions are protected by the First Amendment. When Cooper said that CNN legal analyst Jeffry Toobin had suggested that Cox’s reluctance to discipline Shivell was because he’s a political ally, Cox attacked Toobin:

COX: Well, you know, Mr. Toobin reminds me of the old joke, “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on TV,” because he clearly didn’t read any of the Supreme Court case that I cited for you.

COOPER: He’s a former federal prosecutor, but you’re saying politics has nothing to do with this?

COX: But that — you know, that doesn’t mean anything, Anderson. He’s not in the ring every day practicing law. He’s spending time on CNN. And it’s a pretty good gig. I wish I had it.

“I’m sorry he’s not a fan,” Toobin said later on the program, adding that “the direction the [Supreme] Court is moving is towards less and less free speech protection for stuff that is a heck of a lot less offensive than the stuff” coming from Shivrell. Noting that Shivrell had actually picketed outside Armstrong’s house, legal scholar Jonathan Turley said, “That comes very, very close to stalking. There could be civil liability here. And I think that that moves this away from free speech into conduct. And that does — that is a legitimate basis for discipline.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Student’s suicide after being filmed having gay sex a ‘hate crime’: group

From RawStory.com:A New Jersey college student jumped to his death off a bridge a day after authorities say two classmates surreptitiously recorded him having sex with a man in his dorm room and broadcast it over the Internet.
Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge last week, said his family's attorney, Paul Mainardi. Police recovered a man's body Wednesday afternoon in the Hudson River just north of the bridge, and authorities were trying to determine if it was Clementi's.
Two Rutgers freshmen have been charged with illegally taping the 18-year-old Clementi having sex and broadcasting the images via an Internet chat program.
Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said in a statement Wednesday that his group considers Clementi's death a hate crime.
"We are heartbroken over the tragic loss of a young man who, by all accounts, was brilliant, talented and kind," Goldstein said. "And we are sickened that anyone in our society, such as the students allegedly responsible for making the surreptitious video, might consider destroying others' lives as a sport."
One of the defendants, Dharun Ravi, was Clementi's roommate, Mainardi told The Star-Ledger of Newark. The other defendant is Molly Wei. They could face up to five years in prison if they're convicted.
A lawyer for Ravi, of Plainsboro, did not immediately return a message. It was not clear whether Wei, of Princeton, had retained a lawyer.
A Twitter account belonging to a Dharun was recently deleted, but in a cached version retained through Google he sent a message on Sept. 19: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."
Two days later, he wrote on Twitter: "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."
Clementi's driver's license and Rutgers ID were found in a wallet left on the bridge on Sept. 22 after two witnesses saw someone jump from it, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Clementi's body hadn't been positively identified.
Mainardi issued a statement Wednesday confirming Clementi's suicide.
"Tyler was a fine young man, and a distinguished musician," Mainardi said. "The family is heartbroken beyond words."
Ed Schmiedecke, the recently retired music director at Ridgewood High School, where Clementi graduated earlier this year, said Clementi was a violinist whose life revolved around music.
"He was a terrific musician, and a very promising, hardworking young man."
NYPD harbor officers recovered the body of a white man, clad only in pants, wearing a watch and without identification after a New York City Parks Department employee spotted a body floating in the river, police said. The body was taken to the city medical examiner's office; authorities hoped to use the watch as identification.


Read more: http://www.myspace.com/facesonfourthstreet/blog?bID=539544258#ixzz10zEjGTSB

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Stalks Gay College Student: Is this guy insane?

From RawStory.com: ""I have done NOTHING immoral OR illegal. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Armstrong and his fellow radical homosexual activists and "allies." As Isaiah rightly prophesied: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness . . ." (5:20).

So says a blog post by Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell, who's on a rampage against college student Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student assembly president at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, Shirvell defended his longwinded jeremiads against Armstrong, which go above and beyond simply calling him a radical activist. Among other things, the network notes that he's published "blog posts that accuse Armstrong of going back on a campaign promise he made to minority students; engaging in 'flagrant sexual promiscuity' with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, 'morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda'; hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009; and trying to recruit incoming first-year students "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.'"

He also "acknowledged protesting outside of Armstrong's house and calling him 'Satan's representative on the student assembly.'"

Shirvell has made the statements on his blog, "Chris Armstrong Watch," using the moniker "Concerned Michigan Alumnus." His anti-Armstrong crusade has gone on for six months.
In his inaugural blog post in April, he wrote, "This is a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong -- a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR -- as the new head of student government."

Shirvell also maintains Armstrong is engaged in rabid "homosexual recruitment."

In one of many very long posts on his blog titled "BOMBSHELL: Ann Arbor Police Raid Chris Armstrong's Out-of-Control 'Gay Rush' Welcome Week Party," Shirvell writes that "the aim of this 'party' was to liquor-up underage freshmen and promote homosexual activity in an effort to recruit them to the homosexual lifestyle."

He continues later, "But even more disgusting than Armstrong's recklessness in hosting this weekend's out-of-control homosexual recruitment "party" at his residence is the fact that Armstrong had the IMPUDENCE to send an e-mail, along with University of Michigan administrators, to the student body lecturing his constituents when it comes to hosting parties on U of M football Saturdays!"

The post also contained a cache of "exclusive" photographs of the police "raid."

Armstrong says he's pursuing legal action against Shirvell but wouldn't tell CNN specifically what action that was.

In a statement, Michigan's State Attorney General Mike Cox said, "Mr. Shirvell's personal opinions are his and his alone and do not reflect the views of the Michigan Department of Attorney General. But his immaturity and lack of judgment outside the office are clear."

Shirvell made no apologies for his blog postings during his CNN interview, "which [also] include a picture of Armstrong with "Resign" written over his face. The same picture also had a swastika superimposed over a gay pride flag, with an arrow pointing toward Armstrong.

Video of Shirvell's appearance Tuesday night on AC 360 follows.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Only 33% Agree that Gay Couples Are Family

From Time.com:
What makes a family? Do pets count? Same sex couples? Unmarried heterosexual couples? Anybody who lives together? According to a new book out Sept. 15, more Americans think pets count as family members (51%) than same-sex couples (33%). And 38% believe that neither pets nor same sex-couples should be counted as family.The book Counted Out: Same Sex Relations and America's Definitions of Family (Russell Sage Foundation) draws on two surveys done in 2003 and 2006. Brian Powell, the book's lead author, also released results from a 2010 survey in conjunction with the book's publication. The surveys are cross-sectional: about 800 people from all walks of life were interviewed about what they considered a family, using different people each time.

The results suggest that while acceptance of same-sex couples is growing, more people are still opposed to gay marriage (52%) than are in favor of it (48%). Despite this, when asked if legally married same-sex couples count as family, 59% of people say yes. Since he started doing the surveys, Powell, who's a professor of Sociology at Indiana University, has seen an 11% drop in the number of Americans who take a narrow or "traditional" view of family (married couples with children only), a statistic he calls "remarkable for both the size and the rate of change."

The pet figure, which seems the most remarkable of all, did not change much between 2006 and 2010. There are still about 30% of people who believe pets count as family but gay couples do not. This may be influenced by the way the question was phrased, however. It asked "whether pets should be counted as family members," which might have made people think of their own situation rather than offering an objective assessment of a family unit. (Then again, there was that university that offered employees pet health insurance before it offered domestic partners insurance.)

The presence of children also makes a huge difference to the way people see families. More than half of those surveyed felt that a same sex couple with children were a family, while only about a quarter felt that same sex couples without children were. And just a third felt that an unmarried heterosexual couple who lived together but had no kids should be considered a family. Almost 10% of people, who may have been watching too many Friends reruns, think housemates are family.

"What counts as family has real meaning," says Powell. "It affects people who are hospitalized, estate rights and adoption law. Where people are in their views on family correlates with what happens in policy."

The survey tracked other interesting changes too. People's beliefs about the source of obesity have moved in the opposite direction from their belief about the source of homosexuality. Fewer people than in 2003 now believe that a person's sexuality is caused primarily by their parenting rather than their genetic makeup. But more people than in 2003 believe that a person's weight problems are caused by their parenting rather than their genes. Will we need an overweight-rights movement?

And while most of the demographic makeup of the groups who hold each view is predictable, men are still more likely to believe that sexual orientation is most influenced by a child's upbringing than women are. Powell's explanation? "Women are more aware of the limitations of parenting."

Wisdom from grown-up gays and lesbians to bullied kids

From Time.com:
"Bullycide" is a colloquialism referring to suicide that results from intense bullying — think Megan Meier and Phoebe Price and Jaheem Herera, 11, a Georgia boy who hanged himself in 2009 after being tormented by classmates for being "gay and a snitch."
The link between bullying and suicide in teens has been on the forefront of media coverage for several years now, and it is children like Jaheem — who are gay or are perceived to be gay — that are most at risk. According to a study from Penn State University, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and "queer" youth (a catch-all term for gender and sexually non-normative people) are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. Of all American teens who die by their own hand, 30% are LGBTQ.

Almost 85% of LGBTQ teenagers are harassed in high school because of their sexual orientation, with 61% of gay youth reporting that they felt unsafe in school and 30% staying home to avoid bullying, according to a 2009 survey by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

The American Association of Suicidology (AAS) suggests that the overall figures on teen suicide rates are likely underestimated, since many premeditated deaths involving car crashes or drugs end up being ruled as accidental. Self-identifying as gay — which is not a scientific fact or medical diagnosis — further complicates data collection. At age 11, for instance, many kids have no idea what their sexual orientation is yet.

In September, in separate incidents, two 15-year-old boys, Indiana native Billy Lucas and Minnesota resident Justin Aaberg, hanged themselves following LGBTQ-specific abuse at the hands of classmates. Justin was openly gay, but Billy's sexuality was unknown — possibly even to him. The two did not know each other.

In the wake of the boys' deaths, many gay rights activists have questioned why sexual orientation–targeted bullying isn't getting more national attention. The gay-rights blog Queerty notes that Aaberg's school district specifically discourages distinguishing LGBTQ bullying (note: the previous link contains harsh language) from other kinds of bullying.

Dan Savage, a gay-rights activist and sex columnist for the Seattle alternative weekly The Stranger, decided to fill the void left by indolent school districts. In his Sept. 23 column, he wrote:

I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better.

But gay adults aren't allowed to talk to these kids. Schools and churches don't bring us in to talk to teenagers who are being bullied. Many of these kids have homophobic parents who believe that they can prevent their gay children from growing up to be gay — or from ever coming out — by depriving them of information, resources, and positive role models.

Why are we waiting for permission to talk to these kids? We have the ability to talk directly to them right now. We don't have to wait for permission to let them know that it gets better. We can reach these kids.

Savage launched the "It Gets Better" project on YouTube, where he invited gay adults to tell kids about how much better their lives got after they graduated from high school. Savage and his husband, Terry, uploaded a lengthy video about their own experiences with bullying, family acceptance and then, finally, of starting their own family together.

The project struck a chord — it began on Sept. 15, but the channel already has more than 300,000 viewers and 131 submissions as of this writing. While its fundamental goal is to prevent the sort of isolation that foments suicidal thoughts in troubled teens, the site has also become a bit of a historical project.

Several teenagers have posted tributes to friends who killed themselves following periods of harassment. One young woman, Ava, said of a friend who died: "One of the really frustrating things to me after his death was that it wasn't in the media. No one was outraged that this boy had basically been harassed until he couldn't take it anymore. ... It felt like no one really cared."

Testimony from adult contributors — whose ages range from Gen Y'ers to Baby Boomers — reveal stories of school bullying and community and familial rejection that still resonate with gay teens today. The videos are an oral history of ostracism and discrimination, and evidence of the fact that in many parts of the country, change is slow in coming.

While "It Gets Better" will hopefully provide comfort to gay teens living in hostile communities, it should do the exact opposite for the rest of us.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

DOJ to Judge: Keep Enforcing DADT

From Advocate.com: The Department of Justice asked a federal judge Thursday to continue enforcing the military's ban on gay and lesbian service members, despite a ruling earlier this month that struck down "don't ask, don't tell" as unconstitutional.

In a 14-page filing, Justice Department attorneys argued that an immediate, permanent injunction against enforcing the law —one supported by Log Cabin Republicans, which successfully challenged DADT in court and has argued for a halt to all discharges of gay service members — would be "untenable." (A PDF of the government’s brief is here.)

"Because any injunction in this case must be limited to [Log Cabin Republicans] and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of [DADT] fails as a threshold matter," assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote.

DADT repeal advocates and attorneys representing Log Cabin Republicans immediately slammed the Justice Department's filing. Dan Woods, lead attorney for the national gay Republican group, called the arguments "ridiculous" and said his team would file a response as soon as Friday.

"It’s our view that the objections fail to recognize the implications of the government's defeat at this trial," Woods told The Advocate. "This case was never limited to only Log Cabin members. And the request for a stay ignores the harm that would be suffered by current and potential service members during a period of the stay."

In a late Thursday statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the filing "in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT — indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy."

But Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson said the Obama administration "had a choice to take several different routes [with the injunction], from the moderate and reasonable to the extremely ridiculous. It appears that they decided to go with the latter end of the spectrum."

Nicholson said the DOJ's filing further erodes faith in the administration for many gays and lesbians seeking substantive change. "Lately a lot of us were holding out hope that there would be a semi-reasonable response to this judicial victory. It appears that [Obama] might be disappointing us yet again," he said.

The Justice Department's arguments against an injunction come two days after legislative repeal of DADT was blocked in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster of the defense authorization bill, of which a repeal on the ban against openly gay service members is a component.

In Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled earlier this month that the DADT statute, passed by Congress in 1993, violates free speech and due process rights of gay service members. She also ruled that LCR is entitled to a permanent injunction against DADT and gave Justice Department attorneys until Thursday to object to Log Cabin's proposed judgment in the case.

The Justice Department has argued that Phillips does not have the authority to issue a sweeping injunction against the ban on openly gay service members (Phillips rejected that argument in a February court hearing).

"[DOJ] has ignored all the law about deference to the military. [Judge Phillips] said before that deference does not mean abdication when constitutional rights were involved," Woods said.

The Justice Department has not yet filed an appeal in the case.

Among the government’s arguments in Thursday's filing, Freeborne wrote that an injunction would preclude the government from litigating other legal challenges to DADT, as well as prevent it from considering the terms of a stay banning discharges of gay soldiers. An immediate halt of discharges, they argued, would jeopardize successful implementation of repeal by interfering with the “ability of the Department of Defense to develop necessary policies, regulations, and training and guidance to accommodate a change in the DADT law and policy.”

“Contrary to [LCR's] repeated suggestions that the Court can simply order the immediate cessation of DADT without any disruption of the military’s operations,” Freeborne wrote, “the Secretary of Defense has stated that, to be successful in implementing a change to the DADT law and policy, the Department of Defense must ‘understand all issues and potential impacts associated with repeal of the law and how to manage implementation in a way that minimizes disruption to a force engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe.’”

Woods criticized that argument as a been-there, done-that tactic. "It's the same argument they made before the trial. 'Let us have time to study it. Congress is considering repealing it.' Judge Phillips has rejected it before."

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Saint - Oral History

Powerful Video - It Gets Better...

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Has to Go

From NYTimes.com:
By JONATHAN HOPKINS
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Since the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (D.A.D.T.) was enacted by Congress, more than 14,000 gay service members have been discharged, at a cost to taxpayers of $363 million over the last decade. I am one of them. I was discharged just one month ago.

Photo Courtesy of Jonathan Hopkins I am a 31-year-old West Point graduate who spent nine years in the military, served as a platoon leader in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy and commanded both a Stryker Infantry Company and a brigade headquarters company in Alaska.

Many people do not even realize the D.A.D.T. policy is still being enforced, especially in light of recent legal rulings, or they think the policy merely asks us not to talk about it. But it goes much further, denying even our ability to exist legally within the military, regardless of the quality of our performance.

As a result, it makes any gay service member a target of anyone who chooses to make an accusation, or a casualty of any unlucky combination of facts that might expose him or her. All someone has to do is to be considered minimally reliable to report a service member as being gay. An investigation results.


I have always told people when discussing the military that “it makes everyone better, teaching us all important values like teamwork and selflessness.”

But if you are gay, I am no longer sure that is entirely accurate. People in the military are not trained to be liars. Our mission is not subterfuge, but that is what this policy forces those of us who are gay to become party to, and the cognitive dissonance is immense. We are trained to manage the fear that may descend during a firefight, but we do not expect to live under the daily fear that our peers may sense something different about us and report us as being gay.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be
While I spent every hour at work trying, like all my peers, to be the perfect Army officer, taking care of and leading our soldiers, I also spent every day being paranoid, worrying about who suspected I was gay, and what they might do about it.

The paranoia is sickening, and it just eats you from within. Some quietly slip out of the service while others, indoctrinated to serve a cause that is just, stick it out.

The Department of Defense spends millions of dollars and dedicates immense amounts of time to ensure the psychological welfare of our service members remains sound. Except if you are gay. Some gay members of the Armed Services suffer from depression because they try to deal with being all they can be at work, but are unable to live a life that could make them happy.

Unfortunately, from 1993 until the spring of 2010, you could be reported as gay by your chaplain, your doctor and even your psychiatrist. Nowhere in the organization could you be safe if you were gay, even when the assistance provided could be vital.

A colleague of mine relayed a story of a soldier whose boyfriend was killed by a roadside blast while both were deployed. The only person the grieving soldier could safely talk to was an Australian officer he didn’t even know. His most trusted teammates — members of his unit — were not allowed to be there for him when he needed them most.

Failure Is the Only Option
There is no way that a gay service member can navigate this policy with honor, integrity, or self-respect intact. Soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen traditionally know virtually everything about one another. The military is inherently a personal affair. Thus, if you are gay and choose to have a relationship, you must isolate yourself from your otherwise inclusive and close-knit organization, then lie about your “housemate” and cover up where you socialized. There go the Army values of “honor” and “integrity” — values we all believe very deeply in.

If you attempt to comply, somehow, with the policy, you dedicate yourself to the most epic and despicably unnecessary sense of loneliness one can imagine, while working in a profession in which you desperately need the nurturing support of others. I know; I’ve been there. You are forced to lie when soldiers, peers or superiors ask you why you’re not married, or anything else about your personal life.

Many service members end up in a no-man’s-land: they break the rules (i.e. have relationships), but can never maintain something meaningful and long-lasting because of the pervasive environment of fear and deception that they have to maintain. Any route you take, you may be able to maintain your career, but you are destroyed bit by bit on the inside each step of the way. Part of you always feels stigmatized or ashamed for something you cannot change, no matter how badly you might want to.

And no matter what you do, you are somehow failing to live up to the military’s highest stated values, because you are an outlaw as a gay soldier from the day you step into the military. When told to “do the right thing” you are left with no feasible option meet that demand.

I Already Lived in a Post-D.A.D.T. Army
In my case, after the military learned from others that I was gay, I served for 14 more months during investigations and administrative actions to discharge me. Everyone knew, so, essentially, I lived for more than a year in a post-D.A.D.T. work environment.

During that time, I was part of a two-officer team planning our 4,000-soldier brigade’s redeployment from Iraq to Alaska. I did initial planning in relation to the Iraqi elections. I served for one year in the brigade’s planning cell in Alaska after return from deployment. The unit could have sent me somewhere else, but chose not to because they felt I made a critical contribution to the organization and they had always respected my work.

Four months after being found out, and 10 months prior to leaving the Army, I found myself with a boyfriend for the first time in my life, because I was no longer scared to have such a relationship. He and I attended social events and dinners with my peers. I talked about him at work. My life became one of full disclosure.

Amid all of that, the unit continued to function and I continued to be respected for the work I did. Many, from both companies I commanded, approached me to say that they didn’t care if I was gay — they thought I was one of the best commanders they’d ever had. And unbeknownst to me, many had guessed I was probably gay all along. Most didn’t care about my sexuality. I was accepted by most of them, as was my boyfriend, and I had never been happier in the military. Nothing collapsed, no one stopped talking to me, the Earth spun on its axis, and the unit prepared to fight another day.

There are parts of my story in the lives of all of the gay service members who continue to serve in our military — and there are 65,000, according to the Urban Institute. Their commitment is immense. So dedicated are they to service that they eschew the rights that every other soldier enjoys. Their road is more difficult than most people realize, and we reward their exceptionally dedicated and selfless service by undermining their ability to live a happy, honest, and fulfilling life — all of which would actually make them even better soldiers.

I wish that they could tell their own stories, but in a master-stroke of policy-making, they are under a gag order that prevents from discussing D.A.D.T.’s impact upon them, if they wish to keep their job serving their country. So I have tried to tell part of my story.

A Policy Without Credible Rationale
A remarkably consistent string of research reports have shown that there is no link between openly gay service members in the United States or foreign militaries having a negative effect on performance. Nevertheless, the “cohesion” argument remains the primary defense for the policy.

But in the most recent Gallup survey of American attitudes toward gays in the military, every demographic broadly supports gays serving openly. Among 18-year-olds to 29-year-olds — who make up the vast majority of the military force — support for overturning the current policy is at 79 percent.

What this shows, in fact, is that upon entrance into the military, we are indoctrinating an otherwise very accepting group of Americans to be more prejudiced than they were when they entered the military. Meanwhile, some leaders paradoxically argue that we cannot make the change because the force is not ready for it.

Using this logic, racial desegregation of the military would have happened in MY lifetime, not my grandfather’s, simply because an outspoken but small minority would remain opposed to it long after 1948. In that case, we made a change simply because it was right — and enforced the standards in a very rule-abiding military — through the virtue of leadership.

We spent very little time surveying our troops before desegregation, integration of women in the service, women at the military academies, women in fighter jets, women on aircraft carriers or submarines. The most instructive question whenever discrimination was an issue has always been simple: “Can this person do the job?”

The current D.A.D.T. policy deprives us of even being able to make an informed decision. It functions through ignorance, which begets stereotypes without fact. In turn that prejudice, from which good people are forced to suffer.

The words of Harvey Milk actually ring very true: “I would like to see every gay doctor come out, every gay lawyer, every gay architect come out, stand up and let that world know. That would do more to end prejudice overnight than anybody would imagine.”

It is for this reason alone that supporters of discrimination seek to keep the truth hidden, gay service members in fear, and the current D.A.D.T. policy in effect. The only accomplishment of the policy is mandatory ignorance.

Jonathan Hopkins is a former United States Army captain who was honorably discharged in August 2010. Mr. Hopkins graduated fourth in his class at West Point. He was deployed three times to Iraq and Afghanistan, earning three Bronze Stars, including one for valor. He is now a graduate student at Georgetown University’s security studies program.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Constitution does not ban sex bias, Scalia says

From sfgate.com: "The U.S. Constitution does not outlaw sex discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a law school audience in San Francisco on Friday.

"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures," Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court's conservative wing, is also its most outspoken advocate of "originalism," the doctrine that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of those who drafted it.

The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."

The court has not applied the same exacting standard to discrimination based on sexual orientation, an issue it could reach in several cases now in lower courts, including the dispute over California's ban on same-sex marriage.

But when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against "a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

Scalia said Friday he's not a purist and is generally willing to accept long-standing court precedents that contradict his views. One exception, he said, is abortion, in which he continues to advocate overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and later rulings that have narrowed but not eliminated the constitutional right to terminate one's pregnancy.

He derided the court's 1992 Casey decision, which allowed states to restrict abortion as long as they did not place an "undue burden" on women's access to the procedure.

Having to decide whether a new staffing requirement for abortion facilities, for example, imposes an undue burden "puts me in the position of being a legislator rather than a judge," he said. "That's not law, and I won't do it."

He also described the legal underpinnings of the court's 1965 ruling declaring a constitutional right of privacy - the basis for Roe vs. Wade - as a "total absurdity."

Scalia is the longest-serving justice on the current court. He spoke to an auditorium filled with law students on the 24th anniversary of his unanimous Senate confirmation, after his appointment by President Ronald Reagan.

He said most of his views haven't changed since then, but one exception is the idea of allowing cameras in the court, which he supported when he was appointed. The issue resurfaced in January when a 5-4 majority, including Scalia, vetoed a federal judge's plan to allow closed-circuit televising of the same-sex-marriage trial in San Francisco.

"If I really thought it would educate the American people, I would remain in favor of it," he told the students. But instead of educational gavel-to-gavel coverage, he said, most people would see 30-second snippets on the nightly news that would "distort the public perception of the court."

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

I'm So Straight

Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal

From HuffingtonPost.com: "HELENA, Mont. — At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

"There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme
The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

"There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court," Greenwood said.

Story continues below
AdvertisementCritics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position.

"To me, that statement legally is hollow," said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. "The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass."

Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent.

"It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party," Abbott said. "It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is."

Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.

"I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it," he said. "Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?"
Court," Greenwood said.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Judge Rules That Military Policy Violates Rights of Gays

From NYTimes.com: "The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gay members of the military is unconstitutional, a federal judge in California ruled Thursday.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court struck down the rule in an opinion issued late in the day. The policy was signed into law in 1993 as a compromise that would allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in the military.

The rule limits the military’s ability to ask about the sexual orientation of service members, and allows homosexuals to serve, as long as they do not disclose their orientation and do not engage in homosexual acts.

The plaintiffs challenged the law under the Fifth and First Amendments to the Constitution, and Judge Phillips agreed.

“The don’t ask, don’t tell act infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members in many ways,” she wrote. “In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the don’t ask, don’t tell act was necessary to significantly further the government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. Defendants failed to meet that burden.”

The rule, she wrote in an 86-page opinion, has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

The plaintiffs argued that the act violated the rights of service members in two ways.

First, they said, it violates their guarantee of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. The second restriction, the plaintiffs said, involves the free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Although those rights are diminished in the military, the judge wrote, the restrictions in the act still fail the constitutional test of being “reasonably necessary” to protect “a substantial government interest.”

The “sweeping reach” of the speech restrictions under the act, she said, “is far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake here.”

The decision is among a number of recent rulings that suggest a growing judicial skepticism about measures that discriminate against homosexuals, including rulings against California’s ban on same-sex marriage and a Massachusetts decision striking down a federal law forbidding the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage.

It will not change the policy right away; the judge called for the plaintiffs to submit a proposed injunction limiting the law by Sept. 16th. The defendants will submit their objections to the plan a week after that. Any decision would probably be stayed pending appeals.

The suit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization. The group’s executive director, R. Clarke Cooper, pronounced himself “delighted” with the ruling, which he called “not just a win for Log Cabin Republican service members but all American service members.”

Those who would have preserved the rule were critical of the decision.

“It is hard to believe that a District Court-level judge in California knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group. He called Judge Phillips a “judicial activist.”

As a candidate for president, Senator Barack Obama vowed to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Once elected, he remained critical of the policy but said it was the role of Congress to change the law; the Justice Department has continued to defend the law in court.

In February, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked Congress to allow gays to serve openly by repealing the law. The House has voted for repeal, but the Senate has not yet acted.

Richard Socarides, a lawyer who served as an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues when the policy was passed into law, said the legal action was long overdue. “The president has said he opposes the policy, yet he has defended it in court. Now that he’s lost, and resoundingly so, he must stop enforcing it.”

The case, which was heard in July, involved testimony from six military officers who had been discharged because of the policy. One, Michael Almy, was an Air Force major who was serving his third tour of duty in Iraq when someone using his computer found at least one message to a man discussing homosexual conduct.

Another plaintiff, John Nicholson, was going through training for intelligence work in the Army and tried to conceal his sexual orientation by writing to a friend in Portuguese. A fellow service member who was also fluent in that language, however, read the letter on his desk and rumors spread throughout his unit.

When Mr. Nicholson asked a platoon sergeant to help quash the rumors, the sergeant instead informed his superiors, who initiated discharge proceedings.

Friday, September 03, 2010

Lure hearing ends; Judge to consider testimony regarding downtown St. Louis nightclub's liquor license

From Stltoday.com: "ST. LOUIS - The owners and attorneys of Lure Nightclub - the last of three downtown clubs once targeted by the city - defended themselves today against city allegations that the club attracts violent behavior and allows drunken, lewd and harassing acts by patrons or staff.

Municipal Judge Margaret Walsh presided over the Excise Commission hearing. Walsh could suspend Lure's liquor license, revoke, or even shut Lure down.

Assistant City Counselor Dan Emerson represented the Excise Commission, and tried to tie a string of downtown incidents to the Washington Avenue club. He called police officers to testify that bar patrons stopped traffic, brawled in the street, exposed themselves and even shot an assault rifle at officers.

Lure attorneys John Bouhasin and former Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr., on the other hand, forced officers to admit, time and again, that they did not actually see the suspects leaving Lure before the officers witnessed the events.

Emerson even withdrew one of the five charges - that a November 5 shooting was tied to the club. Lure, said Bouhasin and Bosley, was not open that night.

And that withdrawal, Bosley told the judge, underscored the mistreatment Lure has received. The charges, he said, were "unfounded," and based on "innuendo."

"Where do the owners of Lure go to get their good name back?" he asked Walsh. "This has cost our clients an extremely large amount of money."

There were, however, some lighter moments in the nearly five hours of testimony.

At one point, Bouhasin was cross-examining police officer Kathleen Kueck, who said she witnessed patrons leaving Lure and exposing themselves as they walked down Washington Avenue.

"Like they would at Mardi Gras?" asked Bouhasin, eliciting smiles from the audience.

"I'm not sure," said Kueck. "I've never worked Mardi Gras."

"Have you ever enjoyed Mardi Gras?" asked Bouhasin.

"Objection!" said Emerson.

"I'll withdraw the question," said Bouhasin.

By the end, Lure owner Aprille Trupiano and her brother Nick Trupiano, who co-manages the bar, said they felt their attorneys represented their side well.

"They dismissed a charge already, a charge that had nothing to do with us," said Nick. "And that shows the prejudice of the case."

Emerson wouldn't comment on the proceedings.

The hearing ended at about 4 p.m. Judge Walsh asked attorneys to submit their best arguments to her by a week from Monday. She said she'd rule soon after that.

A separate protest petition mounted by residents also hoping to close the club will get a hearing after that, she said.

City of St. Louis Battles Lure Nightclub

From Stltoday.com: "ST. LOUIS • A downtown nightclub goes on trial today, its liquor license, and existence, at risk.

Residents have complained that the patrons of Lure, in the heart of the city's downtown bar and loft district, fight in their streets, dump beer bottles on their sidewalks and bleed in their buildings.

City Hall, aiming to protect the safety of residents and the image of a growing downtown, is working to shut the bar down.

Club officials, however, have maintained that Lure has had no liquor violations, such as underage drinking. Their club, they repeatedly insist, is being targeted unfairly.

But a review of city liquor commission documents suggests otherwise. The file on Lure and its earlier incarnations — roughly 6 inches thick — shows at least eight liquor commission violations, including one incident where the bar, named Lucky's at that point, served Bud Light to three teens, garnering a city suspension.

And those are far from the first violations leveled at Lure owners or managers.

Over the last eight years, the daughters and sons of Marlene and Matthew "Mikey" Trupiano — a reputed mobster who went to prison in the mid-1990s for gambling — have owned or helped open a portion of at least six nightclubs in the region, including Lure, according to an analysis of state and city files.

Since 2002, five of those bars have been charged with a combined total of more than 50 state or local violations in about 25 separate incidents.

Some of the charges were administrative: The bars were twice cited for not correctly posting their liquor licenses, and, on a few occasions, didn't tell the city that they had hired new employees, as required by law.

But most were not. Fights broke out. Patrons threw bottles. One grabbed a bat from her car. One bar printed and distributed illegal advertisements. And the bars were collectively charged with at least 40 complaints related to underage drinking.

Still, Nick Trupiano, a manager at Lure and brother of Aprille Trupiano, who owns the club, pointed out that the club, under its new name, has not had any liquor violations.

Certainly, he said, his family's bars have had some incidents. "Fights? Yes. Beefs with landlords? What clubs haven't?" he said. "We have this history because we want to keep doing business in the city."

But, he said, Lure has handled recent troubles well and has worked hard to appease downtown neighbors and City Hall. Yet none of that seems to have worked, he said.

"Now they're digging down," Trupiano said of Lure's opponents. "Trying to find everything."

'The Problem Child'

By late July, the city was targeting three downtown nightclubs, not just Lure. Residents had complained about each, and police visits were stacking up.

Three shootings had spurred City Hall action. One came last December, about two blocks from Jim Edmonds' 15 Steakhouse and Club on Locust Street. Another round of shots was fired early one Friday in June, about two blocks from Lure. And then, in July, two teens and a young man were shot about two blocks from the Sugar Lounge, a popular Washington Avenue club.

The city had already sent out nuisance letters to each club, citing them for "disturbances and other unruly behavior."

But after the July shooting, Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, met with police officials.

The city had been working for years to clean up downtown St. Louis, attract businesses, and transform desolate streets into family-friendly neighborhoods.

"If we had these troubles 10 years ago, it's probable nobody would have noticed," Rainford said at the time. "However, having said that, it's our job, and we are taking it very seriously, to keep the place safe for everyone."

The city liquor commissioner wrote up citations for each club.

Owners at 15 and Sugar worked with city public safety officials and bought themselves more time to fix the problems. They agreed, according to city staff, to consider such measures as added security and extra lighting. And both avoided the city citation, at least temporarily.

Lure officials, on the other hand, hired an attorney, former Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr., to defend them. They picked up a public relations consultant. And they made signs. "Downtown doesn't like black people," said one. —"'Jim Crow' is alive and well in downtown St. Louis," said another.

The city was targeting Lure, said Nick Trupiano, because of its "Red Hot Thursdays," a hip-hop music night that attracted a primarily black audience.

Besides, he said, he and his siblings have owned and run a lot of clubs. And they've never before been called out as "the problem child."

But the city has targeted a Trupiano club before.

demise of dolce

Liquor commission workers say they get few complaints about the vast majority of the city's 850 bars, restaurants and package liquor stores. "It's the few that cause the biggest problems," said Commissioner Bob Kraiberg.

The first version of Lucky's, at Laclede's Landing, was charged with its first underage drinking violation just months after it opened in late 2001. By the time it closed, in 2005, it had at least 14 underage sales or drinking violations.

The city suspended two other Trupiano clubs following underage drinking charges. And at one, the Bubble Room in Kirkwood, the state revoked the liquor license of Anthony Trupiano, Nick's brother, in 2006.

But it is the closure of Dolce, at 200 North Broadway downtown, that bears the closest resemblance to the issues at Lure.

Neighbors began grumbling about the chic new club early in 2008. Then, after 1 a.m. one April night that year, residents flagged down a police cruiser. A "large crowd was standing in front of the club yelling and screaming for no apparent reason," Officer Aundre Smith said in a police report.

A resident described the scene as 80 to 100 people, 12 policemen, a barking police dog, a police wagon and a helicopter overhead, shining a spotlight below, according to the city file.

Within the next few days, seven residents wrote letters to city Alderman Phyllis Young.

"When is enough enough?" asked resident Stacey Howlett. "I feel as if it is only a matter of time before something happens to me. I want to be a city dweller, but I simply don't feel safe in the city anymore."

Two months later, Anthony Trupiano, Dolce co-owner Rob Olsen — who also manages Lure — and another owner sent a letter to the city saying Dolce was closing.

Nick Trupiano said it's not fair to judge a club by the bad behavior of a few patrons. Nor is it fair, he said, for a community to listen to the complaints of what he says are just a few individuals.

The Trupianos will make their case at 10 a.m. today, at a liquor commission hearing in front of a judge in City Hall. They are anxious for it to be over.

"We did (expletive) $78 two Fridays ago! We're losing $10,000 a week, minimum," he said. "What bank do I go to get my reputation back?"

Meanwhile, authorities worry about what might happen if Lure stays open.

Early on Feb. 19, a Lure brawl spilled into the middle of Washington Avenue, where police found a woman beating another in the face with a "Rawlings Tino Martinez souvenir 'Big Stick' baseball bat" that she had gone to her car to get, according to the police report. Another woman was sitting by the side, "bleeding profusely" from her forehead.

Police Lt. Angela Coonce, in an e-mail sent to officers early that morning entitled "Club Lure Insanity," wrote that every available 4th District car responded, and estimated that four times the club's capacity was "crammed inside."

"There would have been no way we could have controlled the crowd tonight if more fights broke out," she concluded. "We were lucky."