From Stltoday.com: "Home nightclub at Ameristar Casino closed unexpectedly, and for good, after a performance Saturday night from Travie McCoy of "Billionaire" fame.
A statement was issued Sunday morning announcing the closing of the glitzy, Vegas-style club that hosted Paris Hilton, Nelly, DJ AM, Kim Kardashian, Brody Jenner, Jaime Pressly, Lil Kim, Wilmer Valderrama, Amber Rose, Tiesto and many more during special events.
Ameristar senior vice president and general manager Jim Franke said the venue wasn't able to continually turn a profit, despite meeting Ameristar's standards of quality and excellence.
"We want to thank our guests and appreciated their patronage and loyalty in making Home one of the top nightclubs not only in the St. Louis area but throughout the Midwest region," he said.
Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar, said "we were down to those two nights (Friday and Saturday) and we had a full staff and programming. It wasn't exactly inexpensive. Originally when we opened, it was seven days a week and it was very popular."
Knopfel said they'd been mulling the club's closing for a while. "It doesn't happen overnight. We'd been researching it."
It's not known what will happen to the massive space, but there are no plans to change it. Franke said "Ameristar will continue to use the facility as an exciting high-energy venue for the property's group sales business," meaning Ameristar will continue to use it privately only.
Ameristar is looking to place Home employees, most of whom were part-time, into other positions within the company.
Arty J, lead VIP host-emcee at Home, said "I've met so many people and gained great relationships. It was an amazing run and I ran the marathon...I really did love the place."
Home opened Christmas week 2007.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Target CEO is Clueless: Refuses HRC Request for Donation After Making Making Anti-Gay Donation
From Politico.com: Target Corp., for now, has rejected demand from the Human Rights Campaign that the retailer donate to pro-gay rights candidates in order to balance its contribution to a group backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, an ardent opponent of gay marriage.
In a statement released Monday, HRC President Joe Solmonese said “all fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality.”
The company maintained it fully supports the gay and lesbian community, but decided to keep its options open to avoid the appearance that it made a political donation as the result of outside pressure, “given the current political and emotionally charged environment” surrounding the election.
“We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward,” according to a statement the company issued Monday.
HRC and MoveOn.org, a liberal political action group, have spearheaded petition drives and a boycott of Target since it became public that the retail chain gave $150,000 to a business group backing Emmer, a conservative who also has angered the progressive community for his positions on abortion and birth control.
The donation, which came from Target’s business account rather than an internal political action committee, was made possible by a controversial Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a long-standing ban on corporate political activity.
Target officials have said they gave to the newly formed business group, MN Forward, to show support for Emmer’s record on economic issues and because he appeared to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the race.
After employees and outside groups complained, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued memos to his workers explaining his motivation for the donation and apologizing if it upset them. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to equal rights within the workplace and its sponsorship of gay rights events in Minnesota.
But MoveOn and HRC weren’t satisfied. HRC had hoped to convince the firm to donate $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates and groups in Minnesota to “make right” its support for Emmer. After weeks of negotiations, HRC officials said Monday that the talks had broken down without a deal.
HRC said it will devote $150,000 of its resources to defeat Emmer. And MoveOn members are still calling for a boycott of the national chain that had nurtured strong ties to the gay community through its store locations, marketing and nondiscriminatory employee benefits program.
In addition, Solmonese said the gay community is now pressuring Best Buy Co. Inc., which donated $100,000 to MN Forward’s pro-Emmer advertising campaign. Like Target, Best Buy receives one of the highest corporate rankings for workplace equality issues from the HRC.
While nodding to those rankings, Solmonese said that “before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota.”
In a statement released Monday, HRC President Joe Solmonese said “all fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality.”
The company maintained it fully supports the gay and lesbian community, but decided to keep its options open to avoid the appearance that it made a political donation as the result of outside pressure, “given the current political and emotionally charged environment” surrounding the election.
“We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward,” according to a statement the company issued Monday.
HRC and MoveOn.org, a liberal political action group, have spearheaded petition drives and a boycott of Target since it became public that the retail chain gave $150,000 to a business group backing Emmer, a conservative who also has angered the progressive community for his positions on abortion and birth control.
The donation, which came from Target’s business account rather than an internal political action committee, was made possible by a controversial Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a long-standing ban on corporate political activity.
Target officials have said they gave to the newly formed business group, MN Forward, to show support for Emmer’s record on economic issues and because he appeared to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the race.
After employees and outside groups complained, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued memos to his workers explaining his motivation for the donation and apologizing if it upset them. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to equal rights within the workplace and its sponsorship of gay rights events in Minnesota.
But MoveOn and HRC weren’t satisfied. HRC had hoped to convince the firm to donate $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates and groups in Minnesota to “make right” its support for Emmer. After weeks of negotiations, HRC officials said Monday that the talks had broken down without a deal.
HRC said it will devote $150,000 of its resources to defeat Emmer. And MoveOn members are still calling for a boycott of the national chain that had nurtured strong ties to the gay community through its store locations, marketing and nondiscriminatory employee benefits program.
In addition, Solmonese said the gay community is now pressuring Best Buy Co. Inc., which donated $100,000 to MN Forward’s pro-Emmer advertising campaign. Like Target, Best Buy receives one of the highest corporate rankings for workplace equality issues from the HRC.
While nodding to those rankings, Solmonese said that “before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota.”
Monday, August 16, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
Is Obama's position on gay marriage sustainable?
From The Plume Line: "That seems to be one of the core political questions in the wake of the overturning of Proposition 8. How can the president continue opposing gay marriage while supporting the decision to strike down Prop 8, on the grounds that it's "discriminatory," as the White House said in a statement last night?
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Marriage is a Constitutional Right
From NYTimes.com: "Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.
“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”
The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.
Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.
“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”
The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.
Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Sonoma County CA Pays for Shameful Treatment of Gay Couple
From Change.org:
A few years ago the County of Sonoma in California showed its despicable and ignorant hand when it physically separated and isolated Clay Greene from his injured partner Harold Scull, seized the men's possessions, sold those items at auction, forced them into separate nursing facilities and denied them their due legal rights and protection. As this story went viral in April 2010, the general response both here at change.org and around the country was palpable and appropriate outrage. A lawsuit against the County of Sonoma, along with Agua Caliente Villa, the nursing home where Greene was forced to live, commenced immediately, alleging about 50 counts of various, heinous crimes.
And now, months later, Sonoma County has tucked its tail between its legs and skulked away from what was surely going to be a terrible trial, and settled out of court. In retribution for all their sins, the County will pay $600,000 to Harold and Clay's estate (with almost half of that going to attorney's fees ... why do I not practice law again?). Agua Caliente will pay an additional $53,000.
So that's all well and good, I guess. Money can't ever erase the three tortuous months the two men spent apart, stripped of their home, their dignity, and their partnership before Harold died alone in a nursing home. It can't replace the possessions, gathered over a 20 year relationship, that the county wrongfully seized and then sold at auction. It can't undo the emotional hurt. At this point, all Sonoma County has to give is money, so it'll have to do.
But Sonoma County has learned the error of its ways — either to simply cover its ass in the future or to be a kinder, gentler county, who knows? — and is also implementing new procedures for its workers to avoid this kind of intolerant behavior in the future. This is, perhaps, the best news. They can't really fix the enormous injury they inflicted upon Clay Greene, but they can damn sure never inflict it on anyone else.
Wouldn't it have been nice if Sonoma County had an inclusive policy already in place? Sure. It would have been nice if Jackson Memorial had a gay friendly visitation code long before Lisa Pond was admitted. It would have been great if the Itawamba School District had a strict no bullying policy way before Candace McMillan was even a student. It would have been even better if the Defense of Marriage Act was a thing of the past. But we don't live in that world. Yet.
To Clay Greene I say this: I am so sorry you had to go through what you and Harold had to go through. I can't imagine the level of pain and sorrow you both felt. Perhaps, because of you, and those like you who were boldly empowered to speak out at a time when the system beat you down, I won't ever know it.
A few years ago the County of Sonoma in California showed its despicable and ignorant hand when it physically separated and isolated Clay Greene from his injured partner Harold Scull, seized the men's possessions, sold those items at auction, forced them into separate nursing facilities and denied them their due legal rights and protection. As this story went viral in April 2010, the general response both here at change.org and around the country was palpable and appropriate outrage. A lawsuit against the County of Sonoma, along with Agua Caliente Villa, the nursing home where Greene was forced to live, commenced immediately, alleging about 50 counts of various, heinous crimes.
And now, months later, Sonoma County has tucked its tail between its legs and skulked away from what was surely going to be a terrible trial, and settled out of court. In retribution for all their sins, the County will pay $600,000 to Harold and Clay's estate (with almost half of that going to attorney's fees ... why do I not practice law again?). Agua Caliente will pay an additional $53,000.
So that's all well and good, I guess. Money can't ever erase the three tortuous months the two men spent apart, stripped of their home, their dignity, and their partnership before Harold died alone in a nursing home. It can't replace the possessions, gathered over a 20 year relationship, that the county wrongfully seized and then sold at auction. It can't undo the emotional hurt. At this point, all Sonoma County has to give is money, so it'll have to do.
But Sonoma County has learned the error of its ways — either to simply cover its ass in the future or to be a kinder, gentler county, who knows? — and is also implementing new procedures for its workers to avoid this kind of intolerant behavior in the future. This is, perhaps, the best news. They can't really fix the enormous injury they inflicted upon Clay Greene, but they can damn sure never inflict it on anyone else.
Wouldn't it have been nice if Sonoma County had an inclusive policy already in place? Sure. It would have been nice if Jackson Memorial had a gay friendly visitation code long before Lisa Pond was admitted. It would have been great if the Itawamba School District had a strict no bullying policy way before Candace McMillan was even a student. It would have been even better if the Defense of Marriage Act was a thing of the past. But we don't live in that world. Yet.
To Clay Greene I say this: I am so sorry you had to go through what you and Harold had to go through. I can't imagine the level of pain and sorrow you both felt. Perhaps, because of you, and those like you who were boldly empowered to speak out at a time when the system beat you down, I won't ever know it.
More on Target's Support of Anti-Gay Candidate
From Metroweekly.com:
''Marriage
I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.''
From the election website of Tom Emmer, a Republican candidate for Governor of Minnesota. It is reported by AP that Target Corp., the parent company of Target stores based in Minneapolis, has donated $150,000 in cash and brand consulting to "a Republican-friendly political fund.'' Adding that the recipients of the donation are running ads for Tom Emmer. AP calls Emmer "a fiery conservative who opposes gay marriage...,'' then contrasts that donation with a donation from the company to the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival. (Tom Emmer) (AP)
''[Target Corporation] has given $150,000 to a political action committee (PAC), Minnesota Forward, which supports Tom Emmer, Minnesota Republican candidate for governor. Emmer's campaign has previously given money to a ministry that believes Muslim countries that execute gay men and lesbians are more moral than American Christians. The news is even more upsetting, however, when one considers that Target received a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's most recent Corporate Equality Index (CEI).''
From a post at Change.org by Dana Rudolph opposing the donation of funds to a PAC that runs ads for conservative Minnesota politician Tom Emmer. (Change.org)
"Why they would want to get involved and say 'we're for one person' or 'we're for one party' is really beyond me.... There are a lot of people who take politics very seriously and they take their views on issues very seriously, and they do not want to see their money going directly to fund somebody who is directly antagonistic to their belief system."
Minnesota State Representative Ryan Winkler asking publicly, on Minnesota Public Radio, why Target Corp. would donate $150,000 to support a socially conservative gubenatorial candidate Tom Emmer when his "views on abortion, gay marriage and the minimum wage could upset Target shoppers.'' (Minnesota.PublicRadio.org)
''To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.
''MN Forward's objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats. For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic Activity page.''
Portion of an e-mail said to be a response from the Executive Offices of Target, as posted by BearBunMN on the website MN Progressive Project. The usually gay-friendly company has donated to a political fund which is reported to be backing one particularly gay-unfriendly candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Tom Emmer. (MNProgressiveProject)
''Marriage
I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.''
From the election website of Tom Emmer, a Republican candidate for Governor of Minnesota. It is reported by AP that Target Corp., the parent company of Target stores based in Minneapolis, has donated $150,000 in cash and brand consulting to "a Republican-friendly political fund.'' Adding that the recipients of the donation are running ads for Tom Emmer. AP calls Emmer "a fiery conservative who opposes gay marriage...,'' then contrasts that donation with a donation from the company to the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival. (Tom Emmer) (AP)
''[Target Corporation] has given $150,000 to a political action committee (PAC), Minnesota Forward, which supports Tom Emmer, Minnesota Republican candidate for governor. Emmer's campaign has previously given money to a ministry that believes Muslim countries that execute gay men and lesbians are more moral than American Christians. The news is even more upsetting, however, when one considers that Target received a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's most recent Corporate Equality Index (CEI).''
From a post at Change.org by Dana Rudolph opposing the donation of funds to a PAC that runs ads for conservative Minnesota politician Tom Emmer. (Change.org)
"Why they would want to get involved and say 'we're for one person' or 'we're for one party' is really beyond me.... There are a lot of people who take politics very seriously and they take their views on issues very seriously, and they do not want to see their money going directly to fund somebody who is directly antagonistic to their belief system."
Minnesota State Representative Ryan Winkler asking publicly, on Minnesota Public Radio, why Target Corp. would donate $150,000 to support a socially conservative gubenatorial candidate Tom Emmer when his "views on abortion, gay marriage and the minimum wage could upset Target shoppers.'' (Minnesota.PublicRadio.org)
''To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.
''MN Forward's objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats. For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic Activity page.''
Portion of an e-mail said to be a response from the Executive Offices of Target, as posted by BearBunMN on the website MN Progressive Project. The usually gay-friendly company has donated to a political fund which is reported to be backing one particularly gay-unfriendly candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Tom Emmer. (MNProgressiveProject)
Monday, July 12, 2010
Why is the Military Polling Troops About Gays?
From Time.com:
When Harry Truman wanted to integrate blacks into the U.S. military in 1948, he simply ordered it done. When the Navy wanted women on ships beginning in 1978, it commanded its admirals to do so. When the Clinton Pentagon decided women should become fighter pilots, it issued orders telling the military to make it happen. For generations, the military mind-set has been, If we want you to have an opinion, we'll issue you one. So why is the Pentagon asking troops how they'll feel if forced to serve alongside openly gay comrades?
"This is a very dangerous precedent," says Lawrence Korb, who ran the Pentagon's personnel office during the Reagan Administration. "It gives the troops the feeling that they have a veto over what the top people want." Not everyone agrees. "What matters is the morale of the force in the field," says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military scholar. "The survey is an honest attempt to suss out what the effects on morale might be."
(See a brief history of gays in the military.)
But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. "We've never done this," Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and said they would survey the troops about it. "We've never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," he told an activist from the University of California's Palm Center, which monitors the issue. "I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime."
(See the case of a murdered sailor.)
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, says the poll is simply a political tool designed to ease a decision that would be better made quickly. Instead, it's part of a prolonged process that polarizes those involved and hurts both national security and gays. "If we were asking questions about any other identity group — Would your wife mind living on post next to a Chinese family?, Would you take orders from a Baptist officer?, Would you mind serving alongside an African American? — these kinds of questions make those groups second-class citizens," he says.
But the polling and a Pentagon study now under way — after President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and the House all have declared the ban should end (the Senate is expected to do so soon) — does serve a purpose. "We've had to do these political somersaults," Belkin says, "involving a basically fake study process, in order to give the Pentagon a sense that they have some buy-in." Gates said Thursday that it's "very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges that they see" accompanying such a change, and added that the survey is "being done in a very professional way."
(Read TIME's 1991 article "Marching Out of the Closet.")
But the confidential survey, sent out via e-mail last week to 400,000 active and reserve troops, is already controversial. Gay-advocacy groups obtained copies of the poll Friday and it quickly flew around the Internet. The survey "stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design, and will only make the Pentagon's responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder," said Alexander Nicholson of Servicemembers United, a former Army interrogator who was discharged under the existing "Don't ask, don't tell" legislation. He complained that the survey uses "bias-inducing" words "such as the clinical term homosexual," and focused too much on the negative implications of repeal. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell called such criticism "nonsense."
(Comment on this story.)
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, perhaps the leading gay-rights group dealing with "Don't ask, don't tell," took a tough line against the survey. "No survey of the troops should be done," director Aubrey Sarvis said Friday. "Surveying the troops is unprecedented — it did not happen in 1948 when President Truman ended segregation and it did not happen in 1976 when the service academies opened to women. Even when the military placed women on ships at sea, the Pentagon did not turn to a survey on how to bring about that cultural change."
Troops have until Aug. 15 to complete the survey, which asks some 100 questions about how troops would feel serving alongside openly gay comrades or commanders. ("If 'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission?" asks a typical question. The six multiple-choice answers range from "Very positively" to "Very negatively" and also include "No effect.") A second confidential survey, assessing how 150,000 family members feel about the prospective repeal, is slated for next month.
Congress passed "Don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 to thwart President Clinton's bid to lift a ban on gays serving openly. Until then, the White House had unilaterally barred open gays from serving in uniform. Under the 1993 law, recruits were no longer asked if they were gay ("don't ask"). They could serve so long as they kept their mouths shut about their private lives ("don't tell"). It was a crude compromise, which still allowed the military to kick out nearly 14,000 troops, including more than 400 last year while the nation was waging two wars.
But the public mood has shifted since 1993, when only 44% of the public supported openly gay men and women in uniform. It's now supported by 75%, according to a Washington Post poll. But never mind newspaper polls. Korb, the former Pentagon personnel chief now at the Center for American Progress think tank, is more concerned over what might happen if military surveys like this catch on. "Are they going to poll the troops on whether they want happy hours or discount cigarettes?" he asks. "Where does it stop — should we get out of Afghanistan?"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003075,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29#ixzz0tV8OA5RU
When Harry Truman wanted to integrate blacks into the U.S. military in 1948, he simply ordered it done. When the Navy wanted women on ships beginning in 1978, it commanded its admirals to do so. When the Clinton Pentagon decided women should become fighter pilots, it issued orders telling the military to make it happen. For generations, the military mind-set has been, If we want you to have an opinion, we'll issue you one. So why is the Pentagon asking troops how they'll feel if forced to serve alongside openly gay comrades?
"This is a very dangerous precedent," says Lawrence Korb, who ran the Pentagon's personnel office during the Reagan Administration. "It gives the troops the feeling that they have a veto over what the top people want." Not everyone agrees. "What matters is the morale of the force in the field," says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military scholar. "The survey is an honest attempt to suss out what the effects on morale might be."
(See a brief history of gays in the military.)
But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. "We've never done this," Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and said they would survey the troops about it. "We've never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," he told an activist from the University of California's Palm Center, which monitors the issue. "I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime."
(See the case of a murdered sailor.)
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, says the poll is simply a political tool designed to ease a decision that would be better made quickly. Instead, it's part of a prolonged process that polarizes those involved and hurts both national security and gays. "If we were asking questions about any other identity group — Would your wife mind living on post next to a Chinese family?, Would you take orders from a Baptist officer?, Would you mind serving alongside an African American? — these kinds of questions make those groups second-class citizens," he says.
But the polling and a Pentagon study now under way — after President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and the House all have declared the ban should end (the Senate is expected to do so soon) — does serve a purpose. "We've had to do these political somersaults," Belkin says, "involving a basically fake study process, in order to give the Pentagon a sense that they have some buy-in." Gates said Thursday that it's "very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges that they see" accompanying such a change, and added that the survey is "being done in a very professional way."
(Read TIME's 1991 article "Marching Out of the Closet.")
But the confidential survey, sent out via e-mail last week to 400,000 active and reserve troops, is already controversial. Gay-advocacy groups obtained copies of the poll Friday and it quickly flew around the Internet. The survey "stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design, and will only make the Pentagon's responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder," said Alexander Nicholson of Servicemembers United, a former Army interrogator who was discharged under the existing "Don't ask, don't tell" legislation. He complained that the survey uses "bias-inducing" words "such as the clinical term homosexual," and focused too much on the negative implications of repeal. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell called such criticism "nonsense."
(Comment on this story.)
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, perhaps the leading gay-rights group dealing with "Don't ask, don't tell," took a tough line against the survey. "No survey of the troops should be done," director Aubrey Sarvis said Friday. "Surveying the troops is unprecedented — it did not happen in 1948 when President Truman ended segregation and it did not happen in 1976 when the service academies opened to women. Even when the military placed women on ships at sea, the Pentagon did not turn to a survey on how to bring about that cultural change."
Troops have until Aug. 15 to complete the survey, which asks some 100 questions about how troops would feel serving alongside openly gay comrades or commanders. ("If 'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission?" asks a typical question. The six multiple-choice answers range from "Very positively" to "Very negatively" and also include "No effect.") A second confidential survey, assessing how 150,000 family members feel about the prospective repeal, is slated for next month.
Congress passed "Don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 to thwart President Clinton's bid to lift a ban on gays serving openly. Until then, the White House had unilaterally barred open gays from serving in uniform. Under the 1993 law, recruits were no longer asked if they were gay ("don't ask"). They could serve so long as they kept their mouths shut about their private lives ("don't tell"). It was a crude compromise, which still allowed the military to kick out nearly 14,000 troops, including more than 400 last year while the nation was waging two wars.
But the public mood has shifted since 1993, when only 44% of the public supported openly gay men and women in uniform. It's now supported by 75%, according to a Washington Post poll. But never mind newspaper polls. Korb, the former Pentagon personnel chief now at the Center for American Progress think tank, is more concerned over what might happen if military surveys like this catch on. "Are they going to poll the troops on whether they want happy hours or discount cigarettes?" he asks. "Where does it stop — should we get out of Afghanistan?"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003075,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29#ixzz0tV8OA5RU
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Obama Can't Shake Gay Rights Fight
From Politico.com:
By: Josh Gerstein
July 10, 2010 07:03 AM EDT
When President Barack Obama agreed to back legislation in May that could eventually repeal the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, the resolution seemed to offer twin benefits for the White House:
Quell the anger of gay activists who accused Obama of foot-dragging on the issue, and allow the question of gays in the military to cool for a while, perhaps until after the November election.
That didn’t last long.
The issue leapt back into the news this week after the Pentagon sent a survey to 400,000 troops to assess their attitudes on whether openly gay soldiers should be allowed to serve — with questions being criticized by gay rights advocates as inaccurate, inflammatory and biased.
Next week, a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is going to trial in California — and Obama’s Justice Department is in the uncomfortable position of trying to prevent the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from being overturned as discharged veterans testify about its dramatic impact on their careers.
Some gay rights activists who were cheered by Obama’s decision in May now say they’re frustrated by what feels like a two steps forward, one step back approach to the issue — especially in light of Obama’s delay in seeking to repeal of the policy in the first place.
“This has got to be a nightmare for the White House political office, especially as Organizing for America ramps up efforts to rebuild a coalition for the midterms which includes gays,” said Richard Socarides, a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. “I want the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress more than most. It’s very important that we do that if gay rights are important to you. So I can’t understand why the president’s senior advisers permit the Justice Department to defend this case. … It’s incomprehensible.”
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment for this story. However, officials have said that Justice is obligated to defend any law Congress passes as long as there is a plausible legal basis to do so, even if the current administration disagrees with the statute.
Some lawyers in the gay rights movement scoff at that. They note that from time to time, Justice has refused to stand behind laws under challenge as unconstitutional. For instance, in 2005, the Justice Department declined to defend a law barring the D.C. Metro transit system from accepting ads that promote legalizing marijuana.
For the attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division assigned to handle the Log Cabin case, it’s essentially a Catch-22. If they get tough or confrontational with the ex-service-members or experts called to testify, the government lawyers risk being accused of insensitivity.
If they hold back, Republicans and social conservatives could accuse the administration of taking a dive in a case it never really wanted to win.
“This is a pincer” for the government’s lawyers, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. However, he didn’t have much sympathy. “It comes with the territory,” he said.
Even ahead of the Log Cabin case, conservative Republicans have been attacking Obama on gay rights as well, insisting that the Justice Department isn’t really trying very hard to defend the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that the Justice Department wasn’t going all-out to fight lawsuits against the gays-in-the-military policy, and over a law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kagan denied the charge. “I have acted in the solicitor general's office consistently with the responsibility, which I agree with you very much that I have, to vigorously defend all statutes, including the statute that embodies the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” Kagan said.
A federal judge’s rulings Thursday holding part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional triggered a round of complaints from conservatives that the Obama administration was making a politically correct and less-than-forceful defense of that law.
“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable. The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Gillers said, though, that government attorneys were not obliged to rip apart the opposition the way a private litigator might. “Because you’re a government lawyer, you’re not given the same deference to be a junkyard dog for that client,” he said. “A government lawyer has a broader mandate.”
Written briefs in gay-rights-related cases have already landed the Justice Department in hot water with the Obama White House after gay activists complained the filings compared same-sex marriage to forms of incest and marriages involving minors. Sources say some filings in such cases are now coordinated with White House lawyers.
But the give-and-take of live courtroom testimony is even more treacherous and can’t be vetted so easily from Washington. The lead lawyer for the Log Cabin group, Dan Woods of White & Case in Los Angeles, said he expects the trial to stretch for two weeks and involve testimony by seven expert witnesses and as many as six former service members. Justice Department lawyers have said they plan to call no witnesses at the bench trial to be held before Judge Virginia Phillips, without a jury, Woods said.
With the new Pentagon survey under fire for its questions about open-bay showers and even its use of the term “homosexual,” it is almost certain that Justice Department lawyers handling the Log Cabin case will be accused of asking insensitive or homophobic questions as they cross-examine witnesses.
On the other side of the political spectrum, social conservatives say they’ll be watching closely to see whether DOJ is going easy. “We hope the administration’s politically motivated position against 'don’t ask, don’t tell' will not be a factor in defending the regulations,” said Daniel Blomberg of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The political minefield the trial presents may be one reason the Justice Department has tried mightily to head it off.
Last month, government lawyers asked Phillips to put the case on hold indefinitely because of the steps Congress took in May toward a repeal of the "don’t ask" statute passed in 1993. On May 27, the House voted, 234-194, in favor of a measure that would repeal "don’t ask" next year if top military leaders certify the repeal can be carried out without impacting force readiness and unit cohesion. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 16-12, for the same language.
However, the judge noted that the bills involved have not cleared Congress and that the repeal depends on several actions by the military and Obama that may or may not happen. “Given the many contingencies involved — including the threshold contingency of congressional approval — and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation is at this point remote, if not wholly speculative,” Phillips wrote Tuesday as she ordered the trial to go forward.
Government lawyers also have asked Phillips to deny a trial as unnecessary, to exclude all of the expert witnesses and most of the other witnesses. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, denied all the motions.
Woods pointed to one specific episode that he said highlighted the contradictions in the government’s case. He said the plaintiffs asked the government to admit that Obama said last year that "don’t ask" weakens national security and that the statement is true. The government admitted Obama made the comment but declined to say whether it was true. After a judge required the government to answer, it denied Obama’s assertion.
“They keep saying they have no choice but to defend the law because it is the law and that’s their job at the Justice Department, but the hypocrisy of this emerges all the time,” Woods said. “They are in a very awkward position.”
There are a few breaks for the administration in the trial set to start this week. The location in Riverside, Calif., far from Washington’s political press, should diminish coverage. And the ban on cameras in federal trial courts means TV coverage will have to rely on courtroom sketches.
But the gay Republicans who filed the case back in 2004 are doing their best to keep the legal and public pressure on the Obama administration. The Log Cabin group said Friday that Woods plans a daily press availability after the trial session, that principals in the case will be readily available to the media, and that the group plans a daily bulletin on trial developments.
By: Josh Gerstein
July 10, 2010 07:03 AM EDT
When President Barack Obama agreed to back legislation in May that could eventually repeal the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, the resolution seemed to offer twin benefits for the White House:
Quell the anger of gay activists who accused Obama of foot-dragging on the issue, and allow the question of gays in the military to cool for a while, perhaps until after the November election.
That didn’t last long.
The issue leapt back into the news this week after the Pentagon sent a survey to 400,000 troops to assess their attitudes on whether openly gay soldiers should be allowed to serve — with questions being criticized by gay rights advocates as inaccurate, inflammatory and biased.
Next week, a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is going to trial in California — and Obama’s Justice Department is in the uncomfortable position of trying to prevent the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from being overturned as discharged veterans testify about its dramatic impact on their careers.
Some gay rights activists who were cheered by Obama’s decision in May now say they’re frustrated by what feels like a two steps forward, one step back approach to the issue — especially in light of Obama’s delay in seeking to repeal of the policy in the first place.
“This has got to be a nightmare for the White House political office, especially as Organizing for America ramps up efforts to rebuild a coalition for the midterms which includes gays,” said Richard Socarides, a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. “I want the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress more than most. It’s very important that we do that if gay rights are important to you. So I can’t understand why the president’s senior advisers permit the Justice Department to defend this case. … It’s incomprehensible.”
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment for this story. However, officials have said that Justice is obligated to defend any law Congress passes as long as there is a plausible legal basis to do so, even if the current administration disagrees with the statute.
Some lawyers in the gay rights movement scoff at that. They note that from time to time, Justice has refused to stand behind laws under challenge as unconstitutional. For instance, in 2005, the Justice Department declined to defend a law barring the D.C. Metro transit system from accepting ads that promote legalizing marijuana.
For the attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division assigned to handle the Log Cabin case, it’s essentially a Catch-22. If they get tough or confrontational with the ex-service-members or experts called to testify, the government lawyers risk being accused of insensitivity.
If they hold back, Republicans and social conservatives could accuse the administration of taking a dive in a case it never really wanted to win.
“This is a pincer” for the government’s lawyers, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. However, he didn’t have much sympathy. “It comes with the territory,” he said.
Even ahead of the Log Cabin case, conservative Republicans have been attacking Obama on gay rights as well, insisting that the Justice Department isn’t really trying very hard to defend the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that the Justice Department wasn’t going all-out to fight lawsuits against the gays-in-the-military policy, and over a law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kagan denied the charge. “I have acted in the solicitor general's office consistently with the responsibility, which I agree with you very much that I have, to vigorously defend all statutes, including the statute that embodies the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” Kagan said.
A federal judge’s rulings Thursday holding part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional triggered a round of complaints from conservatives that the Obama administration was making a politically correct and less-than-forceful defense of that law.
“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable. The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Gillers said, though, that government attorneys were not obliged to rip apart the opposition the way a private litigator might. “Because you’re a government lawyer, you’re not given the same deference to be a junkyard dog for that client,” he said. “A government lawyer has a broader mandate.”
Written briefs in gay-rights-related cases have already landed the Justice Department in hot water with the Obama White House after gay activists complained the filings compared same-sex marriage to forms of incest and marriages involving minors. Sources say some filings in such cases are now coordinated with White House lawyers.
But the give-and-take of live courtroom testimony is even more treacherous and can’t be vetted so easily from Washington. The lead lawyer for the Log Cabin group, Dan Woods of White & Case in Los Angeles, said he expects the trial to stretch for two weeks and involve testimony by seven expert witnesses and as many as six former service members. Justice Department lawyers have said they plan to call no witnesses at the bench trial to be held before Judge Virginia Phillips, without a jury, Woods said.
With the new Pentagon survey under fire for its questions about open-bay showers and even its use of the term “homosexual,” it is almost certain that Justice Department lawyers handling the Log Cabin case will be accused of asking insensitive or homophobic questions as they cross-examine witnesses.
On the other side of the political spectrum, social conservatives say they’ll be watching closely to see whether DOJ is going easy. “We hope the administration’s politically motivated position against 'don’t ask, don’t tell' will not be a factor in defending the regulations,” said Daniel Blomberg of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The political minefield the trial presents may be one reason the Justice Department has tried mightily to head it off.
Last month, government lawyers asked Phillips to put the case on hold indefinitely because of the steps Congress took in May toward a repeal of the "don’t ask" statute passed in 1993. On May 27, the House voted, 234-194, in favor of a measure that would repeal "don’t ask" next year if top military leaders certify the repeal can be carried out without impacting force readiness and unit cohesion. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 16-12, for the same language.
However, the judge noted that the bills involved have not cleared Congress and that the repeal depends on several actions by the military and Obama that may or may not happen. “Given the many contingencies involved — including the threshold contingency of congressional approval — and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation is at this point remote, if not wholly speculative,” Phillips wrote Tuesday as she ordered the trial to go forward.
Government lawyers also have asked Phillips to deny a trial as unnecessary, to exclude all of the expert witnesses and most of the other witnesses. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, denied all the motions.
Woods pointed to one specific episode that he said highlighted the contradictions in the government’s case. He said the plaintiffs asked the government to admit that Obama said last year that "don’t ask" weakens national security and that the statement is true. The government admitted Obama made the comment but declined to say whether it was true. After a judge required the government to answer, it denied Obama’s assertion.
“They keep saying they have no choice but to defend the law because it is the law and that’s their job at the Justice Department, but the hypocrisy of this emerges all the time,” Woods said. “They are in a very awkward position.”
There are a few breaks for the administration in the trial set to start this week. The location in Riverside, Calif., far from Washington’s political press, should diminish coverage. And the ban on cameras in federal trial courts means TV coverage will have to rely on courtroom sketches.
But the gay Republicans who filed the case back in 2004 are doing their best to keep the legal and public pressure on the Obama administration. The Log Cabin group said Friday that Woods plans a daily press availability after the trial session, that principals in the case will be readily available to the media, and that the group plans a daily bulletin on trial developments.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Montana GOP seeks to ‘keep homosexual acts illegal
From ThinkProgress.org: "Andy Towle is reporting that like the Texas GOP, the Montana Republican Party has adopted a platform that would criminalize “homosexual acts”:
Homosexual Acts
We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.
Ironically, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that it violated the constitutional right to privacy. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas that Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law — a measure outlawing oral and anal sex — unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Texas statute “making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” “The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons,” the Court ruled in a 6-3 ruling."
Homosexual Acts
We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.
Ironically, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that it violated the constitutional right to privacy. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas that Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law — a measure outlawing oral and anal sex — unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Texas statute “making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” “The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons,” the Court ruled in a 6-3 ruling."
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Pride (In The Name Of Love): Why the Gay Pride Parade Still Matters
From Chicagoist.com: "For some gay men and lesbians, the thought of going to the Gay Pride Parade is slightly cringe-inducing (the crowds! the noise! the heat!), vaguely uncool, and spiritually unsatisfying, and so they stay put on their housecoats and catch the highlights online or on the evening news. Gay Pride Parade fatigue is likely more common with older generations who have seen it all, or think they have, but in reality there are gay men and women of all ages that avoid the parade—which to them feels more like an excuse to party, than a political statement.
Cyon Flare (Robert Mitchell) has a unique insight into the minds and hearts of gay men, a skill she’s honed as the popular weekend host for Hydrate, one of the more prominent dance clubs in Boystown. Flare—a Billboard-charting recording artist—gives Chicagoist her take on Gay Pride Parade fatigue, half-naked boys on parade floats, and why gay men need to step away from the computer and start connecting in-person, at the parade. (Readers take note: the “fierce” is strong with this one, Obi-Wan.)
Chicagoist: You’ve heard people criticize the Gay Pride Parade, claiming the presence of outrageous, over-the-top drag queens and scantily clad go-go boys actually puts people off. How do you respond to that?
Cyon Flare: Gays—like a lot of people in this world—are outrageous and over-the-top for what they believe in—so that doesn’t concern me. What hurts us is when we march without a cause, and march without the knowledge of why pride parades exists in the first place. Stonewall was “yesterday” but the struggle goes on. I think we need to spend more time educating people and reminding them why we march—and still be outrageous! We must show our brothers and sisters, along with our [heterosexual] supporters, how to be naked and unashamed. We need our parades for the sake of presence! It’s a powerful tool if used wisely.
C: Is the Gay Pride Parade simply an excuse to party?
CF: It is a time to party openly and publicly, and to celebrate freedom and the right to exist in a world that constantly tells us that we can’t, or shouldn’t, exist or thrive. Gay and straight people do parties and festivals all the time. Why can’t we? Look at the events celebrating the Blackhawks or the Cubs. It is time to party! But, party with a cause, a purpose.
C: What does gay pride mean to you? What are some of your earliest memories of gay pride celebrations and how they impacted you as a person and a performer?
CF: For starters, “Pride” is not just a word, it’s a lifestyle, so come out and live it! For me, [Gay ] Pride started when my lesbian mom would say, after I ran home with bloody noses and black eyes from school or in the ‘hood, “Robby, don’t be afraid to fight back, they can’t take anything from you. Fight back by showing them they can’t stop you. When those that beat you up see you refuse to live in fear—that is strength.”
So, Pride, for me, is about never giving up, even when the odds are against you, and not being afraid to stand up for yourself. It’s funny—being beat up in the ‘hood is nothing compared to what other gay people do to each other. We use hateful words with each other. Some people use the word “bitch” just to say hello, and then use it to insult you. I mean, seriously, the world is watching gay people and how we treat each other! While working in the community, I see fighting and so much abuse, and it’s gays against gays— not straight. Yes, gay bashing and homophobia are still a problem with but we, I feel, are constantly bashing each other, which is far worse.
C: What is your response to those that can’t seem to shake that feeling of parade fatigue?
CF: I think that we’ll always have many age groups that suffer from pride parade fatigue, at some point in their lives. The key is to enjoy what you can [about Gay Pride celebrations], what you feel comfortable with, and to remain visible to the community. We need you 40-somethings; too many are tired, and I understand that, but the power of your presence makes a difference. Rise up, children rise!
C: As online social networking sites like Facebook and Grindr continue to evolve, why do you think participating in gay pride is more important now than ever before?
CF: People are so afraid to get hurt and they are looking for easy ways out or to avoid drama. Ironically, the drama changes form to suit the means. We are so afraid of face-to-face encounters. I know so many people that feel safer playing online games, rather than going out and being man or woman enough to interact with each other in-person.
I feel we need to have another coming out celebration: coming out of the house, getting off the computer, coming out of cyberspace, to enjoy the old fashion way of meeting and connecting. We must learn to celebrate when someone rejects us, because we are not meant to be lovers with everyone we meet or connect with. So, enjoy the moment for what it is, and learn to re-embrace that human side and face one another. Remember, pride is not just a word, it’s a lifestyle—so come out!"
Cyon Flare (Robert Mitchell) has a unique insight into the minds and hearts of gay men, a skill she’s honed as the popular weekend host for Hydrate, one of the more prominent dance clubs in Boystown. Flare—a Billboard-charting recording artist—gives Chicagoist her take on Gay Pride Parade fatigue, half-naked boys on parade floats, and why gay men need to step away from the computer and start connecting in-person, at the parade. (Readers take note: the “fierce” is strong with this one, Obi-Wan.)
Chicagoist: You’ve heard people criticize the Gay Pride Parade, claiming the presence of outrageous, over-the-top drag queens and scantily clad go-go boys actually puts people off. How do you respond to that?
Cyon Flare: Gays—like a lot of people in this world—are outrageous and over-the-top for what they believe in—so that doesn’t concern me. What hurts us is when we march without a cause, and march without the knowledge of why pride parades exists in the first place. Stonewall was “yesterday” but the struggle goes on. I think we need to spend more time educating people and reminding them why we march—and still be outrageous! We must show our brothers and sisters, along with our [heterosexual] supporters, how to be naked and unashamed. We need our parades for the sake of presence! It’s a powerful tool if used wisely.
C: Is the Gay Pride Parade simply an excuse to party?
CF: It is a time to party openly and publicly, and to celebrate freedom and the right to exist in a world that constantly tells us that we can’t, or shouldn’t, exist or thrive. Gay and straight people do parties and festivals all the time. Why can’t we? Look at the events celebrating the Blackhawks or the Cubs. It is time to party! But, party with a cause, a purpose.
C: What does gay pride mean to you? What are some of your earliest memories of gay pride celebrations and how they impacted you as a person and a performer?
CF: For starters, “Pride” is not just a word, it’s a lifestyle, so come out and live it! For me, [Gay ] Pride started when my lesbian mom would say, after I ran home with bloody noses and black eyes from school or in the ‘hood, “Robby, don’t be afraid to fight back, they can’t take anything from you. Fight back by showing them they can’t stop you. When those that beat you up see you refuse to live in fear—that is strength.”
So, Pride, for me, is about never giving up, even when the odds are against you, and not being afraid to stand up for yourself. It’s funny—being beat up in the ‘hood is nothing compared to what other gay people do to each other. We use hateful words with each other. Some people use the word “bitch” just to say hello, and then use it to insult you. I mean, seriously, the world is watching gay people and how we treat each other! While working in the community, I see fighting and so much abuse, and it’s gays against gays— not straight. Yes, gay bashing and homophobia are still a problem with but we, I feel, are constantly bashing each other, which is far worse.
C: What is your response to those that can’t seem to shake that feeling of parade fatigue?
CF: I think that we’ll always have many age groups that suffer from pride parade fatigue, at some point in their lives. The key is to enjoy what you can [about Gay Pride celebrations], what you feel comfortable with, and to remain visible to the community. We need you 40-somethings; too many are tired, and I understand that, but the power of your presence makes a difference. Rise up, children rise!
C: As online social networking sites like Facebook and Grindr continue to evolve, why do you think participating in gay pride is more important now than ever before?
CF: People are so afraid to get hurt and they are looking for easy ways out or to avoid drama. Ironically, the drama changes form to suit the means. We are so afraid of face-to-face encounters. I know so many people that feel safer playing online games, rather than going out and being man or woman enough to interact with each other in-person.
I feel we need to have another coming out celebration: coming out of the house, getting off the computer, coming out of cyberspace, to enjoy the old fashion way of meeting and connecting. We must learn to celebrate when someone rejects us, because we are not meant to be lovers with everyone we meet or connect with. So, enjoy the moment for what it is, and learn to re-embrace that human side and face one another. Remember, pride is not just a word, it’s a lifestyle—so come out!"
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Smithsonian Museum Puts Gays In The Vault
From HuffingtonPost.com: "A dozen picket signs on old wooden sticks carry the DNA of the gay civil equality movement in America. Forty-five years ago, this month, in 1965, these pickets were held high by men and women considered among the first generation of LGBT activists in front of Lyndon Johnson's White House.
With the men wearing jackets and ties and tailored skirts for the ladies, all arrived neatly dressed to disarm the looks of fellow citizens, while their hand-lettered signs proclaimed unimaginable things like "First Class Citizenship for Homosexuals". Despite their professional appearances, this handful of men and women on this history-making picket line, knew perfectly well that their conduct literally put themselves and their jobs on the line, in broad daylight.
Today, however, those brave pickets are stored in the dark of a Smithsonian vault, where they have been held for they past four years, ever since they first were presented to The National Museum of American History.
In 2006, the original protest pickets were donated to the Smithsonian by The Kameny Papers Project, funded in part by former Congressman Michael Huffington and other generous friends and allies. Frank Kameny is often considered the still living father of the gay civil equality movement in Washington, D.C. and led many such picket lines in his day. Fired by the federal government in 1957 because he was gay, Kameny responded in righteous fury that such an action could be taken against him, a World War II veteran who had seen combat in Germany, a Harvard-educated astronomer determined to work for America's nascent space program.
Like many Americans, he sought nothing more than to be an equal part of JFK's "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", yet was locked out, then forced change and acceptance by his nation's government over the following decades by sheer application of his wits and his will. The man has lived even to see a Washington, D.C. street named for him this month, "Frank Kameny Way".
So how is it that the nation's treasured museum, our Smithsonian Institution, can keep these very special artifacts in the vault? To be fair, it takes time for a museum the size and quality of this great institution to curate and interpret artifacts of contemporary history.
However, beyond the pickets, even if a casual visitor or respected historian pays a call today, he or she will quickly discover there is not a single gay or lesbian story told in the entire National Museum of American History.
In our nation's capital - for over two centuries, our city often has witnessed and staged the struggles for many Americans fighting to achieve their full measure of equality and visibility. Within the Smithsonian, in fact, you will see their stories chronicled, their sacrifices narrated, their faces displayed. Major exhibits on "American Ideals", "Public Opinion", "Communities", "The Price of Liberty", "Culture" and "Science in the Public Eye" make absolutely no reference whatever to LGBT Americans. It is a time warp in itself, to see this absence given how the country and public opinion have changed since World War II, and how many nationally respected historians, story-tellers and journalists have documented LGBT contributions and challenges, including even our generation's terrible HIV/AIDS epidemic. You will search in vain to find today on exhibit even a piece of the AIDS quilt, or a single mention of gay and lesbian involvement in politics, civics, culture or war. Within the Smithsonian - the nation's lens on American history - we remain invisible.
In contrast, in 2006, the Kameny Papers Project donated nearly 50,000 items to The Library of Congress. These documents have been catalogued in their entirety and are now fully available to anyone with a Library card. The Library also knows that they have a responsibility not merely to keep these documents under lock and key on their shelves. This month, as part of their LGBT Pride activities, the Library of Congress launched an innovative, new web portal focusing largely on the Kameny archive, along with the papers of gay civil rights leader Bayard Rustin and other prominent writers and doers, with a very generous Introduction by our national Librarian James Billington. The Library of Congress sets the standard for telling the story of all Americans who envision, celebrate, build and defend American liberty.
The National Museum of American History plays an especially important role among all Smithsonian museums. It tells the story of freedom, and how that freedom has steadily expanded to include all Americans from the abolition of slavery, to granting women the right to vote, to the African-American civil rights movement of the Sixties, to defending the rights of the disabled. It is past time to bring LGBT Americans out of the vault and into the fold of that liberty story, where we belong, at the Smithsonian and to be shared with all Americans
Charles Francis is the founder of the Kameny Papers Project. Bob Witeck is CEO of Witeck Combs Communications."
With the men wearing jackets and ties and tailored skirts for the ladies, all arrived neatly dressed to disarm the looks of fellow citizens, while their hand-lettered signs proclaimed unimaginable things like "First Class Citizenship for Homosexuals". Despite their professional appearances, this handful of men and women on this history-making picket line, knew perfectly well that their conduct literally put themselves and their jobs on the line, in broad daylight.
Today, however, those brave pickets are stored in the dark of a Smithsonian vault, where they have been held for they past four years, ever since they first were presented to The National Museum of American History.
In 2006, the original protest pickets were donated to the Smithsonian by The Kameny Papers Project, funded in part by former Congressman Michael Huffington and other generous friends and allies. Frank Kameny is often considered the still living father of the gay civil equality movement in Washington, D.C. and led many such picket lines in his day. Fired by the federal government in 1957 because he was gay, Kameny responded in righteous fury that such an action could be taken against him, a World War II veteran who had seen combat in Germany, a Harvard-educated astronomer determined to work for America's nascent space program.
Like many Americans, he sought nothing more than to be an equal part of JFK's "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", yet was locked out, then forced change and acceptance by his nation's government over the following decades by sheer application of his wits and his will. The man has lived even to see a Washington, D.C. street named for him this month, "Frank Kameny Way".
So how is it that the nation's treasured museum, our Smithsonian Institution, can keep these very special artifacts in the vault? To be fair, it takes time for a museum the size and quality of this great institution to curate and interpret artifacts of contemporary history.
However, beyond the pickets, even if a casual visitor or respected historian pays a call today, he or she will quickly discover there is not a single gay or lesbian story told in the entire National Museum of American History.
In our nation's capital - for over two centuries, our city often has witnessed and staged the struggles for many Americans fighting to achieve their full measure of equality and visibility. Within the Smithsonian, in fact, you will see their stories chronicled, their sacrifices narrated, their faces displayed. Major exhibits on "American Ideals", "Public Opinion", "Communities", "The Price of Liberty", "Culture" and "Science in the Public Eye" make absolutely no reference whatever to LGBT Americans. It is a time warp in itself, to see this absence given how the country and public opinion have changed since World War II, and how many nationally respected historians, story-tellers and journalists have documented LGBT contributions and challenges, including even our generation's terrible HIV/AIDS epidemic. You will search in vain to find today on exhibit even a piece of the AIDS quilt, or a single mention of gay and lesbian involvement in politics, civics, culture or war. Within the Smithsonian - the nation's lens on American history - we remain invisible.
In contrast, in 2006, the Kameny Papers Project donated nearly 50,000 items to The Library of Congress. These documents have been catalogued in their entirety and are now fully available to anyone with a Library card. The Library also knows that they have a responsibility not merely to keep these documents under lock and key on their shelves. This month, as part of their LGBT Pride activities, the Library of Congress launched an innovative, new web portal focusing largely on the Kameny archive, along with the papers of gay civil rights leader Bayard Rustin and other prominent writers and doers, with a very generous Introduction by our national Librarian James Billington. The Library of Congress sets the standard for telling the story of all Americans who envision, celebrate, build and defend American liberty.
The National Museum of American History plays an especially important role among all Smithsonian museums. It tells the story of freedom, and how that freedom has steadily expanded to include all Americans from the abolition of slavery, to granting women the right to vote, to the African-American civil rights movement of the Sixties, to defending the rights of the disabled. It is past time to bring LGBT Americans out of the vault and into the fold of that liberty story, where we belong, at the Smithsonian and to be shared with all Americans
Charles Francis is the founder of the Kameny Papers Project. Bob Witeck is CEO of Witeck Combs Communications."
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Take Back Pride
From GoodAsYou.org: "The LGBT community's annual pride celebrations were born out of activism. It was seen as a time to bust out of closets and bound into the streets, an act of liberation in an all-too-constraining world. One part celebration, one part call to action.
But while the sense of liberation has remained and the joy of celebration has grown exponentially, the activism has a tendency to take a back seat in modern parades. I get that. Everyone wants to celebrate, especially in the summer. It's understandable that marginalized people would want a day to just shut down, throw on some glitter, and fight not to obtain equal rights but rather to get to the front of the bar to obtain that frozen rainbow cocktail. Make mine a double.
This year, we are at an interesting point in time. We have what might be the most favorable political landscape we will see for quite some time. We are in an election year, where we need to fight like LGBT Partiers to maintain some of those allied seats in all areas of government. And we have a list of promises for which we need to hold those who are already in office accountable. We have to rise up before the opportunity passes us by. Or better yet: We have to rise up so as to sustain whatever opportunity we currently have.
That's why I, Jeremy, have signed on to this new effort to bring a renewed sense of activism to this year's pride celebrations. Check it out and see what you think:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 13, 2010
"TAKE BACK PRIDE" CAMPAIGN HOPES TO EDUCATE LGBT COMMUNITY AND ALLIES
TAKEBACKPRIDE.ORG
(NEW YORK, NY) April 13, 2010 - In response to the current political environment and in the interest of unifying the work of LGBT Organizations around the country, Take Back Pride is a new campaign aimed towards educating our community and the citizens of the United States on the many inequalities we currently face.
Over the past forty years, since the very first Pride March, we feel that some of the aspects of protest have disappeared from many Pride celebrations. While it remains alive and well in some places, we believe that through education and inclusion of ALL members of our community, we can work to actually use our incredibly diverse and beautiful marches to advance our civil rights.
The website, which will continue to be updated as we move ahead, will serve as a resource to those willing to participate in the campaign. While we are based in New York and are in communication with Heritage of Pride NYC in the hopes of working together on this project, we hope to include citizens in every part of the US in Taking Back Pride.
Please consider the attached letter and endorsements as an open letter to our community and allies.
***
April 13, 2010
Dear Members of the LGBTQ Community, Our Allies and Community Partners,
While last year we celebrated the 40th Anniversary of our liberation at Stonewall on the last Sunday of June in 1969, we are celebrating another anniversary in 2010. And we need to do it right.
On the last Sunday in June 1970, Gay Liberation Front and Gay Activists Alliance, in
commemoration of the Stonewall riots, staged the first “Gay Liberation Day March.”
Organizers in Los Angeles and San Francisco also held marches that day.
We have much to celebrate. As a community we have struggled and fought for our very
lives. Together, we have accomplished what at one time was a fantasy at best. Our sexual
liberation has been celebrated every year now for 40 years with what was once a march
and is now a parade, in the streets of New York and dozens of other cities across the
country and the world.
This year, in light of the major battles we have ahead of us, we are asking for all of you to
join us in taking back pride. While we have so much to be proud of in what we have
accomplished as a community, this fight is far from over. We want our community to not
only remember those who have fought and died before us, but to forge ahead in the
struggle -- so that our children may one day live truly free and equal lives in this country.
The organizers of Pride Marches around the country work tirelessly over the course of the
year to bring us the most inclusive marches and celebrations in the world. We want to help
those organizers by working with them to implement plans for education and protest within
our marches.
We know that our community is made up of every race, creed, religious affiliation and
political background imaginable. We come from everywhere, from Africa to New Zealand.
We represent Conservatives and Socialists. We are made up of Catholics and Buddhists
alike. The time has come to embrace our ideals and differences and remember that what
we have in common as a community - is our strength.
For Pride 2010, we ask that organizers and participants of marches around this great
country take this opportunity to be heard. Yell. Scream. Chant. Wear your chaps and
thongs, but carry a sign while you do it. Put on your most sequined ball gown, but shout
for your rights as you flaunt your fabulousness. The sheer number of people who turn out
in the streets this June will send a clear message around the world that we are not content
with what we have. We are somebody. We deserve full equality.
If you’re marching with a group, ask your group what they are angry about. It could be
Marriage Inequality, or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It could be that in 31 states, you can still be
fired for being gay (see the “What Are You Angry About” section on this page.)
We owe it to our community and to those young gay people who are still afraid to say who
they are to TAKE BACK PRIDE. Make your signs. Create your chants. It’s time for us all
to remember this is a march, not a parade. This is OUR celebration of who we are and it
has the potential to once again be something we are ALL truly proud of.
On Tuesday, May 11th in New York City, we will be having a community town hall
discussion about what we can do to Take Back Pride. We encourage all groups
participating in Pride to take part. And for those of you outside New York, the meeting will
be posted on YouTube. You may also visit www.TakeBackPride.org to see how YOU can
help Take Back Pride.
Jamie McGonnigal
www.TalkAboutEquality.org
Lt. Dan Choi
US National Guard
NYC Pride Grand Marshall
Robin McGehee
GetEqual
Alan Bounville
Member-Queer Rising, New York
Brandon Brock
Western Queens for Marriage Equality
Tituss Burgess
Broadway Actor - The Little Mermaid
Andrew Conte
Marti Gould Cummings
Co-Founder, Broadway Speaks OUT!
Natasha Dillon
Member - Queer Rising, New York
Matt Doyle
Broadway Actor - Bye Bye Birdie
Peter Dunn
DrinkingforaChange.org
Eric Ethington
PRIDE In Your Community
http://prideinutah.com
Justin Elzie
Activist & Writer
Todd (Tiff) Fernandez, Esq
David John Fleck
Get Equal; Activist
Marcelo Gomes
Principal Dancer - American Ballet Theatre
Blake Hayes
BlakeHayes.com
Jeremy Hooper
www.GoodAsYou.org
Jordan Fife Hunt
www.TalkAboutEquality.org
Hugh Hysell
Hugh Hysell Communications
Corey Johnson
Towleroad.com
Tom Johnson
Partner in Therapy & Barrage
Jenny Kanelos
Broadway Impact
Adam Kern
Jim Klever-Weis
Executive Producer - Ugly Betty
Jennifer Michaud
Graphic Designer - Take Back Pride logo
Rebecca Louise Miller
Actor - “Prayers for Bobby”
David Mixner
DavidMixner.com
Rich Murray
Member-Queer Rising, New York
Scott Nevins
TV Personality truTV’s “The Smoking Gun
Presents”
Dan Nicoletta
Photographer
Ann Northrop
Co-host, GAY USA
Rory O’Malley
Broadway Impact
Ken O’Neill
Author of “The Marrying Kind”
Randy Redd
We are the Song:After the Storm
Chris Ryan
Chris Ryan Productions
Christopher Sieber
Broadway Actor - Shrek, The Kid
Melissa Sklarz
Guy Smith & Robert Montenegro
Activists: MENY, The Power, Married
10/17/08 Tujunga, CA.
Tom Viola
Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS
If you would like to add your name or your organization to this list, please email us at takebackpride@gmail.com.
But while the sense of liberation has remained and the joy of celebration has grown exponentially, the activism has a tendency to take a back seat in modern parades. I get that. Everyone wants to celebrate, especially in the summer. It's understandable that marginalized people would want a day to just shut down, throw on some glitter, and fight not to obtain equal rights but rather to get to the front of the bar to obtain that frozen rainbow cocktail. Make mine a double.
This year, we are at an interesting point in time. We have what might be the most favorable political landscape we will see for quite some time. We are in an election year, where we need to fight like LGBT Partiers to maintain some of those allied seats in all areas of government. And we have a list of promises for which we need to hold those who are already in office accountable. We have to rise up before the opportunity passes us by. Or better yet: We have to rise up so as to sustain whatever opportunity we currently have.
That's why I, Jeremy, have signed on to this new effort to bring a renewed sense of activism to this year's pride celebrations. Check it out and see what you think:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 13, 2010
"TAKE BACK PRIDE" CAMPAIGN HOPES TO EDUCATE LGBT COMMUNITY AND ALLIES
TAKEBACKPRIDE.ORG
(NEW YORK, NY) April 13, 2010 - In response to the current political environment and in the interest of unifying the work of LGBT Organizations around the country, Take Back Pride is a new campaign aimed towards educating our community and the citizens of the United States on the many inequalities we currently face.
Over the past forty years, since the very first Pride March, we feel that some of the aspects of protest have disappeared from many Pride celebrations. While it remains alive and well in some places, we believe that through education and inclusion of ALL members of our community, we can work to actually use our incredibly diverse and beautiful marches to advance our civil rights.
The website, which will continue to be updated as we move ahead, will serve as a resource to those willing to participate in the campaign. While we are based in New York and are in communication with Heritage of Pride NYC in the hopes of working together on this project, we hope to include citizens in every part of the US in Taking Back Pride.
Please consider the attached letter and endorsements as an open letter to our community and allies.
***
April 13, 2010
Dear Members of the LGBTQ Community, Our Allies and Community Partners,
While last year we celebrated the 40th Anniversary of our liberation at Stonewall on the last Sunday of June in 1969, we are celebrating another anniversary in 2010. And we need to do it right.
On the last Sunday in June 1970, Gay Liberation Front and Gay Activists Alliance, in
commemoration of the Stonewall riots, staged the first “Gay Liberation Day March.”
Organizers in Los Angeles and San Francisco also held marches that day.
We have much to celebrate. As a community we have struggled and fought for our very
lives. Together, we have accomplished what at one time was a fantasy at best. Our sexual
liberation has been celebrated every year now for 40 years with what was once a march
and is now a parade, in the streets of New York and dozens of other cities across the
country and the world.
This year, in light of the major battles we have ahead of us, we are asking for all of you to
join us in taking back pride. While we have so much to be proud of in what we have
accomplished as a community, this fight is far from over. We want our community to not
only remember those who have fought and died before us, but to forge ahead in the
struggle -- so that our children may one day live truly free and equal lives in this country.
The organizers of Pride Marches around the country work tirelessly over the course of the
year to bring us the most inclusive marches and celebrations in the world. We want to help
those organizers by working with them to implement plans for education and protest within
our marches.
We know that our community is made up of every race, creed, religious affiliation and
political background imaginable. We come from everywhere, from Africa to New Zealand.
We represent Conservatives and Socialists. We are made up of Catholics and Buddhists
alike. The time has come to embrace our ideals and differences and remember that what
we have in common as a community - is our strength.
For Pride 2010, we ask that organizers and participants of marches around this great
country take this opportunity to be heard. Yell. Scream. Chant. Wear your chaps and
thongs, but carry a sign while you do it. Put on your most sequined ball gown, but shout
for your rights as you flaunt your fabulousness. The sheer number of people who turn out
in the streets this June will send a clear message around the world that we are not content
with what we have. We are somebody. We deserve full equality.
If you’re marching with a group, ask your group what they are angry about. It could be
Marriage Inequality, or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It could be that in 31 states, you can still be
fired for being gay (see the “What Are You Angry About” section on this page.)
We owe it to our community and to those young gay people who are still afraid to say who
they are to TAKE BACK PRIDE. Make your signs. Create your chants. It’s time for us all
to remember this is a march, not a parade. This is OUR celebration of who we are and it
has the potential to once again be something we are ALL truly proud of.
On Tuesday, May 11th in New York City, we will be having a community town hall
discussion about what we can do to Take Back Pride. We encourage all groups
participating in Pride to take part. And for those of you outside New York, the meeting will
be posted on YouTube. You may also visit www.TakeBackPride.org to see how YOU can
help Take Back Pride.
Jamie McGonnigal
www.TalkAboutEquality.org
Lt. Dan Choi
US National Guard
NYC Pride Grand Marshall
Robin McGehee
GetEqual
Alan Bounville
Member-Queer Rising, New York
Brandon Brock
Western Queens for Marriage Equality
Tituss Burgess
Broadway Actor - The Little Mermaid
Andrew Conte
Marti Gould Cummings
Co-Founder, Broadway Speaks OUT!
Natasha Dillon
Member - Queer Rising, New York
Matt Doyle
Broadway Actor - Bye Bye Birdie
Peter Dunn
DrinkingforaChange.org
Eric Ethington
PRIDE In Your Community
http://prideinutah.com
Justin Elzie
Activist & Writer
Todd (Tiff) Fernandez, Esq
David John Fleck
Get Equal; Activist
Marcelo Gomes
Principal Dancer - American Ballet Theatre
Blake Hayes
BlakeHayes.com
Jeremy Hooper
www.GoodAsYou.org
Jordan Fife Hunt
www.TalkAboutEquality.org
Hugh Hysell
Hugh Hysell Communications
Corey Johnson
Towleroad.com
Tom Johnson
Partner in Therapy & Barrage
Jenny Kanelos
Broadway Impact
Adam Kern
Jim Klever-Weis
Executive Producer - Ugly Betty
Jennifer Michaud
Graphic Designer - Take Back Pride logo
Rebecca Louise Miller
Actor - “Prayers for Bobby”
David Mixner
DavidMixner.com
Rich Murray
Member-Queer Rising, New York
Scott Nevins
TV Personality truTV’s “The Smoking Gun
Presents”
Dan Nicoletta
Photographer
Ann Northrop
Co-host, GAY USA
Rory O’Malley
Broadway Impact
Ken O’Neill
Author of “The Marrying Kind”
Randy Redd
We are the Song:After the Storm
Chris Ryan
Chris Ryan Productions
Christopher Sieber
Broadway Actor - Shrek, The Kid
Melissa Sklarz
Guy Smith & Robert Montenegro
Activists: MENY, The Power, Married
10/17/08 Tujunga, CA.
Tom Viola
Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS
If you would like to add your name or your organization to this list, please email us at takebackpride@gmail.com.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Investigations and Discharges Under DADT Will Continue
Pentagon: Investigations and Discharges Under
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Will Continue
SLDN issued warnings to service members before and after the recent House floor and Senate committee votes
on repeal amendment
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), responded today after a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to the Denver Post that investigations and discharges of gay and lesbian service members will continue. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson, said: "The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process." SLDN issued warnings to gay and lesbian service members before and after the recent House floor and Senate committee votes on an amendment that would allow for the repeal of the law. Gay and lesbian service members with questions are urged to contact the SLDN hotline: 202-328-3244 x100 or email legal@sldn.org. Any service member with questions about DADT can schedule an appointment for free, confidential legal advice with an SLDN attorney.
"The Pentagon is being very clear that they will continue the discharges and gay and lesbian active-duty service members, including those in the reserves and the national guard, remain at risk," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "Even with the recent votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the discharges are continuing. Qualified men and women of our armed forces will continue to be fired from their jobs and it is putting our national security at risk. And even despite the new 'more humane' Pentagon Instructions, we are aware of an 'O-7' - a one-star general - signing off on a discharge very recently. Congress and the Pentagon need to stay on track to get repeal finalized, hopefully no later than first quarter 2011."
"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' continues to be the law, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members remain vulnerable to being discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation," said Aaron Tax, legal director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "It is not safe to come out or serve openly until the process of repeal is complete. During this time, continue to check with SLDN regarding changes in the law, changes to the regulations, and what impact, if any, these developments mean for your ability to serve openly."
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Will Continue
SLDN issued warnings to service members before and after the recent House floor and Senate committee votes
on repeal amendment
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), responded today after a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to the Denver Post that investigations and discharges of gay and lesbian service members will continue. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson, said: "The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process." SLDN issued warnings to gay and lesbian service members before and after the recent House floor and Senate committee votes on an amendment that would allow for the repeal of the law. Gay and lesbian service members with questions are urged to contact the SLDN hotline: 202-328-3244 x100 or email legal@sldn.org. Any service member with questions about DADT can schedule an appointment for free, confidential legal advice with an SLDN attorney.
"The Pentagon is being very clear that they will continue the discharges and gay and lesbian active-duty service members, including those in the reserves and the national guard, remain at risk," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "Even with the recent votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the discharges are continuing. Qualified men and women of our armed forces will continue to be fired from their jobs and it is putting our national security at risk. And even despite the new 'more humane' Pentagon Instructions, we are aware of an 'O-7' - a one-star general - signing off on a discharge very recently. Congress and the Pentagon need to stay on track to get repeal finalized, hopefully no later than first quarter 2011."
"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' continues to be the law, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members remain vulnerable to being discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation," said Aaron Tax, legal director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "It is not safe to come out or serve openly until the process of repeal is complete. During this time, continue to check with SLDN regarding changes in the law, changes to the regulations, and what impact, if any, these developments mean for your ability to serve openly."
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" study draws fire from advocates, gay soldiers
From DenverPost.com: "WASHINGTON — A group representing more than 250 gay and lesbian active-duty soldiers has issued a letter criticizing the months-long process the Pentagon is undertaking to examine the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
The letter, sent Monday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, criticizes the lack of input from gay and lesbian soldiers. It claims that lack of input "will result in failure to show that the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy has allowed the worst of atrocities to occur in our military and go unreported."
The problem for gay and lesbian service members is that as long as "don't ask, don't tell" is in effect, they can not openly discuss their experiences.
"The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process," said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
But, she emphasized, the group gathering information about "don't ask, don't tell" understands that it is "very important to get feedback from gay and lesbian members currently serving, and we are developing tools to gather that information."
The letter highlights that gays and lesbians already serve openly in many units with tolerant commanders and claims such units should be studied to understand how and why they work, something impossible under the study's restrictions.
"Our heterosexual counterparts see their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at arms being unjustifiably called 'a social experiment' and 'potential rapists' while no leadership defends us," said the letter from Citizens for Repeal, which grew out of a group of gay cadets at the Air Force Academy and now encompasses gay and lesbian service personnel from all five military branches.
"The very groups that make these claims have direct access to the Pentagon working group, but gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives every day, do not," the letter said.
Citizens for Repeal is withholding the names of the gay military members who support the letter because they would be subject to discharge if their identities were known, said Ty Walrod, Citizens for Repeal's civilian spokesman.
Pentagon officials conceded that they are limited in the ways that they can collect information for the study, due Dec. 1, which commanders told Congress in February would be key to repealing a policy still popular with many in the military.
However, officials said they are also setting up work- arounds that might include a hotline or anonymous interviews done by a third-party contractor.
Military members and their families can also anonymously post information on a website set up by the 65-member comprehensive review working group, tasked by Gates to do the study. But the limit of those comments is 1,000 characters — or less than 250 words.
Much of the information for the study is being gathered by working group teams, which are holding forums that include several hundred people at a time on and around military bases. The forums are meant to gather views on how repeal could affect unit readiness and cohesion as well as recruiting.
According to a compromise worked out last month in the Senate, the president must certify that military readiness won't be adversely affected before repeal can take effect.
Members of Citizens for Repeal say the organization grew out of the need for mutual support among gays and lesbians serving under "don't ask, don't tell," including harassment, blackmail or the inability to report crimes because it might also involve outing themselves and thus ending their careers.
Many of those stories can't be told under the current process, they say, despite the millions of dollars the Pentagon is spending on the study.
"They're missing a lot," a gay Air Force officer and member of the group said of the Pentagon investigators.
"They need to learn how gay soldiers and straight soldiers are getting along right now and how we can make that work across the whole military. That's how they can learn about the relationships and how we can get past the barriers and the stigma."
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Tuesday that he'd read the letter and had contacted the Pentagon over the issue.
"I will be on close watch to ensure that gay and lesbian service members currently serving in the military who participate and answer questions as part of Secretary Gates' review are able to speak openly and honestly about their experiences without fear of retaliation," Udall said."
The letter, sent Monday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, criticizes the lack of input from gay and lesbian soldiers. It claims that lack of input "will result in failure to show that the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy has allowed the worst of atrocities to occur in our military and go unreported."
The problem for gay and lesbian service members is that as long as "don't ask, don't tell" is in effect, they can not openly discuss their experiences.
"The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process," said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
But, she emphasized, the group gathering information about "don't ask, don't tell" understands that it is "very important to get feedback from gay and lesbian members currently serving, and we are developing tools to gather that information."
The letter highlights that gays and lesbians already serve openly in many units with tolerant commanders and claims such units should be studied to understand how and why they work, something impossible under the study's restrictions.
"Our heterosexual counterparts see their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at arms being unjustifiably called 'a social experiment' and 'potential rapists' while no leadership defends us," said the letter from Citizens for Repeal, which grew out of a group of gay cadets at the Air Force Academy and now encompasses gay and lesbian service personnel from all five military branches.
"The very groups that make these claims have direct access to the Pentagon working group, but gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives every day, do not," the letter said.
Citizens for Repeal is withholding the names of the gay military members who support the letter because they would be subject to discharge if their identities were known, said Ty Walrod, Citizens for Repeal's civilian spokesman.
Pentagon officials conceded that they are limited in the ways that they can collect information for the study, due Dec. 1, which commanders told Congress in February would be key to repealing a policy still popular with many in the military.
However, officials said they are also setting up work- arounds that might include a hotline or anonymous interviews done by a third-party contractor.
Military members and their families can also anonymously post information on a website set up by the 65-member comprehensive review working group, tasked by Gates to do the study. But the limit of those comments is 1,000 characters — or less than 250 words.
Much of the information for the study is being gathered by working group teams, which are holding forums that include several hundred people at a time on and around military bases. The forums are meant to gather views on how repeal could affect unit readiness and cohesion as well as recruiting.
According to a compromise worked out last month in the Senate, the president must certify that military readiness won't be adversely affected before repeal can take effect.
Members of Citizens for Repeal say the organization grew out of the need for mutual support among gays and lesbians serving under "don't ask, don't tell," including harassment, blackmail or the inability to report crimes because it might also involve outing themselves and thus ending their careers.
Many of those stories can't be told under the current process, they say, despite the millions of dollars the Pentagon is spending on the study.
"They're missing a lot," a gay Air Force officer and member of the group said of the Pentagon investigators.
"They need to learn how gay soldiers and straight soldiers are getting along right now and how we can make that work across the whole military. That's how they can learn about the relationships and how we can get past the barriers and the stigma."
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Tuesday that he'd read the letter and had contacted the Pentagon over the issue.
"I will be on close watch to ensure that gay and lesbian service members currently serving in the military who participate and answer questions as part of Secretary Gates' review are able to speak openly and honestly about their experiences without fear of retaliation," Udall said."
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton Opposes 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal
From HuffingtonPost.com: "WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday said he thinks the military should keep its ban on openly gay service members in part because he doesn't want to open a national discussion about homosexuality.
Rep. Ike Skelton, a conservative Missouri Democrat, said he thinks the debate in Congress over the proposed repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law might force families to explain homosexuality to their children.
"What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?" Skelton asked reporters during a media breakfast.
Gay rights groups argue that the United States is much more comfortable talking about homosexuality than in the past.
The House voted 234-194 last month to overturn the 17-year-old law. Skelton was among the 26 Democrats who joined 168 Republicans in opposing the bill.
Skelton told reporters that no one in his district has raised the issue with him, but he says he still doesn't think the discussion is family-friendly enough.
"My biggest concern are the families," he said.
Rep. Ike Skelton, a conservative Missouri Democrat, said he thinks the debate in Congress over the proposed repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law might force families to explain homosexuality to their children.
"What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?" Skelton asked reporters during a media breakfast.
Gay rights groups argue that the United States is much more comfortable talking about homosexuality than in the past.
The House voted 234-194 last month to overturn the 17-year-old law. Skelton was among the 26 Democrats who joined 168 Republicans in opposing the bill.
Skelton told reporters that no one in his district has raised the issue with him, but he says he still doesn't think the discussion is family-friendly enough.
"My biggest concern are the families," he said.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Right-wing ‘media watchdog’ is outraged that ‘Glee’ doesn’t have friendly homophobic characters
From ThinkProgress.org: "L. Brent Bozell III, right-wing scion and president of the conservative “media watchdog” group the Media Research Center, wrote a column today in TownHall to express his absolute outrage at the television show “Glee” for promoting a “homosexual lifestyle.” Bozell, whose “think-tank” is funded by foundation money from David and Julie Koch of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, among other corporate sources, denounced the show for portraying opponents of homosexuality as “vicious school bullies.” Bozell lamented the fact that that Glee’s homophobes were “two brutish football players” who “threatened to pummel the openly gay and riotously effeminate character Kurt for dressing up like a girl”:
“Bill O’Reilly recently hosted a “culture warriors” segment at Fox News where both “warriors” agreed that homosexuality is morally acceptable. That same no-debate mentality has been a regular drumbeat on the Fox television series “Glee,” a musical drama/comedy about a high school glee club in Lima, Ohio. [...] The only characters on the show disapproving of homosexuality are vicious school bullies. In the May 25 episode, two brutish football players threatened to pummel the openly gay and riotously effeminate character Kurt for dressing up like a girl. Everyone else in this series approves, endorses or participates in the homosexual lifestyle.“
While it may seem astounding that Bozell found the urge to whine that “this show has presented gay as the ‘new normal,’” and that “Glee” lacks enough friendly gay-bashers, his complaints are par for the course for his organization, which is considered a mainstream conservative establishment. Yesterday, Bozell’s bloggers tried to drum up an absurd conspiracy theory, accusing Time magazine of printing a picture of the World Cup logo that looks “strikingly like that of the Obama logo
“Bill O’Reilly recently hosted a “culture warriors” segment at Fox News where both “warriors” agreed that homosexuality is morally acceptable. That same no-debate mentality has been a regular drumbeat on the Fox television series “Glee,” a musical drama/comedy about a high school glee club in Lima, Ohio. [...] The only characters on the show disapproving of homosexuality are vicious school bullies. In the May 25 episode, two brutish football players threatened to pummel the openly gay and riotously effeminate character Kurt for dressing up like a girl. Everyone else in this series approves, endorses or participates in the homosexual lifestyle.“
While it may seem astounding that Bozell found the urge to whine that “this show has presented gay as the ‘new normal,’” and that “Glee” lacks enough friendly gay-bashers, his complaints are par for the course for his organization, which is considered a mainstream conservative establishment. Yesterday, Bozell’s bloggers tried to drum up an absurd conspiracy theory, accusing Time magazine of printing a picture of the World Cup logo that looks “strikingly like that of the Obama logo
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Jennifer Holliday & Crystal Waters Headline St. Louis Pridefest
From Stltoday.com: "Singer Jennifer Holliday, one of the original “Dreamgirls” on Broadway, headlines PrideFest’s main stage entertainment June 26 at Tower Grove Park.
PrideFest is June 26-27.
Also on the main stage June 26, hosted by Dieta Pepsi and Trish Busch, are the Grave Dolls, CHARIS, Gateway Men’s Chorus, Anti-Gravity, Josh Zuckerman, Pride St. Louis Royalty Court, and Jen Foster.
On the main stage June 27, hosted by Michelle McCausland, is Crystal Waters, Summer Osborne and Band, Josh Duffy, and Eric & the Adams.
PrideFest will include the official Pride Parade, Morgan Ford Pet Parade, a dance pavilion, and a commitment ceremony.
Ultra, the after party, is June 26 on the Atomic Cowboy patio with Peppermint, Lola Van Ella, and more.
Get more information at www.pridestl.com, or at alivemag.com for the Ultra party."
PrideFest is June 26-27.
Also on the main stage June 26, hosted by Dieta Pepsi and Trish Busch, are the Grave Dolls, CHARIS, Gateway Men’s Chorus, Anti-Gravity, Josh Zuckerman, Pride St. Louis Royalty Court, and Jen Foster.
On the main stage June 27, hosted by Michelle McCausland, is Crystal Waters, Summer Osborne and Band, Josh Duffy, and Eric & the Adams.
PrideFest will include the official Pride Parade, Morgan Ford Pet Parade, a dance pavilion, and a commitment ceremony.
Ultra, the after party, is June 26 on the Atomic Cowboy patio with Peppermint, Lola Van Ella, and more.
Get more information at www.pridestl.com, or at alivemag.com for the Ultra party."
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Homophobic Obama Appointee Ousted
From Metroweekly.com:
"by Chris Geidner
Published on May 17, 2010, 10:04pm | 20 Comments, 28 Tweets
Jonathan I. Katz, a professor of astrophysics at Washington University in St. Louis, ''will no longer be involved in the [Energy] Department's efforts'' at addressing the oil spill continuing to spread in the Gulf of Mexico, a Department spokeswoman relayed on Monday night, May 17.
The news came after what the spokesperson, Stephanie Mueller, termed ''controversial writings'' – which included a ''defense of homophobia'' – spread out over the web on Monday, writings of which she said the Department was unaware when it sought his assistance.
On May 12, Energy Secretary Steven Chu ''assembled a group of top scientific experts from inside and outside of government to join in today's discussions in Houston about possible solutions,'' according to a Department news release. Katz was one of five outside scientists noted in the release. Bloomberg News reported about the group of scientists on May 14, reporting Chu ''signaled his lack of confidence in the industry experts trying to control BP Plc's leaking oil well by hand-picking a team of scientists with reputations for creative problem solving.''
Once news of the team spread, some of Katz's writings were discovered at his university website, including one titled, ''In Defense of Homophobia.'' In the essay, dated May 13, 1999, he wrote about the ''rationalist'' and the religious person's views of homosexuality.
''The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet,'' Katz wrote. ''It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.''
More than 10 years later, Energy Department spokesperson Stephanie Mueller was announcing on Monday night – less than a week after being described as ''our best scientific minds'' by Chu – that ''[s]ome of Professor Katz's controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill.''
Writing that Chu ''has spoken with dozens of scientists and engineers as part of his work to help find solutions to stop the oil spill,'' she referenced the writings and stated, ''Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department's efforts.''
In response to an inquiry from Metro Weekly about whether Chu or the Energy Department was aware of Katz's additional writings before he was selected to help with the oil spill, Mueller responded, ''No, the Secretary was not aware and disagrees with them. The Department wasn't aware either.''
Another essay pointed to by Katz's critics – ''Cold Thoughts on Global Warming'' – has been cited to as proof that he is a ''climate change denialist.'' Despite that, Katz actually states, ''The conclusion that anthropogenic emissions [those derived from human activities] of these gases will likely warm the climate has been generally accepted for a century. It is a consensus, but it is not emerging or new. It has been there all along. Only a panicky fear of the consequences is new.''
"by Chris Geidner
Published on May 17, 2010, 10:04pm | 20 Comments, 28 Tweets
Jonathan I. Katz, a professor of astrophysics at Washington University in St. Louis, ''will no longer be involved in the [Energy] Department's efforts'' at addressing the oil spill continuing to spread in the Gulf of Mexico, a Department spokeswoman relayed on Monday night, May 17.
The news came after what the spokesperson, Stephanie Mueller, termed ''controversial writings'' – which included a ''defense of homophobia'' – spread out over the web on Monday, writings of which she said the Department was unaware when it sought his assistance.
On May 12, Energy Secretary Steven Chu ''assembled a group of top scientific experts from inside and outside of government to join in today's discussions in Houston about possible solutions,'' according to a Department news release. Katz was one of five outside scientists noted in the release. Bloomberg News reported about the group of scientists on May 14, reporting Chu ''signaled his lack of confidence in the industry experts trying to control BP Plc's leaking oil well by hand-picking a team of scientists with reputations for creative problem solving.''
Once news of the team spread, some of Katz's writings were discovered at his university website, including one titled, ''In Defense of Homophobia.'' In the essay, dated May 13, 1999, he wrote about the ''rationalist'' and the religious person's views of homosexuality.
''The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet,'' Katz wrote. ''It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.''
More than 10 years later, Energy Department spokesperson Stephanie Mueller was announcing on Monday night – less than a week after being described as ''our best scientific minds'' by Chu – that ''[s]ome of Professor Katz's controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill.''
Writing that Chu ''has spoken with dozens of scientists and engineers as part of his work to help find solutions to stop the oil spill,'' she referenced the writings and stated, ''Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department's efforts.''
In response to an inquiry from Metro Weekly about whether Chu or the Energy Department was aware of Katz's additional writings before he was selected to help with the oil spill, Mueller responded, ''No, the Secretary was not aware and disagrees with them. The Department wasn't aware either.''
Another essay pointed to by Katz's critics – ''Cold Thoughts on Global Warming'' – has been cited to as proof that he is a ''climate change denialist.'' Despite that, Katz actually states, ''The conclusion that anthropogenic emissions [those derived from human activities] of these gases will likely warm the climate has been generally accepted for a century. It is a consensus, but it is not emerging or new. It has been there all along. Only a panicky fear of the consequences is new.''
Monday, May 17, 2010
Obama Appoints Homophobe to Help Stop Gulf Oil Leak
From Americablog.com: " Please sign our public letter to the President urging that this homophobe be fired immediately.__________________________________
UPDATE: He's a climate change denialist as well:
Who is stoking the alarm about global warming? There is Al Gore, an over-the-hill politician who wants to remain in the public eye. His house uses 20 times as much electricity as the average American house and he flies private jets. Obviously, he does not believe what he preaches; it must be an act. Conservation is for the little people. I'll think about reducing my emissions after he reduces his by 95%. Then there is Jim Hansen, would-be dictator who wants to throw in jail anyone who disagrees with him or burns coal. He may wish himself another Mussolini (or worse), but people just laugh at him. And finally John Holdren, who in his younger days was prophesying disaster from the ice age then just beginning (so he said). Fictitious crises are a demogogue's route to power.
Fortunately, global warming is probably good for humanity. Sit back, relax, and watch it happen.
Nice guy for the Obama administration to be calling one of our best scientific minds - a climate change denying kook. I'm sure the oil companies are thrilled that the President is elevating this man in the public eye.
________________
New Obama appointee Jonathan I. Katz on the "innocent victims" of AIDS:
"These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves."
Jonathan I. Katz. was recently appointed by the Obama administration, along with four other scientists, to an elite panel of "our best scientific minds" to help BP cut off the oil spill.
Jonathan I. Katz is also a "proud homophobe," by his own admission. He's even written an article, published on his personal Web site at the Washington University physics department, titled "In Defense of Homophobia." And what a defense it is.
Here are a few snippets from one of our best scientific minds about how the homos killed lots of innocent people with their AIDS:
The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.
Unfortunately, the victims are not only those whose reckless behavior brought death on themselves. There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs (a substantial fraction died as a result of contaminated clotting factor), recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally. The icy road was lined with unsuspecting innocents, who never chose to ride a motorcycle. Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.
What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.
I am a homophobe, and proud. (emphasis added)
President Obama promised us change. He promised to be our fierce advocate. Appointing avowed bigots to elite panels, and lauding them as the best minds of our nation, is offensive the millions of LGBT Americans who voted en masse for this President. It is difficult to believe that the Obama administration couldn't find anyone else to help deal with this crisis. We all want the government to do everything it can to stop the oil spill, but elevating an avowed homophobe, and giving him the imprimatur, and the stamp of legitimacy, of the Obama administration, is simply wrong.
Please sign on to our public letter urging the President to fire Jonathan I. Katz.
No more Rick Warrens
UPDATE: He's a climate change denialist as well:
Who is stoking the alarm about global warming? There is Al Gore, an over-the-hill politician who wants to remain in the public eye. His house uses 20 times as much electricity as the average American house and he flies private jets. Obviously, he does not believe what he preaches; it must be an act. Conservation is for the little people. I'll think about reducing my emissions after he reduces his by 95%. Then there is Jim Hansen, would-be dictator who wants to throw in jail anyone who disagrees with him or burns coal. He may wish himself another Mussolini (or worse), but people just laugh at him. And finally John Holdren, who in his younger days was prophesying disaster from the ice age then just beginning (so he said). Fictitious crises are a demogogue's route to power.
Fortunately, global warming is probably good for humanity. Sit back, relax, and watch it happen.
Nice guy for the Obama administration to be calling one of our best scientific minds - a climate change denying kook. I'm sure the oil companies are thrilled that the President is elevating this man in the public eye.
________________
New Obama appointee Jonathan I. Katz on the "innocent victims" of AIDS:
"These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves."
Jonathan I. Katz. was recently appointed by the Obama administration, along with four other scientists, to an elite panel of "our best scientific minds" to help BP cut off the oil spill.
Jonathan I. Katz is also a "proud homophobe," by his own admission. He's even written an article, published on his personal Web site at the Washington University physics department, titled "In Defense of Homophobia." And what a defense it is.
Here are a few snippets from one of our best scientific minds about how the homos killed lots of innocent people with their AIDS:
The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.
Unfortunately, the victims are not only those whose reckless behavior brought death on themselves. There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs (a substantial fraction died as a result of contaminated clotting factor), recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally. The icy road was lined with unsuspecting innocents, who never chose to ride a motorcycle. Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.
What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.
I am a homophobe, and proud. (emphasis added)
President Obama promised us change. He promised to be our fierce advocate. Appointing avowed bigots to elite panels, and lauding them as the best minds of our nation, is offensive the millions of LGBT Americans who voted en masse for this President. It is difficult to believe that the Obama administration couldn't find anyone else to help deal with this crisis. We all want the government to do everything it can to stop the oil spill, but elevating an avowed homophobe, and giving him the imprimatur, and the stamp of legitimacy, of the Obama administration, is simply wrong.
Please sign on to our public letter urging the President to fire Jonathan I. Katz.
No more Rick Warrens
Pawlenty: Gays Shouldn’t Have The Power To Decide What To Do With The Body Of A Deceased Partner
From ThinkProgress.org: "If you’re straight and your husband or wife dies, you have the power to decide what to do with your loved one’s body and how to carry out their wishes. However, if you are a gay man or woman in Minnesota — a state that doesn’t recognize marriage equality — you won’t have that option, thanks to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). Explaining his veto of the bill, Pawlenty simply said there “is no actual need” to give same-sex couples equal end-of-life rights. From his official statement on Saturday:
The bill addresses the categories of individuals who under the law shall be given priority for purposes of determining the disposition of the remains of a deceased person. Currently a person can, by executing a will, designate who shall be empowered to control final disposition of his or her remains. The bill therefore addresses a nonexistent problem.
Marriage — defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.
Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of LGBT advocacy group Project 515, responded that Pawlenty’s “comment that the proposed legislation is unnecessary shows he is out of step with the experiences of real Minnesotans. … The language in this bill reflects closely language already used by Minnesota’s leading businesses.” Additionally, a person in a heterosexual marriage is not required to have a living will in order for his or her spouse to carry out end-of-life wishes, so it’s unclear why one should be necessary for same-sex partners. The bill would also have given “surviving partners the right to sue those responsible should their partner be killed.”
As a new Center for American Progress report on the needs of LGBT elders finds, Minnesota is considered a “legal stranger” state, where “same-sex partners (or members of families of choice) in these states effectively have no chance to be designated as surrogate medical decision makers for their incapacitated partners/loved ones.” LGBT elders therefore generally need an advanced health care directive (AHD), which includes a living will and a health care power of attorney:
In practice, to protect themselves, LGBT elders must remember to carry their AHDs with them at all times — if an individual is rushed to the hospital without these documents, a loved one can still legally be denied access (see sidebar on page 40). Finally, problems may arise when an elder travels out of state, as one state may not always recognize the health care directive of another state.
Additionally, obtaining an AHD can be difficult, since many elders are unaware or do not have the means to secure one, and “medical providers and long-term care facilities often ignore or challenge the AHDs of LGBT people.” (HT: Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog)
Update In Rhode Island last year, Gov. Donald Carcieri (R) vetoed a similar bill."
The bill addresses the categories of individuals who under the law shall be given priority for purposes of determining the disposition of the remains of a deceased person. Currently a person can, by executing a will, designate who shall be empowered to control final disposition of his or her remains. The bill therefore addresses a nonexistent problem.
Marriage — defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.
Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of LGBT advocacy group Project 515, responded that Pawlenty’s “comment that the proposed legislation is unnecessary shows he is out of step with the experiences of real Minnesotans. … The language in this bill reflects closely language already used by Minnesota’s leading businesses.” Additionally, a person in a heterosexual marriage is not required to have a living will in order for his or her spouse to carry out end-of-life wishes, so it’s unclear why one should be necessary for same-sex partners. The bill would also have given “surviving partners the right to sue those responsible should their partner be killed.”
As a new Center for American Progress report on the needs of LGBT elders finds, Minnesota is considered a “legal stranger” state, where “same-sex partners (or members of families of choice) in these states effectively have no chance to be designated as surrogate medical decision makers for their incapacitated partners/loved ones.” LGBT elders therefore generally need an advanced health care directive (AHD), which includes a living will and a health care power of attorney:
In practice, to protect themselves, LGBT elders must remember to carry their AHDs with them at all times — if an individual is rushed to the hospital without these documents, a loved one can still legally be denied access (see sidebar on page 40). Finally, problems may arise when an elder travels out of state, as one state may not always recognize the health care directive of another state.
Additionally, obtaining an AHD can be difficult, since many elders are unaware or do not have the means to secure one, and “medical providers and long-term care facilities often ignore or challenge the AHDs of LGBT people.” (HT: Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog)
Update In Rhode Island last year, Gov. Donald Carcieri (R) vetoed a similar bill."
Saturday, May 01, 2010
DOD Gates: Don't Repeal DADT This Year
From ThinkProgress.org: "As part of the Obama administration’s plan to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), the Pentagon has convened a “Working Group” that is meeting with servicemembers, chaplains, and others individuals about how to repeal the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military. The process is going to take until at least Dec. 1, 2010, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said that the President is committed to letting the group complete its work before moving forward. Some members of Congress have raised the possibility of passing DADT repeal legislation this year — before the review process is complete — and delaying implementation until next year.
However, today Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) a letter (in response to an inquiry from Skelton) telling him that he doesn’t want Congress to take any action at all on DADT this year. From the letter obtained by ThinkProgress:
I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change; develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan, and provide the President and the Congress with the results of this effort in order to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective matter. [...]
Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.
Gates’ moratorium on any DADT action this year is troubling. Thirteen Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to replace DADT with a new nondiscrimination policy that “prohibits discrimination against service members on the basis of their sexual orientation.” The Senate bill mirrors Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) repeal bill in the House but goes several steps further, laying out a timeline for repeal and setting benchmarks for the Pentagon’s ongoing review of the policy.
Gates’ stance makes it significantly harder for Congress to help fulfill Obama’s pledge to repeal DADT and has some supporters of repeal questioning the Pentagon’s dedication to moving forward. Democrats in Congress will have a tougher time attracting moderate and Republican co-sponsors in light of this letter, and if Congress waits until next year — after the Pentagon review is completed — to move forward on legislation, the make-up of the legislature will be different and could again delay repeal.
Update Statement from Servicemembers United Executive Director Alexander Nicholson, who is a former U.S. Army interrogator discharged under DADT:
If the White House and the Department of Defense had been more engaged with us and had communicated with us better about the alternatives available, Secretary Gates would surely not feel that legislative action this year would disrespect the opinions of the troops or negatively impact them and their families. This is partly a failure of the Administration to substantively engage the gay military community in a timely manner, and it remains unacceptable. The Commander-in-Chief should strongly and immediately speak out about the need to move swiftly and decisively on this issue for the sake of military readiness. It is, after all, as the President said, "the right thing to do."
Update DADT repeal advocate Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is pushing back on Gates' recommendation, saying, “There is no reason why Congress shouldn’t pass legislation this year that would time the repeal to follow the conclusion of the study."
Update Response from the White House: "The President’s commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That’s why we’ve said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right."
However, today Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) a letter (in response to an inquiry from Skelton) telling him that he doesn’t want Congress to take any action at all on DADT this year. From the letter obtained by ThinkProgress:
I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change; develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan, and provide the President and the Congress with the results of this effort in order to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective matter. [...]
Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.
Gates’ moratorium on any DADT action this year is troubling. Thirteen Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to replace DADT with a new nondiscrimination policy that “prohibits discrimination against service members on the basis of their sexual orientation.” The Senate bill mirrors Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) repeal bill in the House but goes several steps further, laying out a timeline for repeal and setting benchmarks for the Pentagon’s ongoing review of the policy.
Gates’ stance makes it significantly harder for Congress to help fulfill Obama’s pledge to repeal DADT and has some supporters of repeal questioning the Pentagon’s dedication to moving forward. Democrats in Congress will have a tougher time attracting moderate and Republican co-sponsors in light of this letter, and if Congress waits until next year — after the Pentagon review is completed — to move forward on legislation, the make-up of the legislature will be different and could again delay repeal.
Update Statement from Servicemembers United Executive Director Alexander Nicholson, who is a former U.S. Army interrogator discharged under DADT:
If the White House and the Department of Defense had been more engaged with us and had communicated with us better about the alternatives available, Secretary Gates would surely not feel that legislative action this year would disrespect the opinions of the troops or negatively impact them and their families. This is partly a failure of the Administration to substantively engage the gay military community in a timely manner, and it remains unacceptable. The Commander-in-Chief should strongly and immediately speak out about the need to move swiftly and decisively on this issue for the sake of military readiness. It is, after all, as the President said, "the right thing to do."
Update DADT repeal advocate Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is pushing back on Gates' recommendation, saying, “There is no reason why Congress shouldn’t pass legislation this year that would time the repeal to follow the conclusion of the study."
Update Response from the White House: "The President’s commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That’s why we’ve said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right."
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Iconic Chicago Dance Club Closes
From ChicagoPride.com: "Chicago, IL — Crobar Chicago, 1543 N Kingsbury St, will officially be closing it's doors after "The Last Dance" celebration on April 17.
Crobar Chicago is the original in a chain which started the success of nationally acclaimed Crobar in New York City, Miami and Buenos Aires. The nightclub originally opened in 1992 in the industrial corridor of Chicago and reopened again in 2003 after a nearly one year renovation and reconstruction. Crobar locations in New York and Miami have also recently closed.
The popular nightclub was made famous by celebrity clientele such as Dennis Rodman and Bill Corgan. Rodman will help close the club when he hosts a party on Saturday.
"The music was dirty, deep, louder than hell, full of bass and progressive while the massive LGBT crowds filled every sweaty corner and partied along side the likes of Dennis Rodman, Jeremy Piven and Carmen Electra," recalled promoter Matthew Harvat who launched Circuit MOM at the nightclub in 1997. "Often, it was so packed and hot, the ceiling would drip rusty condensation, but no one complained, instead wore the rust stains as a badge of honor."
From the beginning, Crobar Chicago catered to the gay community with well-attended special events such as SuperStar Sundays on Market Days and Pride, Fireball, IML, Labor Day and Halloween; however, the nightclub was probably best known for G.L.E.E. Club which became a Sunday night institution and the longest running gay-themed weekly party in Chicago.
After it's remodel 2003, Crobar Chicago hosted the gay-themed Anthem Sundays which was produced by G.L.E.E. creator Paolo Pincente and Harvat.
Crobar Chicago's gay-themed events featured world-renowned DJs, including Timo Maas, Tony Moran, Joe Gauthreaux, Ralphi Rosario, Lydia Prim, Tracy Young, Manny Lehman, Frankie Knuckles and Victor Calderone.
"Many amazingly talented people shared their passion for club culture and music with the world audience that came to revel in the Crobar mayhem. Never one to follow, Crobar will always stand alone as an iconic treasure to the clubland creatures it crafted," Harvat told ChicagoPride.com.
"New York had Twilo, Tunnel, Paradise Garage and even a Crobar hybrid, but the original Crobar in Chicago, the one that gave me my start will forever remain the deep and dirty phantasmagorical vessel of music, muscle and memories which will never, ever be replaced in my heart".
The 6000 square foot space is reportedly to become a new club, The Vibe, which has yet to announce an opening date. "
Crobar Chicago is the original in a chain which started the success of nationally acclaimed Crobar in New York City, Miami and Buenos Aires. The nightclub originally opened in 1992 in the industrial corridor of Chicago and reopened again in 2003 after a nearly one year renovation and reconstruction. Crobar locations in New York and Miami have also recently closed.
The popular nightclub was made famous by celebrity clientele such as Dennis Rodman and Bill Corgan. Rodman will help close the club when he hosts a party on Saturday.
"The music was dirty, deep, louder than hell, full of bass and progressive while the massive LGBT crowds filled every sweaty corner and partied along side the likes of Dennis Rodman, Jeremy Piven and Carmen Electra," recalled promoter Matthew Harvat who launched Circuit MOM at the nightclub in 1997. "Often, it was so packed and hot, the ceiling would drip rusty condensation, but no one complained, instead wore the rust stains as a badge of honor."
From the beginning, Crobar Chicago catered to the gay community with well-attended special events such as SuperStar Sundays on Market Days and Pride, Fireball, IML, Labor Day and Halloween; however, the nightclub was probably best known for G.L.E.E. Club which became a Sunday night institution and the longest running gay-themed weekly party in Chicago.
After it's remodel 2003, Crobar Chicago hosted the gay-themed Anthem Sundays which was produced by G.L.E.E. creator Paolo Pincente and Harvat.
Crobar Chicago's gay-themed events featured world-renowned DJs, including Timo Maas, Tony Moran, Joe Gauthreaux, Ralphi Rosario, Lydia Prim, Tracy Young, Manny Lehman, Frankie Knuckles and Victor Calderone.
"Many amazingly talented people shared their passion for club culture and music with the world audience that came to revel in the Crobar mayhem. Never one to follow, Crobar will always stand alone as an iconic treasure to the clubland creatures it crafted," Harvat told ChicagoPride.com.
"New York had Twilo, Tunnel, Paradise Garage and even a Crobar hybrid, but the original Crobar in Chicago, the one that gave me my start will forever remain the deep and dirty phantasmagorical vessel of music, muscle and memories which will never, ever be replaced in my heart".
The 6000 square foot space is reportedly to become a new club, The Vibe, which has yet to announce an opening date. "
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Suit Charges Elderly Gay Partners Were Forced Apart
From NyTimes.com: By GERRY SHIH
"Clay M. Greene’s story, as recounted in his recent lawsuit against Sonoma County, is a tale of loss, doubled and redoubled. For gay men and lesbians, the series of events outlined in the complaint hits very close to home.
Mr. Greene, a 78-year-old gay man from Sebastopol, has filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County after saying he sustained a spate of indignities at the hands of officials during a bizarre estate battle that took place when his partner, who was 88, fell and became hospitalized in 2008.
News of Mr. Greene’s complaint came as President Obama was making headlines for his order extending hospital visitation rights and decision-making authority to same-sex partners.
The detailed complaint was filed on March 22, but news of it began ricocheting around the Internet, beginning on gay and lesbian sites Sunday and reaching venues like Daily Kos by Monday.
Mr. Greene’s troubles began when Harold Scull, his partner for more than 20 years, fell down the steps of their home in April 2008. At the time, the complaint said, Mr. Scull was showing signs of mental impairment.
County officials successfully petitioned the court to gain some powers of conservatorship. Then they “sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of” almost $500,000 worth of belongings from the home shared by the two men — including furniture, art objects, memorabilia from the years Mr. Scull spent working in Hollywood, as well as a truck and two cats, the lawsuit alleges.
Mr. Greene said that he and Mr. Scull had previously specified each other as executors in case either became incapacitated, but the county ignored the legal documents and the history of their relationship, and at one point referred to Mr. Greene as Mr. Scull’s “roommate.”
Citing the state of Mr. Greene’s mental health, county officials then moved him against his will into a nursing home and sold the rest of his belongings, the suit charged. He was not allowed to visit Mr. Scull, who died several months later, in August 2008.
The nursing home, Agua Caliente Villa of Sonoma, is named as a defendant in the case. So is the auction company that sold the couple’s belongings.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights has joined the lawsuit, calling the situation an example of why “same-sex couples need full equality.”
Gay and lesbian elderly individuals, in particular, are vulnerable because “they are often estranged from their family and don’t have a legally recognized relative,” said Shannon P. Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Even here, where they had filled out legal documents, because their relationship is so thoroughly invisible and disrespected, it didn’t protect them.”
Mr. Minter said Mr. Greene’s situation was far less likely to happen to the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage.
Messages left at the office of Sonoma County’s legal counsel seeking comment were not returned. A message seeking comment left at the office of Anne Dennis, Mr. Greene’s lawyer, was not returned. Mr. Minter said Mr. Greene was unavailable for comment because he was in a “fragile” psychological state.
Embedded in the legalese of the complaint were stark anecdotal nuggets. At one point, as county officials moved through the couple’s home, the complaint alleged, they commented on the “quality” and “desirability” of the furnishings. They also mocked Mr. Greene, he said, calling him a “crazy old man,” said he had “dementia” and was a lost cause, laughed at him, and told him to “shut up and go to your room.”
On another instance, Mr. Greene claimed that employees acting as the county’s Deputy Public Guardians rolled their eyes and said in his presence, “you know how those gay boys are” and later expressed “displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his longtime partner.”
The case will go to trial on July 16, Mr. Minter said."
"Clay M. Greene’s story, as recounted in his recent lawsuit against Sonoma County, is a tale of loss, doubled and redoubled. For gay men and lesbians, the series of events outlined in the complaint hits very close to home.
Mr. Greene, a 78-year-old gay man from Sebastopol, has filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County after saying he sustained a spate of indignities at the hands of officials during a bizarre estate battle that took place when his partner, who was 88, fell and became hospitalized in 2008.
News of Mr. Greene’s complaint came as President Obama was making headlines for his order extending hospital visitation rights and decision-making authority to same-sex partners.
The detailed complaint was filed on March 22, but news of it began ricocheting around the Internet, beginning on gay and lesbian sites Sunday and reaching venues like Daily Kos by Monday.
Mr. Greene’s troubles began when Harold Scull, his partner for more than 20 years, fell down the steps of their home in April 2008. At the time, the complaint said, Mr. Scull was showing signs of mental impairment.
County officials successfully petitioned the court to gain some powers of conservatorship. Then they “sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of” almost $500,000 worth of belongings from the home shared by the two men — including furniture, art objects, memorabilia from the years Mr. Scull spent working in Hollywood, as well as a truck and two cats, the lawsuit alleges.
Mr. Greene said that he and Mr. Scull had previously specified each other as executors in case either became incapacitated, but the county ignored the legal documents and the history of their relationship, and at one point referred to Mr. Greene as Mr. Scull’s “roommate.”
Citing the state of Mr. Greene’s mental health, county officials then moved him against his will into a nursing home and sold the rest of his belongings, the suit charged. He was not allowed to visit Mr. Scull, who died several months later, in August 2008.
The nursing home, Agua Caliente Villa of Sonoma, is named as a defendant in the case. So is the auction company that sold the couple’s belongings.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights has joined the lawsuit, calling the situation an example of why “same-sex couples need full equality.”
Gay and lesbian elderly individuals, in particular, are vulnerable because “they are often estranged from their family and don’t have a legally recognized relative,” said Shannon P. Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Even here, where they had filled out legal documents, because their relationship is so thoroughly invisible and disrespected, it didn’t protect them.”
Mr. Minter said Mr. Greene’s situation was far less likely to happen to the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage.
Messages left at the office of Sonoma County’s legal counsel seeking comment were not returned. A message seeking comment left at the office of Anne Dennis, Mr. Greene’s lawyer, was not returned. Mr. Minter said Mr. Greene was unavailable for comment because he was in a “fragile” psychological state.
Embedded in the legalese of the complaint were stark anecdotal nuggets. At one point, as county officials moved through the couple’s home, the complaint alleged, they commented on the “quality” and “desirability” of the furnishings. They also mocked Mr. Greene, he said, calling him a “crazy old man,” said he had “dementia” and was a lost cause, laughed at him, and told him to “shut up and go to your room.”
On another instance, Mr. Greene claimed that employees acting as the county’s Deputy Public Guardians rolled their eyes and said in his presence, “you know how those gay boys are” and later expressed “displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his longtime partner.”
The case will go to trial on July 16, Mr. Minter said."
Girls accused of killing gay man in attack like Clockwork Orange
From TimesOnline.co.uk:
Adam Fresco, Crime Correspondent
Ruby Thomas and Rachel Burke, both 18, stamped on Ian Baynham’s chest and kicked him in the head after their friend Joel Alexander, 19, had punched him to the ground, knocking him unconscious, the Old Bailey was told.
As Mr Baynham lay bleeding the teenagers continued to assault him, it was said, causing him to suffer a fit from brain damage after his skull had been fractured.
When Mr Baynham’s friend stepped in to try to save him, Ms Burke attacked him too, punching him in the face, the jury was told.
The three alleged killers fled from the scene and Mr Baynham was taken to hospital in East London, but he never regained consciousness and died 18 days after the attack in September last year.
Brian Altman, QC, for the prosecution, told jurors that Mr Baynham and Philip Brown were walking through Trafalgar Square, in Central London, “minding their own business”.
He said: “The scene is Trafalgar Square at the very heart of London, one of this city’s most famous open spaces, home to the National Gallery, Nelson’s Column, the famous plinths and late that evening, a scene of despicable violence.
“One onlooker likened the level of violence to a scene from the film A Clockwork Orange. What happened was an all too familiar and depressing tale of drunken, loutish behaviour. But what they did went far beyond mere antisocial conduct.
“Remarkably, two of these defendants are teenage girls. Fuelled by copious amounts of alcohol, all three jointly participated in a violent attack on a defenceless man in public.”
Mr Altman continued: “Mr Baynham was openly homosexual and what led to his death began with Thomas hurling homophobic abuse at him and his friend Mr Brown. She called them ‘f***ing faggots’. Mr Baynham grabbed and slapped her.
“Alexander intervened and lunged at him, punching him in the face. He fell to the ground. It is certain that the force of the punch was such as to render him unconscious. His head hit the pavement and there was nothing to break his fall. The impact was so heavy that he suffered severe brain damage from which ultimately he was to die.
“However, that did not suffice. There’s evidence that the females then began putting the boot into Mr Baynham as he lay unconscious on his back. He was deeply in distress from the blow. Shocked onlookers saw repeated stamping on his chest and forceful kicks to the head. He began making snoring noises, evidence of unconsciousness, and fitting on the pavement, signs of primary brain damage.”
Mr Alexander, from Thornton Heath, Surrey, Ms Burke, from East Sussex, and Ms Thomas, from Litchfield, Staffordshire, all deny manslaughter and violent disorder. Ms Burke also denies causing Mr Brown actual bodily harm.
The trial continues.
Adam Fresco, Crime Correspondent
Ruby Thomas and Rachel Burke, both 18, stamped on Ian Baynham’s chest and kicked him in the head after their friend Joel Alexander, 19, had punched him to the ground, knocking him unconscious, the Old Bailey was told.
As Mr Baynham lay bleeding the teenagers continued to assault him, it was said, causing him to suffer a fit from brain damage after his skull had been fractured.
When Mr Baynham’s friend stepped in to try to save him, Ms Burke attacked him too, punching him in the face, the jury was told.
The three alleged killers fled from the scene and Mr Baynham was taken to hospital in East London, but he never regained consciousness and died 18 days after the attack in September last year.
Brian Altman, QC, for the prosecution, told jurors that Mr Baynham and Philip Brown were walking through Trafalgar Square, in Central London, “minding their own business”.
He said: “The scene is Trafalgar Square at the very heart of London, one of this city’s most famous open spaces, home to the National Gallery, Nelson’s Column, the famous plinths and late that evening, a scene of despicable violence.
“One onlooker likened the level of violence to a scene from the film A Clockwork Orange. What happened was an all too familiar and depressing tale of drunken, loutish behaviour. But what they did went far beyond mere antisocial conduct.
“Remarkably, two of these defendants are teenage girls. Fuelled by copious amounts of alcohol, all three jointly participated in a violent attack on a defenceless man in public.”
Mr Altman continued: “Mr Baynham was openly homosexual and what led to his death began with Thomas hurling homophobic abuse at him and his friend Mr Brown. She called them ‘f***ing faggots’. Mr Baynham grabbed and slapped her.
“Alexander intervened and lunged at him, punching him in the face. He fell to the ground. It is certain that the force of the punch was such as to render him unconscious. His head hit the pavement and there was nothing to break his fall. The impact was so heavy that he suffered severe brain damage from which ultimately he was to die.
“However, that did not suffice. There’s evidence that the females then began putting the boot into Mr Baynham as he lay unconscious on his back. He was deeply in distress from the blow. Shocked onlookers saw repeated stamping on his chest and forceful kicks to the head. He began making snoring noises, evidence of unconsciousness, and fitting on the pavement, signs of primary brain damage.”
Mr Alexander, from Thornton Heath, Surrey, Ms Burke, from East Sussex, and Ms Thomas, from Litchfield, Staffordshire, all deny manslaughter and violent disorder. Ms Burke also denies causing Mr Brown actual bodily harm.
The trial continues.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Elderly Gay Couple Forcibly Separated, Abused, Robbed By County Officials in California
From TheStranger.com:
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM
This is shocking and outrageous:
Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.
One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes. Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.
Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property.
Clay is now suing the county, the auction company, and the nursing home. This story should get as much attention as Constance McMillen's story. More attention. There should be protests outside the hospital and county administration buildings. And I think another phone call from the president is called for.
.
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM
This is shocking and outrageous:
Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.
One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes. Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.
Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property.
Clay is now suing the county, the auction company, and the nursing home. This story should get as much attention as Constance McMillen's story. More attention. There should be protests outside the hospital and county administration buildings. And I think another phone call from the president is called for.
.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Court orders father of slain soldier to pay anti-gay protesters legal fees
From RawStory.com and AP: The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case as to whether the protesters are entitled to free speech at the funeral. Phelps conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.
The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.
The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
Phelps and his congregation regularly demonstrate at military funerals, carrying inflammatory signs to draw attention to their anti-gay message.
The religious group protest at the funerals of soldiers, regardless of the sexuality of the deceased military personnel, and use the events to bring publicity to their campaign.
The preacher and six relatives arrived at Snyder's funeral carrying signs that read "America is doomed," "Matt in hell" and "Semper Fi fags," in reference to the Marine motto "Semper Fi."
After the funeral was over, Phelps continued to deride and criticize Snyder on his website, prompting the dead Marine's family to sue the preacher before a Maryland court.
Snyder's father Albert claimed Phelps had intruded on a private event and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the bereaved family and won an initial award of five million dollars.
But the award was overturned on appeal, where a court ruled that Westburo protesters were simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case as to whether the protesters are entitled to free speech at the funeral. Phelps conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.
The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.
The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
Phelps and his congregation regularly demonstrate at military funerals, carrying inflammatory signs to draw attention to their anti-gay message.
The religious group protest at the funerals of soldiers, regardless of the sexuality of the deceased military personnel, and use the events to bring publicity to their campaign.
The preacher and six relatives arrived at Snyder's funeral carrying signs that read "America is doomed," "Matt in hell" and "Semper Fi fags," in reference to the Marine motto "Semper Fi."
After the funeral was over, Phelps continued to deride and criticize Snyder on his website, prompting the dead Marine's family to sue the preacher before a Maryland court.
Snyder's father Albert claimed Phelps had intruded on a private event and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the bereaved family and won an initial award of five million dollars.
But the award was overturned on appeal, where a court ruled that Westburo protesters were simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)