Box Turtle Bulletin

LGBT Insurrection Against The Democratic Party

[Update: Three more LGBT advocates have declined to attend the DNC fundraiser in Washington next week. See below.]

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that he won’t make a move to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on LGBT people serving openly in the military, because ultimately it is up to Congress to change the law. His spokespeople have repeated this in answer to questions about why he hasn’t issued a stop loss order in order to halt the ongoing discharges of qualified gays and lesbians from the armed forces. They have, in effect, thrown the ball completely into the Congress’ court.

Now we have word from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the reason the repeal of DADT has gone no where in the Senate is because no one has sponsored the legislation in the Senate. What’s more, he threw the hot potato right back into the President’s hands:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate.

“I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.”

A Democratic aide later clarified that Reid was speaking about the possibility of using an executive order to suspend discharges or perhaps halting enforcement of the policy by changing departmental regulations within the Department of Defense.

Which, of course, won’t happen because the President is waiting on Congress, which in turn is waiting on the President.

This shouldn’t be that hard. This isn’t 1993, when DADT was signed into law by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. It is now 2009, when 69% of the American public believes that DADT should be repealed. When’s the last time two-thirds of Americans were united on anything else? What’s more, even 58% of Republicans and 60% of weekly churchgoers thing it’s time for DADT to go.

With public support like this, the age old question — If now now, when? — becomes less of a rallying cry and more of a taunt. Seriously, if not now, when?  We don’t need a “fierce advocate” for this one. All we need is for someone to grow a pair — and they don’t have to be very big ones.

But that’s not likely to happen. John Berry, the White House director of the Office of Personnel Management and the highest ranking gay official in the Obama administration, spoke with the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld about progress on LGBT rights. He predicted that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill would pass the Senate sometime this week. But what about repealing DADT and DOMA, or enacting a fully inclusive Employment Non-Description Act? Well, he says, they want to do it sometime “before the sun sets on this administration.”

This nebulous timetable is meaningless. If it doesn’t happen well before the 2010 mid-term elections, then we will be dependent on Obama winning a second term. After all, the next Presidential campaign will effectively begin in 2011. And there’s no guarantee that Obama will win that second term.

Which means either it happens now, or the Democratic party will essentially hold LGBT rights hostage for 2012.

DNC Fundraiser announcement. Click to enlarge

With that news, coupled with the recent Department of Justice brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act which insults the integrity and intelligence of LGBT people everywhere, leading LGBT Democratic political veterans are beginning to register their disgust with the Democratic Party. Heck, even the Human Rights Campaign, often derided for its soft touch with political leaders, sent a sternly worded letter to Obama concerning the DOMA brief.

Meanwile, the DNC will hold a fundraiser next week in Washington, dubbed the LGBT Leadership Council Dinner. The featured speaker at the fundraiser will be Vice President Joe Biden. Openly gay Congressional representatives Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis will be in attendance.

But some key gay activists are beginning to turn down their invitations to this event. Confirmed now-shows so far include political strategist David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle. [Update: Additional withdrawals include Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda and Foundation, former top Clinton administration aide Richard Socarides, and HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse] Michelangelo Signorile has suggested that we “cut off the money flow.” Sean Bugg agrees, while Mike Rogers (a.k.a. “the most feared man in Washington”) puts an even finer point on it:

As long as tens of millions are being spent by the Pentagon to enforce Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, gays should say to politicians “you have our money, go get it back from Secretary Gates.”

Georgia Supreme Court Overturns Ban On Exposing Children To Their Father’s Gay Friends

The Georgia Supreme Court threw out a lower court’s order banning children from being “exposed” to their father’s gay partner and friends. Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards issued the ruling as part of the 2007 divorce of Eric Duane Mongerson and Sandy Kay Ehlers Mongerson, who had been married 21 years and had four children. The judge’s visitation order prohibited the three youngest children, aged 8 to 16 at the time, from being in contact with their father’s gay and lesbians friends. The state’s high court threw out that visitation order:

“Such an arbitrary classification based on sexual orientation flies in the face of our public policy that encourages divorced parents to participate in the raising of their children,” Justice Robert Benham wrote.

The Fayette County judge\’s prohibition “assumes, without evidentiary support, that the children will suffer harm from any such contact,” Benham wrote. But there is no evidence that any member of the gay and lesbian community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by being exposed to members of that community, he said.

Lesbian Couple Denied Visitation and Consultation At California Hospital

That’s right. Hospitals denying same-sex couples visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for each other can happen even in California.:

[Kristin] Orbin and her partner of 3½ years, Teresa Rowe, 30, who live in Northern California,  were in Fresno for Meet in the Middle 4 Equality, an event protesting the California Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Proposition 8.

After marching 14 miles in Central Valley heat, Orbin (who is epileptic) collapsed and suffered three grand mal seizures.  A doctor at a first aid center had difficulty finding her pulse, so he called 911.

Orbin said the discrimination started as soon as the paramedics arrived.

“By that time, I was going in and out of consciousness.  The paramedics wanted nothing to do with Teresa and she had to practically fight them to be allowed to ride in the ambulance.  I remember one of them was very nice and agreed to let her ride with me in the back.  Once we got to the hospital, they wheeled me into a hallway and left me, refusing to allow Teresa to be with me.”

The problem with the hospital started when the paramedic informed the emergency room nurse on duty that Kristin was a Meet in the Middle marcher. The nurse didn’t like that.

Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center refused to accept Kirstin’s medical cards from Teresa, and they refused Teresa’s offer to have their medical advance directives and power of attorney faxed to them. The even refused to accept Teresa’s warning that Kirstin suffered massive migraines if she were given the benzodiazapine Ativan, which they tried to give Kirsten when she woke up. Kirstin was finally able to join Teresa when a doctor arrived a few hours later.

I had hesitated in posting about this when the story appeared because there was only one news source for it. But now that the American Civil Liberties Union has investigated and found that there is considerable merit to the allegations. In fact, because Kirstin has epilepsy, trips to the hospital is fairly normal. In a statement from the ACLU, Teresa said:

“Unfortunately, because Kristin suffers from epilepsy, trips to the hospital are pretty common for us, which is why we filled out the legal paper work to make sure I would be able to be with her and make emergency decisions about her care. But the hospital wouldn\’t let me see Kristen and ignored my advice about her treatment. They ended up giving her the exact medication I repeatedly asked them not to give her.”

The ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights sent a joint letter (PDF: 624 KB/5 pages) to the hospital today urging that it adopt policy changes with regard to same-sex relationships. It cites California’s Unrih Civil Rights Act, which provides that “no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accomodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services…” The letter requires Fresno Community Hospital to take the following steps before June 22, 2009:

1. Adopt a comprehensive visitaiton policy that:
   • Affirms all patients’ rights to have visitors, explicitly including same-sex partners and their children;
   • Outlines a clear process for determining when visitors will be restricted and how that decision will be communicated; and
   • Includes a grievance procedure in the case of visitation denial that can be acted on quickly in an emergency situation.
2. Ensure that yur hospitals’ non-discrimination policy explicitly describes LGBT individuals as a protected group;
3. Ensure that your patients’ bill of rights explicitly describes the rights of LGBT patients;
4. Provide LGBT healthcare training to the Emergency Department staff at Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno; and
5. Participate inthe 2009 Healthcare Equality Index, an annual survey of healthcare industry policies and practices related to LGBT individuals and families.

Extremist Watch: Neo-Nazis, Dominionists Protest PrideFest In Ozarks

Several members of the National Socialist Movement protested at a PrideFest celebration in Springfield, Missouri. Another anti-gay group, Minutemen United, was also at the rally. Gregory Thompson told a local Fox affiliate, “We love them so much that we want their soul in heaven for eternity. That’s the greatest love that there is.” That was just after footage of protesters shouting, “Death to Gays!”

The Minutemen United appears to be an offshoot of a similarly named group based in Ohio which disrupted two central Ohio church services in 2007. “Coach” Dave Daubenmire, who heads the Ohio group, was in Springfield in advance of the protest. Daubenmire also heads Pass the Salt Ministries, a Christian Dominionist group. The Missouri chapter of Minutemen United describes itself as “Christian men that are ready to run to the battle; at a minute’s warning!  To take to the field with arms (our arms is the sword of the Lord-the Bible).”

The National Socialist Movement in Springfield is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a neo-Nazi hate group.

Update: The Springfield News-Leader has more. Another chant: “Thank God for AIDS!” Where have we heard that before?

Extremist Watch: Minutemen In Arizona

Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas was shot and killed in his church by a right-wing extremist on May 31. The murderer, Scott Roeder, had extensive ties with militant anti-abortion groups, some of whom see Roeder as a hero. Stephen T Johns, a security guard at the Holocaust museum was gunned down on June 11 by James von Brunn, an avowed racist and Holocaust denier. Von Brunn is being lauded as “a hero and a martyr” by many who share his beliefs.

I saw yesterday in the Arizona Daily Star that an arrest was made in a May 30 home invasion in Arivaca, Arizona, a picturesque little village south of Tucson barely ten miles from the border with Mexico. It’s a rough-and-tumble place populated by aging hippies, artists, and Mexican-American families who trace their deep roots in the region from before the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Entering the town is like simultaneously crossing the border and a couple of centuries. It is so out of the way, the locals have a saying: “When you’ve found Arivaca, you know you’re lost.”

Arivaca, Arizona (Photo by Jim Burroway/BTB)

My partner and I have enjoyed spending a few afternoons at a small rural coffee shop just outside of town, sitting outside on the porch with the stray dogs and the hummingbirds. The idea that a home invasion could occur there is quite unsettling. One in which father and nine-year-old daughter were killed is even more out of place in such a tiny little place. As rough as Arivaca may be, this is the sort of thing that happens in Tucson and Phoenix, not in an out-of-the-way village in the Sonoran desert.

Shawna Forde (Arizona Daily Star)

So who would pull off such a thing? Well, it turns out that the ringleader of the three-person assault force was Shawna Forde, the leader of tghe Washington-based Minutemen American Defense. Also participating was Jason Eugene Bush, who serves as operations director for the group. (There are at least three different groups operating in the area calling themselves Minutemen.) This gang of extremists allegedly targeted the home on the suspicion that the father, Raul Flores, was dealing in drugs.

Regardless of whether Flores was dealing in drugs or not (news reports are ambiguous on that), this is just one more example of right-wing extremists not just taking the law into their own hands, but seeking to become a law unto themselves. And just as there are racist extremists, anti-immigrant extremists, and anti-abortion extremists, there are anti-LGBT extremists out there as well. And some of them may well be goaded by some of the more inflammatory rhetoric among more well-known opponents to LGBT equality.

This country has changed in many remarkable ways in the past decade, and the changes that LGBT people have experienced have been especially significant in the last five years. In just this year alone, five new states have added marriage equality, while more than a third of all Americans live in states allowing at least some form of recognition for same-sex couples. This must be galling to many of our more extreme opponents.

There are crackpots out there who would do us harm, and they are becoming increasingly desperate. This is a time for vigilance and a time for all of us to be very careful about our personal safety. But our prudence must not come at the expense of squelching our voices or halting our steps.

Let’s be careful out there.

Know-Nothings

The Obama administration’s brief defending DOMA in Smelt v. United States is incredibly tone deaf, particularly when contrasted against the California Attorney General’s brief filed in response to Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The DOJ brief which says gays can marry anyone they want as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex is not just an insult to gay people, but an insult to the legal system’s collective intelligence. And the argument about holding costs down on Social Security and preserving tax revenue would be laughable if this were a Sacha Baron Cohen movie.  Unfortunately, these are the underpinnings of the legal arguments brought before the august Supreme Court on behalf of one of the smartest Presidents to hold the high office. How could this have happened? David Link offers one answer:

There is something deeper here, though.  Obama is comfortable with the cliché political rhetoric of gay equality, but this brief shows his understanding doesn\’t go a centimeter deeper.  Or (most generously) that his Attorney General knows only the words and not the tune.  To someone who understands gay equality as little more than a set of slogans and bromides, this brief might not have looked particularly offensive.

That, at least, is the most generous understanding I am willing to indulge – that the brief was written and/or edited by civil servants with an anti-gay inclination, and reviewed by political staff who know no more about gay equality than what they read on the President\’s website.

CA Attorney General Brief: Prop 8 Violates 14th Amendment

What a contrast between the California Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice. On the same day in which the Obama administration filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,“ California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a very different brief in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Prop 8 challenge brought by Ted Olson and David Boies.

In the brief filed on behalf of the State of California (PDF: 128KB/11 pages), Brown notes that:

The Attorney General of California is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States in addition to the Constitution of the State of California. Cal. Const., art. XX, § 3. The United States Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Taking from same-sex couples the right to civil marriage that they had previously possessed under California\’s Constitution cannot be squared with guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Attorney General answers the Complaint consistent with his duty to uphold the United States Constitution, as Attorney General Thomas C. Lynch did when he argued that Proposition 14, passed by the California voters in 1964, was incompatible with the Federal Constitution.

The complaint filed by Olson and Boies (PDF: 140KB/11 pages) is broken down into forty-nine paragraphs. The response by the Attorney General addresses each of the numbered paragraphs in the original complaint. The response begins with a stipulation that California’s Domestic Partnerships are not equal to civil marriage and therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”

In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that in November 2008 California adopted Proposition 8; that Proposition 8 amended Article I of the California Constitution by adding section 7.5 which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California;” and that the effect of Proposition 8 is to deny gay men and lesbians and their same-sex partners access to civil marriage in California and to deny them recognition of their civil marriages performed elsewhere. The Attorney General admits that lesbians and gay men and their same-sex partners may form domestic partnerships in California pursuant to California Family Code sections 297 through 299.6, and that such domestic partnerships are not equal to civil marriage, and that this unequal treatment denies lesbians and gay men rights guarantees by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

…In response to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples the right to civil marriage in California, and that it therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

…In response to paragraph 23 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that California\’s domestic partnership law gives same-sex couples many of the substantive legal benefits and privileges that California civil marriage provides; that the domestic partnership law does not permit the marriage of same-sex couples; and that the California Supreme Court has noted at least nine ways in which statutes concerning marriage differ from corresponding statutes concerning domestic partnerships.

Brown describes the reasons that gays and lesbians should be treated as a suspect class deserving of equal protection:

…In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that sexual orientation is a characteristic that bears no relation to a person\’s ability to perform or contribute to society and that the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians has been associated with a stigma of inferiority and second-class citizenship, manifested by the group\’s history of legal and social disabilities.

Brown also invokes Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which struck down laws banning marriage between people of different races:

In response to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that the United States Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1. 12 (1967), that the “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

The brief then addresses the Due Process claims:

In response to paragraph 38 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that, to the extent that Proposition 8 took from Plaintiffs their previously held fundamental right to marry, the measure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on its face.

…In response to paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that, to the extent that Proposition 8 took from Plaintiffs their previously held fundamental right to marry, the measure violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on its face; and that by denying civil marriage to gay and lesbian same-sex couples that it affords to heterosexual opposite-sex couples, the California Constitution denies gay and lesbian couples and their families the same dignity, respect, and stature afforded families headed by a married couple.

And the Equal Protection claims:

In response to paragraph 42 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that Proposition 8 restricts civil marriage in California to opposite-sex couples; that gays and lesbians are therefore unable to enter into a civil marriage with the person of their choice; that the California Constitution treats similarly-situated persons differently by providing civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, but denying it to same-sex couples; that domestic partnership under California law is available to same-sex couples, but is not the equivalent of civil marriage; that even if domestic partnership were the substantive equivalent to civil marriage, it would still be unequal to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples because, as recognized by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases, domestic partnership would carry with it a stigma of inequality and second-class citizenship; that under the California Constitution, gay and lesbian same sex couples are unequal to heterosexual opposite sex couples; and that article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is an exceptional brief, absent all of the pernicious anti-gay ramblings of the Obama administration’s brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. After reading the DOJ brief yesterday, this one was a breath of fresh air. Look at these two briefs side-by-side. It will be clear that only one was written by a “fierce advocate” for the Constitutional principles of Due Process and Equal Protection.

Wisconsin Assembly Passes Domestic Partnerships

The Wisconsin Assembly pulled an all-nighter overnight to finally pass a budget in the early hours of Saturday morning. That 50-48 party line vote by the Democrat-controlled Assembly for the $62.2 billion budget also included important policy changes, including the establishment of a Domestic Partnership registry for same-sex couples. Among the very limited benefits of Domestic Partnerships include provisions for jointly owning property, hospital visitation rights and inheritance. Domestic partners of state employees would also be eligible to receive the same state retirement and health insurance benefits as spouses.

The budget will now go to the Senate, which is expected to vote on it sometime next week.

If domestic partnerships become law, Wisconsin would be the first state with an existing constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions to provide domestic partnership protections for same-sex couples.

Researchers Denounce Focus On the Family’s Linkage of Childhood Sexual Abuse and Male Homosexuality

Focus On the Family is preparing to have their Love Won Out roadshow make its stop in Grand Rapids, Michigan this weekend. One of the principle arguments they are likely to spring on unsuspecting parents (if past history is any guide) is Melissa Fryrear’s assertion that she has never met a gay person who hadn’t been sexually abused, while drawing the insistent link that this abuse somehow is a major cause of homosexuality. (We saw Pat Robertson mine this same material earlier this week.) This damaging and abusive  claim — imagine the horror of parents of gay kids in that audience who will hear her say that — has been a very steady theme in Love Won Out’s arsenal.

To bolster that claim, Focus On the Family recently issued one of their “reports” by Jeff Johnston, who is touted as the “gender issues analyst” at Focus On the Family (his degree and qualifications are never mentioned). That report, “Childhood Sexual Abuse and Male Homosexuality,” is further intended to reinforce the claim that most gay men have experienced some form of sexual abuse in their childhoods, and that this is the reason they became gay. To back up his claims, he cites the book, Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States, edited by Richard J. Wolitsk, Ron Stall and Ronald O. Valdiserri. That book contains a large number of research papers on various topics related to men’s health, including child sexual abuse. Johnston claims:

In a chapter titled, “Childhood Sexual Abuse Experienced by Gay and Bisexual Men: Understanding the Disparities and Interventions to Help Eliminate Them,” from the book Unequal Opportunity, researchers analyze and report on data from 17 different studies from the past 15 years. They find the rates of childhood sexual abuse (which they abbreviate as CSA) for men who have sex with men range from 11.8% to 37.0%, and note that “the best-designed studies tend to converge on CSA prevalence of 15% to 25%.”

The authors in Unequal Opportunity are reluctant to say that childhood sexual abuse is one of the factors that leads to or contributes to the development of homosexuality, but they do speculate,

The fact that most childhood abusers of MSM were males suggests either an etiological link between CSA and adult sexual orientation, or the existence of childhood characteristics that are related to adult sexual orientation in men that increase vulnerability, or both.”

And later, they say that these early sexual experiences “can be considered a form of sexual learning, even if that learning is involuntary and the results dysfunctional.” They continue, “Sexual orientation and gender identity can be particularly confusing for men who experienced arousal during the abuse, and MSM who experienced abuse may continue to be aroused by circumstances that mirror the abusive situation.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton contacted Ron Stall and Ron Valdiserri and asked them to comment on the Focus On the Family report. They responded with a statement condemning the report as “inaccurate and, in our opinion, a distortion of the scientific literature.” They go on:

Most basically, the Focus on the Family characterization of the literature on childhood sexual abuse among gay men represents a misunderstanding of scientific approaches to distinguishing between correlation and causation. The book chapter in question reports that gay men are more likely to report childhood sexual abuse by men than are heterosexual men. This correlation does not mean that the reported abuse caused the adult sexual orientation. If that were the case, then the fact that some heterosexual men report sexual abuse by women means that sexual abuse by women “causes” heterosexuality in men. It is also worth noting that the argument that childhood sexual abuse causes homosexuality in gay men is undermined by the fact that the vast majority of gay men are not sexually abused as children.

…[W]e want to state clearly that the published research does not support the claim that the development of a homosexual orientation is caused by childhood sexual abuse. Furthermore, adult homosexual orientation is no longer considered a pathology or a maladjustment. We urge those who are interested in trying to better understand some of these complex issues from a scientific perspective to read the discussions in our book, as well as the scientific literature on childhood sexual abuse, and not rely on second-hand interpretations.

You can see Stall and Valdiserri’s full statement at Dr. Throckmorton’s web site.

Update: What kind of qualifications does it take to be a “gender issues analyst” at Focus On the Family? Well in Jeff Johnston’s case, all you have to be is an English major! (PDF: 168 KB/1 page) He has also served on the board of directors of Exodus International and PFOX.

The New Miss California Also Does Not Support Same-Sex Marriage

The Miss California Pageant has replaced one young Christian girl… with another, Teri Farrell.

According to the Kansas City Star,

She’s a Christian. Farrell recently finished recording her first demo CD and performed during a Christian cruise to the Bahamas last summer. Last fall she worked with Christian recording artists, Sonic Flood, on a new CD project.

And the Mercury News is telling us that she doesn’t support marriage equality

In a television interview Thursday, [Tami] Farrell said she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. But she added: “I don’t think I have the right or anybody has the right to tell somebody who they can or can’t love.”

But it seems that Tami, unlike Carrie, doesn’t think her opinion on the matter is the result of some battle between God and Satan or that she’s qualified to weigh in authoritatively.

But what about gay marriage? Farrell feels it is “hilarious that the world is turning to beauty queens for the answers” on gay marriage, but she didn’t have a strong opinion on either side of the debate.

“I don’t think I have the right, or anyone has the right, to tell somebody who they can or cannot love. I think this is a civil rights issue, and I think the right thing to do is to let the voters decide.”

TMZ has video from CNN in which she says that the decision should be state by state and that she isn’t interested in hooking up with anti-gay organizations.

Ex-Gay Advocate Seeks to Out Gay Co-Workers

Philip Irvin ain’t so fond of The Gey. And he very much objects to the way in which his employer, Seattle City Light, allows an LGBTQ employee association to meet. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

Speaking to seattlepi.com Thursday, Irvin said the city has previously opposed his efforts to start a group for employees who had identified as homosexuals but have since become heterosexual.

“They are the most vilified sexual minority, and I’m sorry to say that they’re not really welcomed in the religious community either,” Irvin said. “This is something where they are vilified on the right or the left.”

He also tried to get Seattle City Light to send him as a representative of the company to the Love Won Out ex-gay seminars. In order to make his point, he sent his request by email – and included some gay co-workers on the distribution list.

I don’t know if there are many – if any – employees that identify as ex-gay at Seattle City Light. I think it likely that this was less about a demand for an ex-gay employees group and more of a means to harass gay fellow employees.

Now Irvin has come up with an all new way to annoy and frighten his co-workers. He has used public disclosure laws to try and find out who might be gay so he can out them. In his own words:

Seattle Public Utilities sponsored a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and friends” employees group which has free use of City e-mail and meeting rooms and most likely even has a city job number to charge their organizational time to. They have even got an all-employees e-mail invitation persuading employees to attend a one-sided forum on lesbian mothers child custody issues. Curious to find out who was using City resources, I, a City Light employee, filed a public disclosure request seeking the names and attendees of their meeting.

The Post-Intelligencer reports

According to court documents, Irvin has also requested the names and city departments of those who are members of the group, or who have attended the group’s meetings, as well as copies of the group’s sign-in sheets, minutes and agendas.

He sees it as a logical extension of reporting the names of those who sign anti-gay petitions for referenda. Anti-gay activists are circulating petitions to overturn rights and benefits granted to domestic partners by the State of Washington. And WhoSigned.org seeks to make those names available to their neighbors.

Irvin argues that if the names of persons who sign a legal petition to achieve the numbers necessary to qualify for a ballot to remove civil rights are public, then so too should the names of employees who attended an LGBTQ workgroup be publicized.

His co-workers did not agree. They sought, and received, court intervention. (the Stranger)

King County Superior Court issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks the city from releasing personal information about members of the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Friends (LGBTQ&F)” affinity group.

Irvin isn’t pleased

I was stunned when told that the gay group would be filing an injunction to block release of this information. There seems to be rank hypocrisy among the gay community. Publishing names and addresses on a website of those who oppose them by signing a petition is fair game but releasing the names of those who use city resources to promote their agenda causes them to howl. Call me a homophobe if you want to but I don’t think the City should fund a secret gay employees group.

But the attorney for the employees sees distinctions between the public dissemination of petitioners to the State on matters of legislation and individuals attending a workplace meeting.

But Coffman says the comparison is apples to oranges. The key in determining whether personal information should be made public rests on state law, which says the public must hold an interest in accessing private information. In the case of a referendum, Coffman says, the public needs to verify that authorized voters signed a petition—thus that information needs to be publicly available.

However, Coffman argues, “I don\’t think there is a public interest in identifying who these people are.” He says that it’s unclear what city resources were invested in the group, what the threshold for membership was, or what personal information (such as email addresses) the city might have. For instance, he is concerned that someone who attended one meeting but had no real stake in the group could be outed.

“The interest is Mr. Irvin\’s alone, and I would suggest it is for nefarious purposes,” says Coffman. It’s an intimidation tactic that “smacks of something that would happen in the South, circa 1962.”

More Reactions to Obama Administration’s Defense of DOMA

People are justifiably furious over the Obama administration’s DOJ brief filed with the Supreme Court defending DOMA. Here’s Pam Spaulding:

This is a President who said he is a “fierce advocate” for our rights. This doesn’t look much like an advocate, it looks more like an enemy pulling the pin on the grenade and tossing it at us. While this may not be the perfect test case for DOMA, the Obama administration, in its defense of the Act, has filed a brief that is a roadmap for every fundnut anti-gay argument against the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Andrew Sullivan:

There’s a completely decent reason to keep DOMA in place for the time being, especially in the federal courts right now – where bad precedents could wound us in the future. But to file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre. They could have argued for a narrow ruling or kept the “reasonable” arguments to a minimum. What they did – without any heads up to any of their gay supporters and allies – is unconscionable. Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea?

…I’m baffled by this, I really am. The content of this brief is a massive political error from an administration that is making it impossible for its gay supporters to stay supportive. What’s next? A Clintonian political ad boasting of these arguments?

John Aravosis, when he’s not mad at others for not pushing the incest meme. Sorry, John. I love you and admire your work, but we disagree on that point. But not on this:

Today is the 42nd anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case overturning Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriages. The Obama people, working for the product of an inter-racial marriage, sure have an eye for irony.

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

Even if one argues, as I often have, that a government lawyer — from the Department of Justice to state attorneys general — must defend even those laws with which one disagrees*, such a lawyer needn\’t overstate his or her case. The government lawyer defending a statute with which she disagrees needn\’t add gratuitous demeaning statements into the legal brief she files.

Unlike the Obama Administration\’s brief filed in the Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell case turned away by the Supreme Court this week, last night\’s filing in Smelt v. United States goes too far.  It\’s offensive, it\’s dismissive, it\’s demeaning and — most importantly — it\’s unnecessary.  Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case.

…Perhaps the simplest way to express my anger at this filing is to reprint what is easily the most disingenuous line of the brief, at p. 32:

DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits.

Another lawyer, Dale Carpenter at the Volokh Conspiracy:

More bluntly put, the Obama DOJ is saying that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against gays and lesbians because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex. No “homosexual” is denied marriage so homosexuals qua homosexuals suffer no hardship. Gay man? Marry a woman, says the DOJ. Lesbian? There’s a nice boy across the street. It’s identical in form to the defense of Texas’s Homosexual Conduct law in Lawrence v. Texas: a law banning only gay sex doesn’t discriminate against gays because it equally forbids homosexuals and heterosexuals to have homosexual sex and because it equally allows homosexuals and heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex. This sort of formalism has incited howls of laughter over the years when made by religious conservatives. Now it’s the official constitutional position of the Obama administration.

…My point here is not to claim that the DOJ’s arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. My point is only to note how much continuity there is in this instance, as in others, between the Bush and Obama administrations. In short, there’s little in this brief that could not have been endorsed by the Bush DOJ. A couple of rhetorical flourishes here and there might have been different. Perhaps a turn of phrase. But, minus some references to procreation and slippery slopes, the substance is there.

Obama says he opposes DOMA as a policy matter and wants to repeal it. Nothing in the DOJ brief prevents him from acting on that belief. He is, he says, a “fierce advocate” for gay and lesbian Americans. When does that part start?

David Link at Independent Gay Forum:

It is gratuitously insulting to lesbians and gay men, referring (unnecessarily) to same-sex marriage as a “form” of marriage, approving of congressional comparisons between same-sex marriages and loving relationships between siblings, or grandparents and grandchildren, and arguing (with a straight face, I can only assume) that discrimination against same-sex couples is rational because it saves the federal government money.  There are some respectable arguments in this motion, and this kind of disrespect is offensive.

Chris Crain:

The people in the Justice Department writing this brief made so many discredited and ridiculous arguments for DOMA, I hope these were really intended to help the court see the fallacy of DOMA to persuade the court to strike it down. Otherwise my only other conclusion is that the Obama White House has thrown us overboard.

Dan Savage:

Barack Obama’s record on gay rights so far: disturbing, unsound, false, discriminatory, damaging, nonsensical. Before today you could argue that the Obama administration was too busy with the economy and the war and health care to focus on making good on his campaign promises to gays and lesbians, that Obama simply didn’t have the time to take up our issues. But you can’t make that argument anymore. The Obama administration has the time to take up gay rights issues—but only, it seems, to do harm.

I can’t take my vote back. And I’m not sure I would if I could. But I sure as hell would like to have my money back.

And Andy Towle:

Happy Stonewall anniversary everybody!

Reactions To Obama Administration’s Defense of DOMA

Reactions to news that the Obama administration is defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” against a constitutional challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court are pouring in fast and furious. We go first to the Human Rights Campaign:

[HRC President Joe Solmonese said,] “Mr. President, you have called DOMA ‘abhorrent\’ and pledged to be a fierce advocate for our community.  As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, it is time for you to use your leadership to translate these principles into meaningful action.”

HRC also has grave concerns about the arguments that the Administration put forth in this case, arguments that simply do not reflect the experiences that LGBT people face or the contributions that they make. The Administration\’s brief claims that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress\’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.  The brief further claims that DOMA is a “neutral” federal position on same-sex marriages, and permits the states to determine on their own whether to recognize same-sex marriages. The most alarming argument, grounded neither in fact nor in law, reads as follows:

[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.

“Same-sex couples and their families are not seeking subsidies,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese.  “We pay taxes equally, contribute to our communities equally, support each other equally, pay equally into Social Security, and participate equally in our democracy.  Equal protection is not a handout.  It is our right as citizens,” he said.

From Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund:

“DOMA is and has always been an immoral attack on same-sex couples, our families and our fundamental humanity. This law has only served to discriminate against Americans and belittle our nation’s heralded values embracing freedom, fairness and justice. The Task Force Action Fund demands President Obama and Congress immediately repeal this hateful law, which has left a moral scar on our nation and its worthy pursuit of equal justice for all.

“Unfortunately, the malicious and outrageous arguments and language used in the Department of Justice’s marriage brief is only serving to inflame and malign the humanity of same-sex couples and our families. This is unacceptable.

“This ugly chapter in our nation’s history must come to an end now with the repeal of DOMA.”

From Executive Director Geoff Kors of Equality California:

We are outraged the Obama Administration filed a brief defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act — a law Obama promised to repeal when running for President. It is unacceptable that he is defending DOMA instead of supporting its repeal as unconstitutional. And the justification that Congress has the right to deny one minority equal benefits as a way to save money is truly offensive. We not only call on President Obama to order the Justice Department to file a supplemental brief reversing its position and instead urging the repeal of DOMA, but we also demand the president demonstrates that he is the ‘fierce’ advocate he once claimed to be by publicly calling for the end to all discrimination against LGBT Americans — including the immediate repeal of this law so same-sex couples legally married in their home state receive the same federal benefits and protections as opposite-sex couples

From a broad coalition of advocacy groups (no link yet):

We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

We disagree with many of the administration\’s arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress\’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.

We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be “neutral” with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing “neutral” about the federal government\’s discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of “neutrality” ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive. It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.

When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.

Signed:
American Civil Liberties Union
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce

And from PFLAG:

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National expressed deep disappointment and strong opposition to the Department of Justice\’s recent arguments regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the dismissal of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a gay couple who married in California.

“Since DOMA\’s enactment in 1996, PFLAG has vocally opposed this blatant and malicious law, which enables legal discrimination against our gay and lesbian loved ones and denies them the right to protect their families and receive equal treatment under the law,” said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG. “We are deeply offended by the DOJ\’s recent arguments and alarmed by the hurtful language that further denigrates our families and friends.”

“PFLAG continues to urge President Obama to explore options to repeal this immoral and unethical law that leaves our families and friends unprotected and unequal. DOMA hurts our families and friends by denying them more than 1,100 federal benefits legally recognized married couples currently receive from the federal government. When families are hurt, communities are weakened and all of America suffers. In the name of basic equality and fairness, we ask that the Administration fulfill its commitment to advancing equality for LGBT Americans by acting immediately to overturn this law,” Huckaby concluded.

NOM Needs a Dictionary

Merriam-Webster defines “petition” as a “a formal written request made to an official person or organized body”. Most commonly it is a method by which individuals can show their support of a collective effort to influence a body on a decision.

In other words, a petition has a specific request and a specific audience.

But the National Organization for Marriage isn’t quite sure what the word “petition” means. On their new website Stand With Carrie, they request that visitors “Sign the Petition to Stand with Carrie!” But they provide no petition nor any indication of what “standing with Carrie” might be about:

Carrie Prejean could have had it all, at the price of sacrificing her values. She chose to speak the truth. She chose to Stand Up for Marriage. Now she is paying the price. It’s time for us to Stand with Carrie. Sign up now to let Carrie know you stand with her. And check back soon for more details on how you can help Carrie stand for truth.

Is this directed towards Donald Trump? Does she want her tiara back? Is she now interested in doing the tasks of Miss California? Who knows?

This is a “petition” with neither a request nor a petitionee; this is not a petition at all. Either the designer of the National Organization for Marriage’s new website is not very bright, or that is his opinion about those who visit there.

Gene Simmons: Lambert Should “Keep His Mouth Shut” About Being Gay

From one makeup-wearing entertainer to another:

Adam should have won. On the other hand he should have kept his mouth shut about his sexual preferences. I don’t really care what he wants to do and neither does America. But this kid’s got talent, Adam Lambert can go on. As long as he’s quiet about whatever else he prefers to do indoors. I personally don’t care, I mean if you love farm animals, that’s fine, but I don’t wanna read a magazine about that.

Classy, that bestiality zinger. But here’s an idea. How about we ask Lambert  to shut up about his “preferences” when Simmons shuts up about his. Deal?