Box Turtle Bulletin

Vaccine for HPV Effective in Men

Timothy Kincaid

July 2nd, 2009

Just ask any anti-gay activist and they’ll tell you: the gays get anal cancer!! In 1997 the anti-gay group Concerned Women for America, in support for their claim that “homosexuality is by its very nature dangerous to those who practice it”, declared

Homosexual men’s practice of anal sex has left many of them victims of anal cancer. One article in the New England Journal of Medicine commented, “Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37 percent) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only one of 64 controls.”

And even the CDC warns

Gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men.

You may find this surprising. Looking at your friends you may wonder, “Who has anal cancer here? Why are they keeping this a secret from me?”

Well fear not. Your friends aren’t lying to you. While anal cancer is far more frequent in gay men than heterosexuals (and even more common to HIV politive men), it is still very very rare - and about to become rarer still.

HPV, the human papillomavirus, is sexually transmitted and very common. According to the CDC, “Most sexually active people in the United States (U.S.) will have HPV at some time in their lives.”

Although the virus may never present symptoms, it’s most known for causing genital warts. At any given time 1% of sexually active men in the US have genital warts.

More seriously, a number of cancers have been shown to be associated with HPV including cervical cancer, penile cancer, and anal cancer. Each of these are fairly rare.

The rate of anal cancer in men is 9 out of 100,000. In gay men that rate soars to 35 out of 100,000.

Although 0.035% is hardly the sort of occurrance rathat argues that “homosexuality is by its very nature dangerous”, we should not dismiss or treat lightly the pain and misery brought about by this disease.

Fortunatly there is a vaccine for the type of HPV that causes cancers. It is nearly 100% effective in reducing infection in women. However, the vaccine has not yet been approved for use on men.

A new study may lend support to the vaccination of men as well. (xtra)

“The numbers right now look not quite as good as the girls’ but still very, very good,” says Palefsky. “The vaccine was nearly 100 percent effective [in women] so you obviously can’t do better than that.”

Palefsky says the vaccine would still make an effective preventative health tool for everyone because the same strains of HPV that cause most cervical cancers in women also cause a majority of anal cancers in men.

“They’re entirely the same,” he says. “That’s why we’re optimistic that if boys do get vaccinated with the same vaccine that girls are using, it should prevent a substantial number of anal cancers.”

Conservatives have opposed the application of this vaccine for girls under the logic that it presumes that their little Suzy is going to be a promiscuous slut. And since they are good Christians kids wearing their purity ring they will never be exposed to a sexually transmitted virus. (In my experience, Christian kids tend to experience miracle babies - those who show up fully devoloped and health about seven months after a rapidly planned wedding.)

We can expect an even higher level of objection to vaccinating little Johnny who is undoubtedly going to give up his desire to be church organist when he grows up, develops an interest in sports, and marries a nice Christian girl.

But as a matter of policy, every child in the country should be vaccinated, regardless of sex. I care about Suzy and Johnny’s heath even if their parents do not.

Donations for Chad Gibson’s Medical Bills

Jim Burroway

June 30th, 2009

From Tammye Nash at The Dallas Voice:

To donate to a fund for Chad Gibson, walk into any Frost Bank location in Texas and ask to make a donation to Q Cinema for the benefit of Chad Gibson (the donation is through Q Cinema in order to be tax deductible). The account number is 608439230. Ability to make online donations coming soon.

Q Cinema a non-profit 501(c)3 organization which screens LGBT films and hosts other events for Ft. Worth audiences. Todd Camp is the founder of Q Cinema. He was one of the outspoken witnesses of the police raid at the Rainbow Lounge.

Thank You, Raymond Castro

Timothy Kincaid

June 29th, 2009

Forty years and a day ago, Raymond Castro was arrested for his part in the Stonewall Riots. (msnbc)

“When the police raided the place, I was outside,” Castro remembered. “Then I remembered a friend inside who did not have a false ID and he was going to get in trouble, so I went inside to give him one.” (Many of the police raids, he said, resulted in arrests for underage drinking). “Once I got inside, the police wouldn’t let us out. It got really hot. I remember throwing punches and resisting arrest. The police handcuffed me and threw me in the paddy wagon. But I sprung back up, like a leap frog, and when I did that I knocked the police down.”

Castro then got out of town and spent the next forty years as a baker - 30 of them with Frankie Sturniolo - building a life around caring for friends and family .

In fact, it was not until David Carter, a historian and author of “Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution,” called Castro that he started publicly reflecting on the events of 40 years ago.

But for every day of those forty years our community has owned him a debt of gratitude. Thank you, Raymond, for the part you played in our ongoing fight for freedom and equality.

LaBarbera Award Winner Hagee Meets With Gay Supportive Group

Timothy Kincaid

June 27th, 2009

NOTE: The original title of this commentary was “LaBarbera Award Winner Hagee Meets With Gay Christian Group”. At the request of the Jeff Lutes, we have revised the title to be more accurate. See update below.

John Hagee, pastor of the Austin San Antonio mega-church The Cornerstone, is well known for his nonsensical rants about gay people. For example, he announced that Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgment on New Orleans for a planned gay event (he failed to explain why God chose to spare the French Quarter - but maybe God just has bad aim).

It was nutcase hatery like that which won him our coveted LaBarbera Award for the “most outrageous, offensive, malevolent, crazy or excessive statement or claim.”

Well, proving that the best policy is to never confuse the unlikely with the impossible, gay groups have scheduled a sit-down discussion with Hagee this Sunday. (Statesman)

Members of [Austin-based advocacy groups Soulforce and Atticus Circle], which support equal rights for the LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender — community, wrote to the senior pastor of the church, the Rev. John Hagee , in early June to ask for a meeting.

Hagee invited them to services Sunday and agreed to sit down with organizers afterward.

I don’t think Soulforce or Atticus Circle are fooling themselves into believing that they will change Hagee’s theology. And Hagee seems mostly to be patting himself on the back for even meeting with them.

In an e-mail statement this month about his decision to meet with Austin advocates, Hagee said, “We gather in the spirit of Christ that commands us to ‘love our neighbors as ourselves.’ ”

But if this helps rachet down some of the hateful rhetoric then my hat is off to these groups.

Update: Jeff Lutes, the Executive Director of SoulForce, has provided clarification about my miscategorizing them as a gay Christian group:

One very important point of correction is that neither Soulforce or Atticus Circle identify as “Gay Christian” groups. Soulforce members include a diverse array of folks who simply believe in nonviolent direct action as a method to achieve social justice; Atticus Circle focuses on recruiting straight allies to join in the fight for equality. Because we challenge religion-based discrimination, we are frequently mistaken as religious organizations - which automatically excludes many LGBTQA people who don’t identify as people of faith. We want all those who seek justice to get involved in our efforts, so anything you can do to help us undo the “Gay Christian” misnomer would be greatly appreciated.

Gov’t Repudiates Frank Kameny’s 1957 Firing, Apologizes

Jim Burroway

June 25th, 2009

In 1957, Frank Kameny was fired from his job as an astronomer at the Army Map Service when his supervisors found out he was gay. He protested to the U.S. Civil Service Commission and argued his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which denied his claim. That experience turned Kameny from an anonymous government employee to one of the most tireless activists of the LGBT movement.

Yesterday, more than fifty years after his firing, Frank was on hand at a special ceremony to receive a formal letter of apology from John Berry, the openly gay Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Kameny was also bestowed the Teddy Roosevelt Award, the department’s highest honor. Upon receiving the apology, Frank Kameny tearfully replied, “Apology accepted.”

We often think of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York as being the start of the Gay Rights movement, but that assumption ignores the bold, aggressive action by Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings, Del Martin and Phylis Lyon, along with other pre-stonewall landmark events like the Black Cat Raid and the White House pickets. Frank Kameny was right in the middle of many of those bold initiatives in demanding equality for gay people when relatively few gay people themselves believed they deserved equality. Remember, this was a time when the medical profession regarded homosexuality as a mental illness.

Frank would have none of that. He co-founded the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., which in 1963 launched a long campaign to overturn sodomy laws and remove homosexuality from the American Psychological Association’s list of mental disorders. He participated in the very first picket line in front of the White House on April 17, 1965. Along with other activists from New York they expanded those pickets to include the Pentagon, the U.S. Civil Service Commission, and, more famously, to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia pickets would become an annual event for the next five years.

In 1968, Kameny coined the phrase “Gay Is Good,” basing it on the slogan “Black Is Beautiful.” It was a bold and radical gesture for many gays and lesbians who hadn’t before dared to believe that about themselves. While Frank points to that phrase’s popularity as his most proud accomplishment, it wasn’t his last. He became the first openly gay candidate for Congress in 1971 (he lost), and he played a pivotal role in the APA’s removal of homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973 (he won).

Yesterday, Frank’s life of advocacy completed its full circle with the apology and recognition from the Office of Personnel Management, the successor department to the U.S. Civil Service Commission which upheld his firing. In Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price’s book, Courting Justice: Gay Men And Lesbians V. The Supreme Court, Frank called his 1957 firing the spark which energized his long dedication to securing equality for all LGBT people:

“I just couldn’t walk away,” recalled Frank Kameny, a brilliant Harvard-educated astronomer who became nearly destitute after being fired from his government job in 1957. The phrase echoed through many interviews with gay people who fought against dreadful odds after losing a job, being embarrassed by a “sex crime” arrest or suffering some similar humiliation. “For the rest of my life, I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself,” Kameny added. “I would be dead of stomach ulcers by now. There’s simply a burning sense of justice.”

Frank Kameny is 82, and is still active in Washington, D.C. where he makes his home. His home, by the way, was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Review Board in honor of his activism. His papers are now in the Library of Congress, and a collection of original picket signs, a “Gay is Good” button, and other memorabilia are a part of the Smithsonion’s collection.

Click here to read the OPM’s letter of apology

I’ve Changed My Mind

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jim Burroway

June 24th, 2009

About the White House cocktail party on June 29:

But a cocktail party? I can’t imagine that any self-respecting gay person would agree to go to a cocktail party at this stage in our difficult relationship with the current administration…

The seeds for my turnaround were planted when I finished that sentence:

…although I have to concede that House and Senate Republicans, even some of the most conservative ones, have taken the White House up on similar invitations.

I’ve thought a lot about that since then and here’s the deal. We’ve been telling everyone we can think of about the importance of being out and being visible to our families, our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers –  everywhere and to everyone. The power of our presence as real live human beings rather than ill-informed stereotypes has made a huge difference in what we’ve been able to accomplish over the past few years. It seems to me that wherever there is an opportunity to make our presence known in the flesh, we should take that opportunity and run with it.

And when that opportunity extends to meeting with the President of the United States, it becomes less an opportunity and more an obligation. Presidents have a tendency to become ensconced in a bubble surrounded by like-minded aides and sycophants. As much as I believe this President is trying to keep that from happening, it’s just a natural consequence of the office. He has obviously been told by those around him that our concerns can wait, that we’re just happy he’s there, and we’ll hang in there no matter what. If nobody’s there to tell him otherwise, how is he to know any different?

True, he can turn on television and watch the talking heads, but I think we all know how well television reflects real life. Not very well at all. And if we’ve learned not to believe everything we see on television, I’m sure the President has learned that too.

No, we’ve been talking about the importance of person-to-person conversations and sharing of our lives with others. Why is it now suddenly acceptable to say that we will refuse to do so with the President?

There appears to be three main arguments against attending the White House cocktail party. The first argument is this: that those who will attend will be co-opted into a White House photo-op of Obama surrounded by His Friendly Gays. That could happen, but I doubt it. Remember all those cocktail parties that Obama threw to try to open up dialog with House and Senate Republicans? Do you remember many photographs from those events?

The second argument actually seems to run counter to the first, that because the cocktail party hasn’t been publicly announced, it’s signaling that Obama doesn’t want to be too public with His Friendly Gays. “Why the big secret?” they ask. But if it’s a big secret, then it can’t be much of a photo-op, and if it’s a photo-op, then it can’t be much of a secret. What’s the point of being surrounded by His Friendly Gays if he’s not going to show them off? But the real answer to why it hasn’t been publicly announced may be found in precedent: The previous cocktail parties weren’t big public productions either. We only started to learn about them after they occurred.

The third argument concerns His Friendly Gays themselves, and builds on the much-hated image of “A-Gays” drinking and schmoozing and not getting much done. That’s a hard image to knock down, but we do have to remember that in a town like Washington, D.C., relationships are formed and messages put across over exactly these kinds of activities. This is true in D.C. much moreso than in anywhere else, where these events are typically little more than non-work social hours.

And as for His Friendly Gays, it appears the gathering will be much broader than that. Some of those invited include some of the administration’s harsher critics on LGBT issues. One of those who will be there is Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, who is about to be fired from the Air Force for being gay. He’ll be there as a guest of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network. The invite list isn’t limited to those from inside the Beltway, which is exactly what’s needed to punch through the Presidential bubble. They aren’t the get-along-to-go-along usual suspects, although I’m sure some of them will be there also

And besides all that, there this final point: this is the President of the United States, in capital letters. When the President calls, you go. If you have access, use it. I think Mike Rogers — and no one is going to call him a get-along slouch — put it best:

We have had 8 years of “yes men” in the White House with no dissent. No one is suggesting that people should bow before the president, but this is what we wanted, ACCESS. THIS IS PART OF THE ACCESS.

Call me SHOCKED, but I did not get invited to the Bush White House. If I was, I think I would have said the same thing. When the President of the United States says “hey come on by,” you go. Invitations to the Oval Office or the White House are not supposed to be used to get up in the President’s face, it’s the time to compellingly present your case.

I wasn’t invited either. But it wasn’t just a couple of hours after I posted my first thoughts that I began to think differently about it. Yes, if someone from the White House were to call me and invite me to get on a plane bound for Washington to meet with the President of the United States, I’d scape my jaw off the floor and go. It’s not a cool invite to the hottest party in town. It’s a call to duty as a citizen. To not take up that call is to be less of a citizen. And when we are fighting for our full rights as citizens, we should exercise our duty as citizens wherever we’re called. And now that we are given access, we either use it or squander it. Seems the choice there is pretty simple.

The White House Wants To Buy Us A Drink

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jim Burroway

June 22nd, 2009

Last week, word went out that the Justice Department will meet with LGBT groups to try to iron out how the Justice Department can go forward with future litigation with DOMA without insulting a key group of fellow Americans. I think that has the potential of being a very good move, and I’m glad LGBT advocacy groups are being invited to this working meeting. But we are also learning that the White House plans on inviting LGBT leadership to a cocktail party of some sort later in the week. I can’t think of anything more inappropriate than that.

I think Michelangelo Signorile sums it up just right. I agree that it was important for LGBT leaders to be on hand when President Barack Obama signed the president’s memorandum providing for very limited benefits for gay employees. It was, as Signorile points out, LGBT business, and we expect LGBT leaders to be on hand whenever LGBT business is being conducted. And it’s good that LGBT leaders will be meeting with the Justice Department tomorrow. Again, more business.

But a cocktail party? I can’t imagine that any self-respecting gay person would agree to go to a cocktail party at this stage in our difficult relationship with the current administration, although I have to concede that House and Senate Republicans, even some of the most conservative ones, have taken the White House up on similar invitations.

But still, I think that attending a cocktail party sends two wrong signals. One, serious business like what we’ve gone through over the past week calls for serious and frank meetings. What we need is actual movement on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and (this one was supposed to be “easy”) finally enacting the Hate Crimes bill that was supposed to have come out this week but now is more likely before Congress recesses in August, if Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid can be taken at his word. We’re looking for real movement and a plan forward, not drinks and witty reparté.

And there’s another message that I have trouble squaring. The Human Rights Campaign in particular has labored under criticisms of being too cozy with the Washington power structure, and that those cozy relationships have led the HRC to go easy on pressing for important issues like repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That’s the perception, and it’s one that the HRC may just now be growing sensitive to. This latest flap over the Justice Department’s DOMA brief led the HRC to play catch-up with grassroots anger and suspicion, and they did that by issuing an unusually sternly worded letter to the White House. If the HRC really wants to shed its image of the go-along-to-get-along Washington schmoozing machine, the worst thing they could do would be to take the White House up on this latest invitation.

It looks like, for the time being, our relationship with the Obama administration can be divided into two periods: pre-DOMA brief and post-DOMA brief. In the pre-DOMA brief days, this party would have been seen as a good sign. We would have rejoiced that the White House engaged in this symbolic act, and the HRC would have basked in the glow. But that was before the DOMA brief — and before there were cocktail invitations. That brief changed everything. One way to understand the negative reaction surrounding the presidentail memorandum is that symbolic acts no longer cut it. LGBT leaders need to be cognizant of that or risk their own relevance in the LGBT community.

Update: I’ve changed my mind.

DOJ Reportedly To Meet With LGBT Groups

Jim Burroway

June 19th, 2009

In the wake of the nationwide anger being expressed over the Justice Department’s insulting court brief defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” the Obama administration has begun to react with some very limited, short term steps to try to assuage that anger. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing federal agencies to adopt policies to treat their LGBT employees on equal footing with their other employees. (That memorandum, however, doesn’t include key employment benefits like health care or retirement, which are prohibited by federal law.) The White House has also directed the Census Bureau to determine changes in its procedures to allow same-sex unions to be counted.

Both steps however are very tiny steps, and they have done little to quell the outrage over the DOJ’s brief. That anger continues to threaten the Democratic National Committee’s LGBT fundraiser slated for next week.

Now The Plum Line blog is reporting that the Justice Department has scheduled a private meeting with major LGBT groups for next week:

Tracy Russo, a spokesperson for Justice, confirmed the meeting to me, after I posted below that top gay rights lawyers were miffed that administration lawyers had rebuffed their requests to meet and discuss ongoing litigation involving DOMA.

At the meeting — which hasn’t been announced and is expected to include leading gay rights groups like GLAD and Lambda Legal — both sides are expected to hash out how to proceed with pending DOMA cases.

The Justice Department is due to file another brief by June 29 in a lawsuit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston’s Federal District Court on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses. That DOMA challenge, Gill v. Office of Personel Management is considered a much stronger suit than Smelt v. United States, which the recent controversial DOJ brief addressed.

I don’t know whether LGBT groups would be permitted to weigh in on Gill v. OPM specifically. But if this meeting really does happen, it does appear to be a sign that the Justice Department may try to head off the kind of missteps it made with its Smelt v. US filing.

And if that’s the case, then it appears that the Obama Administration may have begun to recover its sense of hearing. But the only lesson I think we can safely draw from all of this is to keep shouting.

And Then There Were Ten

Jim Burroway

June 18th, 2009

We now have ten people who have cancelled their appearance at next week’s Democratic fundraiser over the Obama administration’s brief defending DOMA. The latest ones are:

Stampp Corbin, San Diego City Commissioner and former co-chair of the Obama LGBT Leadership Council during the presidential campaign:

Mr. President, your DOMA mistake awakened a sleeping giant. He is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore. You better get LGBT affirming legislation moving quickly or the coffers of the LGBT community will be slammed shut on the fingers of your administration and the DNC. You and the DNC may find themselves asking about our donations “if not now, when” as we have been asking about our rights for the last few months.

That’s simply the way I see it.

Also National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Rea Carey and Corey Johnson (I missed that one earlier).

They join Utah businessman Bruce Bastion, Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, political strategist David Mixer, blogger Andy Towle, Executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda Alan Van Capelle, former Clinton administration aide Richard Socarides, and HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse in boycotting the fundraiser.

Andrew Sullivan is cheering them on. But, he says, our anger should not stop with Obama:

We need to swamp Pelosi with phone-calls.

We need to target Reid for his inaction. We have to pressure Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin not to excuse the disdain that the Obama administration is showing toward gay equality, and their cynical use of our votes, money and passion to enforce real and potent discrimination against us and our families. And we have to refuse to attend White House signing ceremonies like yesterday’s farce. Really: until they are serious, we should not be coopted and placated with pathetic sops. I am not a Clintonite. I worked my ass off to get this man to power. On many issues, I support him and will continue to do so.

But I am a proud, self-respecting gay man with HIV. And I am not going to take this crap for much longer on civil rights. Fight back. Act Up.

Stonewall Democrats Drop Support For DNC Fundraiser

Jim Burroway

June 18th, 2009

The National Stonewall Democrats are pulling their support for next week’s DNC fundraiser. In an email obtained by Politico.com, the board of Stonewall Democrats cite the recent dust-up over the DOMA brief, as well as being cut off from a key customary party sponsorship:

[W]e are incredibly disappointed that the DNC has made a decision to withhold any financial support to National Stonewall Democrats this year but is in turn asking us to help raise money for the DNC in a difficult financial environment. The DNC has historically supported National Stonewall through sponsorship of the annual Capitol Champions event. This year, we did not receive any support. …

We’d be remiss to also not mention that the recent legal brief of the Obama Administration defending DOMA is incredibly hurtful. The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels.

Stonewall Democrats says it’s not “boycotting” the fundraiser, but they won’t encourage members to attend. Politico.com has the full email, along with a rather contrite response from the DNC.

Two More Boycotting DNC Fundraiser

Jim Burroway

June 18th, 2009

Two more LGBT advocates have announced that they will be skipping the Democratic Party fundraiser in protest of the Justice Department’s brief defending the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The first yesterday to pull out was Bruce Bastion, a Utah businessman and a major DNC donor. He announced that not only would he not attend next week’s fundraiser, but he won’t be donating anymore to the DNC as a whole:

“I will continue to support certain congressmen, congresswomen and senators whom I believe will continue to fight for our rights, but I don’t think blanket donations to the Democratic Party right now are justified, at least not in my book,” he said. Bastian, a major donor to many LGBT groups, said he sent an e-mail to the DNC on Wednesday saying he wouldn’t attend the event “because of the remarks on DOMA.” He found the filing “very offensive.”

That was followed by another announcement earlier this morning that Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin has also decided to forgo the fundraiser:

“One thing I have learned dealing with marriage equality in Vermont is that we all have a responsibility to stand up for the civil rights of all Americans,” Shumlin said Wednesday.

“This memo from the Justice Department is more Bush than Bush,” he added. “It takes the only minority group left in America that national politicians can publicly discriminate against and still see their numbers go up in the polls and it reinforces the horrible stereotypes about our friends and neighbors.”

…As an early and strong supporter of Barack Obama I am shocked and disappointed at the level of insensitivity that the Department of Justice has shown towards gay and lesbian couples and their families,” Shumlin wrote to [DNC Treasurer Andrew] Tobias.

This brings to seven the number of advocates who have announced they are pulling out of the fundraiser. The others are political strategist David Mixer, blogger Andy Towle, Executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda Alan Van Capelle, former Clinton administration aide Richard Socarides, and HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse.

President Obama Signs the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits

Jim Burroway

June 17th, 2009

By the way, the older gentleman who President Obama handed the pen to is longtime gay activist Frank Kameny. Frank became an activist when he was fired by the Army Map service in 1957 when his superiors learned that he was gay. Frank quickly became a no-holds barred activist, participating in the very first picket line in front of the White House in 1965. He coined the phrase “Gay Is Good” in 1968. To many gays and lesbians who hadn’t before dared to believe that about themselves, that phrase was a bold and radical gesture. The impact of those three simple words is incalculable. Today, Frank points to that simple act as his most proud accomplishment.

But his accomplishments didn’t end there. He became the first openly gay candidate for Congress in 1971 (he lost), and he played a pivotal role in the APA’s removal of homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973 (he won). Franks papers are now a part of the Smithsonian’s collection, and his home in Washington was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Review Board in honor of his activism.

Whatever criticisms we all have about Obama’s timidity in LGBT rights as well as the grievous injury stemming from his Justice Department’s DOMA brief, it is good to pause and savor this moment for one important hero. The man who was fired by the federal government because he was gay is now a witness to a president signing a memorandum addressing limited benefits for gay employees.

History sometimes takes a very long time. And it’s not even close to being over yet.

Click here for the official transcript of President Obama’s remarks

Mike Rogers: I Want Equal Treatment For Each Of Those Three Hundred Million Americans

Jim Burroway

June 17th, 2009

Mike Rogers, on the president’s memorandum on limited partnership benefits, the repeal of DOMA, and “cutting off the spigot” to the Democratic Party.

Another Proposal for Civil Disobedience

Jim Burroway

June 17th, 2009

I am whelmed — not overwhelmed or underwhelmed — with the idea of marching on Washington. Dan Savage calls himself an “agnostic” over it — not for or against it either way. But he does have another suggestion:

Here’s the idea: one gay or lesbian couple—a couple currently denied their rights under DOMA—shows up at the entrance to the White House grounds. A different couple every day. They ask to speak to the president about DOMA. They’re refused. They sit down. They refuse to leave. They’re arrested, carried away by the police. Couples would be recruited from all over the country, demonstrating that gay marriage isn’t just an issue in liberal California or godless New England, and the media in each couple’s home city and state would be notified in advance of their arrest. The occasional famous couple—Rosie and Kelli? Ellen and Portia?—would participate to pull in celeb media. But most of the couples who come to D.C. to get arrested would be average folks. The couples would need support, legal and logistical, and we would need someone to organize media outreach and maintain a website. The website would include a photo and profile of each couple that comes to D.C. to get arrested, collect all the press, and be used to recruit couples willing to travel to D.C. and get arrested.

The action would be small scale—it would be human scale—and it would go on and on and on. It would demonstrate better than another gay march just how seriously we take this issue: we take it seriously that we’re willing to travel to D.C. and get arrested. It wouldn’t be a one-day event that the White House could ignore or bluff its way through with some lame statement about its “commitment” to ending DOMA. The couples would keep coming. Every day an arrest. Drip, drip, drip. Members of the White House press corps would see couples getting arrested every day on their way to work. Gibbs would be forced to address DOMA on a near-daily basis. The president would be asked about the issue again and again.

My boyfriend—who doesn’t do demonstrations (or interviews or photos or anything public)—is so upset about the DOMA brief that he’s willing to go to D.C. and get arrested. So am I. We can’t be the only couple that feels this way.

LGBT Insurrection Against The Democratic Party

Jim Burroway

June 15th, 2009

[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.

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.”

Reactions To Obama Administration’s Defense of DOMA

Jim Burroway

June 12th, 2009

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.

Stroll On Washington

Jim Burroway

June 9th, 2009

That’s what the so-called March on Washington is beginning to look like. Veteran LGBT activist Cleve Jones has decided that the so-called March on Washington for October 11 won’t be all that:

In a Blade interview Monday, Jones said he sees his march as a “stripped-down, bare-bones march and rally.”

“It’s a one-sentence demand,” he said. “We want equal protection under the law for LGBT Americans in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.”

Jones said the demonstration would include a two-hour program with minimal staging, a sound system and portable toilets.

Wait a minute. We’re packing our bags to go to Washington for a two hour program?

Here’s the plan:

Jones said he envisions the march starting as grassroots activity in all 435 congressional districts. He said lobbying would “begin immediately” and organizers would identify new leaders in each of these districts.

“Then we want to come to Washington, we want to march and make it clear to the president that we expect more — to make it clear to the Democratic leadership that we expect more,” he said.

Jones said he’s not looking for sheer numbers in event participants, but instead is hoping for participants from all 435 congressional districts.

After the march, Jones said participants would return home “and get to work and build their army of precinct walkers, canvassers, [and] phone bankers.”

This is muddled thinking at its worst. He wants to organize people in 435 congressional districts, send them to Washington to mill around for a couple of hours, hold up some signs and shout a few slogans for two whole hours — while Congress and the President are out of town — and then send them home to do what they were already doing back at those 435 districts to begin with.

What makes this especially insane is that this can all be done without physically going to Washington. Twitter, Facebook, blogs — all of this makes physically gathering at one location to organize the way Cleve envisions it utterly pointless.

But what Cleve wants to do is worse than pointless. If you can mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to March on Washington, then at least you get great visuals of massive numbers of people on the mall demanding action from Congress. But if you get just a few hundred people gathering on the Mall’s 309 acres, you  hand our opponents a great propaganda victory when they declare that nobody — not even gay people — care enough about equal rights to bother showing up.

Which of course, isn’t true. I, for one, care passionately about equal rights. But I am not purchasing airline tickets and booking a hotel room for a two hour walkabout on the Mall. I have a feeling I’m not alone.

LGBT Activists Call for March On Washington

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jim Burroway

June 8th, 2009

There has been talk about this for some time now, but it has now hit the Associated Press:

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

Cleve Jones said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Coming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.“We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states,” Jones said.

I’m as excited about the prospect of a march as anyone can be. I would really love to go to this. That said however, I must question the wisdom of having a march on Washington this year.

First, there’s the timing. October 11 is Columbus Day. Congress won’t be in session and the President will be out of town. This raises the question: exactly who do we expect to hear us when we march? Who will receive our petitions or issue statements of support? Who will be held accountable before the press? With everyone gone for the holiday weekend, it will be all to easy for our representatives and President to duck responding to this since they will be on break and “unavailable.”

And guess what else will be unavailable? The National Mall. It was already booked for Columbus Day by three groups already expecting 135,000 people altogether. March organizers seemed to have forgotten to check this whopping detail.

Which brings up another question: who is organizing this thing? And how do they intend to pay for it? Calling for a march means that someone has to rent the stage, put up lights and sound, buy insurance, lease thousands of porta-potties, handle first aid services, deal with security, coordinate transportation, pay for publicity… you get the picture. It’s a huge undertaking. So far, there doesn’t seem to be an organized effort to make all of this happen.

As far as I can tell, this is a case of someone saying, hey, let’s meet up in Washington and it’ll all come together magically. Since the Mall’s not available, I recommend the Starbucks at 7th and E Streets Northwest. It’s close by and should be easy to find.

Well it doesn’t come together magically and it will cost a lot of money to pull off. Barely three weeks after the proposed March, Maine will likely be voting on whether they should keep their newly signed same-sex marriage law. Anti-gay activists have already promised to pour all they have into Maine to convince voters to scrap it. At a time when we should be putting all of our resources into Maine to keep that from happening, we will instead be spending a portion of our money for a march on Washington on a day when there won’t be anyone in town and the Mall will be occupied by other people who already have their permits in hand.

It will be a very empowering experience if we do march on Washington, but that experience will be fleeting. No one will be there that needs to hear us, and our money won’t go to Maine where it will be badly needed. And if we lose Maine, it will be nobody’s fault but our own. We need to forget the march for right now and remember Maine.

You don’t know how badly I want to march on Washington. I’m agry about the dithering at the White House and the cowardice in Congress. I want to march in the worst way. But if we go through with this, it will truly be in the worst way.

Update: Oh, and one more thing. You want to know what’s really dumb about this idea? If it goes forward, I can see myself doing everything I can to be there against my better judgment. If they can pull this off — and right now I don’t see how they can — it will be a huge event that I don’t think I’d want to miss. But I do have to ask, with Congress in recess and the President out of town, what would we hope to get out of it besides a huge party?

Kevin Naff: HRC Blowup “Much Ado About Not Much”

Jim Burroway

June 5th, 2009

Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff has a blog post which extensively covers about a year’s worth of comments by various politicos and activists which peg the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the end of 2009 or early 2010. He points out that the priority has always been for passing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act first, with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” following sometime later. So he thinks the latest report from The Daily Beast is “much ado about not much,” mostly covering the same ground that we’ve already covered. But what is new is the LGBT community’s growing frustration over the slow pace of progress:

If Congress wakes up and finally passes some of these long-suffering bills, then HRC will claim victory. If, however, our so-called Democratic “allies” can’t pass ENDA and hate crimes and a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is off the table come December 2009, then the entire movement is a bust and everyone working in it should resign and make way for more effective leadership. There will never be a better time to advance these measures. The Democrats have made lots of promises to LGBT voters and, more importantly to them, to gay donors. We’ve waited patiently for those politicians to deliver. Come December, my patience runs out. The clock is ticking.

HRC Feels the Heat, But Still Doesn’t Get The Message

Jim Burroway

June 5th, 2009

One popular blog reported yesterday that the Human Rights Campaign cut a deal with the White House to withhold public pressure on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until sometime next year. HRC immediately issued a statement calling the report “an outright lie” and “recklessly irresponsible.” Nevertheless, many grass roots LGBT activists weren’t convinced.

I had already observed that when the HRC met with the White House following the removal of key commitments from the administration’s LGBT civil rights web site, they basically handed the administration a blank check to delay away. HRC Director Joe Solmonese simply told reporters that he was “pleased” and that they have a plan.” With that, there was no further pressure or call to move forward on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or the many other issues that President Barack Obama had once advocated. That milquetoast statement told me everything I needed to know about HRC’s sense of urgency.

So when yesterday’s report appeared on the Daily Beast, LGBT activists and bloggers all around nodded and shrugged. Sound about right, we thought. And the HRC’s subsequent denial sounded hollow. After all, we’ve been complaining that we’ve gotten a lot of great words from the Obama administration with little actual movement. Why would we consider HRC’s words any more important than their actions?

Radio talk show host Michelangelo Signorile had long complained that HRC appears to have gone completely underground following that White House meeting. He tried over and over to get someone from HRC to appear on his program, but he was rebuffed every time. Other journalists complained about the same problem.

But all that changed yesterday. Signorile got a call from the HRC yesterday that they wanted Solmonese on the program that day — within a few hours. (Signorile has posted audio of that interview with more background information.)

It’s very clear that HRC sees that they are being left behind. The massive nationwide Join The Impact protests following passage of California’s Prop 8 caught everyone off guard. Since then, two prominent lawyers bypassed the traditional LGBT leaders and launched their own lawsuit against Prop 8. Others have called for a march on Washington to show their impatience. People are impatient and they are voting with their feet. The HRC is being being bypassed.

Joe Solmonese appeared later yesterday on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. While he’s definitely feels the need now to answer for the perception that HRC has given the White House a pass on DADT, he’s still not much of a fierce advocate. Consider this exchange, where Solmonese dutifully mouths the White House’s talking points.

SOLMONESE: Well I think on any measure of issues we are working on right now with the White House, whether it’s movement on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the White House is working on these issues. But Lorre Jean brings up an incredibly important point particularly with regard to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There’s overturning the policy which I believe the administration will do in the course of the year or so, and then there are good hard working people like Dan Choi, and Arab language interpreter who potentially could be thrown out of the military in the next few weeks, and the President has the opportunity to stop that from happening. We’ve asked him to do that and pressed him to do that and hope that he will.

MATTHEWS: But if he does that by executive order, what is he worried about? Why is he not doing it? Joe?

SOLMONESE: Well, we don’t know… he may do it and he has the opportunity to do it and it may be that… I don’t know why he wouldn’t do it, but I mean with regard to overturning the policy generally, I mean you brought up… I don’t think its the case he want to not necessarily upset these military leaders, but he understands there’s an implementation part of this policy that has to be worked through, and I think on any measure that he’s working on with us, and I see we’re working daily with them on getting the hate crimes bill to his desk right now, is that he approaches these things in a way that they will be sustainable and will work in a way that’s going to work for the community in opposed to an expeditious manner which I think you saw President Clinton undertaking the first days of his administration that actually got us “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The only difference between Solmonese answer and the near-nonanswers coming form White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs is that Solmonese is a bit more articulate. Maybe Solmonese should become Press Secretary instead.

Contrast that to Lorrie Jean, of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, who also appeared on Hardball:

Getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t change what’s been happening. Gays and Lesbians have been serving in the military for decades, for hundreds of years and those kinds of problems don’t exist. While they figure out how they’re going to work out all those permutations, the President could take a very simple step. He could issue a Stop Loss Order and could say, hey look, right now our country is under attack by terrorists around the world. We need every able body that we can have, every valuable person. And so let’s stop drumming people out now while we figure this out.

You can watch the video here.