Saturday, July 18, 2009

We have an obligation

You need to watch this, all 22 minutes of it. I explain why below. Go read down below, then come back up here and watch.
"Unleashed," "unhinged," "passionate," "rage-filled," "blistering," "painful," "eyebrow-raising," "gripping."

I'm old enough now to realize that many of you who read me didn't experience the gay holocaust from 1980 to 1996 -- the year that drugs finally emerged to keep HIV from automatically killing.

Guys my age, we all say that we lost half of our friends. I did too. Some of us got infected before we knew any better, and somehow managed to hold on until 1996, and survived, and are here today. Some of us did the same things in 1981 and 1982 (before we knew any better) that the people who died did, and that the people who got infected and survived did -- and because of nothing other than random dumb luck, we did not get infected. I'm one of those people.

I think guys my age who got lucky in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when HIV was there but we didn't know it was there, have a particularly special obligation to make sure that younger generations of gay men know what happened between 1980 and 1996. That's why I want you to watch a 22-minute video. It goes by very, very fast.

The setting is the New York State Senate, yesterday, at 3 a.m. The speaker is Sen. Tom Duane, who is gay and HIV-positive. The bill he's talking about stipulates that HIV-positive people who are on public assistance will not have to spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. When Duane finished his speech -- which has been described as "unleashed," "unhinged," "passionate," "angry," "rage-filled," "blistering," "painful," "eyebrow-raising" and "gripping" -- his bill passed 52 to 1. And he got a standing ovation, as you will see.

Please not only return above and watch this -- but pass it on to your straight friends and to your families too. We can't forget, both because it is our collective history and because people are still getting infected, and even today, having HIV is no walk in the park.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Now I'm a journalism critic

(Update: This post got linked at AMERICAblog and Washington City Paper. KGTV edited the story. Bitching works. Rex)
Newspapers are dying. More and more, the Web sites of local TV stations are giving us our local breaking news. Sometimes they do a fine job, as in the case of WFAA-TV's recent stories on the violent raid of the gay Rainbow Lounge in Fort Worth, Tex. But the end result of this transition in news delivery is far from always pretty. You need look no further than this item posted on the Web site of San Diego's KGTV last evening to wonder about the future of American journalism.
My favorite sentences: "Several opponents of San Diego Pride verbally attacked the council. At one point, DeMaio -- a homosexual -- smiled without making a comment."

That's Carl DeMaio, openly gay Republican on the City Council. Homosexual Carl smiled. Then homosexual Carl didn't speak. Someone alert The New York Times.

Furthermore, KGTV: Ordinarily, only anti-gay Web sites call us "homosexuals" nowadays. Though we sometimes do it ourselves, to be funny, but we're allowed, you see. You're not. The word went out of style years ago. See the entry on "gay" in The Associated Press Stylebook. Oh, hell, let me quote the Stylebook for you: "Gay ... Preferred over 'homosexual' except in clinical contexts or references to sexual activity."

I trust Carl wasn't engaging in sexual activity during the council session...

Finally, San Diego's gay pride parade and festival are, according to the City Council resolution, "now the largest annual single-day civic event in San Diego, drawing more than 250,000 participants to the various Pride events."

The KGTV story failed to convey this genuinely newsworthy fact -- that the gays this Saturday will pull off the biggest civic event in the city -- and instead went on and on about a small number of people who traipsed down to the council chambers to allege that the parade "promotes pornography and sin."

"If they took all the pornography out of it, all the loose nudity and all those things, they wouldn't have too many people even showing up to the event," said the group's apparent spokesman.

You think?

While I'm on a journalism rant... What's wrong with this photo caption from The Salt Lake Tribune?
Give up? (1) You would never say, "Matt Aune and his straight partner, Muffy Smith." (2) The whole story is about a gay couple. The gay couple are holding each other in the photo. "Partner" is sufficient. The adjective "gay" is unnecessary, redundant and telegraphs a subliminal message to Salt Lakers that these are HOMOSEXUALS, just in case you hadn't noticed yet from the headline and the entire news story. (3) The syntax can quite easily be read to mean that Matt's not gay but his boyfriend is.

Monday, July 06, 2009

Steve Hildebrand: The guy Obama listens to on gay issues

Interview by Rex Wockner
"(Barack Obama) has told me, and he has told ... staff in the White House that pressure's a good thing, so people should continue to put pressure on him." --Steve Hildebrand
"(President Obama) did not read the ... pathetic (marriage) brief in advance but he subsequently has read the brief and was not happy at all with both the direction as well as the language that was used." --Steve Hildebrand
Openly gay Steve Hildebrand was Barack Obama's deputy national campaign director. When Obama started to come under heavy fire from GLBT people in recent weeks -- for talking the talk but not walking the walk on his promises to gay people -- it was Hildebrand who went into the Oval Office for a one-on-one with Obama to let him know what was going down. Steve and I spoke late in the evening July 5 in San Diego.

Rex Wockner:
There's probably nobody who's talked to Barack Obama more about gay stuff than you -- and you've done so within the last couple of weeks. Since he's come under fire for allegedly talking a really good talk but not walking the walk, yet, on gay and lesbian issues ... what did you talk about in that meeting you had with him?

Steve Hildebrand: I told him very clearly that many in the gay community across the country are getting very anxious and that folks have felt very hurt by the Justice Department brief -- the language that was used in it. He reassured me that he will not disappoint the gay community during his time as president, that the promises he made during the campaign are promises he will fulfill, and he was very forthright about his commitment to equality. And, people will accuse me -- probably rightfully so -- that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker, that I believe in this guy, but I've been around a lot of very important politicians in my lifetime and I think this guy is different and I do trust him to do what is right. I also believe that he knows how to get things done, and that he will make a significant difference in a positive way in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans.

Rex: Let's go back just a second to the (controversial marriage-case) brief. Do you have any reason to believe that he may or may not have known what was in that brief before it happened?

Steve: As I understand it, he did not read the brief in advance but he subsequently has read the brief and was not happy at all with both the direction as well as the language that was used -- and that he expects much better from his administration.

Rex: This same Justice Department is going to have to file another brief in (another federal gay marriage) case in October. Do you think it's likely we're going to see something different this time?
Steve: I hope so, I don't know so. I certainly don't profess to be somebody who has intimate knowledge of what's going on at the Justice Department. I hope the outrage that has come -- not just from the gay community but from others -- about how pathetic the first brief was, that we will expect to see something more improved. You know, I have a little bit different perspective. I, like most people, was not at all happy with the language that was used, but better language would not have changed the end result of what the Justice Department was ruling on. I would like to see the Justice Department take a dramatic step and disagree that DOMA is a constitutional law.

Rex: There were some news stories to the effect that HRC cut a deal with the administration to delay the process on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to work on, I guess, hate crimes first. ... Do you think there's any kind of order for the promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign on things that he wants to get done for the gay and lesbian community. Is there an order that we're likely to see those happen in?

Steve: ... Regarding some kind of deal that was cut, I think that's pretty crazy. Anybody who followed Barack Obama during the campaign and anybody that really knows this guy -- he's not exactly one who's out cutting deals with special-interest groups on the left or the right for the timing of various legislative initiatives. Barack Obama as president and commander in chief is, and will continue to go through, a process, methodically, to get the ducks in a row in order to get the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell done in a successful way that isn't just going to happen overnight. He has to move the minds of the public, he has to move the minds of Congress and he has to move the minds of military leaders. And once that happens, and the ducks are in a row, I believe he can successfully move forward for repeal, something that he feels very strongly about and something that he spoke very passionately about.

Rex: Are we likely to see some other things from the administration or moving through Congress before Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Once again, do you think there's some kind of order ... for the things that we're going to see happening? Are hate crimes going to be first and DOMA going to be last, for example?

Steve: Hate crimes has already passed the House. It's sitting in the Senate. Majority Leader Reid has promised action on it very soon and I hope he'll live up to that commitment. Passing hate crimes through Congress, and the signature of the president, can actually have a real positive impact on people's lives. That's something that's very critical -- and it's something that's really long overdue. So I believe that if there is an order to things, because the House has taken action, because the Senate could take action at any time, that is something that is probably likely to move pretty quickly. I can't say I'm privy to what might be next, and that doesn't always just happen from the White House. You know, Nancy Pelosi as speaker has a real impact on that. Harry Reid as majority leader has a real impact on that, and I have not spoken to either of them.
Rex: In your speech to the National Education Association GLBT Caucus here tonight in San Diego, you came 'this close' to basically putting your fist in the air and saying, "It's time to ACT UP and fight back." What exactly were you talking about? What do you think ... the gay and lesbian community needs to be doing that we're not doing?

Steve: I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore.

Rex: ... There has been this sort of groundswell of yelling at Barack Obama for the last three or four weeks. Would you include him in this kind of call for stepped-up pressure on politicians, or do you have a faith in him -- a personal faith in him based on your experience -- that he's going to be there for us whether we're nice or not-so-nice to him?

Steve: I would encourage gays and straights alike to put pressure on President Obama, on his administration, to call for action -- immediate action on the laundry list of items that the gay community deserves for true equality in this country. What I don't like is the suggestion by a lot of people that this guy has lied to us and that he isn't fulfilling his campaign promises, when he's only been in office for five months. He can't change the world overnight and -- I'm doing my best to say this without providing excuses -- but this is a president who was handed a larger number of really big issues to deal with at the beginning of his presidency than any other president in history. He's got to get an economy moving, he's got to get the troops out of Iraq, there's a lot of big, big problems. At the same time, he is working within his administration to try and get in a position to get some meaningful things done to help the gay community achieve equality. That does not preclude any suggestion that we should not keep up the pressure. He has told me, and he has told ... staff in the White House that pressure's a good thing, so people should continue to put pressure on him.

Rex: A lot of these things need congressional action, not just him to say things.
Steve: Exactly, and if people want things done, they should demand action from Congress, they should demand action from the president, they should demand action from their school boards, from their city council members, their mayors, their legislators, their governors, everybody. They should demand action within their churches. I don't believe in the kind of civil discourse that ACT UP used several years back. My suggestion is that people ought to be very vocal, they ought to vote with full knowledge and full commitment of candidates -- not just to support but to actually lead on issues that are important to us.

Rex: From some of our conversations earlier this evening, when we were just chatting, I got the impression that you believe that Barack Obama, in his gut, gets the gay thing and sees it as one of -- or maybe even the -- last big civil rights things to accomplish, and that this is somebody -- I mean, I think it would be comforting to the gay and lesbian community to know that he gets it in his gut and sees it as a fundamental civil rights issue and ... by the end of his first four years in office, you think things are going to have changed for the gay and lesbian community.

Steve: I don't think it's just in his gut, I think it's in his heart. You know, none of us can know somebody exactly, but I do believe this guy fundamentally in his heart believes that we should not stop fighting -- whether it's for gay civil rights or any other kind of equality -- until the job is done. ... I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we've achieved full equality in the gay community.

Rex: There's been all this pressure on Obama but nobody's really yelling at Congress. Why aren't we yelling at Congress too?

Steve: Everybody should use their voices very loudly until we've achieved full equality. I do think that we've seen disappointment from politicians -- Democrat and Republican -- for too many decades now of people who say, "Yes, we support equality," but then they go to Washington and they don't do anything about it. They're too wrapped up in figuring out how to win their next election and they're not concerned enough about doing what's right for the American people. And I think, I firmly believe that politicians should stop being so spineless and start being real leaders, and actually doing things that have a dramatic impact in a positive way on people's lives.

Rex: Make it specific. What would you like to see Pelosi and Reid do next week for gay people?

Steve: Next week they should pass employment nondiscrimination, they should pass the Safe Schools (Improvement) Act (of 2009) to address the bullying issue, and they should pass hate crimes, and put those three pieces of legislation on the president's desk, where he would sign them immediately.

Rex: Why haven't they done it?

Steve: I firmly believe they haven't done it because too many members of the House and Senate don't have the political courage and the political will to take those votes. They believe those votes are too hard and will hurt them in their re-elections, and they're more concerned about their re-elections than they are about actually helping people.

Rex: When you look at, say, the Massachusetts example: Not a single legislator who voted for the gay issue of all gay issues -- same-sex marriage -- lost a seat in Massachusetts as a result of that vote. Do you think this fear that voting in favor of gays is going to lose you your next election is kind of overblown in the eyes of members of Congress and, if so, why?
Steve: I don't believe it's just gay issues that politicians are afraid of. You're seeing politicians who are afraid to do the right thing when it comes to climate-change legislation, you're already hearing various members of the House and the Senate go south on health care reform because they think it might be a vote that's going to be tough for their re-election. These folks, when they're running for office, say they want to do important things and have a real impact, but then they go to Washington and all they do is focus on their re-election.

Rex: A lot of these gay ... things, if they were put on his desk tomorrow, he would sign them. So, this is really Congress.

Steve: Well, I certainly don't want to let President Obama off the hook. He needs to use his bully pulpit, he needs to use pressure on Congress, he needs to help move public opinion, but Congress needs to step up to the plate and do their part too.

Rex: What do you do to make Congress act? ... How do I get my congresswoman's attention?

Steve: You should call her office, you should show up at events, whether it's a town hall or another event that she might be at, and try to address her in person, you should write her a letter, you should write a letter to the editor, which calls upon her to take action that you're requesting, you should not make a contribution to her campaign, and encourage others not to contribute, if she is not showing leadership on our issues. There's a whole bunch of ways.

Rex: Thanks, Steve. (Photos by Rex Wockner)

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Benji. 1997-July 4, 2009. Best. Dog. Ever.

September 28, 1999
February 22, 2000
June 11, 2002
January 7, 2003
February 15, 2004
October 12, 2004
November 10, 2004
December 25, 2004
January 6, 2005
June 25, 2005
May 26, 2007
Today :-(

(Folks keep asking: He had a nerve-root tumor in his shoulder that, as of his visit to the oncologist a month ago -- when he went on a bunch of pain meds and had a remarkable rebound -- was suspected to be growing toward his spine. In the past week, the pain meds had lost their efficacy as, assumedly, the tumor had progressed. Rex)

Friday, July 03, 2009

INDIA'S GAY SEX BAN STRUCK DOWN

17% of world's GLBTs decriminalized
by Rex Wockner

Following an eight-year court battle, India's Delhi High Court legalized gay sex July 2 in a forceful and poetic ruling that had GLBT activists crying in the courtroom.
The ruling took effect immediately -- nationally -- and will remain in effect unless the Supreme Court reverses it. Several major Western media outlets erroneously reported July 2 that the ruling only applied in New Delhi.

The court decision "read down" Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code so that it no longer applies to the activities of consenting adults. The section bans "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal" under penalty of 10 years to life in prison.

The court smashed 377's application to gay people in myriad ways, finding it violated a constitutional guarantee of equality under the law, a constitutional ban on discrimination based on sex, and constitutional promises of personal liberty and protection of life.

The ruling is chock-full of soaring statements in support of India's GLBT population, including:

* "The criminalisation of homosexuality condemns in perpetuity a sizable section of society and forces them to live their lives in the shadow of harassment, exploitation, humiliation, cruel and degrading treatment at the hands of the law enforcement machinery. ... Section 377 IPC grossly violates their right to privacy and liberty embodied in Article 21 insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private."
* "Section 377 IPC targets the homosexual community as a class and is motivated by an animus towards this vulnerable class of people. ... It has no other purpose than to criminalise conduct which fails to conform with the moral or religious views of a section of society. The discrimination severely affects the rights and interests of homosexuals and deeply impairs their dignity."

* "When everything associated with homosexuality is treated as bent, queer, repugnant, the whole gay and lesbian community is marked with deviance and perversity. ... The result is that a significant group of the population is, because of its sexual non-conformity, persecuted, marginalised and turned in on itself."

* "We hold that sexual orientation is a ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted by Article 15. ... A provision of law branding one section of people as criminal based wholly on the State's moral disapproval of that class goes counter to the equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 under any standard of review."

* "'[R]ight to personal liberty' and 'right to equality' are fundamental human rights which belong to individuals simply by virtue of their humanity. ... A Bill of Rights does not 'confer' fundamental human rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection."

* "Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual. ... We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution."
What happens next?

The national government could appeal the ruling to India's Supreme Court, though that is considered unlikely; the national government could both accept the ruling and use it as ammo to introduce a bill in Parliament to duplicate the ruling in national law; and/or anti-gay parties to the lawsuit could appeal to the Supreme Court.

But until such time as the Supreme Court overturns the Delhi ruling, India's GLBTs -- who comprise more than 17 percent of all GLBT people on the planet -- are no longer criminals. India has a population of nearly 1.2 billion people.

The erroneous reports that the ruling did not apply outside of New Delhi appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, on the Associated Press wire and elsewhere. (For correct information, see here and here.)

"Every major media outlet in the world got this wrong because they don't understand how the Indian courts work," said journalist Vikram Doctor of India's Queer Media Collective. "It will apply nationally until somebody challenges that at the Supreme Court, which is where this case is going to end up anyway."

In most common-law court systems, including India's in this case, the decision of an appellate court binds lower courts within its territorial jurisdiction and also is the 'last' word on the subject nationally unless a court of equal authority elsewhere makes a contrary decision or the supreme court reverses the decision. An appellate decision also binds the parties in the case (which include the Indian government in this case) regardless of where they are in the country.
Meanwhile, gay pride parades were staged in four Indian cities June 27-28 -- New Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai and Bhubaneshwar.

At least 2,000 people marched in New Delhi. Marches are still to come in Mumbai and Kolkata.

Wockner News photos from 2008 Pride parades. Photo 1 by Curt Gambetta (Bangalore), photo 2 by SAATHII (Kolkata), photo 3 by Sonali Gulati (Delhi), photo 4 by Minal Mehta (Mumbai)

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Fort Worth police under fire over violent Stonewall 40 bar raid

Fort Worth police and agents from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission raided a gay bar June 28 -- the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots -- and roughed up several patrons, including one who is hospitalized with a life-threatening blood clot on his brain.
The reason for the raid: To be sure no one was too drunk. Seven people were arrested for alleged intoxication.

Patrons of the Rainbow Lounge say four or five officers tackled Chad Gibson, who patrons say wasn't drunk, and banged his head on the wall and on the floor for no reason. The police have said Gibson fell down later outside and hurt himself, because he was drunk.
Police Chief Jeff Halstead also says Gibson (above) groped one of the officers, yet Gibson was not charged with any sort of assault.

"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," Halstead said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."

That Gibson groped a uniformed cop is, of course, improbable. As Rainbow Lounge owner J.R. Schrock put it: "The groping of the police officer -- really? We're gay, but we're not dumb. That is a lie, and I am appalled by it."

The Police Department also has said that other patrons "made sexually explicit movements" toward uniformed officers. Patrons have said that nothing of the sort occurred, and that the notion is asinine.

At press time, the Police Department remained under heavy fire for the raid -- from news reporters, newspaper columnists, bloggers, activists and local politicians.

"Jeff Halstead can't be allowed to use the Gay Panic Defense," wrote gay syndicated columnist and frequent national-TV talking head Dan Savage. "His officers weren't groped, no one was 'touched and advanced.' Homophobic cops raided a gay bar, roughed up the patrons, and a young man is in the hospital and may die."

"This is exactly the kind of state-sponsored violence that gays and lesbians fought back against at Stonewall 40 years ago," Savage said. "Gay men all over the country are going to have to speak up and defend the patrons of the Rainbow Lounge. We can't allow the chief of police in Fort Worth to use the Gay Panic Defense or exploit stereotypes about gay men -- so sexually reckless that they can't even keep their hands off cops during a raid! -- to get away with violating the civil rights of gay men in Fort Worth."

Dallas freelance writer John Selig reported June 30 that President Barack Obama is aware of the raid.

"Jesse Garcia, who has been active in Stonewall Democrats for years and was recently head of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, mentioned the incident to the president and asked him to pray for Chad Gibson," Selig wrote. "President Obama told Jesse that he was aware of the situation and that he would pray for Chad."

The exchange occurred at Obama's June 29 White House gathering with 300 GLBT leaders to mark the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.

Elsewhere online: Andrew Sullivan commentary here. Towleroad coverage here. Fort Worth Star-Telegram story here. July 1 AP story here. Good TV story here.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Someone spank me

Rex is a very bad boy. He went to the beach today and didn't even realize today is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots until he came home tonight and started slogging through e-mail and Web sites, which, he wishes to add, no one journalist should be expected to keep up with these days on the gay beat... Happy Anniversary!
Now, go read Frank Rich's New York Times column of today -- and also look at the many fab pics of Liza*, who effing did Paris' gay pride parade today, even though she had to perform tonight. And a shout-out to my Russian buddy, the activist Nikolai Alekseev, for doing such a good job with the Liza photos.

"We knew that she (Liza) had a concert this evening in Paris but when her agent told us that she could come, we thought it was a joke," Paris Pride spokesman Philippe Castel told Agence France-Presse.

*Note to twentysomethings: That's singer Liza Minnelli. Daughter of Judy Garland. Judy was a singer and played Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. The gays back in the day adored her beyond words. Her death, the Sunday before the Stonewall Riots, is believed to be one of the reasons the gays were in a particularly foul mood when the police stopped by for a routine raid on the Stonewall Inn that Friday night. (At left in the photo above: Openly gay Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë.)

The World's Largest Lemon Goes Gay

Gays march in San Diego suburb where Pride leader was attacked
by Rex Wockner

About 65 GLBT activists marched through the San Diego working-class suburb of Lemon Grove the evening of June 26, three weeks after San Diego LGBT Pride Executive Director Ron deHarte was gay-bashed there.
On June 6, deHarte had been participating in the "Equality Torch Relay," a daylong effort that saw "equality torches" travel from all 18 incorporated towns and cities in San Diego County, ending with a rendezvous of the torchbearers and others in downtown San Diego.
In an interview following the attack, deHarte said: "I was waiting for the Equality Torch Relay to come by Main and Broadway and standing in front of the famous overly life-size lemon (statue), and with a rainbow flag big as day ... and someone decided to remove me from Lemon Grove.
"He started whaling on me and tried to take the flag away and made it very clear he didn't think I should be there: 'Get out of here. What do you think you're doing? You need to get the fuck out of here. Get that out of here. There's no place for you here.'

"He was kicking me and slapping. ... I got the side of his fist the first time he hit me, then I think he got my lower jaw on another time. [T]his morning when I woke up, I realized my upper lip was swollen and the inside of my cheek was cut up."
The incident, which lasted about 90 seconds, ended when the attacker realized a TV cameraman had begun taping, deHarte said.

DeHarte was not seriously injured and continued his participation in the day's events. The assailant, Kenyatta Mitchell, pleaded guilty to hate-crime battery June 18 and was placed on three years' probation, including 180 days in jail.
The June 26 rally and march lasted about 90 minutes under the watchful eye of numerous sheriff's deputies. The march began at "The World Largest Lemon" statue, moved to a park for speeches, then returned to the Lemon and traveled east and west on Broadway in the two-block-long downtown business district.

Lemon Grove City Councilmember George Gastil joined the march and addressed the activists.
"This community is really nothing special, in the sense that what happened here really could happen anywhere," Gastil said. "We are a microcosm of the state as a whole and, really, if you look at the characteristics of a little community like us, you find the characteristics in many different communities, where we have to have what I call 'a courageous conversation.'
"In recent years, we have made incredible strides to recognize and celebrate cultural diversity, racial diversity, economic diversity and respect for each other. We need to continue to make these strides for all types of equality, for all types of people.
"The courageous conversation -- that's a term that we've used in the Lemon Grove School District in reference to promoting diversity ... needs to happen with all of us in our own communities, and you all are very courageous or you wouldn't be here. There are some people that wanted to be here but aren't because they were afraid. And that's actually fairly common. More common than people might realize.
"When I was campaigning in the last election, I met people who said that they would have had 'No on 8' signs but they didn't think it was safe. This community was covered with 'Yes on 8' signs, which shocked many of us. It actually surprised me how many 'Yes on 8' signs were in such a wonderful, multicultural community that supported Obama very heavily -- and most of us think of this community as a very loving, open type of place.
"And I think what has to happen here is that we have to have more conversations -- not only in this community, but in every community throughout the state. So, what I want all of us to do is to continue talking to the people we know. And talk to the people that are a little bit harder to talk to. We've done a great job of reaching people in the liberal churches, of reaching people in progressive political groups (but) we need make sure these conversations happen where they are uncomfortable, because it's the uncomfortable conversations that are going to make the biggest difference."

Proposition 8 was the voter-passed constitutional amendment that re-banned same-sex marriage in California last November.

Lemon Grove, population 26,500, is 10 miles east of downtown San Diego. Video:
Story/photos/video copyright © 2009 Rex Wockner. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Tijuana Pride triples in size

TIJUANA PRIDE PARADE TRIPLES IN SIZE, DOUBLES IN LENGTH
by Rex Wockner
Tijuana's June 20 gay pride parade, the city's 14th march, was nearly three times bigger -- and twice as long -- as in any other year.
The turnout was all the more amazing because the city has been hit in the past year by a serious crime wave as drug cartels and dealers battle for dominance.
In contrast with previous years, almost no gays and lesbians from Southern California crossed the border to join the festivities -- this was a purely local and home-grown affair. Many people from San Diego, which is just 15 miles away, have stopped going to Tijuana because of the violence.
Yet the gay parade was bigger, better, longer, more colorful and more spirited than ever. At least 1,000 people marched or rode in the parade itself -- which stretched along seven blocks of Avenida Revolución, the main drag of the city of 2 million people. More than 10,000 people watched the spectacle pass.
Then, when the parade got to its endpoint, it took an unscheduled right turn, then another right turn, and headed all the way back to the north end of downtown, this time traversing Avenida Constitución. Police, who up to that point had made an effort to keep vehicles moving through the heavily congested downtown, gave up at that juncture and resigned themselves to a traffic jam.
"It's been the best march that's taken place in the city of Tijuana ... the biggest and the most participants," said organizer Lorenzo Herrera. "People have decided to come out, people no longer want to hide their sexual preference. We all have equality. And this year are the federal elections, and we all have decided that our pink vote will be blank. The gay community is not going to vote because the congressional candidates do not have any legislation on ... human rights, eradication of homophobia, or women's use of the female condom. We don't know about female condoms here in Mexico because they are expensive."
One large official banner carried in the parade read: "Tijuana-Ensenada GLBT Pride. 500,000 pink votes also count. We all have the same rights."
Another large official banner said: "Homophobia must end. Live your pride with dignity. Homosexuality is not a problem, homophobia is."
A third one read: "Homophobia is intolerance of homosexuality. Equality begins when we recognize that we all have the right to be different."
Spectators cheered the parade and smiled broadly. A single protester with a hand-held PA system, stationed at the parade lineup location, asserted, repeatedly, "The price of sin is death, according to the Bible." Everyone ignored him.
Click inside any photo to see it larger...


Michael Jackson



Hollywood's Most Televised Travestis
TV Azteca en acción

I feel like a good rant...

[rant on] I've only been saying this (that not letting gays marry violates the U.S. Constitution) to every major gay-rights lawyer that will listen to me for, like, 5 years. Longer than that. It's in some of my old PlanetOut columns from way back. But the gay-rights lawyers were all like: "Uh, oh no! Time not right! Bad idea. Bad bad bad!" Well, now it's gonna happen anyway, and I'm thrilled to see SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera agree with me. Go Olson & Boies. When you win this thing, the entire gay-rights legal establishment is gonna have some explaining to do on why they were such wusses. These two SCOTUS precedents have been sitting there since 1996 and 2003. If we lose, which I don't think we will, we just go back again. We lost the SCOTUS sodomy thing the first time, then won it the second time. While I'm on a rant, I'm also bored with the 2010 v. 2012 debate on when to go back to the ballot in California with same-sex marriage. Hello. Put it on the ballot in every election California has. Eventually, we'll win it -- if not the first time. Life is short. Gays are still getting crapped on. Getting crapped on is not right. Don't sit around and wring your hands about when is the right time to object. Object continuously. You wanna change the world or not? There's never any time like the present. [rant off]

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Gay tsunami slams Obama

You could fill 10 pages of a newspaper with stories and essays on how upset the gays have gotten with Barack Obama.
Where to start? What has he done that's good? He issued a nice proclamation for pride month and he extended a few spousal benefits to federal employees' same-sex partners -- sick leave and long-term care insurance, for example, but not health coverage, which he said June 17 is not within his power. That's the good news -- all of it.

What hasn't he done? Anything about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, anything about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), anything about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He's done nothing about any of the stuff he promised the gays before they rushed to the polls en masse last November to make sure he won that election.

And, then, Mr. Obama's Justice Department filed a brief June 11 in a federal same-sex marriage case that used nearly every nasty homophobic argument in the book to argue against letting gays get married. That was the straw that broke the camel's back and unleashed a flood of harsh criticism from gay VIPs.
"I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese wrote to Obama. "In the course of your campaign, I became convinced -- and I still want to believe -- that you do, too. ... (T)his brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President -- do you believe that it's good enough for us? If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no."
Sirius radio host Michelangelo Signorile wrote on his Facebook page: "Obama defending DOMA, throwing in the kitchen sink -- every antigay argument we've seen for decades -- which was not necessary even if they needed to file a brief. It's a horrific and hideous attack on LGBT Americans."
National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell on her Facebook page: "The filing by the Obama administration defending DOMA is shocking and unsettling. Clearly, our self-described 'fierce advocate' needs significant additional pushing and pressure from all of us."
Popular blogger John Aravosis: "A Democratic president of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents' favor in Loving v. Virginia. ... We demand our rights, and we expect this president, who promised them in exchange for millions of our votes and millions of our donations, to deliver. And so help me God, we will continue to hold this president accountable for his broken promises and his betrayals."
Lambda Legal's Legal Director Jon Davidson: "What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to 'same-sex marriage' or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples). ... I am seething mad."

Top Clinton aide Richard Socarides: "It had such a buckshot approach to it, a veritable kitchen sink of anti-gay legal theories, that it seemed expressly designed to inflict maximal damage to our rights. Instead of making nuanced arguments which took into account the president's oft-stated support for repealing DOMA -- a law he has called 'abhorrent' -- the brief seemed to embrace DOMA and all its horrific consequences."
Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors: "We ... call on President Obama to order the Justice Department to file a supplemental brief reversing its position and instead urging the repeal of DOMA."

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey: "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."
Gay writer Dan Savage: "If this shit is 'fierce advocacy,' Mr. President, we'll take benign neglect."

CBS News: "The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over."

The Wall Street Journal called Solmonese's letter to Obama "scathing."

The New York Times editorialized: "The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. ... If the administration does feel compelled to defend (DOMA), it should do so in a less hurtful way. ... There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution."

Plans apparently are shaping up for a gay March on Washington in October, spearheaded, it appears, by veteran activist Cleve Jones, the man who created the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
"The President is in serious danger of motivating a huge mass of gay people to stream into Washington for the simple joy of standing in front of the White House and giving him a piece of their minds," wrote syndicated gay columnist Wayne Besen.

"For what seemed like forever, Democrats told us that when the big bad Republicans went away, our lives would improve," Besen said. "Well, the Republican nightmare is over, so why do I still feel like I'm in the middle of a political Friday the 13th movie? ... As far as I'm concerned, if the donkeys can't deliver now, they can kiss my ass."

On June 17, when Obama "delivered" to federal employees a smattering of spousal benefits, via issuance of a "memorandum," he did again denounce DOMA.
"I think we all have to acknowledge this is only one step," the president said. "Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it. We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally, to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms, and to bring about that more perfect union. I'm committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come."

Obama also expressed support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

"Under current law, we cannot provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples," he said. "That's why I'm proud to announce my support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, crucial legislation that will guarantee these rights for all federal employees. I want to thank Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who is behind me somewhere -- there she is, right there -- for her tireless leadership on this bill and in the broader struggle for equality. I want to thank Sen. Joe Lieberman -- Joe is here -- as well as Susan Collins for championing this bill in the Senate, and Rep. Barney Frank for his leadership on this and so many other issues."

Sounds good, but gay activists weren't impressed. They want action.

"We commend President Obama and his administration for taking this beginning step to level the playing field but we look forward to working with him to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, overturn 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and guarantee the entire American workforce is free from discrimination," said HRC's Solmonese.

The Associated Press said, "His (Obama's) critics -- and there were many -- saw Wednesday's incremental move to expand gay rights as little more than pandering to a reliably Democratic voting bloc."

Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart: "While ending any of the discrimination against gay and lesbian federal employees is a welcome step, today's ... announcement falls far short of our hopes and expectations. President Obama clearly understands how important it is for people to have health insurance coverage to protect their loved ones and this plan does not provide that. Lambda Legal is representing Karen Golinskii, a federal employee who works for the judicial branch and who is seeking health insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse. A federal judge has already issued an administrative decision in that matter, concluding that, within the existing rules, the federal government can choose to provide health insurance for same-sex partners. We think they should. ... The day is long past for incomplete, piecemeal fixes that leave hard-working families uninsured and struggling."

People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan: "Today's presidential memorandum is a very small step in the right direction, but it's a token, and tokens are no longer enough. DOMA stands in the way of real progress for same-sex couples now denied federal recognition and protection, and its repeal is long overdue. President Obama has a unique ability to provide the moral leadership to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law, but so far he has failed to exercise it. We urge the president to live up to his own rhetoric about being a 'fierce advocate' for gay and lesbian Americans. Taking action on his pledge to repeal DOMA would be worthy of the vision that he held out to Americans during his campaign."

NGLTF's Carey: "This presidential memorandum today will extend some selected protections to the same-sex partners and families of federal employees. ... This memo is one building block toward full equality, and much more remains to be done in order for the administration to live up to the promises of equality the president made as a candidate on the campaign trail. ... We also call on the president to take additional steps that will have a positive impact on our health, our livelihoods and our families' safety that do not require legislative action. These include reversing the standing policy of the U.S. Census Bureau to manually un-marry any same-sex couple who lawfully states they are married on the 2010 census, extending employment protections to federal employees based on gender identity, and reversing the regulations that continue to throw roadblocks in the way of HIV-positive individuals who want to travel to this country."

NCLR's Kendell: "The policy announced today by the president committing to a federal workplace free from discrimination is a step in the right direction but inadequate and long overdue. It leaves out millions of Americans who do not work for the federal government and fails to include key benefits including health insurance. When running for office, then candidate Obama called equality for LGBT people a 'moral imperative.' We will continue to demand this administration live up to the president's promise of achieving 'full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.'"

The language is strong and the front is unified. The White House clearly is listening, but when will our "fierce advocate" act?
Writing on his house.gov Web site June 16, gay U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said: "I am a proud Democrat, as are many in the LGBT community, and I believe we must hold our leaders accountable. The Obama Administration made a HUGE mistake in the DOMA brief. If they keep making mistakes like this, they risk losing the support of the GLBT community forever, although I do not believe we are at that point yet. President Obama needs to honor his promise to repeal this ... hateful and divisive law. As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, 'busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.'"

All photos but Solmonese and Davidison by Rex Wockner

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

California HIV emergency

by Rex Wockner
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed, and the California Legislature is considering, draconian cuts to all types of HIV-related funding in the near-bankrupt state.

In the worst-case scenario, which is still not off the table, slashes to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could result in thousands of Californians who make less than $41,600 per year losing access to the state-provided drugs that suppress HIV and keep them alive.
In the apparent best-case scenario, not all HIV drugs would be available via ADAP and patients would have to pay part of the cost of the ones they could get. That is problematic because some HIV-positive people have developed resistance to some HIV drugs and need access to the full arsenal of therapies to stay alive.
Further, the current plan apparently completely eliminates state funding for the tests that determine if a patient is responding to treatment -- such tests as CD4 counts, viral-load measurement and drug-resistance monitoring.

These tests are essentially mandatory in HIV treatment. Doctors use them so they can change a nonresponsive patient's drug combination to another combo that works in that patient -- before the patient's immune system breaks down further and the patient develops a life-threatening opportunistic infection.
The current plan apparently also dramatically slashes funding for education, prevention, counseling and testing programs.

Some 35,000 working- and middle-class Californians who don't make enough money to pay for their own treatment could be adversely or dangerously affected by the possible cuts to ADAP and elimination of monitoring testing.
Gay and HIV advocates have strongly denounced the budget proposals, and staged a large rally today at the state Capitol in Sacramento.
State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco
Photos by Charlie Peer/Outword Magazine
Click inside a photo to see it full size

Monday, June 08, 2009

Head of San Diego Pride attacked, beaten

The executive director of San Diego LGBT Pride, Ron deHarte, was attacked and beaten June 6 while waving a large rainbow flag on Main Street in the San Diego working-class suburb of Lemon Grove.

DeHarte was participating in the "Equality Torch Relay," a daylong effort that saw "equality torches" travel from all 18 incorporated towns and cities in San Diego County, ending with a rendezvous of the torchbearers and others in downtown San Diego.
Some 2,000 people took part in the relay, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, Pride said.

"From sunrise to nearly sundown, we carried the message of equality to every city in San Diego County," the organization said in a statement. "The need to raise awareness of homophobia and LGBT discrimination echoed through the community when one of the event organizers was attacked for carrying a rainbow flag in Lemon Grove."

In an interview the following day, deHarte said: "I was waiting for the Equality Torch Relay to come by Main and Broadway and standing in front of the famous overly life-size lemon (statue), and with a rainbow flag big as day ... and someone decided to remove me from Lemon Grove.
"He started whaling on me and tried to take the flag away and made it very clear he didn't think I should be there: 'Get out of here. What do you think you're doing? You need to get the f--- out of here. Get that out of here. There's no place for you here.'

"All the while, he was grabbing at the rainbow flag and trying to take it away from me. And he was kicking me and slapping. He hit me good a couple of times. ... I got the side of his fist the first time he hit me, then I think he got my lower jaw on another time. He kicked me a few times. I wasn't bleeding or anything. It certainly hurt. I certainly had soreness as the day went on, and this morning when I woke up, I realized my upper lip was swollen and the inside of my cheek was cut up."

The incident, which lasted about 90 seconds, ended when the attacker realized a TV cameraman had begun taping, deHarte said. The last few moments of the attack were broadcast on local news.

DeHarte was not seriously injured and continued his participation in the day's events.

"It didn't prevent me from going forward," he said. "We were on a mission and we continued that mission."

DeHarte filed a complaint against the suspected attacker, who was taken into custody after police found him and deHarte identified him.

"A hate-crime component will be decided (later) by the district attorney," deHarte said.

deHarte and giant-lemon photos by Rex Wockner

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Reporters ejected from Meet in the Middle Leadership Summit

Secret polling data presented
by Rex Wockner

Reporters from the gay and mainstream press, but not bloggers and tweeters, were ejected from a big statewide gay leadership summit May 31 in Fresno, Calif. The summit piggybacked on the May 30 "Meet in the Middle for Equality" events.
About 3,000 GLBT people and supporters traveled to the Central Valley for the march and rally, aimed at gaining support for same-sex marriage in an "epicenter of middle America values."

The media clampdown the next day occurred just before a presentation of extensive new polling data showing where Californians stand today on same-sex marriage and related issues.

The poll, which consisted of 74 questions and cost more than $85,000 to carry out, was commissioned by 26 organizations, most of them GLBT, and conducted by David Binder Research and Goodwin Simon Victoria Research.

The bloggers and tweeters who were allowed to stay inside the meeting for the presentation were ordered to turn off their computers and recording and Web-streaming devices.

Summit spokespeople, speaking the following day but not for attribution, said they ejected the press and initiated the blackout because they did not want to hand allegedly sensitive and useful polling data to gay-marriage opponents.

The summit organizers included the groups Yes! on Equality, Meet in the Middle for Equality and Liberty Hill Foundation.

There had been a battle between journalists and organizers in the days preceding the meeting over whether the media would be allowed to attend. At nearly the last minute, it was decided not only to open the summit to reporters but to stream it online as well.

The journalists involved have indicated they will continue to address the unexpected lockout with California gay leaders in an effort to prevent such incidents in the future.

Poll data leaked to media before summit

Meanwhile, the polling data that activists are hoping to keep under wraps was leaked in full in late May to at least five gay- and mainstream-media reporters, none of whom has written about it yet. The first references to it likely will appear in the Bay Area Reporter on June 4. 

(Update: B.A.R. news story here. B.A.R. editorial here.)

Following the leak and the summit, a very small amount of the data was released publicly on June 2. It was unclear if the release was a response to the leak or had been planned beforehand. Prior to the release, several people from groups that paid for the poll attempted to discourage the journalists who had gotten their hands on the full data from writing about it or sharing it.

In the June 2 public memo to "interested parties," the pollsters said:

"Opinion on marriage for same-sex couples in California is almost evenly divided, with opponents holding a 1% to 2% edge, according to a new voter survey conducted for The Poll4Equality Coalition.

"When asked, 'Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married,' 47% say favor and 48% say oppose. Support for any given ballot measure will depend on the specific language of that measure. For example, results show that support increases if the language specifically includes a provision that says no clergy will be required to perform a service that goes against their faith.

"Modeling turnout scenarios for 2010 and 2012 indicate that there is a small advantage to same-sex marriage supporters in a 2012 electorate. This is based on a considerably higher turnout that is expected in 2012 due to the Presidential election. However, the additional voters that will come to the polls in a Presidential election are divided in their view of marriage for same-sex couples. Voters that will only turn out in a 2012 scenario are divided between younger voters who strongly support same-sex marriage and older Anglo, Latino and African American religious voters who are opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. While our modeling does indicate that 2012 will provide an extra 1-2 points of support for a marriage equality ballot measure, this difference may be impacted by many other factors in the larger political landscape at that time.

"Results from this survey indicate that supporters of marriage for same-sex couples will need to make additional efforts to appeal to religious voters and voters within African American, Latino, and Asian communities."

A total of 1,794 California voters were interviewed between May 9 and 13. The survey was completed with 1,008 randomly selected voters who participated in the November 2008 election or have registered since then. "Oversamples" were conducted with an additional 786 voters who are African American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander or members of labor unions. The margin of error was 3.1 percent.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

My take on the Prop 8 ruling

I finally read the damned thing, from start to finish. Took over 2 hours.
Proposition 8, the voter-passed initiative that re-banned same-sex marriage in California last November, was a valid amendment to the state constitution, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 on May 26.

Prop 8's opponents had argued that it so fundamentally changed the constitution that it amounted to a "revision" rather than an "amendment." A revision can only be initiated by the Legislature or a constitutional convention. An amendment, on the other hand, can be launched by collecting voter signatures on petitions, which is how Prop 8 got on the ballot, where 52 percent of voters supported it.

Opponents also argued that Prop 8 took away from gays, a fully protected class in California, an "inalienable right" guaranteed by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. Such rights, they argued, cannot be abrogated by governments, voters or anyone else. The Supreme Court disagreed.

"Contrary to petitioners' assertion," the ruling says, "Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in (our) Marriage Cases (last year when we legalized same-sex marriage) -- that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to 'choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.' ... Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term 'marriage' for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

In other words, California's separate "domestic partnership" law, which grants gay couples all state-level rights of marriage, is ... equality. Or at least enough equality. Who knew? What's a little "narrow and limited exception" among friends? Who cares about a tiny little asterisk? "Marriage" is just a word, right?

That's right. "We emphasize ... that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage -- albeit significant -- that has been removed by this initiative measure," the court said. "Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship."
But what do the six justices personally think about Prop 8? Read between their lines.

"(O)ur task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution," they said. "Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

As for the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married in California last year between June 16 and Nov. 4, amazingly they are still fully married, the court ruled unanimously. That's despite Prop 8's über-clear wording: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In essence, the court said to Prop 8's supporters: "Sorry. These sorts of things don't apply retroactively."

You won't find it in the statutes or the constitution, but California's actual reality is: Only marriage between a man and a woman, or between a man and a man, if they got married between June 16 and Nov. 4, 2008, or between a woman and a woman, if they got married between June 16 and Nov. 4, 2008, is valid or recognized in California.

The ruling on the 18,000 marriages is nothing if not Clintonian. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." And it makes about as much sense as Bill Clinton's "compromise" "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, where you can be gay but not say you're gay. In California now, you can be married, but you can't get married.
There's also a mess brewing in the ruling's footnote 48: "We have no occasion in this case to determine whether same-sex couples who were lawfully married in another jurisdiction prior to the adoption of Proposition 8, but whose marriages were not formally recognized in California prior to that date, are entitled to have their marriages recognized in California at this time. None of the petitioners before us in these cases falls within this category, and in the absence of briefing by a party or parties whose rights would be affected by such a determination, we conclude it would be inappropriate to address that issue in these proceedings."

This quagmire affects any same-sex couple married before Nov. 5, 2008, in Massachusetts, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa or Spain. Same-sex marriage has become legal in additional states and countries since then.

The new ruling is 50,791 words long. If you'd like to read it, go here. The downloadable file will open correctly in Word, Works Word Processor or OpenOffice.org's Writer. It will open without footnotes in WordPad. Mac users can use TextEdit, Word or Writer.

So, what happens now? Gay legal eagles seemingly are planning to go back to the voters in 2010 with a proactive initiative to un-amend the constitution to delete Prop 8. So get ready for endless stories in this space about that. In addition, there was a very surprising development the day after the ruling. Read on...
Federal lawsuit filed to legalize same-sex marriage
by Rex Wockner

In a stunning development, the two lawyers who faced off before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bush v. Gore 2000 presidential-election debacle -- Theodore B. Olson and David Boies -- have teamed up and filed a federal lawsuit seeking legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.

They say California's Proposition 8, which the California Supreme Court upheld May 26, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process -- and that they believe the U.S. Supreme Court, as currently constituted, will agree.

"Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit," Olson said May 27 at a Los Angeles press conference announcing the suit, which was filed in San Francisco. "We think we know what we are doing."

He added, "If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally."

The suit also seeks an immediate injunction suspending Proposition 8 until the new case is decided. If granted, that would make same-sex marriage legal in California again immediately.
Boies and Olson, who was solicitor general under President George W. Bush, represent a gay couple from Burbank, Calif., and a lesbian couple from Berkeley, Calif., who want to get married. The famed attorneys were hired by a newly formed organization called the American Foundation for Equal Rights, headed by gay political consultant Chad Griffin, who was an aide to President Bill Clinton.

Established legal and gay groups working on same-sex marriage strongly oppose Olson's and Boies' lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Freedom to Marry, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the Equality Federation, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation say it is the wrong time to put the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court and that a better strategy is to fight for marriage equality state by state.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling against same-sex marriage could damage the campaign for marriage equality for an unknown number of years to come, the groups have said.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Huge march in San Diego over Prop 8 ruling

Between 5,000 and 10,000 people took to the streets of San Diego this evening to protest the California Supreme Court ruling that upheld Proposition 8, the voter-passed constitutional amendment that put a stop to same-sex marriages in California last November.
The court ruled 6-1 that the amendment is valid. The court also said the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California between June and November 2008 are still married.
Among the marchers was Lisa Sanders, Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders' openly lesbian daughter. Both spoke at the march's end at the Hall of Justice downtown.
"Can I get an applause? I walked the whole way in my high heels today," said Lisa Sanders. "I'm very saddened today that the Supreme Court did not overturn Prop 8. However, I am here with all of you and I know that we will get full equality. We will all be treated equally because we're all family and we're here today to fight for our rights."
Mayor Sanders said: "I don't know why either one of (my daughters) would be a threat to anybody in the world. They both want happiness. They both want families. They both want what all of you want, and they want what everybody else wants: the opportunity to be with someone you love and to be married. And that's not something we can give away to anybody. It's not something the Supreme Court can decide. The Supreme Court needs to listen and look at the people involved and see how personal this is for everybody here and for every Californian. We need to continue to fight to make sure equality hits every community in San Diego."

Lisa Sanders is engaged to Meaghan Yaple. Sanders' other daughter is straight.
Click inside any photo to see it at full size


Lisa Sanders (holding the banner)

Police Chief William Lansdowne
Bonus pic: That's me in a yellow T-shirt leaning on my bike taking pictures. Photo by David Poller. All other photos by me.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Oz - Watsons Bay









Thursday, May 21, 2009

Oz - Journey to Watsons Bay








Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Oz - Newtown




Monday, May 18, 2009

Oz - Aussie critters










Sunday, May 17, 2009

Oz - The Three Sisters





Oz - Katoomba








Saturday, May 16, 2009

Oz - The Rocks






Thursday, May 14, 2009

Oz - Parramatta River







Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Oz - Bondi Beach @ night




Dinner