by Dr. K. Hermes

If the name David Bahati doesn’t mean much to you, it certainly does to the people of Uganda, especially those who are gay, perceived to be gay, or are infected with HIV. David Bahati wants them executed. As a member of the Ugandan Parliament, he introduced legislation that would allow the Ugandan government to bring people to trial and execute them simply on suspicion of being gay.

More troubling, however, is that Bahati was about to come to the United States as an invited guest to participate in the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual event attended by President Obama last year and one he plans to attend this year on February 15. The Breakfast is not a fellowship of ecumenical folks from all religions, but a coterie of so-called Christians, mostly fundamentalist, who hold a very select set of beliefs, among them that gay people are abominations. The Breakfast, which has been held since 1953, has also been attended by every U.S. president from Eisenhower onward. In its initial manifestation, the Breakfast was begun by a Methodist, but it has been hijacked by Fundamentalists. And never before has the guest list included such a vocal proponent of genocide. Although Bahati is no longer going to attend the Breakfast, the invitation accepted by President Obama was extended long before, so that Mr. Obama was aware that Mr. Bahati was supposed to be there. There have been pleas for Mr. Obama to refuse to attend, but the pleas fell on deaf ears. Apparently, attending the Breakfast with a “kill-the-gays” proponent did not trouble him.

There is a persistent belief among the mainstream media and those who follow its more esoteric articles that the National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by the “religious right.” To most people, that suggests Republicans. Yet plenty of Democrats also attend the National Prayer Breakfast, not as a counterpart to its “conservatism,” but because they too believe in the theology espoused by its evangelical hosts. The group that sponsors the Breakfast have recently become the objects of attention with the publication of a book called The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power by Jeff Sharlet, and its author has been interviewed extensively. Despite the attention, no connection between Obama and the Family has been made.

Is Obama a member of The Family or a proponent of its views? The face that Obama shows to the world would suggest not. He claimed during his campaign that he was the “fierce advocate” of LGBT people. In his first State of the Union Address he promised once again to repeal the Clinton Era policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which has caused the purging of over 13,500 military men and women from the ranks of the armed services. Behind the scenes, though, Obama associations indicate that he may indeed espouse the anti-gay views of The Family and the hosts of the National Prayer Breakfast.

Barack Obama has long maintained friendships and political relationships with people who believe homosexuality is an abomination. (When evangelicals use the term “abomination”, it has genocidal overtones, since the phrasing comes from the Old Testament of the Christian Bible in which death is prescribed as the punishment for two men lying together. While many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, not all of them use the term “abomination,” and still other Christian groups accept gay people on the same terms they accept straight people. ) One of Obama’s spiritual advisors and fellow Democrats from Chicago is the Rev. James Meeks, an evangelical pastor of the Salem Baptist Church whom the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as one of American’s leading preachers of gay hate among African-Americans. Meeks is also the founder and chair of the Illinois Family Institute, a conservative and profoundly anti-gay foundation.

Then there is the company Obama kept on the campaign trail. For those unfamiliar with the “ex-gay ministry” movement, it is an evangelical coalition that believes LGBT youth can be “saved” from their sexual orientation by spiritual (and psychological) reconditioning so that they may eventually marry and be “normal.” Obama linked up with Donnie McClurkin, a prominent ex-gay, and a singing group called Mary Mary, which has declared that homosexuals are like “murderers.” Their attitudes were not secret; indeed, Obama was on-stage with them when they made such remarks. Buju Banton, a reggae singer who is well known not only for his consumption of narcotics but also for his songs about killing gay people, appeared in an Obama campaign video.

Less pernicious than these associations with “kill-the-gays” proponents, but equally damning, are the associations with more well known anti-gay clergymen. Obama campaigned on a “Family, Faith and Values Tour” that he promoted on his campaign website. At the same time that he said he did not support Proposition 8 in California, the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in an amendment to the California constitution, Obama traveled with Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic priest and law professor who helped design and promote Prop 8. In perhaps his most openly shown contempt for gay people, Obama invited the anti-gay Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. The inauguration and its invocation were shown on international television. Warren’s presence was undoubtedly noted in Uganda, where he was a frequent visitor as a member of The Family and where his ministries promoted anti-gay propaganda.

Is Obama guilty of gay-hate by association? Dorothy Day, an activist for the progressive Catholic Worker movement once said, “I have long since come to believe that people never mean half of what they say, and that it is best to disregard their talk and judge only their actions.” I don’t know the president, and I am certainly not privy to his innermost thoughts. One might counter that he has lots of “pro-equality” associates, although nowhere do I see evidence of gay friends who have the closeness to him as a Rev. Meeks.

Obama has made no public statements that are the equivalent of the rhetoric used by people with whom he has appeared on the campaign trail. Yet his tour with McClurkin and other outspoken anti-gay activists, with whom he mildly suggested he “disagreed,” was condemned as early as 2007 by LGBT and straight supporters, white and African American, who found it offensive and politically risky. In other words, Obama chose, against strong advice, to tour with gay haters openly during his campaign. Close associations speak volumes about a person, and as a careful politician, one would be surprised to see overtly anti-gay remarks when Obama has courted LGBT voters. He was careful to make his appearances with Donnie McClurkin in venues where the LGBT constituency was not one of his priority targets.

His administration has pursued doggedly anti-gay policies, although mostly under the cover of the Justice Department. When the light is on Obama, he is seen signing the Hate Crimes Bill or signing an order giving federal employees same-sex partner benefits. Neither of these acts, though, is what it appears. As a counter to Rick Warren, Obama was persuaded by Barney Frank to have the Rev. Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church, a gay bishop, say a prayer at the inaugural concert. Yet this prayer, unlike Warren’s, was not televised at all, per the request of the Obama Team. The Hate Crimes Bill was an amendment to a military appropriations act, which Obama desperately needed to keep fighting the war in Afghanistan, a war he intended to and eventually did escalate. The benefits that he conferred on federal employees turned out not to be so radical either. Most of the benefits were already there and very little new was added.

On the other hand, the Justice Department’s briefs in cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are rife with derogatory and demeaning comparisons of gay marriage to acts of “abomination,” such as incest and pedophilia. Much of the DOMA briefs’ content reads like the State of Virginia’s arguments in the case that eventually overturned laws against interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell remains the administration’s policy; no stop-loss order has been issued and currently the Pentagon is promising only to study the issue.

The United States army, which maintains a presence in Iraq, has also been a witness to the execution of gay people in that nation since Obama took office. As commander-in-chief, he has done nothing to stop it. Despite condemnations of the practice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the administration has taken no action.

Can Obama innocently attend the Breakfast now that Bahati is not coming? He should not, but he probably will. (He attended his first in February, 2009.) The Breakfast, as it has developed, represents a particular sectarian part of Christianity that is neither mainstream nor benign. Its members hold to tenets which they are free to express, but which the government should take no part in endorsing. It is time for politicians to stop attending the Breakfast, including Obama.

We should be concerned about Obama’s association with the National Prayer Breakfast and his intentions toward the LGBT community. The members of The Family include people who are genocidal in their attitudes toward gay people, especially gay men. Obama is not a member of The Family, but some of its members are in the Congress of the United States. His presence at their breakfast gives it a legitimacy it should not have. It is almost unthinkable that the United States would pursue genocidal policies within its borders, but it is not at all far-fetched to observe that some of these men, members of Congress or pastors of large Christian churches, are promoting elsewhere what they cannot do at home.

They have targeted African countries, including Uganda, Rwanda and Malawi. Suffering under a legacy of colonialism and the weight of an HIV epidemic, The Family has fed on the fears of African leaders, suggesting that gay people are responsible for their plight. This is yet one more act of U.S. colonialism, exporting genocidal ideas to vulnerable countries with receptive leaders. It is time for the LGBT community in the United States to be vigilant, to look closely at members of our government, including the president, and scrutinize their associations that threaten the lives of LGBT people in the world.

Dr. K. Hermes is currently a Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University, specializing in legal history, Native American history, and colonialism. She co-authored Sex and Sexuality in a Feminist World with Karen A. Ritzenhoff.  Dr. Hermes is a progressive LGBT rights activist based out of Connecticut.

Editor’s Note: See below for further reading recommendations per Dr. Hermes.
=========
1. A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED THE ANTI HOMOSEXUALITY ACT, 2009. The full text of the bill, including the memorandum, is available at Box Turtle Bulletin, “The Text of Uganda’s Proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/15/15609 (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
2. Juliet Lapidos, “What’s With All the Prayer Breakfasts?” Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2220599. Although this op-ed is tongue-in-cheek, it confirms Obama’s intention to attend the National Prayer Breakfast just as he did in 2009.
3. The National Prayer Breakfast, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast (accessed Jan. 29, 2010) and The Fellowship (Christian Organization), Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization (accessed Jan. 29, 2010)
4. “Bahati will not attend National Prayer breakfast with Obama,” Now Public, http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bahati-will-not-attend-national-prayer-breakfast-obama (accessed Jan. 29, 2010)
5. Andrew Sullivan, “Bahati to Attend the National Prayer Breakfast,” The Daily Dish (The Atlantic), http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/bahati-to-attend-the-national-prayer-breakfast.html.
6. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Bill Nelson (D-NE), for example, are current members of The Fellowship, aka The Family. See Wikipedia, above. Stupak and Nelson are most recently known for introducing anti-abortion amendments into the House and Senate health care reform bills, respectively. “Abortion Foe Defies Party on Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/us/politics/07stupak.html. Current Secretary of the Interior and former senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) were former chairs of a Breakfast in 2008.
7. Jeff Sharlet, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (New York: HarperCollins, 2008); Rachel Maddow, “Democrat and Republican ‘C-Street’ Connections Exposed,” YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBl5STMhSQ (accessed Jan. 29, 2010); “The Secret Political Reach of the Family,” National Public Radio, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516 (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
8. Linda McGann, “Obama: ‘I am a Fierce Advocate for Gay and Lesbians,” Washington Independent, http://washingtonindependent.com/22526/obama-im-a-fierce-advocate-for-gay-and-lesbians (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
9. “President Right to Seek End to DADT,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/28/nicholson.obama/; About “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
10. Leviticus, 20:13, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm; “Ohio Democrat Wants Death Penalty for Homosexuals,” http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/08/ohio-democrat-wants-death-penalty-for-homosexuals.htm; “What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?” http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm (all accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
11. A.S. Yang, “Trends: Attitudes Towards Homosexuality,” The Public Opinion Quarterly, 1997; “Attitudes towards Homosexuality,” http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Attitudes_towards_homosexuality (accessed Jan. 31, 2010).
12. “Southern Poverty Law Center: Another Obama Spiritual Advisor is a Hate Monger,” Radio-Left, http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2008/3/31/3613811.html (accessed Jan. 29, 2010); A. McEwen, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/03/illinois-family-institute-uses-paul.html (accessed Jan. 31, 2010)
13. “The Barack Obama-Donnie McClurkin Debacle,” BlackVoices, http://www.blackvoices.com/black_lifestyle/soul_spirit_headlines_features/canvas/feature_article/_a/the-barack-obamadonnie-mcclurkin-debacle/20071106130709990001 (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
14. “Buju Banton in Barack Obama Music Video,” Dancehall.Mobi, http://www.dancehall.mobi/2008/08/27/buju-banton-in-barack-obama-music-video/ (accessed Jan. 29, 2010); “Gay Lib Network Checks ‘Kill Gays’ Performer Buju Banton,” Salon, http://open.salon.com/blog/max_the_communist/2009/08/29/gay_lib_network_checks_kill_gays_performer_buju_banton
15. “Obama’s Family Faith and Values Tour to Feature Law Prof Who Opposes Same Sex Marriage,” Feminist Law Professors Blog, http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=4118 (accessed Jan. 29, 2010)
16. “Ten Obama Faith Moments,” US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/rick-warren-invocation.
17. “Networks Prepare for Inauguration: Marathon Coverage Plans in the Works,” Variety, http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117998657.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
18. Bruce Wilson, “Rick Warren’s Mentor Tied to Effort Behind Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rick-warren-mentor-tied-t_b_382480.html (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
19. “Obama’s Anti-Gay Gamble,” Direland, http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/11/obamas-anti-gay.html (accessed Jan. 31, 2010).
20. “Obama’s Gospel Concert Tour,” Caucus-Blogs, New York Times, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/obamas-gospel-concert-tour/ (accessed Jan. 29, 2010.
21. “No Bishop Gene Robinson on HBO,” Joe.My.God., http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-bishop-gene-robinson-on-hbo.html (Jan. 31, 2010.
22. “Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/index.html (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
23. “Obama OKs Some Benefits for Employees’ Same-Sex Partners,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/obama.same.sex.benefits/index.html
24. “Obama Defends DOMA,” LavenderLeft, http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-doma-invokes-incest-rape-child-marriage-ditches-loving-roemer-and-more-that-will-make-you-sick-to-your-stomach/ (accessed Jan. 29, 2010).
25. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395 (oral arguments)
26. “Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will be Several Year Process with a Special Investigation,”AP newswire, http://gay.americablog.com/2010/01/ap-ending-dadt-will-be-several-year.html (accessed Jan. 31, 2010).
27. “Stop Execution of Gay Iraqis,”Iraqi LGBT, http://iraqilgbtuk.blogspot.com/2009/03/stop-executions-of-gay-iraqis.html (accessed Jan. 31, 2010).
28. “Obama Talks God at National Prayer Breakfast,” ABC News, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-talks-god.html (accessed Jan. 29, 2010)

by Katherine A. Hermes, JD, Ph.D.

Gay liberation is, to use an old feminist phrase, when the personal gets political, and it is everywhere in between.

When historian John Boswell proved that Christian Europe had a long history of social tolerance toward gay men, from ancient Greece to the 14^th century, he liberated us with the knowledge that gay-hating by churches was not something that had existed forever; it was an invention!

When Aelred, who became a saint, wrote in the twelfth century about his love for a young man, “I deemed my heart in a fashion his, and his mine,” he liberated his love and his emotions.  “He was the refuge of my spirit, the sweet solace of my griefs, whose heart of love received me when fatigued from labors.”

When Henry Gerber was inspired to create the Society for Human Rights in Chicago in 1924, he began a movement known as the Gay Liberation Movement.  He said all he wanted was “the legal pursuit of happiness which is guaranteed them by the Declaration of Independence and to combat the public prejudices against them by dissemination of factors according to modern science among intellectuals of mature age.  The Society stands only for law and order.” And he liberated us.

When Carol Ann Duffy was named Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom in 2009, the first woman and also the first lesbian to hold the title in the post’s 341-year history, she liberated her country with these once-censored words, “Today I am going to kill something.”  And she killed the fear of Tony Blair, who once decided against her because he thought the middle of England might explode.  Alas, it is still there, though he is no longer prime minister.

When Diane Schroer, a transgender woman, lost a job offer because of her sexual identity status, and then won a groundbreaking federal sex discrimination lawsuit, she liberated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because she made it apply to transgender people.

When a lover writes, “I sink into your embraces…I cover with tightly pressed lips not only your eyes, ears, and mouth but also your every finger and your toes, not once but many times,” we read words of love that could be between any sex.  But these words were written man to man, bishop to bishop, in the court of Charlemagne.

When the black novelist, poet and scholar Melvin Dixon, who died of AIDS, wrote two fine novels Trouble the Waters (1989) and Vanishing Rooms (1991), he spoke man to man, black man to black man, to a frightening court of public opprobrium. But his beauty and art prevail.

These are the times of gay liberation.  Gay liberation happens in all times and all places.  When Mariannes walked the streets of nineteenth-century London, strolling into cellars serving their kind, or when butches took their femmes to lesbian bars in 1950s Buffalo, New York, they were engaged in gay liberation.

Gay liberation happens in courtrooms, too.  In a co-parent custody case involving lesbian partners, only one of whom had legally adopted the children, a Montana Justice James C. Nelson wrote a brief, emphatic concurring opinion, venturing onto the topic that was barely alluded to by the State Supreme Court: that this case involves “homosexuals in an intimate domestic relationship,” a fact that Nelson called “the elephant in the room.”  Nelson, who had written a stirring pro-gay declaration in an early Montana Supreme Court case, offered a repeat performance here.  “Sadly,” he noted, “this case represents yet another instance in which fellow Montanans, who happen to be lesbian or gay, are forced to battle for their fundamental rights to love whom they want, to form intimate associations, to form family relationships, and to have and raise children – all elemental, natural rights that are accorded, presumptively and without thought or hesitation, to heterosexuals.”

We hear a lot about the politics of the closet, how complex it is, how powerful it is, but in fact, liberation has always been something gay people have embraced, because love is more powerful than hate, even self hate.  Gay liberation is not new.  We can recite our recent history, with Mattachines of the fifties and Stonewallers of the sixties and Lily Tomlin and Ellen DeGeneres and Lady Gaga, with Pride marches in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1993 and 2000, and our National Equality March in 2009.  And it’s a great history.  But even when we weren’t marching, or we weren’t pressing for legislation to end DOMA, DADT, discrimination and hate crimes, we were writing, singing, painting, building, serving in the military, caring for our families, having children, making love.

Do not ever let straight people or gay people take from us our history, our culture, our memory, our identity. Gay haters will try to erase us, to say our writers weren’t gay—Oscar Wilde was married to a woman after all!– our artists weren’t gay (who, Michelangelo? NO! It can’t be; he painted in church!)–our teachers weren’t gay, our movie stars weren’t gay.  They will tell you women who had romantic friendships weren’t lesbians, that calling each other “dearest” and “beloved” were just terms of the day, so quaint and antiquated, but when  a woman says “darling” to her darling, she means “my darling” not “my BFF.”  Do not let them take from us our books, our pictures, our claims to love as deeply as anyone has ever loved.  Every moment of being out there, of not letting people call it a preference, of not accepting second class status, is gay liberation.  And if in the fight for your love you fight for your right to love, that too is gay liberation.

Katherine Hermes is currently a Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University, specializing in legal history, Native American history, and colonialism.  She co-authored Sex and Sexuality in a Feminist World with Karen A. Ritzenhoff.  Katherine is a progressive LGBT rights activist based out of Connecticut.

Lori L. Jean, CEO of LA Gay and Lesbian Center

by Lorri L. Jean

Even as he resigns in shame, former California Assemblymember Michael Duvall is wallowing in hypocrisy. While engaging in extra-marital affairs, he used “family values” as a justification to vote against every bill that would have provided any measure of equal treatment or fairness to LGBT people. He used the same justification to support taking away the lawful right of same-sex couples to marry.

Now he has the temerity to protest that his adultery (with lobbyists) “is a private matter” and asks that “everyone respect the privacy of all involved?!”

People should respect his privacy when he never respected the privacy of loving same-sex couples? We should respect his privacy even though HE is reported to have bragged to colleagues about his sexual exploits? And by the way, where was their outrage? How many “family values” conservatives knew what their brother was up to, voyeuristically listening to his stories but never speaking out against him or his behavior? How deep is the bench of “family values” conservatives who are similarly engaged?

It’s Duvall’s hypocrisy regarding his infidelity that makes him so especially despicable. He joins a long line of equally discredited, anti-gay “family values” conservatives like evangelical U.S. Senators David Vitter and John Ensign, and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. At least Duvall had a modicum of decency and resigned, while those of the Vitter/Ensign/Sanford ilk brazenly continue on, still embraced by their “family values” colleagues.

‘‘Family values” has become a code word for more than abject anti-gay bigotry, it’s now a sham to divert attention from the real behavior of those protesting to be such devoted family men. Duvall and his brethren should focus on their own ranks, rather than attacking LGBT people and trying to prevent loving same-sex couples from marrying.

Lorri Jean is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center. She is a veteran gay rights activist who served on the executive committee of the No on 8 Campaign. Lorri is married to Gina, loves to pet her cat, is grateful for her friends and spends her free-time checking her tomato vines for any ripe ones.

Gloria Nieto.

by Gloria Nieto

I got married on August 30, 2008 during the summer of love. My one year anniversary is coming up soon. Our 20 year anniversary is on August 14. Most of that time we have lived in California, with a decade in New Mexico.

I did all my growing up in California, schools, drinking, getting arrested, getting sober, getting politically active and educated. From the really bad days of AIDS to Prop 187 and now Prop 8, I have struggled in the trenches to do the right thing to win at the ballot box.

Let me be clear now. I am not and have not been part of the “leadership” in California even though I have a strong, experienced background in the science of elections. There was no Latino leadership in the November election aside from that provided by mi hermanos in LA, HONOR PAC. I do not fall into the scorned category of “those people” who have been in charge.

Trying to be a cool chick all the time, I have been riding the wave of the recession for a couple of years now, few jobs, lots of unemployment. My spouse and I are in the process of losing the house we were married in. After four months, I have gotten my first unemployment check. I do not have the resources to go to meetings for a weekend in a place as far away as San Bernadino. At 54 I also will not tolerate heat and, trust me, being cooped up in a hot room for hours is a recipe for an arrest.

At this point I am writing this because I want to make some observations about the strong disagreements in the LGBT community in California. It is truly irresponsible for me to not say something at this point and try to bring my point of view from where I live.

One of the key issues that I continue to see is the total unwillingness to listen to each other. This next campaign is supposed to be about changing hearts and minds among the electorate. Yet in meeting after meeting we do not listen well to each other and from that springs growing animosity towards other LGBT people. So without these skills how in the hell are we supposed to listen to the California electorate who does not agree with us right now?

Does anyone truly think that by just showing up on people’s doorsteps they will welcome us in and want to hear our stories? These conversations require the ability to listen to other people’s beliefs and not just maintain a superior attitude that we know best how people should vote. Do we magically take the place of their clerics or their religious community?

What is even more important is that vast numbers of people do not know us. In the Latino community, it is necessary to spend time with us to gain any measure of trust. That means going to different events, sharing some values with us, like is poverty or immigration an issue for us too. If it is, prove it.

Ask yourself when was the last time you publicly supported an issue where you had nothing to gain? Support for immigration reform? March for Iranian freedom? What have we all done to work for other causes? I will give a shout out here for Courage Campaign who does a great job of working on the multiple issues that we face as progressives.

But really, can we back up a little here? A lot of paens I have read about going in 2010 have not dealt at all with the issue of people of color in California. Just in case you missed the demographics on the Golden State, we are a majority minority state. The majority of people in California are minorities, primarily Latino. So to have these opinions completely skip over the statement made by people of color organizations, the Prepare to Prevail, does not take into full account the true demography here.

In Karen Ocamb’s blog post at the Bilerico Project about the San Bernadino meeting, she quotes at least two participants wanted to ignore the African American and Latino communities in the next votes. That’s a good idea – don’t deal with a significant part of the state. Wouldn’t want anyone to feel uncomfortable now.

We must engage everyone in this next battle. Communities of color are saying there is not enough time to do this for a 2010 vote. Does anyone really think we don’t want our full equality? But what happens if we lose again? Who gains from that?

My community, the Latino community must be engaged in this vote if we are to win true equality. We know what discrimination is and we don’t like it. There was polling a few years back about marriage in the Latino community. It was done all over the country in both Spanish and English. The results were the same, when discrimination was described to the participants, we totally understood what it meant. Doesn’t anyone want us to do this task properly? Then give us the needed time to do it!

I have one more thing to mention. There is now an attempt to put another anti-immigrant measure on the 2010 ballot. In the same way we were used as political piñatas in 2008, so will the brown people be used next year. The same people will be involved voting against civil rights of another group of people.

In the last election over Prop 187, we lost. In the aftermath we discovered there were 5 million people in California who were eligible to become citizens and had not done so yet. The effort is going on now to make sure we have gotten all eligible people in California ready to be citizens by November 2010. The battle was ugly, racist, a pitched battle for the soul of the state. The voters believed all the lies about what immigration was “costing” us the same way they believed the lies about us.

Whether we like it or not, there are many unpleasant conversations in the future. Unpleasantries with our families, our co-workers, our neighbors are coming. We should be able to turn to each other to support in the days ahead. But the name calling, insults, the demands of “my way or the highway” campaigning or the covert and overt racism does not make that unity possible. If we cannot trust each other, who can we trust.

I have many beefs with the way the last campaign was run. I have called people out in public for their mean spirited behavior. I may forgive but I won’t forget. I also won’t make the same mistakes twice like allowing the Latino community to be ignored the next time. So don’t get me wrong since I consistently can’t get a job with these campaigns despite my abilities, I will find a way to get around the road blocks. I also will not be insulted and degraded for being a grass roots person of color who worked on the No on 8 campaign.

But I will listen and agree on some arguments being made for 2010. I also don’t think it should be too hard to practice listening to each other and finding a way to do this without hurting each other. We have to find a way to lean on each other otherwise we are not a movement but kids who don’t play well with each other.

The test is here let’s make this a movement.

Dear Fellow Equality Conference Attendee:

President Obama wants Congress to repeal DOMA and enact legislation giving federal marital rights to any “legally-recognized union.” This means that anyone in the 12 states & Washington D.C. that have same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership could have full federal marital rights (joint income tax, social security benefits, immigration rights & 1,135 more!) This also means that if you live in any of the other 38 states you could travel to Massachusetts and get married or to New Jersey to get a civil union or to California, Washington or Oregon and sign up as registered domestic partners and have all the federal marital rights even if your home state does not grant you state marital rights. Federal marriage rights coast to coast. That would be a great accomplishment. (Dare I say, “Change we can believe in!”?)

Yet, our national and state LGBT leaders and organizations are only focusing on individual states. The US Congress should be our primary focus AT THIS TIME and our state by state strategy needs to be put on hold, for now. This is why:

President Obama has high approval ratings and we have large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. We will probably have smaller majorities after the 2010 midterm election. Since 1942 the sitting president’s party has lost an average 28 House seats and 4 Senators in midterm elections. Losing that many Democrats in the House and Senate in next year’s election will make it almost impossible to eliminate DOMA and pass federal marital rights legislation. Therefore, the time to act nationally is now! The states can wait. I guarantee, they will still be there.

We need a national lobbying day to lobby Congress for this to happen. Who is willing to go to Washington, DC to do this? Who is willing to help organize a national lobbying day to support President Obama’s plan for federal marital rights for everybody?

Drafts of this legislation are already in the offices of some Members of Congress and the Senate. Yet, no one has introduced it. DOMA repeal and federal marital rights will only happen if we push for it. It is up to us!

Email me if you are interested in taking action in Washington, DC to lobby Congress.

Leland Traiman, RN/FNP, Executive Director
Rainbow Flag Health Services & Sperm Bank
510-521-7737
www.GaySpermBank.com

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
-Mahatma Gandhi

Something’s been on my mind lately, and I figure I’d do what any other person of my generation would do: write about it in my blog. (Actually, I guess I should write about this on Facebook or MySpace, but since I have my own Web site…) I’ve been thinking about the phrase, “That’s so gay.” Along with sagging pants and the ’80s, I had hoped that this phrase would go away once I left high school. And it has, for the most part, at least in my world.

This phrase is commonly called a “playground taunt” and I guess I’m lucky that the first time I heard the phrase wasn’t until 11th grade. It’s not surprising really. If I wasn’t hanging out by myself growing up, I usually was around polite, straight-A students. I actually remember the scenario in which I first heard “That’s so gay,” and it shocked me when it happened, but it was uttered by someone in the “regular program” and, in my Oscar Wilde imitation, it seemed like something I could attribute to the lower classes.

However, the phrase is widespread, yet seemingly innocuous. You’re just as likely to hear the phrase in the conference room as you are on the playground. Some people who use the phrase claim that it has no connection to gay people. They say it’s like the word “gypped” – most people don’t know that the word is derogatory towards gypsies. But, c’mon, how many bonafide gypsies are there wandering the halls of American high schools? (As a side note, my guitar teacher in high school sought to motivate us while teaching us a somber ballad by saying, “Let’s pretend we’re a bunch of gypsies and we just got caught shoplifting.” I actually had no idea why she suggested that, because I didn’t know anything about gypsies at the time.)

It’s easy to see how “gypped” has lost its context, but what is the most common use of the word “gay” in today’s world? To say that “gay” doesn’t connote gay people seems to be idiotic, even if the idiot who said it doesn’t think so.

Is it worth fighting over? Probably not. People can use the words “bad” and “filthy” to describe something good or cool. I guess they can use a word that meant happy, then homosexual, to mean something bad (and by bad, I don’t mean good). However, I think the core irritation I have about “That’s so gay” is that the phrase itself has lost context. It reduces a bunch of other good arguments into one simple, flippant phrase. I think many things that get called “gay” are bad. But they’re bad because they’re so mainstream, they’re so bland, they’re so outdated, they’re so poor quality. They’re so acceptable. So c’mon, that’s not gay. That’s most of American society.

See Rachel’s interview of Democratic Congress Rush Holt
and decide for yourself.

Oh, and, did we mention that we love Rachel Maddow?