HUD to require grant applicants to comply with state and local laws protects gays

This is good news, if in fact it's something new, and if in fact it is actually something substantive. What worries me is that we keep getting these small advances instead of the big ones (DADT, DOMA, ENDA), and that, after a while, the President (and HRC) will point to all of these small steps and try to suggest that the sheer number of them makes them equal to, or better, than the big ones - and they're not.

This would have been a lovely move the first day of the Obama administration, or for some time after the President repeals DADT and DOMA, and passes ENDA. But as a replacement for those actions - and that is what this is, at best a stand in for the real promises - it falls short.

From HUD:

For the first time in its history, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will require grant applicants seeking HUD funding to comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws that protect lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Today, HUD published a notice detailing the general requirements that will apply to all of the Department's competitively awarded grant programs for Fiscal Year 2010.

Read More...

COUNTERPOINT: I am an LGBT American

John recently wrote about how he's not a big fan of the term LGBT. I actually disagree - I like the term for a few reasons, let me explain

I may not consider myself to be a “G” a “B” a “T”, or, for that matter, an “I,” a “Q” or an “A”, but I do consider myself an LGBT American, and I feel very strongly that we are linked together in a single, common struggle. Our fellow contributor, Tim Beauchamp, summed up my feelings about the matter some time ago with a brief comment: "it's all about gender expression." One or two commenters on John’s LGBT post alluded to this point-of-view, but did not elaborate on it much. I want to elaborate on it here. (And btw, here's more from Tim on the subject).

No matter what letter(s) of the alphabet you consider yourself to be, all of us challenge gender norms in one way or another. We might wish we lived in an age where such roles no longer matter, but we do not live in a post-gender world. Men are still expected to act like men and women to act like women, regardless of what form those roles may take. When a man has sex with another man, he is gender non-conforming regardless of how masculine he may feel or how closely he may otherwise adhere to our society's conception of masculinity. When a "biological" woman lives as a man, he is gender non-conforming. When a bisexual refuses to express a preference for men or for women, that person is gender non-conforming. The norms may be a bit more fluid than they used to be – when I was a girl, for instance, my insistence on wearing jeans was met with major resistance – but they are still there.

Some of us can pass more easily than others if they want to, but that does not change the validity of the group’s existence. Just because someone is a lipstick lesbian or an MTF who passes as a woman or a bisexual person in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex does not mean that those people do not belong to our community.

As for LGBT being just a clumsy string of letters, I prefer it to terms like “sexual minority” that cover up our differences. Even though I believe we are aligned in the struggle, we do have separate identities and face different challenges, and using LGBT acknowledges these differences while binding us together in common cause. And I like that the term can embrace new groups. We need all the allies we can get. Read More...

Senate opponents of DADT repeal gearing up for 'polarizing' debate

The Hill previews the upcoming Senate debate on the 2011 Defense Authorization bill:

While the Senate Armed Services Committee’s bill contains nothing at this point that would trigger a presidential veto, there will be internal fights over several provisions, the most polarizing over the repeal of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Yes, apparently, DADT repeal will be "the most polarizing" issue in that bill, which shows how out-of-touch Capitol Hill is, considering "78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military." 78 percent. But, DADT repeal is polarizing. That just demonstrates the absurdity of Congress.

As we've been warned by SLDN, there's an effort underway to push what would be a killer amendment. From The Hill:

Republicans are eyeing a provision that would require all service chiefs to certify that repeal — allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly — can be implemented consistent with the military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention.

The way the congressional provisions are written now, only President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen have to provide that certification.

In letters solicited by Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz), the service chiefs said that they wanted Congress to delay voting on the issue until Dec. 1, after the Pentagon finishes a review of how the military should carry out the changes. That puts them at sharp odds with the White House.

Gay-rights groups fighting for repeal have called a potential amendment that expands the certification process to include the service chiefs “a killer amendment” that would delay open service for years.

That's exactly what the opponents of DADT want.

As we've noted, CAP's Winnie Stachelberg has taken credit for the certification idea. Unfortunately, DADT opponents see that provision as their best opportunity to further weaken the already compromised DADT repeal language. All I can say is that CAP better be using all of its influence with the White House to make sure that provision isn't further weakened. That amendment must be defeated if it's offered. It is a "killer" amendment.

We still have no idea when the discharges will end. But, we can't let the Senate further weaken the DADT language. And, the "masterminds" behind the compromise better be doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen. Read More...

Heroes of the Month: Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga

This couple’s bravery is beyond any words that I have, so I will quote Tiwonge. Upon learning of his sentence to 14 years of hard labor for wanting to marry his lover, he had this to say:

I love Steven so much. If people or the world cannot give me the chance and freedom to continue living with him as my lover, then I am better off to die here in prison. Freedom without him is useless and meaningless.

LGBTs in Africa face a struggle that will require enormous bravery and sacrifice from many Tiwonges and Stevens. Gains made in South Africa must give African LGBTs hope, especially when Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president, and South Africa’s Anglican bishops speak out on their behalf. Yet the task is daunting. Whenever a closet door cracks open just a little, it is met with overwhelming force that tries to slam it shut before the door becomes too difficult to close. I think that is what we are seeing in Malawi and Uganda and other parts of Africa right now. Even in relatively progressive South Africa, life can be brutally dangerous, as evidenced by reports of widespread “corrective” rape.

International pressure helps. The results we have seen from the mobilizations for Steven and Tiwonge and against the heinous law in Uganda have been encouraging.

While we focus on trying to make advances here in the U.S., we would do well to remember that our struggle is part of a much larger one that is taking place from Malawi to Moscow to Mexico City to Minsk to Mumbai and to Montego Bay. Thanks to citizen journalists the world over, this revolution is being televised on youtube and facebook. We have the ability to circumvent established news channels, which makes it difficult for repressive governments to suppress information. Moscow Pride was organized via flashmob. Videos of arrests in Minsk were distributed instantaneously throughout the world via facebook. Steven and Tiwonge were freed in part because of international pressure generated from the netroots up.

Only ten years ago, few of us would have learned about a couple like Steven and Tiwonge. Their courage is humbling and inspiring. Here are a few links to LGBT sites with an international focus for those of you who want to become more aware of international developments:

Global Gayz
Pink News
Peter Tatchell Read More...

Marriage of same-sex couples started today in Portugal

There are wedding celebrations underway in Portugal today. The country's new law allowing same-sex marriages started today. As did the first same-sex weddings:

A lesbian couple wed Monday in Portugal's first same-sex ceremony since the predominantly Catholic country introduced a law allowing gay marriage last month.

Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao, divorced Portuguese mothers in their 30s who have been together since 2003, married in a 15-minute ceremony at a Lisbon registry office.

"This is a great victory, a dream come true," Pires said as the couple kissed and hugged.

"Now we're a family, that's the important thing," Pires said, adding they would continue to fight for equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption.

Read More...