Welcome move to change bullying laws in Oklahoma

If it happens here, you can bet the environment is getting better for LGBT kids across the nation. This article doesn't delve into whether or not the children who were bullied were perceived as gay or lesbian but we all know that nine times out of ten that is the case. It is such a shame it takes so many suicides for hate and intolerance to finally be addressed.

People have come with heart-wrenching stories; they've come offering support and a shoulder; and they've come offering solutions.

Laura and Kirk Smalley's 11-year-old son, Ty Field, committed suicide on May 13. The parents think he made his tragic decision because he was being bullied at school.

It appears to be working, as lawmakers have vowed to look for legislative fixes, the local school district will seek training and people are coming to seek and offer support as they deal with bullying.

You can bet if football players, who were perceived as straight, were committing suicide in this state, it would have been addressed a long time ago. Read More...

Bowling Green anti-discrimination laws facing repeal vote

Last year, in August of 2009, I reported on some good news from Bowling Green Ohio:

yesterday, progress was made in Ohio. Bowling Green banned discrimination yesterday in several key areas -- and the new laws are inclusive. From Equality Ohio's press release:

At the standing room only Bowling Green City Council meeting on Monday evening, August 17, 2009, Council members voted with bi-partisan support to enact a Human Rights Ordinance banning discrimination in Bowling Green based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and public accommodation. The ordinance passed 6-1. A separate ordinance banning discrimination in housing passed unanimously.

Because the religious right haters want discrimination, they're forcing a vote on whether to repeal those two new ordinances. Yes, they can't accept something as basic as non-discrimination in employment and housing. They really hate us and want us to face discrimination. And, we wonder why young lgbt kids are killing themselves.

The bad guys include the notorious Alliance Defense Fund, which houses some of the biggest homophobic creeps around. For example, just last week, that Michigan AG Andrew Shirvell, who was obsessed and creepily stalking the young gay student body president Chris Armstrong, credited the Alliance Defense Fund for going after Armstrong first:

In fact, long before I started the blog, a couple of weeks before that, the Alliance Defense Fund, a well-known legal Christian foundation, put out an alert about Chris.

ADF has been putting out alerts about Bowling Green, too. The website of the campaign to repeal the laws is filled with the usual circa-1970 anti-gay rhetoric. It's repulsive.

The good guys trying to prevent repeal are running a campaign called ONE Bowling Green:

ONE Bowling Green is the local ballot question campaign formed to urge Bowling Green, Ohio voters to approve Ordinances 7905 and 7906 by voting YES on both ordinances during the November 2, 2010 election cycle.

To learn more about the ordinances, click here.

ONE Bowling Green is a community campaign driven by local volunteers and expertise. Our coalition is made of individuals and groups who love and care about Bowling Green and represent the diversity and the values of our community.

ONE Bowling Green represents the best of Bowling Green’s values— fairness, equal treatment, the recognition that discrimination is wrong, and a belief that our community is a place that cares about ALL our neighbors and everyone who comes to work, live, play and go to school in our community.

ONE Bowling Green needs our help. Financially. If you want to make sure your campaign dollars are going directly to the fight for equality this fall, donate to ONE Bowling Green. I just did.

ONE Bowling Green needs to raise $20,000 in the next few days to fight the ad campaign funded by the likes of the Alliance Defense Fund.

We can't let the bastards win. Read More...

The White House still has no strategy or plan to end DADT

Every time Kerry Eleveld asks Robert Gibbs a question, we hear an answer that is disappointing and disillusioning. Today's exchange in the White House press briefing room was no exception. Here's Kerry's report. I posted the full exchange below:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated on Monday President Barack Obama’s “deeply held view” that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should be overturned, but he stopped short of saying what the White House would do if the legislative effort failed.

Gibbs always stops short of saying what the White House would do, because the White House won't do anything. It's not like this issue hasn't garnered enormous amounts of news coverage over the past couple weeks and months. The White House has no plan or strategy -- still.

Here's the full interaction between Kerry and Gibbs:

The Advocate:It looks like the defense authorization bill and with it “don’t ask don’t tell” repeal is sort of barreling toward a dead end — 69 House members and now 16 Senators have signed on to a letter urging the president to instruct his Justice Department not to appeal a recent decision that ruled “don’t ask, don’t tell” unconstitutional. Is that something that's even being discussed within the walls of the White House right now — not appealing that decision?

Robert Gibbs: I think the Department of Justice, last I heard, was reviewing the case. Obviously, the president has a deeply held view that this is a law that can and should be changed. We worked to make sure that that happened in the House and we regrettably were unsuccessful in the Senate, but it’s not going to stop the president from trying.

Not being aware of all the discussions around here, I know that the Justice Department is weighing a series of arguments as they make those decisions.

Right, but ultimately that power resides with the president. I mean, he can instruct his Justice Department not to appeal.

I’ll be honest with you, Kerry, I don’t have an update on whether that’s something that’s (inaudible)…

Any contingency plans at all? I mean, I’ve listened to you talk about the priorities for lame-duck — you rattled through them on Thursday, Friday, and today and not once has defense authorization been mentioned…

I will say, and I think I’ve said on a couple of occasions that, off the top of my head, I wouldn’t say that this list is completely exhaustive. Let me see if I can get better guidance on that, but understanding again, the president’s deeply held belief that we have to make the change.

What do our advocacy groups, the ones who flaunt their White House access, actually do? Because the White House talks a lot, but doesn't act on LGBT equality. Read More...

Sexual racism and gay men's preferences

If you're "just not that into black guys," is your sexual preference racist? I actually found this article quite interesting, though maybe a bit preachy.

Okay, first let's dispense with this part of the story, which I don't agree with at all:

But gay conservatives aren't the only ones internalizing the racism, misogyny and militarism antithetical to our movement's New Left roots. The ''gay mainstream'' has done so as well, in two very different ways.

First, our fight against ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' would not have been of much interest to many of our political forefathers of the late '60s and early '70s. To them, DADT would have been a short-sighted battle for a right that supports militarism. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that serving openly will transform the military from its contempt for the feminine in men and the masculine in women.

This seems to be a re-engineering of the age old "why would a liberal want to join a war machine?" argument - in other words, "why try to lift the ban, we don't like those people anyway?"

Well, I don't want to work for a private business either, that doesn't mean I don't think ENDA is important. And I may or may not want to get married some day, does that mean DOMA doesn't matter?

Now, the article above seems to go farther, and suggest that anyone who wants to spend time lifting the ban is "internalizing racism, misogyny and militarism." Uh, okay. But let's just assume for a moment that the author is right, and that we want to lift the ban because we buy into society's macho image of the US military. And what's wrong with that? I could think of nothing better for gay servicemembers than being able to prove that we can be just as tough as straight servicemembers. I think that's the kind of thing that absolutely starts to break down barriers and remove prejudice. You don't have to buy into the majority's values in order to prove that you're no different than they are.  It's proving our similarities, our one-ness, key to breaking down stereotypes and prejudice?

Now, as for the rest of the article, that's the part that's interesting. The writer seems to argue that men who "don't date blacks" have a sort of sexual racism. And it's an interesting argument. After all, I'm sure our sexual tastes are somewhat influenced by societal norms as to what is and isn't attractive. So is it impossible that society's remaining bigotries aren't also influencing individual attractions? Read More...

Jane Hamsher on DADT and Obama

Read More...

Heroes of the Month: SLDN, The Palm Center and Servicemembers United

This past month has been a tough one. The courage required to confront homophobia has been in short supply among our elected officials. While our government was busy perpetuating and sanctioning discrimination by the country’s largest employer, bullies ran rampant and gay kids were committing suicide in desperation. Indeed, one of the most notable bullies was a state official, the Assistant AG of Michigan, who, presumably, would be charged with enforcing that state’s anti-bullying law if the state senate there could manage to get it passed.

Democrats, members of the party that is supposed to support LGBT rights, couldn’t get the votes to put an end to DADT despite holding the presidency and majorities in both houses, despite public support for repeal being up to 80% (depending on the poll), and despite two federal court rulings last month declaring DADT unconstitutional (one on its face, and the other as applied to Major Margaret Witt). And despite promising repeal this year in the state of the union address, our FAINO (i.e. “Fierce Advocate In Name Only”) seemed content to let repeal die. Instead of calling senators to lobby, he opted to spend time chatting with members of the Seattle Storm, as John pointed out.

After months like September, it is tempting to despair of the political process and it can be difficult to envision a way forward. But we must not give up. We must reevaluate strategy, jettison faux allies, generally regroup and then continue to press for change. We owe it to the Victor Fehrenbachs, Katherine Millers and Dan Chois of the world, and we also owe it to the Tyler Clementis and Raymond Chases. The more we can further the cause of equality, whether we do so in the military, marriage, employment or schools, the better the outlook will be for LGBT youth.

On the DADT front, there are three organizations I am confident will do just that: SLDN, The Palm Center and Servicemembers United. They were not awed into inaction by empty promises spoken at a presidential cocktail party, but instead kept the pressure on Congress and the president as best they could. For years, they have been laying the groundwork for repeal.

My heroes of the month keep finding ways to keep the issue in the spotlight. The Palm Center is the think tank behind repeal. Since 1998, it has sponsored research that dispels myths about LGBTs in the military and kept that research before the public with a steady stream of op-eds and press releases. Like water on a stone, the Palm Center’s work has methodically broken down public resistance to repeal.

SLDN (founded in 1993) and Servicemembers United (2005), have been particularly effective at putting soldiers impacted by DADT at the center of debate. SLDN’s recent letter writing campaign, "Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama" is one example. Servicemembers United’s “Voices of Honor” and “Call to Duty” speaking tours, which introduced LGBT veterans to communities throughout the country, is another.

SLDN has not shied away from using unconventional approaches, as we saw when they worked with Lady Gaga to issue a call to action at the VMA awards, through her PSA and at the rally for repeal in Maine. Right now, we need fresh ideas to challenge entrenched interests. We also need adaptable organizations that will keep up the fight despite setbacks. These three organizations have demonstrated their commitment to doing just that. Read More...

Right-wing homophobes desperate to stop anti-bullying laws

Of course, we knew it wouldn't be long before the Talibangelicals started howling and gnashing their teeth over moves to insist on doing better in following the very Christian command to "Love thy neighbor" and would conflate attempts to protect children as part of the "evil homosexual agenda."

– The American Family Association of Michigan has spent years decrying a proposed anti-bullying measure as “a Trojan Horse to sneak [homosexual activists'] special rights agenda into law” and to “legitimize homosexual behavior” which is “a practice scientifically proven to result in a dramatically higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, illegal drug use, promiscuity, life-threatening disease, and premature death.” The bill “died in 2008 in the state Senate because senators could not agree” on whether to address bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the measure.

– In Minnesota, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer said he would not sign the anti-bullying Safe Schools For All bill because “I don’t want the government” instead of parents to be on “the front line of defense of our children.” Indeed, Emmer voted against and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) vetoed the same bill in 2009 after the right-wing Minnesota Family Council pushed legislators to reject the bill in 2009 because it would “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”

– The right-wing Christian media ministry Focus on the Family is attacking an anti-bullying standard on the federal level. Insisting that bullying prevention is being “hijacked by activists” who are “politicizing or sexualizing the issue,” Focus on the Family’s Candi Cushman claims that the anti-bullying bill currently before Congress “cater[s] to a narrow political agenda” that “becomes a gateway for homosexuality promotion in school.” In their current back-to-school guide “equipping” parents with tools against the “sneaky” gay agenda, Cushman told parents to look out for bullying seminars, diversity lessons, and “cute little pictures of furry animals” as “red flags” signaling the “gay agenda.”

I hope any politicians considering deferring to these animals remember the lessons of what motivated Bishop Eddie Long and Ted Haggard to oppose the "homosexual agenda." Read More...