C Street golden boy, Senator Ensign's farewell

As Uganda might move forward with the hateful, judgmental and arrogant "Kill the gays" bill, let's not forget the influence the creepy C Street organization "The Family" had on crafting that legislation. Also, it almost went unnoticed that one of their golden boys, Senator Ensign, has had to say goodbye to his Senate career for shtupping his ex-campaign treasurer's wife then, allegedly attempting a payoff and cover-up.

Many once considered Mr. Ensign a rising star in the Republican Party. But the two-term senator announced last month he would resign May 3 amid a widening investigation related to an affair with the wife of a former top aide. He had already announced in March that he would not run for a new term in 2012.

“While I stand behind my firm belief that I have not violated any law, rule, or standard of conduct of the Senate, and I have fought to prove this publicly, I will not continue to subject my family, my constituents, or the Senate to any further rounds of investigation, depositions, drawn out proceedings, or especially public hearings,” he said in a statement on the day he announced his resignation.

“When I first arrived in the Senate, I met some people who were so caught up in their self-importance that arrogance literally dripped from them,” said Mr. Ensign, wearing a dark suit, white shirt and red tie. “Unfortunately I was blind to how arrogant and self-centered I had become.”

Ah, those "Family Values" conservative politicians never cease to amaze us with their arrogant hypocrisy, huh? It is also rich how the article pointed out Ensign hoped his legislative record would speak for him after he was gone. I sincerely doubt it, Senator Ensign, but your influence via C Street is speaking for you in Uganda. Read the rest of this post...

Hero of the Month: Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga has gotten a lot of well-deserved LGBT love recently following Glee’s episode featuring her gay anthem, “Born This Way.”* The episode developed multiple gay story lines while promoting self-acceptance in general. It also generated some right-wing hate that was so retro as to be almost comical. One hysterical commentator called the episode the “latest depraved initiative to promote [a] gay agenda.” Lady Gaga responded with a simple message to the creators of Glee: “Never back down.”

Just as deserving of attention, however, are Lady Gaga’s efforts to help LGBT homeless youth. Lady Gaga announced recently that she is donating a milion dollars to five New York charities doing work in that field, and she is taking a clever approach to help publicize that work. Via a facebook contest, she is asking her fans to vote on how the money should be allocated among the five charities. By engaging her fans in this way, many more people will learn about their work than if Lady Gaga had simply picked an organization and donated to it. You can vote yourself and read up on each charity at the contest’s facebook page.

This is not the first time that the bisexual star has taken a creative approach to promoting LGBT causes. She was a warrior of the DADT repeal effort, for instance. She showed up at the MTV music awards with an entourage of four openly gay and lesbian service members: Mike Almy, Katie Miller, David Hall and Stacy Vasquez. She made an impromptu appearance in Maine to help put pressure on Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to vote for repeal. She brought her star power to the National Equality March on Washington. And she mobilized her “little monsters” via video to contact their representatives and encourage them to support repeal.

Lady Gaga also demonstrated her commitment during the controversy arising from Target’s hefty contribution to a PAC supporting an anti-gay-marriage candidate. She tried to extract LGBT-friendly concessions from Target as part of a distribution deal for her new single “Born This Way.” When Target refused, she dumped Target.

As the struggle for marriage equality in New York heats up, we can look forward to further engagement from Lady Gaga. She has once again mobilized her fans to pressure representatives in support of LGBT rights.

“Never back down.” Words to live by.

* On a side note, many say “Born This Way” is a rip-off of Madonna’s “Express Yourself.” As a fan of both Lady Gaga and Madonna, I guess I prefer to see the song as an homage... Read the rest of this post...

AMWAY founder injects homophobic dollars into same-sex marriage battle

AMWAY co-founder, Richard DeVos, is starting to get more attention for throwing money around to destroy public schools, but he is also quite involved in using his billions achieved through AMWAY to attack gay marriage.

Richard DeVos' comments about gay marriage in yesterday's front-page story have become the subject of much debate, though they're hardly surprising to anybody familiar with his family's involvement in politics over the years.

Last year, DeVos gave $100,000 to a group called Florida4Marriage (now Yes2Marriage) in support of a Florida state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The ballot issue was less publicized on a national level than California's Proposition 8, but passed in the November election by a wide margin.

The group employed tactics such as furnishing Florida ministers with sample sermons as part of what it called "Marriage Sunday" leading up to the vote. DeVos' $100,000 comprised about 15 percent of the group's funding. His contribution led to protests in front of Amway Arena, where the DeVos-owned Orlando Magic play.

The Grand Rapids press also ran this article detailing the incredible amount of money the DeVos family has spent to deny fellow Americans their civil rights. Read the rest of this post...

How gay activists may save the Obama re-elect

Time for a huge, "told ya so." Not to all of you, but rather to the administration and its defenders who claimed that: A) gay donors didn't matter; and B) The President's action or inaction on his gay promises would not affect gay donations.

Wrong.

A truly fascinating piece by Ben Smith today. Read it in its entirety. Ben is a smart observer of politics generally, and of gay politics. This story has a lot of interesting wrinkles to it. Here's a quote, then some analysis.

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is banking on gay donors to make up the cash it’s losing from other groups of wealthy supporters who have been alienated and disappointed by elements of Obama’s first term.

Pleased by an all-out White House push to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” gay donors have surprised campaign officials with the extent of their support. And the campaign’s new fundraising apparatus appears designed to capitalize on their enthusiasm: Obama’s finance committee included one gay man in 2008; there are 15 this year, a source said.

The spur for the gay community becoming an anchor for Obama’s reelection fundraising is a series of policy shifts in 2010. After a year of rocky relations and suspicion from Obama’s gay supporters that he wasn’t really committed to their issues, the last year saw a surge in activity.

Lots to digest here.

1. As I understand it, Democratic fundraising operatives have been downright surprised by the amount of gay money coming in this year as compared to last year, and they're not simply writing it off as the results of an improving economy (not to mention, the economy hasn't improved that much).  They think it's because of Obama finally acting on DADT, and to a lesser degree, DOMA.

2. That means that gay money DID drop off last year, as we had been predicting it would, as a result of the administration dragging its feet on our issues, and doing a lot of just awful stuff like defending DOMA, and then doing it in the most homophobic way possible.  Points 1 and 2 prove the link between giving and promises kept (or unkept) that we've been alleging all along.

3. It's interesting to note that other key constituencies' donations have apparently dropped off and aren't yet coming back.  That means gay money is all the more important to the party in 2012.  Again, contradicting those who tried to say our money, and our "small" community, didn't really matter.

4. The White House's plan was to tackle DADT in 2011. We all know that that would have been impossible with the GOP congress, and many of us had been warning about the possibility of a GOP takeover a good year-plus ago. But still, the administration put DADT repeal on the slow-burner, even going so far as to slate DOD's DADT study for completion on or after December 1, 2010.  Imagine the fundraising problem the President would have had had we kept to his timetable rather than ours.

5. The President didn't keep to his timetable because a lot of us beat him up, early and often.  And oh did we catch hell for it.  Had the President kept to his plan, and not tried to repeal DADT until 2011, he'd have failed.  In other words, but-for Dan Choi handcuffing himself to the White House fence, but-for GetEqual interrupting a series of Obama appearances at key Democratic fundraisers, and but-for the gay Netroots driving the news cycle, and the community's increasing ire and angst, I believe the President would have never acted in time on DADT repeal, nor would we have seen the meager action we've gotten on DOMA or UAFA.

So the President owes us a debt of gratitude for saving his re-elect.

Now, does that mean the gay vote and gay money are in the President's pocket for 2012?  Not entirely, though he's clearly turned thing around from where they were only six months ago.  At some point people are going to realize that of the President's top three promises to the community - repealing DADT, repealing DOMA, and passing ENDA - none of the three have yet been kept.

We're still waiting for DADT to be gone, and if that happens by the end of this year, in full, I think you'll see even more support for the President in gay circles.

On DOMA, while it's good that the administration is no longer defending it in court, they waited too long.  We asked them to stop two years ago.  Had they done it then, the Democratic House would never have hired a powerhouse GOP outside counsel to defend the case, and we've had had nearly two years of no defense of DOMA in the courts.  Now, because the administration waited, and pretty much misled everyone by claiming they had no choice but to defend the case, we're stuck with an even more vigorous defense of DOMA than the administration itself was willing to offer.

And finally, on ENDA, nothing.

The President has turned things around with the gay community, if only because things were so bad in the first place, anything was an improvement.  But he hasn't yet turned things around quite enough.  We still have a year and a half to go to the election, and there's a lot the President can do by executive order on DADT (a non-discrimination policy for the military), on ENDA (a don't-discriminate policy for anyone working with the government (grant recipients and vendors), and on UAFA and other issues, such as the administration's new-found zeal to enforce DOMA even in cases having nothing to do with marriage (this is being called Super-DOMA by advocates).

We'd be foolish to take two months of action on our behalf as sufficient action for a four year term.  There is more the President can do to support our community, and there's certainly more our community can do to support the President's re-elect in 2012.  When we see the former, we'll happily provide the latter. Read the rest of this post...

"Progressive" Christian magazine/group Soujourners censors pro-gay religious ad. Says doesn't want to "take sides."

Judas didn't want to take sides either.

Sojourners reportedly didn't want to "take sides" on whether gay people should be permitted in church.

WTF?

More from Queerty:

Rev. Robert Chase, Founding Director of Intersections International the organization behind Believe Out Loud explained Sojourners’ slippery rationale:

Sojourners said, “I’m afraid we’ll have to decline. Sojourners position is to avoid taking sides on this issue. In that care [sic], the decision to accept advertising may give the appearance of taking sides.”

I called the folks at Sojourners and asked what the problem was, what the “sides” in question might be. The first response was that Sojourners has not taken a stance on gay marriage (the ad is not about gay marriage); or on ordination of homosexuals (the ad is about welcome, not ordination); that the decision, made by “the folks in executive” (why such a high level decision?) was made quickly because of the Mother’s Day deadline. The rationale kept shifting. The reasoning made no sense.

I remember first hearing about Sojourners when I worked for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund. Everyone at CDF had great respect for the magazine and the organization. Now we find out that they're as homophobic as the rest.  And as for their comment that they haven't taken a position on gay marriage - putting aside for a moment the fact that the ad has nothing do with marriage - why not?  Do they have a position on inter-racial marriage?  Would they have in 1965?  You're not a progressive if you're more interested in getting conservatives to like you than standing for your supposed beliefs.  Deny me three times, Sojourners?

Here's the Web ad that Sojourners was so afraid of.



More background on the campaign from the Advocate.

I also get a kick out of how Sojourners sees itself as "progressive," but then adds that they don't take sides.  That's like calling yourself a Democrat, but then adding that you don't vote.  And in any case, how is it taking sides publishing an ad that simply welcomes everyone to church?

Smells an awful lot like religious homophobia.

I'm also not seeing the g-word in Sojourner's "diversity" statement. Read the rest of this post...

If you were gay...

He's Aaron Schock, the GOP congressman from Illinois who sets off a few bells. Check out the next photo in the article, via this link. Sorry, but that's not attractive. To my eyes, that's the body of an incredibly buff old man. There's something not quite right about it. It's a body builder body. And I don't say that with praise. Read the rest of this post...

With marriage vote looming, today is "LGBT Equality And Justice Day" in Albany

Before the end of June, there's a very good chance that the New York Legislature will consider legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. As we've reported, there's a serious campaign underway to pass the legislation, working under the banner of New Yorkers United for Marriage. According to the Advocate's Julie Bolcer, the "chief strategist" for that campaign is Jennifer Cunningham, "a close Cuomo ally." Every indication we've gotten is that the Governor is fully engaged in this effort. Cuomo wants a victory -- and he plays to win.

Against that backdrop, the Empire State Pride Agenda is holding its lobby day in Albany today. They're busing people from across the state to the State Capitol. From ESPA:

Equality & Justice Day is the Pride Agenda’s annual advocacy day bringing the statewide movement together in Albany, and includes a rally, workshops, caucuses and an opportunity to speak directly with your legislator about the issues that matter to LGBT New Yorkers and our allies. It is also the largest statewide gathering of LGBT and allied New Yorkers and a unique opportunity to strengthen our ties and build the coalitions we need to win.

ESPA is expecting over 1,200 New Yorkers from around the state to attend. Participants will be lobbying their legislators and there will be a rally at noon. We're expecting updates later today.

Meanwhile, courtesy of Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, we hear from Rev. Jason McGuire, leader of the opposition to marriage. He wants some kind of conversion from the bill's sponsors, openly gay Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and Senator Tom Duane

That's what we're up against. Read the rest of this post...

DOJ "will continue to enforce DOMA" so married spouses still face deportation

Just in case the LGBT community was beginning to think that the Obama administration had turned a corner on the deportations of legally married spouses, DOJ wants us to know we were wrong. DOJ's spokesperson, possibly trying to assuage the right-wingers on Capitol Hill, made the definitive statement that DOJ will continue to defend DOMA, which DOJ considers unconstitutional. An article in today's New York Times it sound like the case of Paul Wilson Dorman was an anomaly. DOJ's Tracy Schmaler wants binational couples to know that deportation is still a very real possibility:

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Holder, said he had interceded in Mr. Dorman’s case only because he wanted the immigration appeals court to decide issues he felt had been overlooked. “As we have made clear, we will continue to enforce DOMA,” Ms. Schmaler said.

In February, Mr. Holder announced that the administration viewed the marriage act as unconstitutional and would not defend it in the courts, although the administration would continue to enforce the law.

Gay rights advocates have asked the administration to postpone all deportations for same-sex married couples until the courts decide whether the marriage act is constitutional. Under immigration law, an American citizen can petition for legal residency for a spouse, if the spouse is not the same sex.

Now, this could all be part of a game that DOJ is playing, to buy some time until DOMA is finally ruled unconstitutional. And, this Schmaler's language could be designed to quell criticism from the GOPers on the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) (as if that ever works.) But, DOJ has spent the past two and a half years of fighting against our rights and basic equality, so that institution has very little credibility with the LGBT community (and, by LGBT community, I don't mean leaders of LGBT advocacy groups who socialize with DOJ's LGBT liaison.)

Hard to imagine how it's going to help generate enthusiasm for the reelection if the Obama administration is deporting legally married spouses. We're going to spend a lot of our time and energy fighting to protect them. That's time that might otherwise be spent campaigning.

Surely the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have other things to worry about then deporting law-abiding spouses. Surely. Read the rest of this post...