The Swag Report » Civil Liberties

Meet Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Knowledge — Tue, 11 May 2010 02:40:27 +0000

There’s been a rumor floating around the political blogosphere that Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, is a lesbian.

The story originated from former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate Staffer Ben Domenech. He’s a conservative blogger on CBS where the story first broke and was subsequently slammed by the White House in response. In the article, Domenech indicated that if the nomination went through, Kagan would be the first openly gay Justice.

The response from the White House was swift and decisive.

Anita Dunn, former White House communications director working with the administration on the supreme court vacancy had this to say: ”The fact that they’ve chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010.”

She criticized CBS for giving a platform to a blogger with a history of plagiarism and accused him of applying the age old “Single, unmarried, childless, career-centered? Must be a gosh darn lesbian” stereotype usually applied to single women with successful careers.

The blogger later updated the post to say: “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted — odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”

I would speak more on the merits of or lack thereof of the lesbian rumor, but I won’t because I don’t care if she’s a lesbian or not. I find it patently absurd that the White House would find itself in the unusual position of defending someones heterosexuality in such a way as to make it seem as though choosing a lesbian for the court would be disastrous. It makes political sense for them to deny even if it were true, but it also makes the adminstration look weak in some regard.

What I am concerned about is where her political leanings fall and what impact they will have on her ability to exert fairness and sound reasoning while a Justice on the Supreme Court.

People shouldn’t assume that just because someone is a member of a minority group they automatically agree with everything that group stands for. I hope the White House is correct in their assertion that she’s not a lesbian. If the rumors are true someone will have some explaining to do. Besides, she doesn’t have to be gay to defend gay rights.

Here are a couple of things about Elena Kagan I thought I’d share. If we are to follow history, we should expect Kagan to be a strong supporter of civil liberties. She has advocated for equal rights in the past, namely in opposition to the discriminatory policies of the US military in relation to recruiting on Harvard’s campus. She called the military policy “unwise and unjust.”

Her political views are rumored to be progressive, but close friends and associates see her as a right of center – moderate. She’s not known to be outwardly or especially political.

She gets the side eye from me for her support ofexecutive privilege. Her view of executive powers are said to be “broad though not unlimited.” I’m disappointed to say she has almost no track record as it relates to the practical application of cultural diversity, except when she’s benefiting from it by being a woman. (Oops, did I say that?)

There’s little to no paper trail following Ms. Kagan’s political ideologies so it’s tough to know where she stands on some major issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, tort reform). She’s something of a blank slate which is a scary thought to consider for some and a welcome breath of fresh air for others.

Her track record while Dean of Harvard Law is impressive in both her diplomacy, civility and appreciation of the law, yet questionable depending on who you might ask. She considered a “consensus builder” and is credited for bringing academic fairness to Harvard by hiring conservatives onto staff to bridge a hiring gap that became far too liberal.

Kagan’s ideological principles seem to resonate on a plane where bipartisanship and cohesiveness work hand in hand. One on hand, she cleared the way for Harvard to hire conservatives by way of affirmative action. On the other hand, what about minorities and people of color? I won’t contend with the fact that either they didn’t apply or the ones that did weren’t qualified. Perhaps it was business as usual at Harvard Law, but what remains is a woman who is neither afraid to compromise or to powerfully persuade given the circumstances.

There will be those who argue against her lack of judicial experience. I’d wager that oneof the reasons for this can be blamed on her nomination by Clinton getting blocked by Republicans in 1999. She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall who was seen as a radical idealist in his day. The important thing to remember is that you don’t have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Conservatives may balk because she’s labeled progressive, and who knows, she could be a carpet munchin’ lesbo to boot. Progressives could take issue with her support of Bush nominees in the past as well as her stance on executive powers and not being as against the expansion of them as much as progressives would like. If she’s for federal rights over states rights, I’m right there with her.

She is a highly intelligent, articulate, lawyer and a efficient litigator whose liberal roots run deep. She met Obama in the 90s while working at the University of Chicago. She is not a virtual unknown by any stretch.

She’s a better choice than anyone that John McCain would have come up with. Why? Because Joe the Plumber would not have been a very good judge of anything, including his own character.

She graduated with honors from Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Universities. Her ability to critically think would put any bonafide intellect to shame.

I don’t believe the balance of power in the Supreme Court will shift to any extreme if she wins the nomination. She’s more moderate than progressive so it’s safe to say the balance of power could very stay tilted ever-so-slightly to the right.

What she lacks in ideological muster she more than makes up for in possessing the wherewithal to convince the other side to recognize her interpretation as their own. She possesses the powers of persuasion. It’s one thing to appoint someone in the hopes that they will cast the “right” vote, but it’s another to appoint someone who will not only make a difference, but be the majority decision when it comes time to stand on the correct side of history.

My Thoughts On Immigration, Circa 2007

Knowledge — Mon, 03 May 2010 07:50:40 +0000

My thoughts in 2007:
It’s about more than supply and demand. There’s a great deal of random disparity in the current system that is not only at odds with the current rule of law, but it grants legal status to certain nationalities at a much higher rate than others who come from arguably worse economic conditions. At the top of the totem pole are Cubans. The lowest; Haitians, perhaps. I think that in itself is bullshit, but I can’t fault Cubans for being so politically well organized. In any case, my feelings about illegal immigration are fairly solid.

My thoughts today:

I believe, wholeheartedly, that immigration reform is desperately needed. We’ve relied on Washington to get the job done and they’ve failed repeatedly. The last ditch attempt was made just 3 years ago in 2007 when a immigration reform bill went before congress for debate. After going around and around, there was no satisfaction or any resolution and the immigration bill was killed. The fact remains that the debate needs to be revived.

It seems that lately people need to be reminded that there is nothing patriotic about discrimination of anyone based on the color of their skin. I’d like to believe that when the constitution was established, it was done so with a firm belief that a much broader scope would need to be extended and revised over time. That’s why even now the constitution includes laws that govern the way we deal with immigration.

We must also remember that equal protection under constitutional law was not immediate for all Americans way back when. It was only implied for some, namely white men and land owners, in particular. Just imagine what life was like for a former slave after the Civil War during reconstruction.

Black people had to deal with an uncertain future and political status in a country that had treated them cruelly for decades. Remember the infamous Dred Scott decision that basically ruled that any person who was not white was not a citizen of the United States and thus had no federal rights or protections under the law.

After the war the issue turned to the political status and future of blacks. It was then that Republicans were the radical, liberal party of the day. They are now called Democrats. They presented the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to congress which was in response to the racist Black Codes; laws that severely limited and denied civil rights and civil liberties to blacks.

Where the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all blacks in America. It guaranteed citizenship to all children born in the U.S. That’s where the fruits of slave labor come into play in modern day 21st century America with regard to illegal immigrants and American born children.

This war on illegal immigration is as bad as the war on drugs and the tug of war on terror. Like everything else, we try to cut off the supply, yet do practically nothing about eliminating the demand. Illegal immigration is akin to modern day slavery and as well know, cheap labor always comes with hidden costs. One of the benefits we all enjoy is the low cost of fruits and vegetables at the market.

It’s ironic in a way. In order to keep prices low, migrant workers are paid low wages to pick fruit and vegetables. If the prices are too high, companies will import fruits and vegetables from other countries where food regulations may be lower or not as enforced. The labor trade off can be potentially toxic.

What I also don’t understand is why some people are so anti-immigrant when they are more than likely 1st or 2nd generation Americans themselves. I’m certainly not saying it was easier to immigrate back then, but I am saying that we need a more liberal guest worker policy now.

The current system is broken and unfair. It doesn’t focus enough on family unification. To add insult to injury, illegal felons and criminals cost US tax payers more money yet the government deports more illegal immigrants without criminal records than those with them.

Not only does our government need to work with the Mexican government on securing their borders and dong their part on the other side, politicians need to stop playing racial politics. Millions of immigrants are here to stay regardless of their status. Racial profiling is not going to stop it, but it is likely to incite protest and raise awareness about the serious need for reform. The recently passed Arizona law, which isn’t explicit, does imply that race be used to determine whether there is reason to question ones citizenship status.

This practice undermines everything we stand for in this country including the quest for a good life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No matter where we live, we all have our own unique existence that we have no choice but to share with others. I’ve always been a fan of diversity, which must often be placed where it is not wanted in order to enact change for the better.

Playing racial politics threatens all of us at its core. It also works against the very idea of taking a humanistic and realistic approach to immigration reform. History will not allow us to take any other course.

A Constance McMillen Rant: Mississippi Students Bigotry Reflects The Tone Of America

Knowledge — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:06:16 +0000

You remember Constance McMillan, the lesbian teen from Mississippi who was denied attendance to her prom if she brought a girl and wore a tux. Well, she finally had her prom, but there’s a catch. Only 7 other students were there including the principal and a few teachers. The other outcasts included 2 learning disabled students who didn’t receive an invite to the alternate prom. School officials approved the alternate prom that was held across town and arranged by the parents of students. Although Constance was aware of the alternate prom, she was not invited and did not attend to avoid creating a scene and further agitating her classmates. Due to growing concern over the amount of public attention this was drawing, Constance’s girlfriend did not attend prom at the request of her parents.

My thoughts on this are two fold. The school district failed to serve the best interests of its students equally by allowing a separate prom to be held. The reason for arranging the alternate prom was based on a lie based on ignorance, hatred and a serious lack of accepting differences. Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance is something else entirely. The extent of deviousness found beneath the layers of the actions of the parents and school board is not mind blowing, but it is at the very least, cowardly and disheartening.

The fact is, they found a loophole in the judges ruling. First, after promising to deliver an all-inclusive dance, they reneged, but only to an extent. The school hosted the official prom which was already underhanded because by then parents and students had already arranged an alternate prom to be held at the same time, outside county lines. They invited a select lot of students and excluded Constance and a few others. They had their cake and ate it too.

At a hearing on a preliminary injunction filed by the ACLU, Senior U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled that the district had violated McMillen’s First Amendment rights but that it shouldn’t be forced to sponsor a prom since a group of parents had already agreed to hold an event that would be “open to all IAHS students.

Last Monday night, those parents announced they would no longer host that prom. On Tuesday afternoon, school district attorney Michele Floyd said a private prom would be held at the Fulton Country Club, although the exact sponsorship of that event remains a mystery.

People are outraged that a separate prom was held and that is understandable, but I’m more surprised at the outrage than anything else. What’s less shocking is the knowledge that students of different races were present at the alternate prom, according to some students in attendance. Black, Hispanic and White students as well as interracial couples were said to have danced the night away. It’s nice to see how far Mississippi has come come, but they still have a long way to go. I have seen no pictures to back these claims however. Either way, homophobia is not black and white and it’s not a sickness resigned to strict, conservative thought processes; it’s an American institution that’s becoming more the norm with each passing day.

When kids perpetuate behavior that can be found in movies like Mean Girls, behavior that is outlandish and unacceptable, we ought to know that mindset took root somewhere and home seems the likely place. Parents hold the majority on swaying their childrens thinking from early on. This mindset is not dependent on any one religion, culture or socio-economic baseline or status. Wake up America. Bigotry against homosexuals isn’t resigned to any one section of the country. It is everywhere. If it weren’t, discrimination wouldn’t be a damn issue every time we turn around. If it’s not the US military’s separate but equal policy it’s the government’s refusal to grant federal marriage recognition to gay, married couples, or the old elitist heterosexuals who taught old school and closeted homosexuals that to stay in their minority place is their best bet for having a place in society. If not for these overwhelming instances of discrimination we’d have only the parents or their religion to blame.

As a black lesbian, I thank God for people like Harriet Tubman who said “I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves” and Martin Luther King who said “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

If not for these attention seeking, riot revelers, my ancestors and theirs would still be picking cotton balls on a plantation somewhere down south.

Since when did second-class citizenship become cool? It’s like every time DADT or Marriage Equality is brought to the forefront, we have to listen to well meaning old farts tell us we aren’t ready to be free yet. Or we get to hear from the baby boomers how we should sit back and “be patient.” All it will take is a few more years until your grand-kids will be able to enjoy all of the rights deserve now. Be a little more patient my ass! If I had to give what that’s called a name I’d call it “subconscious homophobia”, which I suspect a good portion of the straight community is afflicted with.

If you’ve ever been accused of living a “lifestyle not in line with Christ” which basically takes the pressure off of anyone who hates gay people just for the hell of it, or who feels that to know someone is gay is akin to that person “throwing it all up in their face”, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. It is that disrespect that makes people believe that separate but equal with regard to gay is acceptable. So when a group of kids and their stupid parents pull off something this blatant and in the open how can the rest of society honestly feign alarm?

In case anyone has forgotten, this is America. The reason stuff like this flies is because the majority of Americans haven’t combated their internal fears and resignations about homosexuality yet. Constance, like the rest of the gay population in America, is in the minority. Even with the backlash against the school and parents, we are still in the minority. Anyone who is gay, bisexual, trans or closeted is in the minority. Even if you’re not out, you aren’t equal in this society. Kids aren’t dumb, but can play it when necessary. They knew they could get away with ostracizing Constance and the two disabled students because they would have their parents backing, the school’s support and the rest of the community behind them. When shit like this is allowed to go unchecked, it simply makes it easier for the next group of bullies to inflict the same emotional wounds upon the next brave young soul.

I imagine having a conversation about this with someone I cared about, but whom I knew was not accepting of homosexuality. Would they think Constance was making something out of nothing while bringing shame to her community, or would they think Constance was standing up for herself and indirectly, an entire community, by refusing to be treated as lesser than? I also wonder if some of the outrage directed at the parents by ordinary folk is not because of some hidden guilt for not standing up for LGBT equality in the past. You see, parts of the South aren’t alone in their contempt for gay rights. Southerners aren’t the only ones voting down measures that would extend equality to all Americans. It’s a mixed bag that extends across the country.

I was thinking how instances like this often result in a double-edged sword. I read some comments from students who attended the alternate prom. One indicated that having an alternate prom and not inviting Candace was their right, and one they fully intended to use. There were comments from parents saying that the majority spoke and the majority ruled. She went on about how she didn’t want her children to be forced to attend school functions and social gatherings with gays and lesbians. She didn’t want ”them” pushing their “gay agenda” onto the heterosexual students. She was, in essence, confusing the definitions of tolerance and intolerance. She felt that since Constance was not wanted at the other party by the other students, she shouldn’t be allowed to attend because the majority rules and it would be intolerant of Constance to go against their wishes. That is exactly what the students did in a way. They equated Constance’s quest for tolerance and equality as similar to their desire to exclude her because her difference posed a threat to their sensibilities. It’s absolutely absurd any way you look at it, but stupid parents and the stupid school board justified the prom humiliation and it will probably remain the single greatest prank these kids ever get to play on anyone in their lives.

If nothing else, they’ve gotten a taste of real life while still in high school. Even worse, these kids will make all sorts of important decisions someday, political and otherwise, and I can only hope that between now and then they will have been well oiled by a extreme and socially liberal machine. There are rumors that other gay students attended the alternate prom. I guess that’s supposed to show how welcoming the community really is to homosexuals. It also goes to show that there is a serious disconnect between why the students felt it was fitting to throw an alternate prom and why the parents felt it was morally correct to set it all up for them while also excluding Constance and a few others.

Here’s a nice letter that one of Constance’s classmates wrote to clear the air and defend the actions of the parents in light of the school boards decision:

I am a senior at IAHS, and I’veknown Constance for the last 6 years. Please hear our side of the story before you decide on our fate. The party we had in Evergreen (the county neighborhood I live in) is 30 mins away from the school. we rented out the community center, hired vendors, decorated, and our parents ran the security/chaperone staff- but it wasn’t prom. Prom was at the country club where constance and 7 other students were. The reason the senior class boycotted the actual prom was not because we hate gays.
We wanted a drama-free gathering to celebrate 3 great years and 1 lousy one together, and we wanted to lay low. We also wanted to do it without the main cause of the lousy. What people are failing to realize is that much of the fault of this whole stink lies with Constance, not her mistreatment by the school district, but her crazy-reckless need for attention. It sounds mean and horrible and like we planned it all specifically to embarrass Constance, but we didn’t. We let her have her prom with her girlfriend and her tuxedo and we went to party it up in the “boondocks” not because we wanted her rights violated, but so we could salvage what has turned into a total fiasco.
As a whole we didn’t support her decision to throw the district under the bus, or her insinuations that we’re all just a bunch ‘a hicks driving around in beater pick up trucks spitting tobacco and burning crosses. IAHS is one of the top schools in the state and I’m proud of that, and I’m proud that we took a stand and just said you know what? forget it, we have just as much right as you do to have a party for ourselves. So we did, and now we’re getting flack because poor Connie’s ego got a bit of bruising. She’s playing the lesbian card to prove she ALWAYS gets what she wants. This time, we didn’t just let her.
Take it as you will, because I’m sure it sounds like we faked her out, but understand this- the decision NOT to attend prom had nothing to do with the school or with Constance’s sexual preferences; it had everything to do with proving we weren’t going to let her and the ACLU steamroll us into doing what Constance wanted. We flexed the muscle of the majority and we’ll suffer the consequences.

My initial reaction: Well damn!

My follow up reaction to my initial reaction: I can imagine all of this being said and written in reference to a black student.

Times have certainly changed.

It sounds like what he really meant to say was this:

We don’t hate gays, just the drama they bring when they try to fight for the same rights heterosexuals have. Not only are they attention seeking drama whores, they are whores by their very nature because the bible and our parents have told us so. We just wanted to lay low and have a private party without the drama seeking fags and retards trying to ruin everything. And we did. Now our school is getting even more negative attention than we ever imagined. We thought that by excluding the attention-whoring-lesbo everything would all go away and back to normal. All the lousy media and N00B ACLU would just disappear, but NOOOOOOOO! We didn’t want to embarrass her, but we wanted her to know just who runs things in this school and town. We do. We LET her have a prom with her girlfriend and we LET her wear a man’s suit too. Not only did we do all of this, we held our party on the bad end of town just so we wouldn’t feel as much guilt about LETTING Constance get her party on with the principal, teachers and a few other retards we didn’t want showing up.

Even though the school board made the terrible decision of canceling prom, we decided to blame Constance because we think her sexuality is disgusting, and she’s way annoying anyway. We have gone to school with her for the past 4 years, and we’ve allowed her to exist; that’s all she should be asking for anyway. It has nothing to do with gay people and their wanting equal rights and stuff. Damn gays and their wanting rights and stuff. Not in Itawamba; they won’t get them here. Even though it’s not something we should really be bragging about, we’re one of the top schools in the state of Mississippi. Can’t you tell by the civil way we handled this matter? We’re damn proud of it, too!

Well, gee, I guess that explains it all. It’s interesting to read into how young people can so easily view other young peoples activism, regardless of the cause, as drama. It’s also disappointing to see how easy it is for people to blame the victim. If fighting for ones rights comes off as attention seeking, so be it. I do think it’s interesting how people bury their unintended homophobia under other titles and beliefs or file those thoughts away under religion as if that alone is their saving grace. People want gays to be invisible. Just like it’s been since human beings first walked the earth, homosexuals aren’t going anywhere and we’re not going to up and disappear. Sorry to disappoint. There are too many heterosexuals having babies that will soon be gay for that to ever happen.

These kids will learn soon enough that just because they don’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s going away. If more gays, lesbians and regular people had the courage and bravery that Constance has displayed, we wouldn’t have to fight half as hard or half as long for our civil rights.

Here is the Itawamba School District’s contact info if you’d like to write them a letter:
Itawamba County School District 605 South Cummings Fulton, MS 38843

E-mail: itawambacountyschools.com

DADT’s Third Party Use And Abuse: The Case Of Jene Newsome

Knowledge — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:56:08 +0000

Sgt. Jene Newsome, the nine-year Air Force veteran, was discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell when police in South Dakota investigating her wife’s alleged crimes reported their marriage to Newsome’s commanding officers, via fax, on Nov. 24. Cops say they did it because Newsome was suspected of harboring a fugitive and was “very uncooperative.” Newsome says it was retaliation for refusing to help track down her wife. And now the police department is very, very sorry — but stop saying they did something wrong!

“It’s an emotional issue, and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” police chief Steve Allender said earlier. “It was a part of the case, part of the report, and the Air Force was privileged to the information.”

In a statement released Friday in conjunction with an internal report on the matter, he’s standing by that conclusion, but hey, the whole thing is regrettable! “There have been public accusations that the detective released the information regarding sexual orientation out of vengeance or for punitive effect. I cannot know what is in the hearts of people or what truly motivates them, but I am very concerned with how emotions, prejudices, political or religious views may affect the decisions made by not only our officers, but all people in government positions.”

Well that should help Newsome sleep well at night. What might also help her sleep? A cool $800,000, which is what Newsome’s attorneys at the ACLU are asking for from Mayor Alan Hanks and the Rapid City city council to compensate Newsome’s financial losses. (The request came a few hours before Chief Allender’s eight-page report.) Oh, and she also wants an apology, and a new police policy instituted barring the police from releasing information about anyone’s sexual orientation.

Which seems like a good enough idea, particularly because Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was enacted to protect gay and lesbian service members who keep quiet about their sexuality — a stupid rule that Newsome was actually following.

My Thoughts

For reasons like this one and so many other instances of discrimination on the job, I fully support the repeal of DADT. The policy is terrible for our military and it’s a dark mark on the conscious of one of the most advanced countries in the world. DADT functions under the pretense that gay soldiers are protected as long as they do not out themselves or cause any suspicion with regard to their sexuality. This often requires them to dodge questions relating to their personal life.

American soldiers receive top notch training and are paid to perform their duty with honor and distinction. We do our gay and lesbian service members a huge disservice by making them lie about who they are just so they can serve their country. Morality should never come at a cost, but this is what gay soldiers are subjected to every single day. They must lie to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, some of which they themselves have not yet fully attained.

Jene Newsome did not break the rules. She did not violate ‘don’t ask don’t tell’, the police in South Dakota did that for her. The rule is not only that gays are barred from serving, it’s that the military is restricted from using ‘any means possible’ type measures to reveal or disclose closeted service members. In exchange for this silence, the military cannot ask questions about ones sexual orientation, and gay and lesbian service members are not at liberty to say anything if or when they’re asked.

There have always been gays in the military and there will always be gays in the military. They have always fought for rights and freedoms that not even they fully have, and will continue doing so with pride and honor in service to ones country. The fact that the military listens to and considers third parties when addressing possible DADT violations is disheartening. The worst part is that those who snoop and tell, thus violating the hypocritical policy, go unpunished while brave soldiers are stripped of one of the very fabrics of their lives.

In the words of Lt. Dan Choi and Co. “Hey hey, ho ho, don’t ask don’t tell has got to go!” We”ll continue shouting it from the rooftops to the White House lawn as long as discrimination and masked homophobia are allowed to exist within the confines of these great United States.

ANN FOSTER, The Patriot-News

Mississippi School Denies Lesbian And Cancels Prom

Knowledge — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:04:09 +0000

According to Yahoo News, a high school in Mississippi cancelled its annual prom rather than allow 18 year old senior Constance McMillen to attend with her girlfriend who is also a student.

School board officials decided it was in their best interest to ruin prom for everyone rather than just Constance and her girlfriend. They have a right to cancel prom for any reason they deem pertinent or disruptive, but the lesson here seems to be that it is okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians now that racial discrimination is supposedly long gone.

The fact is they have no legal right to discriminate and it should not be occurring in a public school. The decision to cancel was a cowardly move that goes to show that this young woman has more courage and strength of mind than all the members of the school board combined.

The school board thought it fitting to cause and allow two young women to be ostracized because of its decision to cancel prom. They have no backbone or legal leg to stand on so they tried to weasel their way out of being forced to allow Ms. McMillen and girlfriend to attend. They are, in essence, discriminating against all of the students so they can get away with discriminating against one or two.

But that’s nothing new, right? This is Mississippi we’re talking about. The famously conservative yet poverty ridden, non-progressive state, where people still struggle to accept the fact that the south lost the Civil War. “Prom Night In Mississippi” should ring a few bells for any who had the displeasure of watching history repeat itself. It highlights actor Morgan Freeman’s efforts to integrate the Charleston, MS high school prom. You better believe there was a great amount of resistance from the parents and the school board. Not only was the prom integrated for the first time in decades, some white families still hosted a second, “white only” prom.

Some things change, but other things remain the same. See, you can pretend that you’re not racist just so you can appear to be Christian and god-fearing, but it’s a lot more difficult to pretend that you’re not homophobic while also trying to appear to be Christian and god-fearing.

I’m pretty sure I’ve learned a valuable lesson from this. Religion has once again made its way to the head of the school classroom where it doesn’t belong. I also learned that if you don’t want to allow someone to assert his or her rights, just punish everyone. Fair, right? It’s no wonder Mississippi and its one step behind neighbor Alabama consistently rank lowest among states in education nationwide. This cannot be a farce, but it’s not exactly an epidemic that’s only resigned to the southern half of the United States.

Prejudice and discrimination are prevalent in every state, city school and home. That’s where the fight begins. Perhaps Mississippi and Alabama should consider outsourcing school administrators and teachers as a way to alleviate the gross lack of intelligence and tolerance being spread like wild fire.

Thankfully, Constance has the backing of the ACLUon this issue. According to their website, they have filed a lawsuit against the high school today, asking the court to reinstate the prom for all students, and to allow Ms. McMillen to wear a tuxedo. The suit contends that the school trampled upon her first amendment rights by denying the use of a tuxedo and entry to the prom.

OXFORD, MS – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today against a Mississippi High School that has canceled prom rather than let a lesbian high school student attend the prom with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo to the event. In papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students at the school and charges Itawamba County School District officials are violating Constance McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

This isn’t the first time the ACLU has gone up against a flawed school system on behalf of an ostracized gay teen. What’s sad is the job of protector in the school setting should be that of the teachers and administrators. It’s too bad the school board has their heads stuck so far up their asses they don’t realize that they’ve cut off their nose to spite their face.

DADT Revisited: Gay Rights Criticisms Explored

Knowledge — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:29:45 +0000

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1z3_TlYfbQ[/youtube]

A fresh breath of cynicism is sometimes useful, but not in relation to granting American’s their civil liberties. With that said, I strongly agree with the president’s state of the union address regarding DADT, but only with the understanding that there exists no timeline on promises made. Unlike many others, I didn’t expect the important gay rights issues to be served with the first course, but perhaps, in politics, there should be a timeline if multiple promises are made in conjunction with vying to hold the highest office in the land. Consider that Democrats insisted Bush present a timeline when he initiated talk of withdrawing soldiers from Iraq. Therein lies somewhat of a precedent set by Obama’s own party. Politicians, no matter how smooth talking, acting, or walking are often held accountable for [insert cause here] on a [insert criteria here] basis based on what they say they can do, but that accountability doesn’t reach beyond the walls surrounding Capitol Hill. Any accountability to ‘we the people’ manifests itself at the polls; when it comes time to vote.

Accountability is a word that causes the quelling of discontent from all sides when put to action. But the reality is that President Obama has 3 solid years remaining in office and his accountability for unfulfilled promises has not extended beyond Capital Hill. Not yet, at least, and in all fairness I’m not ready to lambaste the president for any perceived shortcomings specifically due to the fact that he still has plenty of time to make good. Whether the next three years are productive or destructive is wholly dependent on the congressional atmosphere, i.e., congress’s political make up, President Obama’s wherewithal and the American people; you know, the ones who voted him into office. We all know that once an official is elected to a position of power all bets are off. There’s a bigger picture they’re exposed to that you or I will never have access to. What this means for the gay community is that we cannot rely on mere words and promises alone to defeat discrimination at the federal level. The longer we allow gay organizations to speak for us and represent us while criticizing their actions, without critiquing our own [in]action, then we remain nothing more than bystanders with opinions. The president can make promises he fully intends to keep, but we don’t help when we bite the hand that intends to feed us without allowing that hand as much room as necessary to put the smack down on those hindering progress. And what of the gay and lesbian organizations who lobby for us? They have their own political infrastructure and agendas to attend to that were implemented long before Obama started banking on new and old promises.

Gay organizations have been in existence from Republican to Democrat presidents. They haven’t stopped playing to a specific GLBT audience and to a specific brand of politics within that secret world so why all the angst against their pleasure or displeasure with a specific administration? If you don’t agree with their agenda, don’t support their cause. If you never supported their cause to begin with, why place them above any other “non-profit” that purports to have no real political agenda when that logic does not add up? The fact is these organizations are largely government funded and they give voice to reason and common decency on a general level, but beneath the surface they will not bite the hand that feeds them and risk restricting that federal funding. In essence, they refuse to do the very thing Religious organizations that enjoy major government tax breaks proudly do. When we grow weary of sitting around and doing nothing while they work toward their agenda (growing some balls), we call ourselves activists and find our voice, but only when it comes to a cause we deeply care about.

The carnival that makes up the primary branch of GLBT organizations or “Gay, Inc.”, as they’ve been dubbed, has succumbed to a dichotomy that has successfully divided the gay community over multiple issues for many years. The one I feel most strongly for concerns federal marriage equality. Same-sex couple’s and their estates are not federally protected as it relates to domestic partnerships and civil unions under federal law. There exists gay and lesbian lawmakers who do little to lend their powerful voice because they are, in effect, just as complacent as the bulk of us. Case in point; Barney Frank who is arguably one of the most powerful members of congress, would rather we stop complaining federally and start writing our congressmen and women locally and lobbying on a state level instead. Personally, I view Mr. Frank as a waste of political breathing space due largely to his direct role in our economic downfall, but he has provided a good point about just what it takes to get things down in Washington. He is well known in gay political circles as ‘the gay asshole’ that discourages gays from protesting, most notably the 2009 march on Washington. On the other hand, he’s done practically nothing to advance the gay “agenda” from where he’s sitting, and I meanhe has yet to really step up and lobby for gay equality. The good thing about Barney Frank being an openly gay, powerful congressman is… on second thought, I’ll get back to you when I have something positive to write. That’s why I dislike announcements such as “the first openly [insert sexual identifier here] was just hired, yada yada yada, because all it’s a facade.

The encouragement to lobby strictly statewide speaks to other issues that remain in jeopardy if the fight remains mostly or only at the state level. In particular, federal discrimination will persist as the state by state fight rages on, and at the same time gays and lessbians still won’t be afforded any federal allowances, benefits or protections as it relates to marriage, adoption and employer benefits. This vicious circle is a cycle of regurgitated nothing.

Despite that, it makes little sense to criticize gay organizations for playing politics as usual; until it comes to a cause we hold dear to our hearts. Why do we do nothing the remainder of the time? Because we don’t care about those issues. We’re all guilty of it. What hasn’t happened, but needs to happen, is mass mobilization. We can compare the fight for equality to the fight for civil rights until the cows come home, but we haven’t properly fashioned our movement or borrowed from some of the best sources of political warfare, and unlike those involved in the civil rights movement, we’re fighting against not only a political agenda, but a religious one as well. Think about the fact that most of our opposition is derived from biblical interpretation and religious doctrine.

Like the civil rights movers and shakers of yesteryear, the gay community must collectively mobilize as a majority to get the message of equality spread and passed federally. Instead of criticizing gay organizations for not being tougher on the president with regard to promises made, we need to criticize them for placating the gay community and not addressing all of the pressing issues of our time which can be met without much of any political fanfare. They’ve done little to reach out to the larger community, specifically gays and lesbians who live, work and thrive in urban enclaves and those who are rightly considered double and triple minorities, i.e., Black/Hispanic/Asian, gay, men and women.

There is a strikingly potent element of cultural diversity that exists and is widely underrepresented within discussions about socio-cultural and socio-economic issues affecting the community. This is on a national and international level and that lack of representation; the lack of diversity within the most visible voices the community has to offer is noticeable and alarming. This translates into lobbying for LGBTQ initiatives that will rightly impact the community at large, but it also shifts focus from equally important, smaller, wide scale social and economic divides and deprives attention from issues such as violence against gay youth, youth homelessness, same-sex domestic violence, etc., and further widens a VISIBLE gap that exists within the gay community. How can we collectively fight for equal rights when we know for certain that there exists things such as racism within our own gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual communities? We cannot.

We must provide a positive and reinforcing message to the country and to our legislatures that says we will collectively support the president’s efforts to strike down “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and will work with him to accomplish this long awaited goal. I won’t get into my thoughts about health care and the president’s shortcomings so far because that is certainly an issue for another day, but we shouldn’t support the hijacking of our own message of equality and unity by joining conservative dissent and dissent from within our own ranks about the granting of rights. There is nothing stopping us from putting a positive spin on a negative situation while also expressly showing how much we care about this issue and will support the only president besides Clinton to give credibility to equal rights for gays. If he can accomplish this without bending over backwards for the church, he’ll rank in a class all by himself, as presidents go.

Here’s what you can do to make a difference in your community. Write regularly to your Representatives and Senators if you’re able to. When writing letters or sending e-mail, do so in a way that lends credibility to your request, i.e., in a professional manner. Ask your representative to support equal rights for gays. If there’s a particular bill on the ballot, include the title and number, and ask your representative to vote in a way that best reflects your thoughts. Doing so is an effective means to independently lobby for causes we’re passionate about while collectively making a difference in our community. Writing letters and sending e-mails are far more effective than any other non-judicial iniatives currently underway.

image by Unwanted__by_DetrimentalMemories

Gay Rights And Civil Rights

Knowledge — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:49:29 +0000

I was reading a post over at The Rainbow Room today and came across a subject I’ve been meaning to write about, but have been putting off for some time. The post gave me just the boost I needed. I’m only disappointed that I’m not able to add more to it, but for now, a “short” yet long-overdue tribute is in play.

People often draw parallels between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement and I’m no exception. Such a declaration is usually followed by rejection or outright indignation over making such a comparison by those in heartfelt disagreement. Yet, most people have no idea that one of most important men in the history of the fight for black civil rights in America was an openly gay man, and one of Martin Luther King Jr’s top advisors.

His name is Bayard Rustin. He was admired and respected for his passion and non-violent spirit, which was key in revamping the way Dr. King would go on to fight against racism, discrimination, and prejudice in America. Rustin’s homosexuality was accepted among his colleagues and those close to the movement as long as it remained invisible. His most difficult times during the struggle would come on the heels of blackmail and threats used against him as a result of his sexuality. There are instances where his colleagues were forced to choose between defending him or tossing him aside at the risk of being connected in any way to homosexuality.

This did not deter his efforts, instead it emboldened him to keep up the fight for black civil rights until they were fully granted. He refused to allow his sexuality to be used as a catalyst against himself, although he did understand why others were not willing to openly defend him because of it. For Rustin, that was a fight for another decade..

His magnetic personality and tireless work as an openly gay civil rights activist came as a blessing and a curse due to the times. Although Rustin didn’t shift his focus onto the gay rights movement until 1983, he will forever be remembered in history as a proponent of non-violence, tireless advocacy, and for having a fighting spirit that continues to live on through his surviving partner and the numerous advocacy organizations fostered in his name.

Indeed, if you want to know whether today people believe in democracy if you want to know whether they are true democrats, if you want to know whether they are human rights activists, the question to ask is, ‘What about gay people’? Because that is now the litmus paper by which this democracy is to be judged. The barometer for social change is measured by selecting the group that is most mistreated. To determine where society is with respect to change, one does not ask, ‘What do you think about the education of children’? Nor does one ask, ‘Do you believe the aged should have Social Security’. The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people. – Bayard Rustin

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PBKMZuRbsI[/youtube]

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Knowledge — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:11:52 +0000

In 1951 the US military declared homosexuality an unacceptable risk and dishonorably discharged about 2,000 men and women. With that said, gay and lesbian soldiers have come a long way in gaining some acceptance and openness in the military. But is it enough?

The gay marriage debate has caused me to reflect on so many other issues currently affecting the community. Although President Obama has not followed in Clinton’s footsteps by showing any interest in reevaluating “don’t ask, don’t tell” it wasn’t any less of a hot topic for social conservatives during the 2008 presidential primary. The focus on the economy has been a driving force and primary topic of focus as of late, but with the gay marriage debate heating up daily and changing public opinion, this particular debate looms in the distance. As the fight for gay marriage picks up steam, gays and lesbians are constantly on alert about their sexuality and behavior while serving domestically and overseas. I consider Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a legislative band aid to a problem that must be addressed in the near future due to pressure from the political right-wing, and some supposed liberals as well. For now, it’s taken a backseat to gay marriage.

I suspect that with changing attitudes about gays and lesbians being allowed to serve starting back in the early 2000s, the biggest deterrent to openly serving is the fact that it opens the doors for other civil rights and liberties to be requested and granted, and quite possibly all of them. It’s also a point of contention that the government is allowed to openly discriminate, while also affording certain protections to those facing that discrimination. And as much as some staunch civil rights proponents wish to contend that the fight for gay rights is nothing like the black plight, these battles share similar arguments for and against. When the military began integrating blacks into the core, some of the same arguments were voiced and subsequently put to rest or shown as being based on nothing factual and mostly out of fear of inclusion.

Opponents of openly serving: Straight men who do not like to be objectified and more importantly objectified sexually.

Well, who does? And what makes them think that every gay male would want them sexually anyway.

Opponents: Sexual harassment complaints would rise.

There are already many rules and regulations in place to govern how soldiers must behave and the code of professionalism is non-discriminatory. Does it mean that all the sexual harassment complains currently lodged against mostly heterosexual men are only happening because they are allowed to be openly straight? Improper sexual advances are not acceptable in any setting as the rules apply to everyone.

Opponents: Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will ruin the good order of the military.

It was one of the same arguments used against Blacks integrating, along with the criticisms that they couldn’t see at night or swim. And it’s the same argument against women being deployed to forward operations units overseas. In each of those occurrences the military did not collapse, fall apart or descend into utter chaos once these discriminatory practices were overturned. When a soldier pays with his life in his duty of serving his country and protecting our freedom, his sexual orientation doesn’t and shouldn’t matter to any extent. His body of work is based on how he lived life above all else, not his sexual preference. I believe that fighting for ones country against many odds is an act of courage. I have respect for what you’ve done regardless of your reasons. I firmly believe that gays and lesbians should be able to openly serve in the US military. What are your thoughts?