ProudlyOut

Across the Great Divide

There are some in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community who are uncomfortable with the fact that Barack Obama is reaching out to Evangelical Christians. How could he break bread—literally and metaphorically—with people who hate us? Doesn’t that mean he hates us too?

The answer is no. It’s time for the LGBT community’s penchant for “guilt by association” politics to go by the wayside. If Obama can bring a new brand of politics to America, why can’t we do the same for our own community?

The fact that Obama is reaching out to some in the Radical Christian Right and others who just consider themselves Evangelical is actually a stroke of political genius. In the past year or so, we’ve seen the goose step agendas of folks like Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council turn into a mosh pit of Christian politics.

The voting age kids of Radical Christian Right voters who put George Bush into office aren’t so enamored with the narrow minded politics of their parents. The likes of Dobson and Perkins are painting themselves into a smaller and smaller corner because they can’t seem to see that there are other issues—besides abortion and same-sex marriage—that concern their Christian constituencies.

We’re seeing Christians of all persuasions concerned with global warming and the environment, with health care, with poverty, with the war . . .  we’re seeing Christians of all persuasions recognizing that they can no longer afford to be defined by two issues in a world that needs careful thought and action to save it from itself.

And, we see Obama recognizing the trend and taking advantage of this shift. Why shouldn’t he? He wants to get elected and that won’t happen unless he builds a broad coalition of voters. That broad coalition must run the gamut from conservative Christians to progressive queers if we’re to be successful in November and change the direction of our country.

But, just because Obama is meeting with folks from the Radical Christian Right doesn’t mean he agrees with them. In fact, he’s more than willing to do what no other candidate has yet to do—call James Dobson out on the carpet for his narrow-minded, my way or the highway interpretation of the Bible.

This past Tuesday, Dobson aired a segment on his radio program that gave his personal dissection of a 2006 speech Obama gave to Call for Renewal, a progressive Christian organization. In that speech, Obama said that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, that our country is not a Christian theocracy and that political agendas, even if they are firmly rooted in religious beliefs, must use moral arguments rather than religious arguments to win the day.

Sounds pretty pluralistic to me. Perhaps that’s what got Dobson’s goat launching a diatribe that misrepresented  Obama’s words saying the candidate was “deliberately distorting the Bible,” “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter,” “willfully trying to confuse people,” and that Obama has a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

Like the one brave kid who’s not afraid of the playground bully, Obama shot right back and said Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the candidate of distorting the Bible. Obama went on to say that people of faith, of which he considers himself one, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.”

Throughout the campaign, Obama has shown a fearlessness rooted in a political savvy that we haven’t seen in this country since Roosevelt. He has deftly weakened John McCain’s ability to attack by telling the public what McCain will attack him on. He’s reached out to constituencies and states that are traditional Republican strongholds—not to draw all those votes but enough of them to build a voting bloc that will mean victory in November. He has stood up to the Radical Christian Right’s playground bully and, in turn, is changing the rules of discourse within the religious community.

It’s time to heal the wounds that the Dobsons of this country have inflicted upon our citizenry. It’s time for all us—gay and straight, black and white, Jewish, Christian and Muslim—to take a giant step across the great divide that has become our country and bring us back to where guilt by association is a children’s game and the adults among us understand how important it is to find our common bonds.

Winning and Losing

There’s so much to write about this week.

Should I give you my take on the Mets’ unseemly firing of Willie Randolph? Should I shift my focus to November when we must go into the Presidential election without the late, great Tim Russert and his white board? And when the legality of all those new same-sex marriages in California will be up for grabs because of a ballot initiative to amend us out of a currently inclusive state constitution?

Well, since I know a lot more about LGBT issues and politics than I do about baseball permit me to say that I’m disappointed that the Mets let Randolph go. His calm elegance in the face of recent baseball hysteria set a good example for players and managers alike. I was happy that at least one of New York’s two Major League teams finally had an African-American manager. And, let’s face it, the Mets did better with him as manager than they had in quite a while.

Unfortunately the old adage of sportsman-like conduct, “it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game” just isn’t cutting it anymore. As goes baseball, so does our other national pastime—politics. It’s no longer about statesmanship and bipartisan honor—we’re far from that these days. Now, politics is just about winning at all costs.

What we’re about to see in the upcoming presidential election will make all other races pale in comparison—that’s why it would have been so good to have Tim Russert around. He had a way of getting to the heart of matters at hand and in the last few years, didn’t shy from asking presidential contenders their views on LGBT issues, most specifically same-sex marriage.

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on LGBT concerns is stark. Obama is supportive on all our issues except for same-sex marriage. He does support civil unions and providing us with the same rights and responsibilities as straight, married couples. I think he understands the “rose by any other name” dilemma he’s in but the bottom line is he wants to get elected and same-sex marriage isn’t the issue to run on.

McCain on the other hand is not supportive of our issues despite what the Log Cabin Republicans say. For those of you who don’t know, Log Cabin Republicans are Gay Republicans—yes, Virginia, there are Gay Republicans and they mainly vote their pocketbook not their personal well being. While they haven’t endorsed him yet, Log Cabin features McCain prominently on their website and talks about how the Senator has a long, friendly relationship with the organization and that he’s even met gay and lesbian Republicans.

We all know that in the rough and tumble world of politics, warm and fuzzy does not cut it. McCain is no friend to the LGBT community. He’s against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Matthew Shephard Act also known as the national hate crimes bill. He’s for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and supports the ballot initiative in his own state this November to ban same-sex marriage. He does not support civil unions or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. With friends like John McCain, we know who our enemies really are.

But, that’s not all. McCain is also bad for our health. He has flip-flopped so many times on Roe v. Wade that we have to go with his February 2007 Associated Press quote when he said the right to reproductive freedom should be overturned. He also supports S. Dakota’s law that outlaws all abortions, even for those pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest.

Like most anti-choice politicians, he’d rather see women barefoot and pregnant. Perhaps that’s why he opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies and opposes legislation that would mandate abstinence-only programs to be medically accurate and scientifically based. He opposes requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and supports the “global gag rule” that bars foreign non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization uses its own money to provide abortion services, information or advocacy on behalf of pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

The Mets may not have Willie Randolph’s calm competency and Meet the Press will never be the same without the passion and diligence of Tim Russert, but one thing is for sure—winning IS everything in this presidential election because we all have a lot to lose if John McCain gives Bush a third term.

Urgent Marriage Alert

Just when you thought it was safe to board a flight to California to say “I do” the Radical Christian Right wing nuts have come out of their closet with threats of lawsuits and radio attack ads.

Reaching a quick fever pitch with an “Urgent Marriage Alert,” the National Organization for Marriage has an ad running on a local talk radio across New York. It starts with “Grandma, my teacher says if grandpa was a girl it’s okay, you can still be married . . .”  A young girl contends that Adam and Eve and, essentially, God, are old-fashioned and a boy asks if Dad married a man, who would be his mom?

The announcer then steps in with an “Urgent Marriage Alert”—likes there’s a weather-system of same-sex marriage spreading across the nation undermining every straight married couple out there. He tells listeners that New York Governor David Paterson “just ordered state officials to use our tax dollars to help same sex couples evade New York’s marriage laws.”

Well, the last time I looked, my partner and I paid our taxes just like every one else--so, some of that hard-earned tax money comes from the LGBT community.

We don’t evade our taxes and we’re certainly not trying to evade the marriage laws as the ad contends. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be fighting for our right to get married. In fact, we’re trying to invade the law so that we’re part of it. And, if it takes the executive order of a progressive governor for us to get our foot in the door of marriage here in New York then so be it.

However, whipping up a bit of same-sex marriage hysteria on the radio waves isn’t enough for these folks. Arising from Arizona like the Darth Vader of the Christian Right comes the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal wrongs group, which will sue Governor Paterson for what they consider to be his sidestepping of the legislature.

They contend legalizing same-sex marriage is the purview of the legislature since the Court of Appeals threw it back to our two houses in its legal decision a few years back. Well folks, the governor hasn’t with a stroke of a pen legalized same sex marriage here in New York. Lynn and I can’t walk into our local clerk’s office and get a marriage license. The “I do’s” we say here are not legally binding.

All Governor Paterson has done is bring the rest of state law into compliance with a recent appellate division ruling that says the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. That’s a lot different than saying gays and lesbians can walk down the aisle legally in New York.

But given the state’s dire fiscal predicament, our elected officials may want to take a second look at passing New York’s legislation. Well actually, the Assembly looked at the bill and passed it and Governor Paterson is ready to sign it. The hold up is in the State Senate.

But back to our state’s budget deficit—legalizing same-sex marriage would be a windfall for state coffers and local economies. But instead of NY cashing in, California is expected to clean up.

A recent study by the Williams Institute, the foremost LGBT think tank which calls the UCLA Law School its home, predicts that same-sex marriages in the Golden State will bring nearly $700 million to the California wedding industry and pump almost $65 million in new revenue into the state coffers over the next three years. That money, according to the study, will come from the over 50,000 California same-sex couples and nearly  70,000 out of state lesbian or gay couples who will get married there. Not only will revenue increase for the public and private sectors but all those nuptials are likely to create and sustain over 2,100 jobs in California.

How about kick-starting the nation’s sagging economy? A recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that if all 50 states and the federal government recognized same-sex marriage, our weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry.

Here’s the real Urgent Marriage Alert—same-sex marriage isn’t a threat to hets. It’s a good thing--for us, for our families, for our economy and for our country.

1,324 Reasons to Say “I Do”

Well I’m not about to break out into song with “Get Me to the Church—uh actually, Synagogue—On Time” but New York Governor David Paterson’a recent directive to state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions has gotten my toe tapping.

My partner, Lynn, and I have always said that when same-sex marriage is legal in New York State that’s when we’ll get married. Our concern has always been getting all the rights and responsibilities we’re due—like filing our state taxes jointly or having unfettered access to one another when either of us is in a hospital or another type of care facility.

After being together for 13 years—our anniversary is in a few weeks—we already consider ourselves married. Both of our names are on our mortgage and house insurance, we’ve named each other in our health care proxies and our wills, we wake up in the same bed each morning and we’ve raised a son together with his father and step-mother who has turned out to be a real mensch. If that’s not married, I don’t know what is—except, of course, for all the legal stuff that straight folks take for granted.

But now, despite the fact that we can’t say “I Do” legally in New York, our governor has decided to do all he can to pave the way for marriage equality in the Empire State. On May 14th, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed all state agencies that same-sex couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

There are 1,324 statues and regulations in New York State that will be affected. They run the gamut from the very serious such as filing our tax returns jointly to being eligible for workers compensation death benefits and immunity from having to testify against a spouse in court to the more recreational such as transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

If you want a full run down of all the rights and responsibilities us same-sex couples are missing, go to the Empire State Pride Agenda’s website, www.prideagenda.org and click the red box entitled “1,324 Reasons for Marriage Equality in New York State.” You’ll download a 108 page report co-authored by the Pride Agenda and the New York City Bar Association detailing exactly what, up to this point, we haven’t been entitled to because we can’t get married. But with Governor Paterson’s order, same-sex couples who marry in Canada or California will soon be able to afford themselves of those rights and responsibilities. Only same-sex couples who are legal residents of Massachusetts can actually get married there so lesbian and gay New Yorkers must either go north or west to tie the knot.

When Governor Paterson sent a videotaped message to the Pride Agenda’s annual spring dinner in Rochester on May 17th, he described his action as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” What his action has done is move New York closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions.

Last year, then Governor Eliot Spitzer introduced his own program bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. That bill was passed by the New York State Assembly 85-61. The State Senate never took action on the bill. Whether the bill will come up for a vote again this year still remains to be seen but when it passes both houses Paterson is ready to take his pen and sign it into law. I don’t think that will happen this year but it is a distinct possibility after this fall’s presidential race.

No matter who the Democratic presidential nominee is, New York State will vote democratic. With an expected landslide on the D side of the voting machines and the New York State Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in better shape than it’s ever been, we just may see the Democrats take control of the State Senate. With both the Assembly and the Senate in Democratic hands and Governor Paterson in the executive’s seat, it is quite likely that New York will legalize same-sex marriage in the next few years.

So our dilemma is . . . should we wait until it’s really real in New York State or find our way to California beginning June 17th  when same sex couples can start marrying there? Lynn’s cousin has already offered her home outside of LA and Disneyland as a honeymoon destination is quite appealing—at least to me. I won’t start singing but perhaps humming the Lerner and Loewe classic may just be the right note to hit!

Life and Death

It’s hard enough to be sick in a hospital. Now imagine you’re there and the one you share your life with is deliberately left out of medical decision making or even barred from visiting.

Not a problem for married heterosexuals but a big problem for lesbian and gay couples. Because our relationships are not legally recognized in most of our fifty states, lesbians and gays can find themselves in legal limbo when it comes to protecting the health and well being of our loved ones—and not just our partners but our children as well.

Just ask Kenneth Johnson, an attorney who lived with his partner, James Massey and their adopted son, in Virginia. When they lived in California, they had legally registered as domestic partners.

In 2006, Massey was rushed unconscious to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C.  Because their relationship was not legal, Johnson had to go back home to retrieve documents—like a medical power of attorney or a health care proxy—before the hospital would allow him to make medical decisions on the part of his life partner. Instead of being able to just be with his partner, unencumbered from the red tape and homophobia, Johnson had to fight for his rights as James slipped away. He died the following day. 

These are the stories of our lives. In most states, second parent adoptions are not the norm so when two gay men adopt a child only one has the bone fide legal relationship, only one can legally make healthcare decisions despite the fact that both are equally committed to raising the child.

The Human Rights Campaign in partnership with the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association have embarked on an ambitious project to help alleviate the pain and frustration we must endure in healthcare settings because our relationships are devalued or because as individuals we are devalued because of who we love.

HRC’s new project is called the Healthcare Equality Index, HEI for short. Similar to its Corporate Equality Index which over the years has had a substantial impact on the employment practices of Fortune 500 companies, the HEI seeks to determine how well our hospitals treat lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

All hospitals and hospital systems in the United States were invited to participate in an online survey which focused on five healthcare policy areas—patient non-discrimination, hospital visitation, decision making, cultural competency training for hospital staff and hospital employment practices. Only 88 hospitals or systems participated. 45 responded positively to each of the 10 LGBT specific survey questions.

So what were these questions? They were quite simple really. Did the hospital’s patient bill of rights or non-discrimination policy include sexual orientation or gender identity? Did the hospital’s written visitation policy allow LGBT domestic partners the same access as heterosexual spouses and next of kin? Did same-sex parents have the same access to their children as opposite sex parents? Did the hospital have a policy recognizing the ability of same-sex partners to make healthcare decisions for one another or same-sex parents for their kids? When the hospitals’ staff gets trained does that training include cultural competency on LGBT patients and their families? Did the hospitals’ own non-discrimination policies include sexual orientation and gender identity? Did the hospital offer domestic partner benefits?

These are important questions to ask. But they’re questions you don’t want to have to think about when you or a loved one is suddenly a patient. You just want to know you’re going to get the best healthcare possible regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity.

While only a handful of hospitals responded to the survey, it is an important first step in advancing these policy issues in our nation’s hospitals. When the Corporate Equality Index began, only 13 Fortune 500 companies received a perfect score. By 2008 the number had increased to195. I expect that as word of the Healthcare Equality Index gets out, more LGBT hospital employees will talk to their CEOs about it and, in turn, the CEOs will talk to each other and before we know it hundreds of hospitals will be answering all the questions correctly.

The Healthcare Equality Index defines ten easy steps to start making the healthcare system inclusive for LGBT families. With all that’s wrong with our healthcare system, I would hope that hospitals would jump at the opportunity to adopt a common sense, low-cost alternative that heals wounds of a different kind.

Spinning Wheels

I’m not a big game show watcher. But I do know that you get to spin big wheels on The Price is Right and Wheel of Fortune. Sometimes you hit the jackpot, sometimes you land in a good spot and sometimes you get skunked.

And, that’s exactly what it’s like fighting for lesbian and gay marriage equality. With three spins of the wheel this week, we landed in two decent spots and got skunked once.

Out in California, while folks are waiting on pins and needles for the state’s highest court to decide on the legality of same sex marriage, the state’s Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that that when it comes to believing you were in a registered domestic partnership you have the same rights and responsibilities as straights who thought they were legally married.

It seems that Darrin Ellis thought that his ex-partner had sent in the fully completed, signed and notarized paperwork of their domestic partnership to California’s Secretary of State. He trusted his ex, David Arriaga--a common mistake.

It turns out Arriaga never mailed it in. When Ellis went to legally dissolve the partnership and get the assets from the relationship he thought he was legally entitled to, he found that the domestic partnership he thought he had never legally existed. Arriaga, on the other hand, asked the trial court handling the dissolution to dismiss it because the couple’s relationship was never legally recognized. The trial court complied and that’s when Ellis reached out to Lambda Legal, the nation’s largest LGBT legal rights organization.

Tara Borelli, Lambda’s staff attorney handling the case, argued that AB 205, California’s domestic partner law, gives same-sex couples the same protection under the state’s “putative spouse doctrine” as people in heterosexual relationships who believed they were married only to find out later that their marriage was not valid.

In what I can best describe as a back-handed complement, the Court of Appeal agreed with Lambda’s argument saying jilted same-sex partners who were hoodwinked should be treated the same as jilted common law wives and husbands.

I know this is definitely a step forward but I feel like my spinning game show wheel landed on $50 instead of $5 million. When I spoke with Borelli she told me that the separate and unequal system of domestic partnerships “simply isn’t going to be enough to help same sex couples. We’ll have to go to court over and over again for legal patch jobs to get the system to work.”

Fly across the country to New York State and another legal spin of the same-sex marriage wheel said that if we’re legally married in any other jurisdiction, say Canada or Massachusetts, we have to be treated as married in the Empire State.

Living in Rochester, Patricia Martinez and her partner Lisa Ann Golden went to Vermont for a civil union in 2001 and then to Canada to actually tie the knot in 2004. Martinez, who works for Monroe Community College as a word processing supervisor, wanted to add Golden to her health insurance policy. The college refused because health benefits for domestic partners were not included in the contract the Civil Service Employees Association had negotiated for its members. That has since been rectified.

However, before the contract negotiations began Martinez sued. In August 2006, the State Supreme Court agreed with the College because, as Justice Harold Galloway wrote, the state legislature “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman.” Martinez appealed and the appellate judges who heard the case overturned Galloway saying that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of same-sex marriage and that those legal marriages, like Martinez and Golden’s, must be recognized as such. This week, the Court of Appeals, our highest court, refused to hear the College’s appeal.

Spin the wheel one more time, land on Michigan and the news isn’t good. Because that state’s ban on same-sex marriage was written so punitively, the state Supreme Court ruled that local governments and state universities there can not offer health insurance to the partners of gay or lesbian workers.

This is the legal merry-go-round lesbians and gays live with day in and day out. Some days we spin the wheel and win. Some days, we don’t. We’re forced to take a patchwork approach because we’re seen as second class citizens. But we’ll keep spinning our wheels until we hit the jackpot--liberty and justice for all.

Jersey Scores

We’ll be in New Jersey next week for a mix of business and pleasure and I couldn’t be happier.

At the Jersey shore to speak at the state’s Library Association’s annual convention, Lynn and I will also spend a few days relaxing—long overdue after an incredibly intense first four months of the year.

I’m looking forward to just looking at the ocean and possibly sticking my toes in if the water isn’t freezing. I’m also looking forward to spending a few days in what could be considered the most LGBT-friendly state in the nation. Yes my friends, Jersey has attained that lavender-tinted gold star.

In addition to already having a statewide non-discrimination bill, a hate crimes bill and a civil union bill, this year the New Jersey legislature passed three more pieces of significant legislation.

One is an anti-bullying bill which requires schools to be more active in addressing harassment, including the kind of bullying LGBT students might face. This kind of legislation is absolutely necessary if we are to provide our kids with an educational environment that is conducive to learning and intolerant of intolerance.

The nation saw in sharp detail how not addressing anti-LGBT sentiment in schools can lead to tragedy when 15-year old Larry King was killed by Brandon McInerney, a 14-year old classmate, because of King’s sexual orientation and gender expression. Gay and flamboyant at 15, King told McInerney that he liked him. The next day, McInereney brought a gun to school and shot King in the head.

King was the victim of hate and homophobia. But, so is McInerney. If our schools taught openly and affirmingly about LGBT people and culture and had a zero-tolerance policy for bullying, LGBT students throughout the country who are harassed or worse because of their sexual orientation and gender expression would have a very different experience in school. If Brandon McInerney was taught about respecting differences instead of fearing them, he might not be looking at a life in jail.

With this new legislation, hopefully LGBT and straight students in New Jersey will have an educational climate that values diversity. Imagine growing up in a school setting where bullying is the exception rather than the rule, where kids actually understand what respecting each other means and where differences are praised instead of pilloried.

The second piece of legislation that passed in New Jersey this year was an amendment to the state’s hate crimes law to include transgender people. With violence against the trans community on the rise and the recent publicity surrounding Thomas Beattie, a transman who is still biologically a woman and is carrying a baby for him and his legally wed wife, protecting the transgender community against hate crime is an absolute necessity.

Beattie’s pregnancy brings the transgender community into a spotlight it hasn’t been in since Richard Raskin became Renee Richards in 1975. A headline story in People Magazine, a segment on Oprah and media attention across the country has led to a firestorm of trans-bashing by pundits and shock jocks alike. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and his compatriots Mika Brzezinski and Wilie Geist profiled the story during a “News You Can’t Use” segment of Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” show. Between the “ewws” and “that’s disgusting,” they sounded like a bunch of adolescents who could benefit from Jersey’s anti-bullying law. What’s worse is that Scarborough showed his innate homophobia by saying that one of former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey’s aides probably supplied the sperm needed for Beattie to become pregnant.

When supposed reputable journalists like Scarborough who have a national audience make these kind of comments, it gives license to those who are totally ignorant about transgender people to act on their fear. I’m sure we’ll see an increase in hate crimes against the trans community—thankfully in New Jersey they’ll be prosecuted more vigilantly because of that state’s new law.

The Garden State is also on the precipice of passing same-sex marriage legislation. But before it does that, Governor Corzine is about to sign a bill that will provide paid family leave for gay employees who have to take care of their partners. The only other state in the nation to provide that kind of protection is California. You’d think Massachusetts would since we can get married there but that’s not the case.

So when I curl my toes in the sand on the Jersey shore next week, my feet will be firmly planted in the one state that leads the nation in advancing LGBT rights. I won’t be shaking that sand out of my shoes anytime soon.

Feel the Love

Today is Valentine’s Day. My partner Lynn and I can tell each all day long how much we mean to each other, that we love each other, that we’re committed to each other for the long haul. But, the two words we can’t say in any legally binding way are “I do.”

I turn fifty next week and I’d really like to be able to get married to the person I love before we’re both too old to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that come with legal marriage.

With the Presidential race dominating our collective consciousness, we need to watch out for stealth campaigns to make marriage equality a wedge issue in various states. Now, these may be states that will go to the Republican candidate anyway—like Arizona which is quite likely to vote for its favorite son, John McCain.

Lawmakers there want to put a constitutional ban on marriage equality on the ballot even after a similar measure was defeated by the voters in November of 2006. The new bill, however, isn’t an exact copy of the old. Arizona’s marriage equality opponents learned a thing or two from their earlier defeat. The proposal they’re floating for approval won’t ban the recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Arizona voters in 2006 felt banning all three—marriage equality, civil unions and domestic partnerships—was just a bit to punitive. We’ll see if those same voters want to codify marriage as being purely in the heterosexual realm.

The same can’t be said about the straight only marriage advocates in Florida. After four years of collecting signatures, Florida4Marriage managed to get 649,346 signatures to put their Marriage Protection Amendment on November’s ballot. This is a bill that would not only ban lesbians and gay men from marrying but would also deny us domestic partnerships and civil unions. Basically—we’re worthless in the eyes of Florida’s Radical Christian Right.

However, if there was ever a state where marriage equality could become a wedge issue for the Presidential race it’s Florida. And as we all know, winning Florida is key to winning the White House.

But this being Valentine’s Day and all—why don’t we focus on the love.

In Maryland, marriage equality activists have been lobbying their state legislature furiously and now think they’re close to have the necessary votes to pass a bill. The first hearing on the legislation legalizing same-sex marriage is being held today, Valentine’s Day. I think that’s fitting.

Then there’s Marla Spivak a student at Choate Rosemary Hall, a private prep school in Connecticut. Karl Rove was there. Spivak and Rove had an animated dialogue which ended with the student invoking the Constitution saying its reference to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” supported marriage equality. Rove just blathered on about polygamy. Go Marla.

To make sure we really feel the love, my favorite non-presidential candidate, Al Gore, recently posted a video blog on his Current TV website. In just a few seconds, Gore made it clear he wasn’t going to get into the race—he came out in favor of marriage equality.

He said “I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians.”

Gore went on to talk about the importance of promoting faithfulness and loyalty regardless of sexual orientation otherwise one is simply promoting promiscuity. He ended by saying “All the loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged, and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.”

Finally, a straight national political leader who is respected in the international arena has the courage to stop dancing around this issue. Unlike his plans for Social Security during the 2000 race, he doesn’t want to put us and our relationships in a lock box. Instead, he wants all of us to show our love and affection for our partners just the way he and Tipper showed all of us what they mean to each other on national TV when he accepted the Democratic nomination for President eight years ago.

With any luck, Al Gore might be able to do for marriage equality what he’s done for global warming.

Primary Choices

So the day every political junkie has been waiting for is just around the corner—Super Tuesday is this coming Tuesday, February 5th.

For those of us who have doggedly tracked this protracted presidential race, Super Tuesday is the mother lode of primaries. Democrats in 22 states and Republicans in 21 will choose their candidates.

This year-long roller coaster ride of democracy has treated us to a panoply of candidates that span the political spectrum. But as Super Tuesday approaches our choices have been slashed and for some hopes dashed.

New York’s Republicans are denied their favorite son because Rudy Guiliani denied good political advice. His Florida-only strategy backfired. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee may or may not stick around after Tuesday but for all intents and purposes the Republican race is now between John McCain and Mitt Romney.

When the race started, my favorite Dem was John Edwards—I really don’t care how much he spends on a haircut. I liked what he had to say. I liked his dedication to his wife and family. I liked that as a southern Democrat he gave the Republicans agita. But as the race heated up, his candidacy didn’t.

So the burning question now is who am I going to vote for on Tuesday?

Well, I have never been more conflicted in my life. My internal flip flopping between Clinton and Obama makes Mitt Romney look like steady Eddie.

As far as lesbian and gay issues are concerned, I know we can count on either Clinton or Obama to do the right thing. With either of them in the White House, the eight years of homophobia that has become a trademark of the Bush presidency will end. Assuming that the Democrats maintain and expand their majorities in both the House and Senate, we’ll see either President Clinton or President Obama signing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Matthew Shepard Act and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Those events will be the beginning of what could be a golden age for LGBT issues in America.

But, what about Super Tuesday?

I like Hillary Clinton. She’s done a good job as one of our U.S. Senators. She’s intelligent, understands the intricacies of U.S. policy both abroad and at home and has a personal fortitude that has withstood political and personal firestorm after firestorm. She welcomes challenges. She’s not afraid of anything.

Letting down her guard just a bit in New Hampshire showed the country that there’s an emotional core to this woman. Opening up that window let us all know that she’s just like the rest of us—human.

It may surprise some of you that behind this hard, political exterior of mine there’s a political idealist defining my views.

After eight years of cynicism and lies, I really want to believe in our country again. You have no idea how deep this desire is. I’m one of those kids Caroline Kennedy spoke about in her recent op-ed in the New York Times. I really never knew her dad. My first real memory of the Kennedy presidency is the grainy black and white image on our family TV of the plane in Dallas that flew his body back to DC. I was five. My mother stood at the ironing board crying.

But it is the hope he instilled in my parents who handed it down to me that has informed my politics and my activism. JFK embodied an America of promise. He reached out his hand to us so that we could take the hands of others and make our nation a better place to live.

I want that back. I want to believe in America again.

The only candidate that has spoken to the idealist in me is Barack Obama.

His belief in change, his ability to bring people into the presidential process who usually stay home, his understanding of the real challenges that face our country inspires. But the pragmatic part of me is concerned about his experience factor. Are his years as an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator enough?

Well let’s not forget that political office was W’s fall back position because he couldn’t make it in business. Obama on the other hand has spent his entire career organizing people for political change. Perhaps the experience issue is just a political ruse.

In just a few days I’ll have to make a decision. But, it won’t happen until the voting booth’s curtain is closed and I’m ready to pull the lever.

Standing Up

My family’s dinner was disrupted this past Friday night, January 18th by sirens and flashing lights.

There in the midst of our bucolic neighborhood, on a private road to what was once an estate in Menands, was a number of Troy police officers, with a number of Troy police cars—marked and unmarked--to match. The five of us sitting at the table—Alex, my son, Dale, his father, Gerri, his step-mom, Courtney, his girlfriend and I—went out the front door to see what was up.

We stopped dead in our tracks about 25 to 30 feet away from the action. It was from there that we witnessed a police brutality reality show.

The cops had chased two guys in a car through the streets of Troy, across the Hudson River, and into our road. By the time I was out there, the two suspects—Marquese Hill and Jamel DeWitt—were face down on the ground and were individually being beaten by two officers.

It was very film noir. It was dark and the scene was lit from behind by the lights from all the cars. The silhouette of one of the officers standing over one of the suspects repeatedly raising his baton high over his head and then crashing it down on the suspect’s body will stay with me for quite some time. So will the sound the baton made every time it hit the face-down body. It happened over and over again lasting for about 25-30 seconds.

We all started screaming for the cops to stop. When they finally did, two of the cops came running over to us and told us to “Shut Up,” “Get in the house,” “They had a gun and could have come into your house,” and “This is none of your business.” It certainly was our business, We stood our ground. They walked away saying we were “probably on the jury that let that killer go free in Troy” referring to a jury verdict last week that found a member of the 69ers motorcycle club not guilty of stabbing another person to death outside a bar.

By now Hill and DeWitt were cuffed and being put into police cars. That’s when one of the officers at the scene told them loudly enough for us to hear, “They’ll probably invite you over for Sunday brunch.”

I dug into my pocket, got out my cell phone and immediately called Rex Smith, the editor of the Times-Union at home. Needless to say, what followed next was a hailstorm of media coverage with my face plastered all over the TV, my voice on local radio and my name in our local papers.

What we witnessed was an injustice that is much graver than Hill’s parole violation or the police wanting to question DeWitt regarding a shooting.

The Troy police and the city’s mayor are calling the actions by the two officers a reasonable use of force. I call it a travesty. Once the two suspects were face down on the ground all the officers needed to do was put their knees in their backs and cuff them. Instead, the adrenaline rush of a chase in hot pursuit lead to excessive use of force.

There will be an internal affairs investigation but how effectively can the police police themselves?

This isn’t about me being soft on crime. This is about our police acting professionally and responsibly. If Hill and DeWitt committed crimes they should go through the legal process and do their time, if that’s what needs to happen. They don’t, however, deserve to be beaten.

Do the police who patrol the tri-cities’ inner-city neighborhoods have a challenge on their hands? Absolutely. But using violence to combat violence only works on the battlefield—and as we see in Iraq, that approach doesn’t work too well either.

Instead of approaching their jobs with suspicion and violence, why can’t the police take the opportunity to make real change in those neighborhoods by setting a positive example—acting professionally and responsibly would be a good first step. There’s a reason why folks in the inner city don’t trust the police—Friday night was just the tip of the iceberg of distrust.

I’m not saying the police shouldn’t do their job in tracking down criminals but not everyone who lives in inner-city neighborhoods commit crimes. All this incident has done is heightened the tension between Troy’s police and those who they are sworn to serve and protect.

I’ve received a lot of support from folks I know and some I don’t. A few have even called my actions a public service. I call it being a responsible citizen and taxpayer.

Here are the articles that have appeared in the Times Union, including an editorial calling for an independent investigation.

Download tu_11908_troy_police_accused_of_attack.pdf

Download tu_12008_troy_police_defend_use_of_force.pdf

Download tu_12108_lawyer_seeks_outside_probe_of_troy_police.pdf

Download tu_12108_soares_examining_complaint_troy_cops_beat_suspects.pdf

Download tu_12408_editorialinvestigating_the_police.pdf