And it's tedious to whine and jump up and down and complain when a wand isn't waved and everything is made right by the first candidate who really seemed to get it, who was even able to address black church congregations about homophobia. And obviously patience is necessary; and legislative work takes time; and there are real challenges on so many fronts, especially the economy and the legacy of war crimes and the permanently restive Iraqi and Afghan regions we are constantly in the process of liberating from themselves. No one expects a president to be grappling with all this early on, or, God help us, actually leading on civil rights. That's our job, not his.This administration is a welcome relief on many fronts from the danger presented by McCain/Palin, but he and his team have made it loud and clear that not only must we "be patient" but we are not to expect any support or comment from from this White House as equality blooms in legal landmark fashion around the country.But I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.
Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).
And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada.
What would be welcome is a president willing to discuss our issues openly so they can be debated honestly. He's now silent. On purpose. Or worse, sending out his press secretary to fumble before the press corps with bullsh*t answers.
You might recall an earlier post when I told you all that an LGBT reporter I know called the White House to ask for a statement about marriage equality passing in Vermont, the official word --
"No comment."
Yep, he's set his own trap with the absurd position that he has to now politically defend, even as his stance that civil unions are somehow equivalent to marriage keeps getting shot down as states and courts say otherwise. This administration is behind the curve now, and it's happy to be there and let us twist in the wind, and in Andrew Sullivan's case, confronting this situation:
I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because ause the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).As with the discharge of service members under DADT on his watch, the President doesn't mind writing a note to a booted 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao to say "committed to changing our current policy" (but I'm dumping you anyway).
And that's while our nation's military continues to accept felons, gang-members and white supremacists because it can't fill its ranks. Obviously national security isn't a priority for this administration, or he'd at least talk about it.
More below the fold.
As I posted earlier, it's not as though his hands are completely tied on DADT. He has chosen not to pursue tools at his disposal.
A new report released today, "How to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment," sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, clearly presents a way the President can stop the discriminatory discharge of gay and lesbian service members without Congress passing a law.It's ridiculous to hear straight fellow progressives try to make excuses for President Obama about this. No one in the LGBT community that I know is saying these issues are more important than the economy, or a host of issues that affect us all. The fact they cannot deny is that he's not only not doing anythi ng, he doesn't want to even discuss the matter. Is that not problematic?...1) Under the law "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" during a "period of national emergency." The statute specifically defines a "national emergency" as a time when "members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty."
2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense... in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation."
3) Don't Ask, Don't Tell calls for the discharge of service members "if" a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the "authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made."
It costs no time or votes to slap down the obvious use of his "one man, one woman, leave it to the states" position by the fringe right to fundraise to try to roll back marriage equality. All we receive is silence, or rather, "No Comment."
Related:
* What's My Sex? What's My Gender? - And Other US Census Related LGBT Thoughts
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Leave it to the South Carolina Legislature to shock my system this morning:
A bill, sponsored by Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, would require school districts to send home information or include in their student handbooks information about teen dating violence — including how to recognize whether a student is in an abusive relationship and where to go for help.
According to a 2007 state Department of Education survey, nearly 14 percent of S.C. students reported being “hit, slapped or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend” in the previous 12 months.
So far so good. It sounds like a productive idea. But then comes the shock:
The bill hit an unexpected roadblock Wednesday when Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, introduced an amendment requiring the material to address only heterosexual relationships.
“I don’t want the Department of Education or school districts to teach children in grades six through 12 about (same-sex) relationships,” Delleney said.
I don't know where to begin to tell you what's wrong with Delleney's mindset. But I will try.
1. It stands to reason that if children are in a same-sex relationship (and I'm sure there are many who are), I don't think the school can't teach them something they already know. And even if they aren't in a same-sex relationship, children are not naive. Remind me to tell you the theories my 10-year-old cousin relayed to me about some of the characters of High School Musical.
2. Delleny's mindset is pure ignorance. His statement implies that learning about same-sex relationships will be mandatory in classrooms. This is what the bill says:
By Dec. 1, the S.C. Department of Education would have to develop a model dating violence policy to assist school districts in developing policies for reporting and responding to dating violence.
• By the 2010-2011 school year, each school district would establish a s pecific policy to address incidents of dating violence.
• Each school district’s dating violence policy would have to be published in school and school district handbooks or any publications on the school or district Web site that provide the rules, procedures or standards of conduct for students at school.
3. Delleny's mindset is also offensive. Gays are constantly hit with the barrage of nonsense that we want "special rights," but Delleny went out of his way to exclude us. He doesn't want to help us combat potential violence in our relationships because he doesn't care about us. It's bad enough when this comes from an ordinary citizen but the fact that a legislator publicly voices this notion without any shame is awful.
Delleny wasn't elected for his personal and religious beliefs. He was elected to serve the people of South Carolina regardless of race, religion, nan, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. He can't pick and choose who to serve. Or, in this case, who to protect.
His words emphasizes just how difficult it is for gays to live not only in South Carolina but in the United States in general. No other group is subject to the level of disrespect that we generally receive. Delleny wouldn't have gotten away with his public "screw you" if he had made any other group the subject of his tirade.
He will probably get a pat on the back by like minded homophobic individuals. Yes, Delleny is homophobic. I don't really see how anyone can use buzzwords to defend his actions. He isn't protecting traditional relationships or upholding morality.
Delleny is making it acceptable for South Carolina to cover it's ears so as not to hear the pleas of help coming from victims of relationship violence.
In a broader sense, he is making it acceptable to discriminate against South Carolinians simply because he has a personal problem with their sexual orientation.
And this is just basically wrong.
"What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe --- marriage is between a man and a woman," Palin added.
The resolution condemns a recent hate crime in Seaside (note: article includes images that may be distressing). Two young men, visiting the Oregon coast on vacation from Washington state, were assaulted simply because of their sexual orientation. Thanks to the leadership of Seaside police, the case was immediately classified as a hate crime.
Although Oregon law prohibits hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, it is imperative to stand together as a community and denounce hate crimes whenever and wherever they occur.
It also calls upon Congress and the President to pass the Matthew Shepard Act, which would ban anti-LGBT hate crimes nationwide. Although Oregon is fortunate to have a strong hate crimes law, many states aren't so lucky. The Matthew Shepard Act would make it clear that hate crimes against anyone, anywhere, at any time, are always unacceptable in the United States.
HJM 22 now heads to the House floor for a full vote by all 60 representatives. It will need lots of grassroots support to pass. Help us condemn hate crimes and pass the Matthew Shepard Act. Write your Representative TODAY!
Want more information? Read the full text of HJM 22 here.
Nearly every state that has won marriage equality this year has already produced and begun to air TV, radio and web ads to defend their victories. Here's a sampling of what's been produced:
Vermont Freedom to Marry: "We Are Your Neighbors" and "Editorials"
Equality Maine:
Equality Maine: "Marriage for All Maine Families"
One Iowa: "This Place"
Empire State Pride Agenda: "Barb and Don"
Which is your favorite? And which do you think will be most likely to change hearts and minds in the fight to secure marriage equality?
No comments:
Post a Comment