01.22.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:52 pm by pikapp44
I was proud to testify this week in what I believe will soon be seen as one of the defining civil rights cases of our time, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I did so as a Republican mayor, a father, and a former police chief with over 26 years of experience on the force. But I also testified as an American who has seen the effects of discrimination - and who believes that discrimination against anyone, anywhere, is unacceptable.
My thinking on this important issue has evolved significantly in the past few years. Not long ago, I believed that civil unions were an acceptable alternative for same-sex couples. Like many people, I mistakenly thought there was no difference between a civil union and a marriage.
My eyes were opened in 2007, when I had to decide whether to support a ban on same-sex marriage in my capacity as mayor of San Diego. Through conversations with friends and supporters, I realized that my position was inconsistent with one of my core principles as a police officer and as mayor, which is that every community deserves to be treated with equal dignity and respect.
The irony is that I held this mistaken view about marriage equality even though my oldest daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. When she was growing up, Lisa was my constant companion on weekends as I ran errands and did chores around the house. I called her my shadow. We are as close as a father and daughter can be, and when she came out to her family, my wife and I told her we loved her and only wanted her to be happy.
Running for mayor in 2005, when my city had a host of financial and legal problems, I did not believe that marriage equality was an issue for city governments to address. When I was asked, I said I supported civil unions, believing they were an acceptable compromise on a divisive issue. I frankly did not give the issue much thought.
Then two years later, the City Council passed a resolution supporting a court challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. I had 10 days to decide whether to sign or veto the resolution.
I was advised that signing the resolution could end my political career, because I would be reversing a position I took as a candidate, and potentially alienating my Republican base. Lisa, who had worked to my campaign, told me she would support my decision because it was important for San Diego that I remained its mayor.
As late as the evening of the ninth day, I believed I would veto it.
That night, my wife and I hosted a gathering of gay and lesbian friends and neighbors in our backyard. I told them I intended to veto the resolution. Then I listened as they explained how disappointed and hurt they were that I would want to deny them a fundamental civil right, the right to marry the person you love and have that marriage recognized by the rest of society.
About 15 people spoke that night. But before the first one was finished, I shared their disappointment. It was then that I realized that all opposition to same-sex marriage, including my own opposition, was grounded in prejudice.
I knew my position was wrong, and that marriage equality was an issue I needed to address as mayor. And I knew I would sign the resolution.
The next day, I explained my position to the citizens of San Diego. The press conference became an instant hit on YouTube. As I said that day, I hope that everyone will find someone they love deeply, someone with whom they can share life’s experiences and grow old together. I cannot look anyone in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, are any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I came so close to making the wrong decision, and to endorsing government-sanctioned discrimination. As it turns out, I was reelected to a second term the next year. My position on marriage equality definitely made it more difficult. But I know I would have regretted vetoing that resolution a lot more than losing that election.
Now, more than two years later, I have testified in federal court about my decision and the rationale behind it. I told the court that, as someone who has spent most of his lifetime in public service, I understand that when government tolerates discrimination against any class of people, it makes it easier for citizens to do the same thing.
I was proud that Lisa was in court with me, along with her wife, Meaghan, whom she married in Vermont last month. Meaghan is like another daughter to me, and she has brought great happiness into our family.
The defendants in this case — those who would deny equal rights to others — would like us to believe that they are the true victims of discrimination. They argue that their opposition to marriage equality has made them targets of violence. They’ve made this argument as their excuse for withholding documents from the public, and it is as self-serving as it is inaccurate.
From my own experience as a police officer and mayor, I can say that the overwhelming evidence is that violence is directed against gays and lesbians, not those who would deny them equality.
In my own city, there have been terrible hate crimes committed against gays and lesbians, including a savage beating just a few years ago of a young man attending the Pride Festival. The perpetrators of this type of violence are only encouraged by those who want their own prejudices to be validated through government-sanctioned discrimination. It’s like giving them permission.
History tells us that the first step toward true equality has always been equality under the law. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is no different than denying black people the right to sit in a “whites only” section of the restaurant. The law and our own experience tell us that “separate but equal” is an oxymoron. Separate is never equal.
I’m happy that Lisa and Meaghan were able to marry — as would be anyone who knows them and sees their love and commitment to each other. But I’m also saddened to think that because some people would deny them this fundamental civil right, they had to been married 3,000 miles from their friends, co-workers and family. I hope that Perry v. Schwarzenegger changes that, and that America renounces this type of discrimination, as it has so many others.
Permalink
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:20 pm by pikapp44
Plaintiffs prepared to rest their case Friday in the federal trial over California’s Proposition 8, setting the stage for backers of the ban on same-sex marriage to open their direct line of defense.
“We’re pleased with the way it has gone,” said David Boies, an attorney for the gay couples that want to wed. He said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied it and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples. “We’ve proven all three of those,” he said.
Defense lawyer Andy Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.
Over the past two weeks, the plaintiffs have sought to prove through experts and personal testimony that the gay-marriage ban harms gays and was motivated by hatred toward them. On Thursday, they introduced testimony from a backer of the ban, Hak-Shing William Tam, who said he thought legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing prostitution and sex with children.
Judge Walker told lawyers Friday that he wanted to hear closing arguments made to him at a later time—not immediately after the defense rests its case—because he wanted more time to review the evidence.
Permalink
01.21.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 11:35 am by pikapp44
In an historic meeting last week talks took place between Jewish community leaders and Jewish members of the LGBT community.
Members of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) met with GLBT members of the Jewish community last Thursday to discuss inclusion, acceptance and visibility of GLBT Jews in the JCCV.
However, Michael Barnett coordinator from social and support group for GLBT Jews, Aleph Melbourne, told MCV the discussion became volatile.
“I found it a very hostile event, the president and the immediate past president both attacked me personally in front of about ten other people,” Barnett said, “they mocked and laughed at me when I made suggestions about how we can move forward and when I questioned some of their views and attitudes. I found it was very confrontational and wasn’t very civil.”
Barnett said he suspects the talks were prompted by recent negative media reports on the JCCV’s attitudes towards homosexuality.
“There could be some pressure to appear to be engaging with us in some dialogue without actually genuinely wanting to do it, possibly from some funding sources. I feel they are not really being genuine in wanting to talk to us.”
Permalink
01.20.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 6:45 pm by pikapp44
Opponents know their chances of success are slim, but they are looking to the November election in hopes Republicans will regain control of the Statehouse and succeed then in repealing the law.
Right now, Democrats are firmly in charge and appear eager to dispose of controversial measures early in the session to avoid lingering debate in an election year. Gay marriage opponents know that and are focusing on a bigger prize: voter sympathy.
In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting New Hampshire’s 400 House members and 24 senators aren’t representative of the people’s wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.
They plan to raise the issue at town meetings this spring in hopes of passing nonbinding resolutions that will pressure lawmakers to present them with an amendment that defines marriage. They also hope their effort will help elect anti-gay marriage candidates in November.
State Rep. David Bates, a Republican from Windham, is organizing the petition effort to put gay marriage before town voters. He said Tuesday that petitions have been certified in 108 towns. He expects petitions to be completed by a Feb. 2 deadline in about 150 of New Hampshire’s more than 200 towns that hold meetings each spring. Petitions must be signed by 25 registered voters in the town to be put on the agenda.
Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, agreed Tuesday there’s not much chance the gay marriage law will be repealed this year. Though he supports repeal, Smith said he is focusing more on the proposed constitutional change and will urge lawmakers to let voters decide the issue.
“People really want an opportunity to have a say,” he said.
Janson Wu, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and other gay marriage advocates argue the size of New Hampshire’s Legislature makes it one of the most representative democratic bodies in the world.
“New Hampshire realizes it is just wrong to vote on people’s rights,” Wu said.
A ballot amendment would make New Hampshire a battlefield similar to other states where millions of dollars is spent by groups outside the state, Wu said.
New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage took effect Jan. 1. New Hampshire joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont in allowing the unions.
California briefly allowed gay marriage before a popular vote in 2008 banned the practice; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married. Last year, Maine lawmakers approved gay marriage, but voters overturned the law in a referendum.
Smith said he’d expect gay couples married in New Hampshire before a repeal or constitutional amendment would retain their statuses, much as couples in California retained theirs.
Permalink
01.16.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 11:42 am by pikapp44
The US Supreme Court decided on Friday to intervene for a second time this week in an appeal by gay marriage opponents who claim public disclosure of their names and addresses could lead to threats, harassment or intimidation.
Permalink
01.13.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 3:52 pm by pikapp44
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has announced its nominees for the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards, and Lady Gaga and Adam Lambert will face off in the race for Outstanding Music Artist. Other nominees for the awards include shows like “True Blood” and “Glee,” as well as Robert Pattinson’s flick “Little Ashes.”
The awards seek to highlight shows, movies, music and other media platforms that provided “fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and the issues that affect their lives,” according to GLAAD’s Web site.
Gaga and Lambert are nominated against singer/songwriter Brandi Carlile, Gossip and Otep in the music category. Meanwhile, in the TV category, “Brothers & Sisters,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Mad Men” and “Skins” are nominated alongside “True Blood” for Outstanding Drama Series. “Glee” finds its place in the comedy category alongside “Beautiful People,” “Greek,” “Modern Family” and “United States of Tara.”
“Little Ashes” is nominated in the limited release category for film, while “Everybody’s Fine,” “I Love You, Man,” “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “A Single Man” and “Taking Woodstock” make up the wide release category.
“Sex and the City” star Cynthia Nixon will be honored with the Vito Russo Award at the New York ceremony. She will receive the award for helping make “a significant difference in promoting equal rights for our community,” the organization said.
“Cynthia Nixon has been a vocal and visible advocate who has transformed cultural attitudes about our community,” GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios said in a statement. “She is a perfect example of how sharing your personal story and speaking out for marriage equality can inspire change among fair-minded Americans. It is our privilege to honor her.”
The winners will be announced and honored at three ceremonies, at the New York Marriott Marquis on March 13, Los Angeles’ Hyatt Regency Century Plaza on April 17 and San Francisco’s Westin St. Francis on June 5.
Permalink
01.07.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:51 pm by pikapp44
New Jersey’s state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage.
The defeat, by a vote of 20-14, likely ends any chance that the state Legislature approves gay marriage soon. Five senators did not vote; there is one Senate vacancy.
Gay rights advocates had been pushing hard for the bill because on Jan. 19, new Republican Gov. Chris Christie takes office and he has vowed to veto a gay marriage bill. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine had promised to sign it into law.
It was a major effort to get the bill to a full Senate. A vote was canceled last month when it appeared the measure would be defeated there. It wasn’t until Tuesday that Senate leaders decided to allow the vote.
New Jersey offers civil unions that grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples.
Permalink
12.25.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 9:29 pm by pikapp44
Some will say, but the Salvation Army performs good work — the organization feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, clothes the impoverished, whether gay or straight.
Yes, yet there are many other organizations performing the same work as the Salvation Army that do not discriminate against gays and lesbians, that will not use your donation against you.
From the Salvation Army’s Web site: “The Army regards the origins of a homosexual orientation as a mystery and does not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in and of itself or rectifiable at will. Nevertheless, while we are not responsible for what we are, we are accountable for what we do; and homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, is controllable and may be morally evaluated therefore in light of scriptural teaching.
“For this reason, such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation Army soldiership.”
You can find a charity more worthy of the stray dollar in my pocket.
The power of the Salvation Army. It is a massive Christian evangelical organization — with a quasi-military structure and raising $2 billion a year — and it promotes discrimination against gays and lesbians in its employment policy; at local levels of government, going so far as to threaten to close soup kitchens in New York if the city enacted domestic partnership legislation; and at the national level of government.
We can find charities more deserving of our dollars and our volunteer time.
Permalink
12.05.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 10:15 am by pikapp44
After taking heat from Adam Lambert’s fans and gay advocates for a week, ABC on Friday extended an olive branch of sorts to the “American Idol” runner-up who made headlines with his provocative performance last month at the American Music Awards in which he kissed a male musician.
ABC canceled Lambert’s scheduled appearances on “Good Morning America” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and stopped considering him for “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve,” which drew thousands of complaints from viewers and gay advocates who believed the network was retaliating against him because he is gay.
On Friday night, Lambert took to Twitter, where he first announced the cancellations, to tell his fans that he will appear on “The View” next Thursday.
Without offering an explanation and declining to comment, ABC confirmed the appearance.
Lambert will be interviewed by “The View” hosts and will perform. Both will be pre-taped.
Lambert will appear on “The View” the morning after his interview with Barbara Walters for her “10 Most Fascinating People” special on ABC. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which earlier accused ABC of subjecting Lambert to a double standard, applauded ABC’s invitation.
“ABC has taken a step toward fairness by inviting Adam Lambert to perform on ‘The View,’ ” the group’s president, Jarrett Barrios, said. “GLAAD has been advocating against the double standards that have been applied to Lambert as an openly gay performer.”
GLAAD issued that statement after releasing three statements in two days that left Lambert’s supporters confused and angry.
In the first release, the group seemed to give ABC a free pass: “It would appear that the kiss between Adam Lambert and his keyboardist did not factor into ABC’s decision.”
In the second statement, GLADD called on ABC to clarify “why Lambert is being denied the opportunity to perform on the network.”
Then GLAAD issued its strongest statement, charging that ABC canceled Lambert’s appearances because he is openly gay.
In an interview, Barrios said he realized after the first statement that GLAAD’s position was being misunderstood because “I’ll admit it, [it] should have been more clearly worded.”
“Giving ABC the opportunity to explain themselves is important, but it’s also important for us to be clear about what our position is. And that is that we believe that Adam Lambert is being subjected to a double standard because he’s an openly gay entertainer.”
Permalink
12.03.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 5:30 pm by pikapp44
Adam Lambert, last year’s American Idol runner-up, performed at the American Music Awards, which were broadcast on ABC. During the performance, the openly gay Lambert kissed his keyboard player, another man, on stage.
No big deal, right? Well, you’d think that. But ABC thinks differently. They responded to the “controversy” by cancelling Lambert’s scheduled performance on Good Morning America last Wednesday. This saddened a lot of his fans and caused a major uproar on Twitter.
But now, ABC has gone even further. The Disney-owned company has cancelled two more Lambert performances that would be televised by their network: one on Jimmy Kimmel Live and one for the infamous Dick Clark’s Rockin New Years Eve.
Let’s get this straight right off the bat: this is homophobia. Plain and simple. As is pointed out in the linked article other performances that night referenced drinking, sex and even rape. However, Lambert’s same-sex kiss has gotten him seemingly banned from the network. Rumor is that this is the network caving to FCC pressure, which raises an important question: why does the FCC think male on male kissing is somehow more offensive than Eminem rapping about having “17 rapes under his belt?” Two men in a consensual relationship is WORSE than repeated sexual assault? Really?
But here’s another interesting point: Katy Perry, an artist who performs same-sex kisses on stage, has appeared and performed on Good Morning America as well as being a headlining performer at least year’s New Years Rockin Eve festivities…and in both cases has performed a song about girl on girl kissing. So, we’re to assume that girl on girl kissing is okay, but boy on boy is wrong? Or this is a case of “Well, with girls it doesn’t count because there’s no penis involved?” This is further proved by CBS’s The Early Show blurring out the male-male kiss from the AMA’s, but not blurring the infamous female-female kiss between Britney Spears and Madonna from the VMAs several years ago.
Or, let’s even go one step further: Perry doesn’t identify as homosexual. She’s heterosexual, but sings about kissing girls as something taboo and “naughty.” Lambert kisses boys in his real life, and not just as a crazy thing to do in a bar. So, it’s okay to act gay on TV or on stage, but only if you’re straight? If you’d actually like doing it off stage it’s wrong to do it in front of other people? Is that what we’re getting at? Does that even make sense?
If you’re upset by this situation, you should contact ABC to let them know that homophobia in this day and age ISN’T entertaining.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »