Last weekend Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a letter to VA public colleges and universities encouraging them to drop discrimination bans against gays and lesbians.

In the wake of Cuccinelli’s homophobic actions, Virginia students have been using Facebook to take a stand against this attempt at discrimination and the Virginia Young Democrats are mobilizing against the repeal.

Here is VAYD President Sean Holihan addressing the situation:

The Virginia Young Democrats are taking part in a Facebook Day of Action using Facebook statuses to show opposition to the discrimination repeal and encouraging members to contact Governor McDonnell about the issue.

• 0 Comments

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. is threatening to stop helping the city’s homeless population if the City Council legalizes same-sex marriage:

Catholic Charities, one of dozens of nonprofits that partner with D.C. government, manages city-owned shelters that serve about one-third of Washington’s homeless population. The group’s contracts totaled $8.2 million in the past three years, according to the city council.

Council chairman Vincent Gray said Thursday the city would have to find another group to provide social services if the church backs out. He said he didn’t see any room for compromise.

Council member Jim Graham said the church hasn’t abandoned social services in Connecticut, Vermont or New Hampshire, which will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January. But Gibbs said the D.C. law was more restrictive and the relationship between the diocese and those states vary.

Catholic Charities halted its adoption programs in 2006 in Boston because Massachusetts banned discrimination against same-sex couples who want to adopt children.

The Bible includes far more verses about the need to take care of the poor than about homosexuality, yet it seems that when it comes to dogma, hate is more powerful than compassion.

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

• 3 Comments

Back in May I wrote a long article about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the need to do justice to our gay and lesbian military heroes. As of today, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is still in effect, and activists from across the country marched together in Washington to support equality.

At the HRC dinner President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to end DADT, yet many activists are skeptical, and with good reason. As I discussed in my article, the gay and lesbian community has often been promised things from elected officials that they supported, only to have those items pushed back, ignored, and sometimes even opposed because of fear of the right wing.

The Millennial Generation overwhelming supports equality. The servicemembers who are being victimized by the DADT policy, which includes straight women, are mostly members of this generation. The government asks American youth to risk their lives at war, yet continues to disrespect the service of so many.

The country is ready to end this policy, and every day that the administration postpones action more young patriots will suffer.

• 0 Comments

Today I submitted the following resolution to the Young Democrats of America for consideration by the National Committee in Houston.

The Young Democrats of America:

WHEREAS the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is a form of government sponsored discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens;

DEEPLY REGRETTING that openly gay and lesbian Americans are unable to serve their country, despite qualifications and skills desperately needed in the United States armed forces;

TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the courageous gay and lesbian Americans such as Jay Hatheway, Leonard Matlovich, Miriam Ben-Shalom, Perry Watkins, Jim Woodward, Paul Thomasson, and Sandy Tsao who have fought for decades to end this policy, sacrificing their careers, their livelihoods, and even their safety for the cause of equality;

NOTING WITH DEEP CONCERN that Lt. Dan Choi, an Army officer, West Point graduate, and Arabic linguist, has been discharged from the Army solely for his sexuality, despite the shortage of servicemembers with his skills;

FURTHER NOTING that the majority of American citizens believe that it is time to end this antiquated and unjust policy;

EMPHASIZING that President Barack Obama pledged to repeal the military ban during the 2008 presidential campaign;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Young Democrats of America encourages President Obama and Congress to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow gay and lesbians to serve openly in the military;

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Young Democrats of America will send a copy of this resolution to President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

• 1 Comment

The recent discharge of Lieutenant Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Arabic linguist, from the Army National Guard must draw our attention to one of the greatest continuing embarrassments to our American ideals: the government sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians serving the United States heroically. America is now ready to bring the long history of government-approved discrimination of gays and lesbians in the military to an end.

History of the Ban

The official discrimination against homosexuals in the military dates back to World War I, when in 1919 consensual sodomy was added as a proscribed act in the Military Code of Conduct. During World War II the military used psychiatrists, at the time all deeply rooted in Freud’s super-masculine paradigm that viewed homosexuality as a pathology, to help “winnow out those who might not be fit to be good soldiers.” With the help of these psychiatrists, regulations that prohibited gays and lesbians from serving were enacted in 1943.

During the 1970s the regulations were modified by the Carter administration after a large volume of lawsuits by gays and lesbians who had been discharged with the help of the ACLU and gay legal defenses organizations. The regulations now read that “homosexuality was incompatible with military service,” and it is in this form that the ban still exists today,

Throughout this time a great deal of high-performing gay and lesbian service members were discharged from the military, and many fought publicly and in the courts in an attempt to repeal the ban or have it declared unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the high court repeatedly ruled in favor of discrimination, or refused to hear the cases at all.

One such case was Hatheway v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army 454 U.S. 864 (1981). Jay Hatheway had been court-martialed for sodomy, convicted, and discharged from the Army. His lawyers argued that the sodomy ban was supposed to apply to all service members, including heterosexuals, yet Army prosecutors knew of heterosexual sodomy violations but chose to ignore them. The Ninth Circuit ruled that homosexuality was allowed to be used as grounds for selective prosecution, saying that “homosexual sodomy was more likely than heterosexual sodomy ‘to undermine discipline and order.’” Hatheway was an extremely competent Green Beret intelligence officer, yet the Supreme Court denied cert in 1981.

Air Force Sergeant Leonard Matlovich, a decorated airman and recipient of both a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, declared his homosexuality in order to challenge the military ban. He was discharged from the Air Force and fought a lengthy legal and public relations battle, becoming one of the most famous gay icons of the 1970s. Eventually a federal judge ordered that he be reinstated, but by that time Matlovich was no longer interested in reenlisting. When he died in 1988, he was buried with his tombstone reading “When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.”

Miriam Ben-Shalom, a lesbian Army drill sergeant, was discharged in 1976 after her commander became suspicious of her anger at Leonard Matlovich’s discharge and asked her if she was homosexual. Ben-Shalom had some of the highest performance ratings among drill sergeants, yet she was discharged for telling the truth about being gay, not for homosexual conduct. Her case showed that “the Army discriminated against homosexuals: It actually banned homosexual people, not homosexual conduct, because heterosexuals who committed homosexual sodomy could avoid discharge by claiming they had been drunk, immature or simply curious.” Her case was taken to the Supreme Court and denied cert in 1990. Twelve years later, she still owed $13,000 on her $55,000 legal bill and had lost her house. The publicity she and her case received made her a target for discrimination even in civilian life: she had been denied an apartment, fired from a civilian job, received death threats, and was forced to work dead-end jobs. The fact that this is how a person who honorably and effectively served the country is treated should embarrass us all. Sergeant Ben-Shalom summed up her experience in this way: “I am in this position because I was asked a question by my commanding officer and I refused to lie. If I had lied, I wouldn’t be in this position. So, what do you expect of your [non-commissioned officers]?”

In the case of Army Staff Sergeant Perry Watkins, he was openly gay for 16 years in the service, yet was discharged in 1984 for being gay despite the fact his superiors had been aware of his homosexuality all along. Perry Watkins provided the gay movement a much needed, albeit shallow, victory when the Supreme Court denied cert to the Army’s appeal of a Ninth Circuit ruling in Watkins’ favor. Circuit Judge William Norris argued that the military cannot bow to anti-gay bias any more than it could to racism. Despite the victory, Watkins’ career was still over. His military potential had been rated “unlimited” before his discharge.

Jim Woodward was a College Republican who supported the Vietnam War and decided to sign up to be a Navy flight communications officer. In 1974 he took an enlisted man to an officer’s club in order to boost the self esteem of the “suicidal 19-year-old-kid” who was being discharge for being gay. When questioned by his commander about why he brought an enlisted man into the officer’s club, Woodward admitted his homosexuality. He was immediately recommended for discharge and placed on unpaid inactive reserve. His commanders downgraded his previously above-average performance ratings because of his homosexuality. Woodward appealed his discharge to the Supreme Court but was denied cert in 1990. The experience completely changed his feelings toward his country:

“That whole thing changed my life radically. It changed me from being an American to being a gay man. I no longer felt a loyalty to the United States of America that caused me to join the Navy at a period when probably the majority of my peers would have gone to Canada instead. And until homosexuals are considered whole human beings and citizens of this country, I will not support this country as a full citizen is obligated and responsible to do.”

The Opposition Rises

In 1988 the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in coordination with other leading GLBT organizations formed the Gay and Lesbian Military Freedom Project (MFP), which would become the primary instrument of the effort to end the military ban.

The MFP not only focused on the treatment of gays and lesbians in the armed forces, but also shined a light on its relation to the harassment of women in the services.

One of the MFP’s first moves was a presentation to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOVITS) in April of 1989. MFP focused on the problem of the sexual harassment of both lesbians and straight women in the military. The testimonials of the women in the hearing revealed shocking practices: sham investigations by Defense Department intelligence agencies, women being pressured to confess to things that they did not do, threats ranging from physical harm to discharge and loss of benefits, stellar service records being disregarded at even a rumor about their sexual orientation, sexual harassment and the lack of any recourse to pursue their claims, and the use of the gay ban to intimidate women through “lesbian-bating.” Straight women that refused the sexual advances of a male were accused of being lesbians, and sexual harassment of women largely relied on this practice.

The MFP provided statistics showing that women were targeted for discharge based on homosexuality at a rate 10 times higher than that of men. The military undertook anti-lesbian witch hunts, most notably at the Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Training Depot, where at least two women were incarcerated for being lesbians. One, Barbara Baum, served 226 days in the brig at Quantico. It took two years for her conviction to be overturned.

The first few years of the 1990s provided the MFP with events that would allow them to put the military ban front and center. The Gulf War drew attention to the number of qualified service members that were being discharged during a time of war, with a number of cases of gays and lesbians fighting their discharges resulting in a great deal of media coverage.

In 1991 Representative Pat Schroeder (D-CO) and Senator Brock Adams (D-WA) introduced the 1992 Military Freedom Act, which would have completely removed the ban. The bill helped promote the issue, but ultimately failed.

After pressure by the MFP, the General Accounting Office released a study of the costs of military ban, showing how much money was being wasted investigating and discharging homosexuals and the ensuing court battles.

The biggest bombshell for supporters of the ban was the outing of Defense Department spokesman Pete Williams by Michelangelo Signorile of The Advocate. The revelation that Williams was gay drew the attention of the straight press and resulted in many Republicans speaking against the ban, albeit it turns out only temporarily. Then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said the ban was an “old chestnut” whose time may have passed. Newt Gingrich indicated to The New Republic that he thought the policy was irrelevant, and Reagan’s Under Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb decried the ban.

The Homophobes Panic and Organize

By this time the military and conservative Christians were getting nervous about the ban’s potential repeal.

In 1992 the Navy Investigative Service engaged in one of the most disgusting deceptions in American history during their ‘investigation’ of the U.S.S. Iowa disaster. The NIS falsely identified the cause of the disaster as a crime of “scorned gay passion.” A following investigation showed that the Navy had fabricated the story in order to cover up their fault in what actually caused the explosion–old gun powder, aging weapons, insufficient ventilation, and poor operating procedures–and to use the story as an argument against lifting the ban on homosexuals.

Also in 1992 the Navy attempted to bury the case of Allen Schindler, a gay seaman that was ferociously murdered by another member of his unit.

All the while Christian conservative organizations were organizing their members in opposition of the repeal, using their considerable influence and resources to sway public opinion through the media and the churches. They knew that if a Democrat took the presidential election in November that they would have to fight for the ban, and they did everything in their power to set the battlefield.

Bill Clinton and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

During his campaign for the presidency, Bill Clinton promised Rep. Barney Frank that he would lift the military ban. He made his promise public during a forum at Harvard University, stating that he would overturn the policy be executive order if he were elected. He answered on an HCRF questionnaire that: “I believe patriotic Americans should have the right to serve the country as a member of the armed forces without regard to sexual or affectional orientation” and the campaign book Putting People First promised that he would “issue executive orders to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians from military or foreign service.” Proponents of lifting the ban had every reason to be excited on election night when Clinton emerged victorious.

Unfortunately, the repeal turned out to be a promise that the administration could not keep.

In July of 1993 hearings on the military ban focused on the argument that open homosexuality is detrimental to heterosexual male bonding, what military brass referred to as “unit cohesion.” According to Urvashi Vaid:

“The central obstacle in allowing gays to serve openly became not out competency to serve, but the subversiveness of our sexuality itself.

Again and again, the country heard its top generals testify that the problem was not gayness but the open admission of gayness: that open acceptance of gay people would destroy the platonic male-male heroism on which the military depends.”

Meanwhile, GLBT movement was in a period of infighting and jockeying. At the last minute a number of wealth gay donors and activists from Los Angeles formed the Campaign for Military Service. The organization was ineffective and appeared to be more a campaign to make certain people power-brokers than a legitimate campaign to overturn the ban. The organization was formed without the collaboration of the leading gay rights organizations or the MFP, and without a centralized campaign plan focused on grassroots efforts to change public opinion it was no match for the Christian Right.

It turns out that Bill Clinton was sworn into office as the perfect opponent for the Joint Chiefs and conservative Christians. He was elected with only 43% of the vote and not only had he not served in the military but was accused of being a draft dodger. He did not have the mandate or military credentials to impose his will on the Joint Chiefs or Congress.

The fact that the two biggest enemies of the repeal were a Democrat and an African-American General made the uphill battle a Sisyphusian effort.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Colin Powell was the perfect spokesperson for the military’s policy. By virtue of his race he was able to effectively take away the civil rights argument from opponents of the ban. He argued that they “never had full civil rights in the military, and it would be impossible to maintain morale if gay and straight soldiers were integrated.” The Clinton administration was terrified of Powell. According to George Stephanopoulos:

“That’s all we needed: the top military brass led by Colin Powell, lined up in a row in direct confrontation with a new president who, they said, was sacrificing national security for the sake of a campaign promise to a special interest — all live on CNN.”

The other key opponent was Democratic Senator Sam Nunn (GA). Not only was Sen. Nunn homophobic, but he was also angry at Clinton for not appointing him Secretary of State. Nunn did everything he could to force the administration’s hand on the gays in the military issue, even holding up Clinton’s first bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, until it was clear the ban would not be completely repealed.

Sen. Nunn also found a way to use the media to sell his brand of homophobia. He and Sen. John Warner appeared on television talking to sailors on the submarine Montpelier in Norfolk, Virginia. The sailors were on their bunks in order to show the “extremely cramped sleeping conditions” that according to their arguments make the presence of gays dangerous.

President Clinton held a meeting with the Joint Chiefs in order to discuss the issue, but they came into the meeting with their minds made up and confident that in this situation they had more power and influence than the President. According to Stephanopoulous, “the chiefs weren’t there to be persuaded, and they had the congressional troops they needed to fortify their position.” President Clinton recounts the meeting:

“In the meeting, the chiefs acknowledged that there were thousands of gay men and women serving with distinction in the 1.8 million-member military, but they maintained that letting them serve openly would be, in General Powell’s words, ‘prejudicial to good order and discipline.’ The rest of the Joint Chiefs were with the Chairman. Then I raised the fact that it apparently had cost the military $500 million to kick 17,000 homosexuals out of the service in the previous decade, despite a government report saying there was no reason to believe they could not serve effectively, the chiefs replied that it was worth it to preserve unit cohesion and morale.”

Clinton saw the problem with their argument: that it “could have been used with equal force against Truman’s order on integration or against current efforts to open more positions to women in the military.” However, he did not have the power to act. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions opposing the President’s position, the House by more than a three-to-one margin. If Clinton issued an executive order repealing the ban Congress would have responded with an amendment to the defense appropriations bill. Even though Clinton did not issue the executive order, Sen. Nunn and Congress used that exact tactic to break their Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromise and add more anti-gay teeth to the measure. The amendment added language saying “persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” were “an unacceptable risk” for inclusion in the military. The amendment also allowed the Secretary of Defense to reinstate the practice of asking recruits to disclose their sexual orientation.

The amendment to the defense appropriations bill passed, even though some prominent Republicans, like former Senator Barry Goldwater, were against the ban. On June 21, 1993, Goldwater wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post National Weekly:

“When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

(…)
I have served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter plans and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of a policy.”

While many gay rights activists blamed President Clinton for failing to deliver on his promise, George Stephanopoulos has a different take:

“Our administration can be fairly faulted for raising hopes that couldn’t be fulfilled, but not for abandoning a cause that could have been won if only we’d had the courage to try. The military and the Congress had the votes to keep the ban because the country was not ready for the change.“

The numbers show that Stephanopoulos was probably right. The Christian Right and the military ran extremely effective grassroots and public relations campaigns that reinforced the homophobia that many Americans felt at the time, while the fragmented gay rights movement failed to effectively counter. Polls at the time showed that voters were against lifting the ban 48-45, an more starkly there was a 17% deficit in those that felt strongly on the issue, with 35% strongly against and only 16% strongly approving.

The Aftermath of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Following the implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, incidents and investigations involving homosexuals actually increased dramatically. A report issued by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in 1996 showed that from March 1, 1995 to February 27, 1996, SLDN documented 363 specific violations of DADT policy, and that the Department of Defense “discharged more servicemembers under its gay policy in fiscal year 1995 than in each of the past four years at a cost exceeding $21 million in 1995.” The report also showed that women were still victims of “lesbian-baiting,” painfully evident by the anecdote that opens the report:

“In South Korea, a young Private First Class reported that male soldiers assaulted and threatened to rape her. The soldiers then spread false rumors that she was a lesbian. Rather than investigate the men who attacked her, the command in South Korea investigated her. The command tried to force her to confess to being gay. She refused. The command threatened her with prison if she did not identify suspected lesbians in her unit. She refused. The command started discharge proceedings against her based on the same trumped up allegations. She still refused to buckle. In July 1995, after ten months of intense efforts by her family, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and its cooperating private attorney, the Army finally dropped all charges and retaliatory actions against her. Her new command is excellent, but she and her family should never have had to go through what they did. What happened to her is common. Straight or gay, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy has been used to retaliate against hundreds of servicemembers.“

Like before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, some brave gay and lesbian servicemembers took a stand against the policy. The day following the implementation of the DADT rules, Lieutenant Paul Thomasson wrote a letter to the admirals he had served under with the following message: “I can remain silent no longer. I am gay.” Thomasson was not just any seaman, he was one of the Navy’s rising stars. He was described by superiors as “magnificent,” “spectacularly good,” “a true superstar,” “destined for great things.” He was awarded medals by Gen. Colin Powell for his great work and Rear Admiral Lee Gunn said “If you are in your right mind, you want Paul Thomasson working for you…Lt. Thomasson has genuine flag [admiral] potential.” Thomasson petitioned the Supreme Court, pointing out that the anti-homosexual policy “ruined the careers of 772 Americans in 1995 alone.” When he filed his paperwork for the Supreme Court he wrote a check for the filing fee with two words written on the purpose line: equal justice. Unfortunately the Supreme Court once again decided to ignore this glaring violation of civil rights, denying cert to Paul G. Thomasson v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense, and John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy on October 21, 1996.

In the years since the passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 12,500 homosexuals have been discharged from the military at a cost of more than half a billion dollars, not counting the number of heterosexual women that have been victimized by the policy.

President Barack Obama: The New Hope

In 2008 gay rights activists were given another hope of overturning the military ban with the election of President Barack Obama.

President Obama has repeatedly stated that he favors repealing the military ban:

“But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy — ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe.”

On Thursday, Maddow presented what she called the latest “tangible evidence of President Obama’s personal stance on the issue.” This week, the president sent a handwritten reply to Sandy Tsao, a U.S. Army lieutenant who wrote a letter urging him to repeal the ban after she came out in January.

“It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy,” Obama wrote. “Although it will take some time to complete, partly because it needs congressional action, I intend to fulfill my commitment.”

While it is clear that he wants to repeal the ban, we learned back in 1993 that promises aren’t actions. Over 110 days of the administration have passed and there has been no executive order, no Congressional effort, and during that time servicemembers like Sandy Tsao and Dan Choi are being discharged, Choi even being one of those “whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need” according to Obama.

One issue is that some of the gay and lesbian rights organizations are making one of the same mistakes today that they did 16 years ago:

“Obama has been praised for delaying efforts to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and some major gay rights groups are actively lobbying to delay consideration of the issue. They seem to believe that Obama should focus on other gay-rights issues first, and that he shouldn’t spend his precious political capital trying to ram a repeal bill through Congress.”

In 1992 gay rights organizations did not think that the military ban should be a priority, since at the time AIDS was the hot issue. The lack of preparation and commitment all but guaranteed the repeal’s failure. The GLBT movement needs to realize that this issue is extremely important. The careers of thousands of gays and lesbians are being destroyed, yet they do not think it is worth the political capital. The upper-middle-class urban demographic that dominates GLBT organizations ignored the military issue initially in the 1990s because they could not relate to an issue that predominantly affects working-class gays and lesbians, and they are in danger of doing it again.

The difference between today and 1993 is that now America is ready for the ban to be lifted. A Quinnipiac University national poll of American voters taken last month showed support for repealing the ban at 56 – 37 percent, including 50 – 43 percent among voters with family in the military. A 3% advantage against the repeal in 1992 has become a 19% advantage for the repeal in 2009: a swing of 22%. While the 111th Congress has a similar party composition to the 103rd Congress of 1993, the Democrats are much more supportive of GLBT rights than they were 16 years ago, including Rep. Holt who recently took a strong stand against the policy, and some Republicans are trying to become more gay-friendly in order to reinvigorate the party.

President Obama does not face the uphill battle that President Clinton did: the American people overwhelmingly support the repeal, Congress is much more favorable to GLBT rights, and Obama was elected in a landslide and maintains high approval ratings. The only disadvantage he shares with Clinton is the concern that by taking action on the ban it would appear that he was ignoring the economy, yet it is unlikely that Obama would face any backlash for it, especially considering the fact the Lt. Choi has provided the perfect example of a person whose discharge makes America less safe.

Aaron Belkin shows how President Obama could use an executive order to halt the discharges until Congress can officially remove the policy. The President needs to do this immediately and press Congress to finalize it.

America is ready to finally end 90 years of government sponsored discrimination and finally provide justice for our American heroes that served and continue to serve our country not just on the military battlefield, but in the struggle for full equality.

Resources Used in Researching This Post and Further Reading

• Urvashi Vaid – Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation
• Stephen Engel -The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement
• Neil Miller – Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present
• Murdoch and Price – Courting Justice: Gay Men And Lesbians V. The Supreme Court
• Allan Berube – Coming Out Under Fire
• Randy Shilts – Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military
• George Stephanopoulos – All Too Human
• Bill Clinton – My Life
• Jay Hatheway – Guilty As Charged: The True Story of a Gay Beret

• 0 Comments

This Saturday, April 18, Campus Pride hosts its second annual West Coast LGBT-Friendly College Fair at the San Diego LGBT Community Center, 3909 Centre Street in San Diego, CA. Nearly thirty colleges and universities from across the country will be in attendance from 1 p.m.to 4 p.m. to recruit lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and ally prospective students. Free of charge, any interested students and their families are welcome.

“Finally, colleges are coming out of the closet and being visible in the recruitment process to seek LGBT students,” said Shane Windmeyer, Executive Director of Campus Pride, the leading national nonprofit for LGBT students and campus groups and author of The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students. “Today campuses want to be considered LGBT-friendly. It is not only in the best interest of enrollment figures but also a necessity to prepare for a smaller, more diverse student population in the future.”

According to Windmeyer, an increasing number of colleges and universities are openly recruiting LGBT students and are doing so for the first time ever. Nearly thirty colleges have registered to date for the upcoming LGBT-friendly college fair sponsored by Campus Pride. In addition, over 185 colleges and universities are reaching out to LGBT students through the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index. The national index, the only resource of its kind, is a dynamic online tool which rates LGBT-friendliness at colleges and universities as well as sets a national benchmark for campuses to become safer, more welcoming for LGBT and ally people. Any campus may take part in the college fair program or the index at anytime.

Campus Pride developed the college fairs and the online LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index as active ways for campuses to be out and proud in attracting LGBT student populations. The efforts also provide an outlet for campuses to increase enrollment with a seemingly “untapped” population.

Colleges and universities registered to be in attendance include Alliant International University; Arizona State University; Bryant University; California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; Claremont McKenna College; Columbia College Chicago; Drexel University; Emory College (of Emory University); Gustavus Adolphus College; Kalamazoo College; Linfield College; McNally Smith College of Music; Penn State University; Princeton University; Point Foundation; Rochester Institute of Technology; San Diego State University; Sarah Lawrence College; UC San Diego; University of Colorado at Boulder; University of the Pacific; University of Utah; Washington and Lee University; Whittier College and Yale.

Organizing partners and supporters for the upcoming fair include national and local chapters of the Western Association for College Admissions Counseling, the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Parents, Families, Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and Point Foundation. For more details, please visit http://www.campusclimateindex.org/events or contact Campus Pride at 704-277-6710 or info@campuspride.org.

• 0 Comments

The LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index (www.campusclimateindex.org) is the most comprehensive national benchmarking tool for colleges and universities to measure campus climate and to create safer, more welcoming environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The American College Personnel Association (ACPA), the leading international association for college administrators, educators and senior officers, recently honored the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index with the “Innovative Response to Social Justice” award through the Commission for Social Justice Educators.

Described as “trailblazing, and a trusted, insightful measure for colleges and universities across the country,” the index was recognized at the annual conference of ACPA this past April. The national award showcases an exemplary educational initiative which furthers the progress of social justice and inclusion of all people. Any college or university may participate by taking the online assessment and then receive a free private confidential report for improving the quality of LGBT life on campus.

In less than ten months since its launch in September of 2007, the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index has grown to include over 150 college campuses and is the only online national tool of its kind. The index was developed by Campus Pride (www.campuspride.org) with a team of national researchers in the field of higher education and LGBT issues including Susan R. Rankin, Brett Genny-Beemyn and Shane L. Windmeyer. The index is in response to the increasing demand for tools and resources to support campuses in assessing LGBT-Friendly policies, programs and practices. The Index not only provides a mechanism for colleges to measure their LGBT-friendly policies, programs and practices but also a way for the public to learn more about campuses interested in supporting LGBT and ally students.

Free of charge, the LGBT Friendly-Campus Climate Index allows college campuses to showcase positive efforts and to continue improving their LGBT campus climate. Participation by a campus also sends a powerful message that LGBT students are welcome and their needs are important to college administrators, staff and faculty. The index tool includes 50+ self-assessment questions, which correspond to eight different LGBT-Friendly factors. Public users may search colleges and universities based on their LGBT-Friendly campus life (academics, policies, student organizations & activities, campus safety, health services, housing & residence life, recruitment & retention efforts, etc). Individuals may “Bookbag” campuses to compare and request referral information about LGBT campus life.

More information about the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index is available online at www.campusclimateindex.org. If you or your college or university is interested in participating in the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index, please inquire about how to get started by email at info@campuspride.org or go online to www.campusclimateindex.org/getstarted.

Believe In — Campus Pride. Campus Pride is the leading national nonprofit organization 501(c)(3) for student leaders and campus organizations working to create safer, more LGBT-friendly colleges and universities. It exists to give “voice and action” in building future LGBT and ally leaders. More info online at www.campuspride.org.

• 0 Comments

NEARLY FIFTY COLLEGES COME OUT TO RECRUIT GAY YOUTH AT NATIONAL GAY-FRIENDLY COLLEGE FAIR THIS WEEK
Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Penn among the diversified list of colleges

WHAT: Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Penn among the nearly fifty colleges who will be in attendance at the gay-friendly college fair hosted by Camps Pride this Friday, April 11 on the campus of University of California San Diego. The fair is designed specifically for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and straight ally youth and their families who want to find campuses committed to LGBT people. The event is in coordination with the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index (www.campusclimateindex.org), the only online resource of its kind, which rates LGBT-friendliness at colleges and universities. More information online at www.campusclimateindex.org/events.

WHERE: Ballroom of the Price Center at University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093

WHEN: This Friday, April 11 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

WHO: Nearly fifty colleges and universities from across the United States will be in attendance. In addition, expert presentations will take place throughout the day, which include “Finding Your LGBT-Friendly Campus” by Shane L. Windmeyer, Executive Director of Campus Pride; “The Pros and Cons of Selecting a United States Service Academy: The LGBT Experience” by the U.S. Naval Academy Out Alumni Group, “Navigating the College Admissions Process” by the UC San Diego Office for Admissions and Relations with Schools, “Point Foundation Scholarships” by Point Foundation staff, and “Financing your Education” by the UC San Diego department of Financial Aid.

WHY: According to Campus Pride, an increasing number of colleges and universities are openly recruiting LGBT students and are doing so for the first time ever. In addition, over 150 colleges and universities are reaching out to LGBT students through the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index (www.campusclimateindex.org). The fair and index are active ways for campuses to be out and proud in attracting LGBT student populations as well as increase enrollment with a seemingly “untapped” population. Even straight students are looking for LGBT-Friendly campuses. Isabel Galupo, a high school senior in Towson, Maryland who attended the first LGBT-friendly college fair this past December, said, “It was great to have my first college fair be one where I could ask important questions about myself as someone from the LGBT community. This type of college fair was also very important for me as I have two moms – I want to be at a college where I can feel comfortable about my family.”

HOW: The event is free and open to the public — LGBT and ally prospective students and their families. For more details, please visit www.campusclimateindex.org/events or contact Campus Pride at 704-277-6710 or info@campuspride.org.

###

Believe In — Campus Pride. Campus Pride is the leading national nonprofit organization 501(c)(3) for student leaders and campus organizations working to create safer, more LGBT-friendly colleges and universities. It exists to give “voice and action” in building future LGBT and ally leaders.

• 0 Comments

NOTE: THE YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA SUPPORT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR STATEHOOD FOR PUERTO RICO. ALL PUERTO RICANS, INCLUDING THE TERRITORY’S LGBT POPULATION, ARE DENIED FULL PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS. PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO READ THIS MESSAGE FROM CAUCUS MEMBER EMILIO SEIJO AND TAKE ACTION TO SECURE STATEHOOD FOR PUERTO RICO AND WELCOME OUR LGBT PUERTO RICAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS FULLY INTO OUR POLITICAL MOVEMENT FOR LGBT EQUALITY.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Dear GLBT Caucus member:

I am Emilio Seijo, Vice President of the Young Democrats of America Puerto Rico Chapter and a proud Gay Democrat. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my good friend Rachel, my good friend Kyle and all the members the GLBT Caucus, which are my extended family, for their support and enthusiasm in the discussion of this important issue for our Nation and our Community in the past YDA’s 2008 Winter National Conference.

Because of our relation to the United States we are tied by federal laws. As an example, federal laws knew as Selective Service, We Don’t Ask You Don’t Tell and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And you are thinking what the difference between you and us is because you are also tied to those federal laws; which is true. The difference is that we have neither Senators nor Representatives at Congress; we only have a Resident Commissioner who has only voice but no vote. We don’t have the power/strength to change those policies that affect us in a negative way.

This means that Puerto Rico GLBT community is deprived of power because our current political status.

A Commonwealth “is not a political status in the way that State, nation, and territory are. It is a word also used in the names of four States and another territory”. What the United Nations concluded was wrong.

Since Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth three plebiscites have been held, all of them by State sanction only. In the first plebiscite in 1967, the commonwealth received 60.4% votes, statehood 39% and independence 0.6%. In 1993, commonwealth got 48.6% votes, statehood 46.3%, independence 4.4%, and blank and void ballots 0.6%. The third plebiscite in 1998 was based on a U.S. House bill never enacted. The Governor and the State Legislature chose to conduct a plebiscite even without a federal sanction. With two additional options; the votes tallied were commonwealth 0.1%, free association 0.3%, statehood 46.5%, independence 2.5%, none of the above 50.3%, and blank and void ballots 0.3%. As you can see the tendency is towards a non-territorial status, and that Puerto Ricans are not satisfied with the current status.

In 2000, President Clinton established the President’s Task Force to address the issue of Puerto Rico’s status. The purpose of the Task Force was to identify options for the island’s future status and the process for realizing an option.

On December 2005, the Task Force filed its report, concluding that only two non-territorial options are recognized by the United States Constitution and made three recommendations. The two options are statehood and the independence. The three recommendations are:

1. [T]hat the Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain.

2. [I]f the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial options. Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward the option.

3. If the people elect to remain as a territory… that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.

Thanks to President Clinton’s initiative, of establishing the Task Force, at this time there is a bill in the House that deal with the status issue of Puerto Rico. The H.R. 900, which is based on the Report by The President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status.

On December 2007, the Task Force filed its second report, concluding again that only two non-territorial options are recognized by the United States Constitution and reiterates the previous recomendations on the 2005 Report.

I can not believe that the United States “intended” to “keep colonies forever …” and “justify 108 years of colonialism.”

As members of the YDA, we had received your support on several resolutions on this issue. In the past years, the National Committee has approved three important resolutions, recognizing the colonial status of Puerto Rico and urging the U.S. Congress to approve legislation where the people of Puerto Rico can vote for their future political relation with the United States, based on non-colonial non territorial formulas. Also, in August of 2005-2007, YDA adopted its platform, which states their support that Puerto Ricans should be given an opportunity to determine the future of Puerto Rico, either as United States’ state, or as an independent nation. The current platform has the same statement.

Now, if you are asking yourself, what can I do? It’s simple. A few calls, emails, and more. We need your help in this endeavor. You voted for your congressperson and you will be voting again, so therefore, you have the power to persuade and convince them to vote in favor of the H.R. 900. We do not have that kind of electoral power/strength since we do not participate in national elections. What we can do is ask for your support. We need you! You would be our best lobbyists. This is an ambitious plan, but I trust America and I trust you my fellow democrats.

P.S. Congressperson draft letter:

March __, 2008.

Dear Congresswoman (man) ________:

I am a young voter who believes in Democracy. For 108 year, we the United States have been keeping a colony, Puerto Rico. The Puerto Ricans do not have real voting representation in the national government and their island is not an independent nation. We have an obligation to enable them to have a democratic form of government at all levels because we promote Democracy.

At this time, there is one bill in the House that deal with the status issue of Puerto Rico. The bill is the H.R. 900, which is based on the reports (2005 and 2007) by The President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status and its recommendations.

I am supporting H.R. 900 because the H.R. 900 proposes a federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States.

The real option that gives the people of Puerto Rico a tool to express their decision about what status they want is the H.R. 900.

I invite you to support the H.R. 900 with your vote!

Cordially,

___________
Jane (John) Doe

• 0 Comments

An Open Letter to the LGBT Community:

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives. We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia– that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president.

That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Barack Obama

• 1 Comment