Petrelis Files

2009-11-23T09:36:00.000-08:00

Whipping Up Support: Folsom Fair Forum
Tonight at City Hall

(Just one golden reason why Folsom was so freaky and fine this year.)

There were a handful of complaints from prudes and anti-fun forces regarding nudity and public kink at the 2008 Dore and Folsom fairs, creating hassles for fair organizers and putting the fetish communities on the defensive. Organizers of the fairs, at the behest of many fair attendees, promised to hold a town hall to give us all a chance to, um, come together and discuss community engagement to make the fairs even more fabulous than they already are.

Last week, both Demetri Moshoyannis, head of Folsom Street Events, and Supervisor Bevan Dufty, send out announcements about the forum, which is at 6 pm this evening at City Hall in Room 305.

Not only is it fabulous to live in a city that hosts these two public fetish fairs that bring much consensual pleasure to hundreds of thousands of people, but it's also great that an open forum to foster dialogue between the community and city agencies responsible for the permits necessary to put on the fairs, is held at our beautiful City Hall.

From Demetri:

Hi, Michael! Here is the information about the event. We sent out a 5,000+ eblast about it and it's listed on our homepage too.

Community Feedback Meeting
Hosted by Supervisor Bevan Dufty

Folsom Street Events would like to hear from you about what makes our events so great and what would make them even better! There's no need to RSVP. Just stop by and listen or give us a piece of your mind. We hope to see you there!

From Bevan:

This Monday, November 23rd, I am co-hosting a public meeting with the organizers of Folsom Street to talk about the Street Fair. The meeting will take place at City Hall in Room 305 and begins at 6:00 pm.

I wanted to support the great work of Folsom Executive Director Demetri Moshoyannis and his hard-working volunteer Board while ensuring openness. So please come join us with your questions and concerns and we hope to have some social time after the meeting.

I can't wait to hear from the city representatives about how they'll work with fair organizers to make the 2010 events the best yet, and to also listen to the concerns of the kinksters. If you've got the time, show up to the meeting tonight and speak up for public kink on San Francisco streets.

2009-11-21T18:01:00.000-08:00

Transgender Woman Burned to Death
in Italian Political Scandal

(Brenda, murdered transgender woman.
Photo credit: EPA.)

Yesterday was the 11th annual International Transgender Remembrance Day, a day to recall all the murdered and bashed trans-persons in the previous year. It was also the day the body of a Brazilian-born transgender woman, so far IDed as Brenda, was found in the Lazio region of Italy. Brenda was burned to death, and according to news reports, no suspect has been arrested in her death.

From Reuters:

A Brazilian transsexual caught up in a scandal which prompted the resignation of a senior Italian politician -- the center-left governor of Lazio region, which includes Rome -- was found burned to death in his home Friday. Police found a body following a fire in a basement flat in a neighborhood frequented by transsexual prostitutes and court sources said magistrates were treating the death as murder.
Forensic tests were expected to identify the remains as those of a transsexual known only as Brenda, police said.
Brenda and another Brazilian transsexual were at the center of a case involving the blackmail of former Lazio Governor Piero Marrazzo by four police officers who secretly filmed him having sex and taking drugs with one of the transsexuals. [...]
Marrazzo's lawyer Luca Petrucci told reporters Brenda's death was "really worrying news" and demanded police protection for the other transsexual in the case, who is known as Natalie.

Let us remember Brenda, and all of our other dead transgender brothers and sisters, this weekend, while we also fight for policies lessening discrimination against transgender people everywhere and stand in solidarity with them.

2009-11-21T09:38:00.000-08:00

Wolfson's FTM: No IRS 990;
Astraea's Fiscal Sponsorship

If you want to follow the money at Evan Wolfson's Freedom to Marry, you have to hopscotch around to locate basic financial information.

I tried to locate FTM's IRS 990 reports at the GuideStar site, because I assumed, incorrectly, that the org had its own 501(c)3 tax exempt status from the feds. FTM, despite a budget approaching one million dollars annually, is fiscally sponsored by the Astraea Foundation, which describes itself as a "dynamic global foundation providing critically needed financial support to lesbian-led, trans, LGBTI and progressive organizations."

Evan's group is not lesbian-led. And because FTM is not a free-standing non-profit, it isn't required by the IRS to file a 990, which is why GuideStar has no filings on them. Hop on over to the FTM donation page to get a clue about its link to Astraea:

Donations made online will appear as "Astraea Foundation" on your credit card statement. Freedom to Marry is a project of the Astraea Lesbian Foundation.

Want to know how much Evan is paid as executive director of FTM? You better know Astraea is his fiscal sponsor and have to read that org's IRS 990 filings to get his salary info.

The 2008 IRS filing for Astraea, click here to read it, twice lists two EDs and their salaries. Evan's pay was $156,700 last year, while the real ED of Astraea, Katherine Acey, earned $127,000. Nowhere in the filing does it say that Evan is ED of a separate org.

Then, to confuse things more, GuideStar posts two 990 reports from Astraea for 2007. The January 2007 version lists Evan as co-ED making $151,589, while Kathy is listed as the other ED, earning $109,413.

In the May 2007 version, Astraea's 990 reports the same salaries for both, but Evan is identified as ED of "FTM" and Kathy is identified as ED of "NBJC". Neither org's name is fully spelled out, but we know what FTM stands for, and NBJC is the National Black Justice Coalition, a gay civil rights org. Why does a 990 for Astraea list its ED as the ED of another org?

(It's another matter entirely why Astraea is providing all this sponsorship of a non-lesbian-led org, why there is such a long-term fiscal sponsorship between FTM and Astraea, and why can't Evan just get his own IRS tax exemption. I've asked Kathy to address these and other concerns about all this, and will publish her response early next week.)

The Astraea IRS 990 gives no information about FTM's revenue and expenses, so I asked Evan how to locate it. He said to read his annual reports, and I jumped over to his site's "About Us" page where a link is shared to the three most recent annual reports. What do they reveal?

In 2006 FTM reported revenue of $1.5 million, total expenses of $1.6 million, and $445,000 in regrants and support to partner orgs.

The 2007 version showed $1.4 million for revenue, $1.3 million for expenses, and $283,439 for regrants and support. In 2008, FTM's revenue was $1.1 million, expenses of $1.2 million, and $316,974 in regrants and support.

All that info, along with other fiscal data, need to be presented by FTM in its own IRS 990. And FTM makes this claim regarding his alleged exempt status:

Founded in January 2003, Freedom to Marry is a non-partisan, not-for-profit 501c(3) organization.

No,it's not, and Evan said as much in an email to me, in which I wondered why FTM lacks its own 501(c)3 status and is it in the process of obtaining it from the IRS:

Because Freedom to Marry was created to get a job done in the most efficient way possible, and for the first several years, that was by avoiding building new infrastructure beyond what was needed. [...] We will obtain independent 501c3 status when that seems the best thing to do in order to get the job done.

Huh? So an org that sets up its own physical office on Manhattan's West 23rd Street, is avoiding infrastructure in not obtaining a tax exemption? Sounds to me like FTM does need infrastructure, after all, its agenda of gay marriage across America, is an extended project. An org with an annual million-dollar-plus in revenue and an office should have its own tax exemption.

Confusion and peculiarities abound, and I hope much-needed clarification comes from Evan and Kathy. I believe Evan should have long ago established his own independent 501(c)3 for his seven-year old org that doesn't involved fiscal sponsorship with another org. There should be real transparency over his FTM, and right now, murkiness is the key word in terms of following the money at FTM.

2009-11-20T10:19:00.000-08:00

J'burg, NYC, DC: Gay Uganda
Protests Show Solidarity

(Activists picketing in Washington yesterday at the Ugandan Embassy. Photo credit: Michael T. Luongo, Gay City News.)

(Demonstrators outside the Ugandan mission to the UN yesterday. Photo credit: Gay City News.)

As someone who criticized the non-governmental orgs for not taking to the streets because of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill under consideration in Uganda, I have a few things to say about actions this week in solidarity with the troubled gay Ugandan community: Bravo, fabulous, a job very well done, and thanks.

Yes, it really pumped my global activist blood seeing many NGO staffers and regular gay and AIDS activists picketing. The beauty and power that come when we get off our computers, come together as a group in public, target a government office during business hours, is something we need a lot more of. It doesn't always take hundreds of protesters to send a message that we demand justice and respect.

The dozens of men and women in Johannesburg, New York City and Washington, DC, deserve kudos and more attention for their activism. And thanks go out to the staff at Gay City News for their coverage.

Let's hope the coordinated same-day actions happen again, and on a monthly basis would be fine, with NGOs spearheading the organizing, at other UN missions and embassies. We all know there are many countries mistreating their gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and HIV positive citizens, so there are plenty of targets for monthly pickets. If our brothers and sisters in DC and NYC are considering more global gay street action, I ask that they look next at staging a picket at the Jamaican embassy.

Now, onto the reports about the actions. This info is from Juliana Cano Nieto at Human Rights Watch:

Hope everyone can join us [at the NYC action], 80 people showed up in the Johannesburg demo!

I apologize for lack of a photo thus far from the South African action, but once I get an image of that protest, I'll share it. And this reporting comes from Paul Schindler at Gay City News:

Roughly four dozen LGBT activists and allies turned out on November 19 to protest at Uganda House –– that nation’s permanent mission to the United Nations on Manhattan’s East 45th Street –– voicing their outrage about a draconian proposal to criminalize the promotion of same-sex conduct and impose the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.”

Amanda Lugg, the British-born lesbian advocacy director at the African Services Committee whose father is from Uganda, told the protesters that she was there “standing in solidarity” with gay, lesbian, and HIV-positive Ugandans.

The proposed anti-homosexuality law would supplement existing legal prohibitions on “carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” –– a measure already used to persecute openly gay men and lesbians there.

The new measure specifically criminalizes same-sex conduct –– ranging from sexual stimulation to “touching another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality” –– with a potential sentence of life imprisonment. [...]

Approximately 30 activists gathered outside the Ugandan Embassy in Washington, also on November 19. According to Bob Witeck, a DC public relations professional who did pro bono publicity for the Washington protest, three activists were invited inside to meet with Embassy staff.

2009-11-19T14:42:00.000-08:00

BAR: Gay Inc Needs
A New Marriage Strategy

Leland Traiman, head of the Gay Sperm Bank and a longtime gay advocate in the East Bay, has an a terrific column in today's Bay Area Reporter, summing up a desperate plea to Gay Marriage Inc leaders coming from many gay people: Give us a new strategy.

It's a story older than Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden, the gulf between our self-anointed professional leaders and the large segment of average LGBT people, just struggling to get by and who want more tangible accomplishments from our orgs. Even when faced with setback after setback with a closeted strategy, and real push for change from the grassroots, our paternalistic leaders won't evolve in their stewardship of our orgs and the gay agenda.

But I remain optimistic fundamental evolution at the top echeleons of Gay Inc will one day get a Plan B, and I know it will be because of people like Leland and his public demand for new thinking. Be sure and check out Leland's blog, NationalMarriageEquality.

Here are excerpts from his BAR column:

Same-sex marriage has never won an election. Maine was our 33rd loss. On the other hand, domestic partnership has never, on its own, lost an election. [...]
The question I have for our community's leaders (you know to whom I refer, the alphabet soup of NCLR, HRC, NGLTF, GLAD, EQCA, Lambda, etc.): "Are we so used to losing that we now want to add domestic partnerships and civil unions to the list, or, are we going to wake up and realize we need a new strategy?"
The clarion call of "marriage, marriage, only marriage" has not worked and seems unlikely to in the near future. We need a new strategy (possibly, our old one) which, will, first, defend the rights we already have won and, second, create a strategy that expands our rights. A new strategy might also spare us from our new annual ritual of having a gut-wrenching cry when we have lost another election. [...]

Our losses will not stop if we keep repeating our failures without changing our strategy. Sadly, I see many in our community clinging to the marriage-only strategy with the same irrational religious zeal of a born-again Christian. I understand such zeal for our goal, which is equality. But I do not understand why so many in our community are wedded to a strategy that has repeatedly failed us.
We need a new strategy.

2009-11-19T08:56:00.000-08:00

Freedom to Marry: No Plan B

The gay community has lost 32 gay marriage ballot propositions, and one of the key architects of the strategies to fight them is Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, FTM. Over the past week, with typical standoff-ish reluctance, Evan's engaged in an exchange of emails and he's addressed some of my concerns with the losses. One thing I've learned from years of personal interactions with him is that he argues by dismissing the questions or who's asking it, rejecting how questions are framed and exaggeration.

For example, I asked about changing tactics and if FTM had a Plan B that might lead to one or two wins. Evan's reply:

I don't agree with your framing. Conflating the "32 gay marriage prop losses" is misleading and unhelpful.

The work now (you can call it "Plan B," but I consider it what we've always needed to do) is to improve the capacity to win ballot-measures, building on an expansion of the overall winning strategy of combining public education, mobilization, outreach, organizing, litigation, and legislative work to secure and advance in more states while continuing to move public opinion.

In short, no Plan B, and he believes he already has a winning strategy. Paging Mr. Orwell! If 32 ballot losses are a victory, I'd hate to learn what Evan considers a setback.

Calling for building up the state equality groups, with more of hollow equality and fairness rhetoric that voters keep rejecting and running away from being gay identified, shows how committed Evan is to his losing strategy. We must look at his influence over the campaign leaders, including governors, and what they say on TV.

The week before Mainers voted, Gov. Baldacci went on Rachel Maddow's show, and like Evan, dismissed the question of a Plan B. Wanna guess who gave the gov his talking points? Just like in California last year with Prop 8, a campaign Evan advised, the Maine leaders ignored the realistic chance of losing and having a backup plan of any sort in place. This is political suicide and unacceptable.

How does Evan like dealing with me and what does he think of my advocacy? In his own words:

Beyond that, I am fine answering questions or addressing your concerns/thoughts from time to time, as I do with anyone. But, at the risk of inflaming you, I don't buy into a dynamic where someone presents as a self-anointed ombudsmen [sic] whose contribution to our movement is critiquing everyone else. That would pose the issues regarding accountability, transparency, objectivity, judgment, and productivity you sometimes raise regarding others.

Hmm, just like he didn't approve of how I framed my Plan B query, Evan says he's not buying into communicating with me for a number of reasons. He then buys into the dynamic of dealing with me in, yes, my self-anointed role as an ombudsman. I appreciate his Freudian slip as he uses the plural of ombudsman in describing one of my roles in the movement. I wish we had more self-anointed watchdogs.

But the larger context to the reply is how Evan shifts the focus away from FTM and the 32 losses at the ballot box for gay marriage. He can't have a debate about his vanity charity's long-held beliefs in waging the campaigns, and their failures, because it's been determined by Evan and colleagues that campaigns will be framed in equality and fairness arguments.

In response to my question about whether a recent meeting of his steering committee was open to public, Evan said:

Finally, even if it were true that "sunshine" were really your agenda and the perspective from which you write your posts, unlike you, I don't believe that every meeting, every bit of research, every strategy, every accusation, every grievance, or every doubt is best made public. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Again, when a simple no would have been appreciated, before launching into dismissing sunshine concerns, Evan diverts attention from lack of transparency with FTM. He fails to state how his organization practices sunshine, then exaggerates my transparency philosophy.

So, he's got no Plan B, he thinks we're winning, he's says we're close to mission accomplished on gay marriage and he lost a November 9 Nightline Twittercast debate with Maggie Gallagher. If you haven't watched that exchange, you really should, just to get a visual and aural sense of Evan's debating and engagement skills, which are not achieving wins at the ballot box.

When the next state gay marriage measure goes before the voters, rest assured Evan will be there to execute the basic CA and ME strategies, with some marginal changes, on our way to racking up our next electoral loss.

2009-11-17T14:15:00.000-08:00

Decline to Sign CA's 5, or 1,
Gay Marriage Prop(s)

(A paid signature gatherer at the Market Street Safeway, working on insurance, marijuana and Congressional restricting petitions, this afternoon.)

Let's talk about the confusion over how many potential ballot initiatives are now supposedly out there for voters to consider signing. The political blog for the SF Chronicle last night reported on the number of petitions approved for circulating, thus launching some of the confusion:

Want to repeal California's ban on gay marriage? You now have five chances to get an initiative on the ballot.

Pay attention, 'cause this could get confusing. No less than five initiatives have been cleared for takeoff by the Secretary of State's office. All five would repeal the current provision in California's Constitution that limits marriages to between a man and a woman [...]

That's a lot of initiatives to consider signing, but one of the organizers behind the signature gathering, Jeffrey Taylor of San Francisco, in a message posted to Towleroad, which also said there were five initiatives, said that figure is wrong:

The press isn't looking hard enough at the ballot language. All 5 versions were filed by the same proponents in order to have more time to choose which version was best, and the proponents have chosen to move forward on only ONE version. The other versions will NOT have signatures collected on them. You should expect the other versions to be withdrawn, but there is lag time between the California Secretary of State's office issuing of Title and Summary (the official go ahead for signatures) and acknowledging the withdrawal of other language.

That clarification irons some of the conflicting info, but it also raises questions about why any organization would file so many different versions of an initiative, and then expect the press and the public to pay careful attention to nuances in the petition process. Not the best way to launch a controversial measure.

In any event, the news release from the Secretary of State has this headline: Five Marriage Equality Initiatives Enter Circulation.

If the SoS has it wrong, then the backers of the initiative(s) should do everything in their power to get a corrective release from the SoS, or put out their own factual statement tidying up this numerical confusion.

So far, the primary group behind this misguided effort, Love Honor Cherish down in Los Angeles, has not seen the need to correct the misinformation of the SoS, Chronicle, Towleroad and any other blog or news source reporting the five number. If LHC can't be bothered to issue a release admitting the confusion exists and working to undo it, I don't think they'll be very useful waging an actual statewide campaign.

Whether it's one or five potential initiatives, I encourage everyone to decline to sign the petitions. The California gay community is so splintered and disorganized, we wouldn't win even in 2014. We don't need another wasteful gay marriage measure put before the voters, especially when it is launched so haphazardly and based on the same tired old losing equality rhetoric.

The site to visit for the petition is named SignForEquality.com, and the imagery is a replica of the dark blue signage from the No on 8 committee, and we all know what a failure the signage was for that group. I guess the SignForEquality and LHC people aren't interested in learning from the mistakes of last year, and avoiding them.

It may turn out to be quite easy to get a serious decline to sign going. I went out today to look at two key spots where signature gatherers always set up shop, and couldn't find anyone pushing petitions for the repeal effort. Someone should tell the 2010 repealers to either get serious, or go away and come back another day.

(Paid promoters at Castro and 18th Streets, pushing car-sharing today.)

2009-11-15T22:01:00.000-08:00

ME Gay Loss: No Plan B,
Straight Man's Burden

With only days to go before the election, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow invited Maine's Democratic governor on her show to discuss Question 1, the measure on gay marriage. As with practically every other gay ballot proposition, the Maine politicians and gay and allied leaders, had no Plan B in case we lost. Look at the transcript and see lame political spinning in action:

MADDOW: Governor, how confident are you about how this ballot measure is going to go on Tuesday? And if the law is overturned, if the Yes on One forces win, is there a Plan B for same-sex marriage rights in Maine?
BALDACCI: I think, Rachel, it‘s a very good question. But when I visited the campaign office, there were over 8,000 volunteers, Rachel. And almost all of them are from the state of Maine. They‘re from families in the state of Maine. There are college students. There are older people, retired people, working people that are working on this.
And they‘re working day and night in the campaign offices throughout the state. I was talking with Jesse Connolly(ph) and he was telling me about how driven and motivated they are and about the early voting that‘s already taken place. [...]

What a bucket of warmed-over spit. The governor lies about it being a good question, then doesn't answer it, while boasting how terrific the people are working on the pro-gay side. I, for one gay man, am sick to death of such spin and lack of planning like this, then trying to divert attention from the core issue, Plan B. Rachel wasn't going along with the spinning:

MADDOW: And a backup plan?
BALDACCI: I think the way I approach this, Rachel, is that we conduct a campaign well. We‘ve been able to get a lot of information and education out to people about a very difficult issue for some people, an emotional issue for some people to grapple with. So I think we‘ve made a lot of inroads.
So I think whatever the results are, I‘m very pleased of the efforts and abilities of a lot of people to be able to look inside themselves and realize that it‘s only an issue of fairness. It‘s an issue of equal protection. [...]

Not only does the governor spin like a dervish, he mouths a bunch of platitudes about the campaign for fairness and equality, the vague talking points that didn't help defeat Prop 8 last year.

It is this sort of nonsense and evasion that should frustrate the gay community, to the point where we examine and end the spin. After triple-digits losses, we need to put spokespeople on TV who will easily not only present a Plan B, but will also admit unequivocally that the ballot measures are indeed about gay people. We need to stop allowing campaign leaders to de-gay the initiatives.

Speaking of campaign leaders, Jesse Connolly, the heterosexual head of Protect Maine Equality, the group that dare not speak it's gay marriage equality name, penned a column for the Huffington Post over the weekend, offering some thoughts about the loss. His column reeks of "straight man's burden" attitude and an irritating naivete.

From the get-go, Jesse talks how difficult it is for him to start to address the loss, ten long days after the election and the burdens he bears because lots of people beyond his state's borders haven't waited for him to opine:

While it's difficult and, one might suggest, even slightly irresponsible to weigh in on our marriage equality loss so soon, it's also tough to sit on the sidelines while others make sweeping proclamations or conclusions, usually hundreds or thousands of miles away from Maine.

What does it matter where critics live at this point? We've all seen the election efforts and results, and for those of use old-timer gays who've witness and volunteered for gay ballot props over three decades, it's never too early to begin analyzing our latest loss.

First and foremost, marriage equality is a complex issue. Many people are conflicted and we know from national and state specific polling that it is very difficult to move people on this issue, particularly in the confines of short campaigns.

Secondly, our opponents capitalized on that conflict by constant distortion and misrepresentation.

He wants to talk how marriage is a complex issue? He can start by simply stating the ballot measure was about gays and marriage. I'm not sure what is gained by Jesse admitting known facts about gay marriage and those who are against it. His two points are the same one made time and again by those who run these campaigns. Given that the points are always in play with the props, what did Jesse do differently this time than all the other times we lost?

Remember, this was a campaign where we got up on the air first and where we put genuine Maine values as the context for supporting marriage equality. We used real Maine families: gay and lesbian Mainers and their kids, and parents who wanted all of their children treated equally under the law. In sharp contrast to other campaigns, gay and lesbian families were woven into our advertising and images as they are in society - organically and realistically.

It isn't until the fifth paragraph that Jesse uses the word gay, illustrating again how the campaign leaders go out of their way to avoid saying gay too soon or too loudly. Sorry, but it ain't enough in my book to give the Mainers brownie points in 2009 for including gay people in TV ads. And guess what? That cosmetic addition to the media strategy wasn't enough to overcome the basic closetry of the campaign.

Here's what I do believe after some sleep and a break from the caffeine: we moved the equality ball further up the hill, not just in Maine, but everywhere else. Voters do need these conversations which we had by the tens of thousands; they do need to see real gay and lesbian couples and their children up close and personal; and they do need to be reminded that these are neighbors and soccer coaches we're talking about, not "homosexual activists" which is the well worn handle our opponents trot out.

Sorry, but after triple-digit losses, all waged by de-gayed campaigns, and with milions of gay dollars spent, it's not nearly good enough anymore for these campaigns to simply move the "equality ball." At minimum, we must start insisting that the campaigns be gay-specific educational efforts and stop wasting precious money and time on failed and empty vague equality arguments.

Would also be good if Jesse can one day see that even "homosexual activists" should be discussed by Mainers, and that there is nothing wrong with being one. I don't know about you, but I feel the way the phrase is used, is as a slam against activists.

I'm not skirting anything here when I suggest that we need to remember that it was not long ago when we were losing in double digits, when they threw an anti-marriage equality question on a ballot in a presidential year to drive conservatives to the polls.

It may turn out to be simply this: that by moving this basic premise of equality from the sink hole of catastrophic defeat state after state, year after year, to within striking distance of a win, that we are almost to the finish line.

More blather about vague equality and omitting references to gays, all the while put a Pollyanna gloss on the loss in Maine. Frankly, with 32 gay marriage initiative losses, we ain't even close to the finish line, but these campiagn managers have to drag out their shop-worn cliches in order make themselves feel good.

There are probably huge demands to make on the Gay Inc leaders and allies preparing for the next ballot props, but they must be made: Develop a Plan B, admit the props are about gays, and be ready to start objectively analyzing losses within 24 hours of polling places closing.

2009-11-15T16:03:00.000-08:00

Vid of London Action for Gay Ugandans

Dennis Hambridge, who helped organize the November 7 protest at a Ugandan government office in London, has created a vid of one of the speakers, Davis Mac-Iyalla, a gay exile from Nigeria, explaining the importance of getting into the streets for gay Ugandans:

Notice all the pedestrians passing by, paying only fleeting attention, if that, to the demonstration taking place for gay people in Uganda. If any of us needed a reminder of how too many people ignore the plight of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons around our small planet, the disinterested Londoners walking by as Mac-Iyalla talks are the reminder.

Here is the info for the American actions on Thursday, November 19:

1) WHERE: Ugandan Embassy
5911 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC

TIME: 2:00 PM – 3 PM ET

2) WHERE: Uganda Mission to the United Nations
336 E. 45th St. (Btwn 1st & 2nd Aves)
New York, NY

TIME: 12:30 pm

I appeal to everyone in those cities to make an appearance at the protests. Raise your voice to stop the potentially deadly anti-homosexual bill under consideration by Ugandan leaders.

2009-11-15T09:42:00.000-08:00

Radical Ideas for Future
Gay Ballot Props

If you count the devastating California Prop 22 loss in 2000, which does not show up on list of gay marriages propositions we've lost, our list of such setbacks is 32, not 31 times we failed to persuade voters to uphold gay marriage principles. The 32 number is part of the more than 100 gay-specific measures we've lost. With so many failures hanging around our necks, we need to debate other ways of approaching the measures, and I wish to offer a few radical ideas for consideration. But first, a short history lesson.

On election night in November 1988, I was in Portland, Oregon, at the headquarters of the group fighting ballot Measure 8, a prop that rescinded job protections for gay executive branch employees. The non-gay visible campaign was waged by Oregonians for Fairness, OFF, and they ran away from admitting the measure was about gays. Instead, OFF framed the debate as one of human rights, and the prop passed with 53% of the vote. I complained about the invisibility of gay people from the media strategy and OFF leaders told me to go away.

Twenty long, losing years later, on election night in November 2008, I was in a ballroom at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, rented by the No on Prop 8 executive committee, as results from national and state races came in. It was clear Prop 8 would pass and the California gay marriage experiment was coming to a end.

Just as in 1988, the official non-gay group fighting Prop 8 did everything in its power to deny the issue was about gay people and gay marriage, and the measure passed with 52% of voter approval. Using the same vague closeted campaign strategies, we had moved the needle one percentage point in two decades. But on election night 2008, I didn't wait around to hear the speeches of Gay Inc leaders. I've heard enough of their empty rhetoric.

Our messaging, and it starts with the branding of the names of the groups battling the measures, is premised on the toxic notion that there is something wrong with being a gay group. By omitting gay from the name, we not only send a self-stigmatizing signal to heterosexuals, we also don't connect to the large segment of the out gay community that doesn't emotionally connect to Equality-This or Fairness-That.

We saw in Maine a continuation of this problem with Protect Maine Equality. While PME made cosmetic changes to the media messaging by including actual gay people in TV ads, the underlying foundation of the campaign was one of equality and fairness, and those concepts don't resonate with moderate or older voters. Our bar has been set so low for so long, that in 2009 (!) it is a big deal for one of these efforts to show and talk about real gays.

Of course, simply having the gay word in the group's name isn't enough for effective and bold advocacy. Witness GLAAD and NGLTF. And it won't necessarily be enough to win the next state ballot measure if the lead organization is called Gay Marriage Equality Now. However, with so many ballot failures staring us in the collective face, I would like to see us experiment with how we engage the electorate, if only to restore some dignity and proud liberation to our movement, two components sorely missing from the equality and fairness methods.

Given our triple-digit losses, intransigent commitment to doing the same old campaign and not enough new thinking from Gay Inc, there is the real probability of setbacks in the next batch of state initiatives. I think we will at best, if we're lucky, move the needle slightly in our favor. As we know, in Maine, our opponents moved the needle fractionally in their direction since the Prop 8 vote, an alarming development that should force us to radically reconsider these campaigns.

A few radical ideas:

1) Our chief organization fighting the prop puts gay in the name and embraces the fact it is gay-specific.

2) Vague equality and fairness arguments, which aren't moving enough voters, are kept to a minimum.

3) Early on, admit we want the existence of gay people and our diverse families included in school curricula.

4) Have multiple TV ad campaigns, one soft and fuzzy like Hallmark greeting cards, another feisty and humorous, and a third gritty and hard-hitting about the toll discrimination has on gays.

5) Brighten up the signage with lighter, more welcoming colors. Incorporate the rainbow flag. Add words like gay marriage, and toss in a few human faces or stick figures.

6) Hire consultants who will show up to the gunfight at the OK corral with more than a dainty set of tweezers and nail clippers.

7) Set up many debates with opponents and learn from how Harvey Milk used debates to defeat the Briggs Initiative.

8) Be prepared for the other side to use lies and distortions in TV spots, and attempt pre-emptive moves.

9) Keep patronizing know-it-all gay lawyers who speak in legalese off TV.

10) Avoid labeling opponents skeevy or bigots or hateful. They may indeed be all of those things, but calling them that isn't bringing voters to our side.

11) On election night, when it's clear our side has lost, don't do like Prop 8 and No on 1 leaders and refuse to concede. Denial is not healthy or pretty.

12) With enthusiasm, fully embrace the wide diversity of the gay community and really put our creative fabulous nature to work.

13) Have a Plan B for when we lose. Leaders of the CA and Maine initiatives were absolutely clueless on this front. Two things happen on election night. You either win or lose. We never seem prepared to lose.

14) Make sure post-election rallies and community forums are scheduled for after the election loss. Enough with the "chicken without a head" post-election style of leadership.

15) Talk to pot heads. While gays have suffered too many ballot failures, people who smoke and promote medical marijuana win with voters. The Maine pot prop won with 59% of the vote. What are they doing right and how can we learn from them?

These ideas may not be enough to produce an honest-to-Goddess win, but they'll go far to instill out and proud gay visibility to multi-million dollar campaigns, and when we lose, we'll at least lose as rightfully assertive gay people standing up for ourselves.

2009-11-13T14:20:00.000-08:00

Gay Uganda Says Thanks;
Nov 19 DC Vigil Details Announced

Today I received a note of thanks from a leader with Gay Uganda, who must remain anonymous for his or her safety, in response to my recent blogging on the situation in his country for our brothers and sisters, and I was quite moved by his gesture.

And I wish to expand and share his word of thanks beyond me to all the folks in London who protested at a Ugandan government office on November 7, and the growing number of people organizing demonstrations to take place next week.

I'm pleased to play a small role in any global solidarity actions for gay Ugandans and hope everyone reading this who lives near NYC or DC, is at the November 19 actions. Mark Bromley of Global Equality shared the following information on the action at the embassy:

Save Lives, Oppose Cruelty and Speak Up For LGBTQ Human Rights in Uganda And Against Bill No. 18: The Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda

WHAT: Demonstration in solidarity with LGBTQ Ugandans

WHEN: Thursday, November 19, 2009

TIME: 2:00 PM – 3 PM ET

WHERE: Ugandan Embassy
5911 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20011

CONTACT: Mark Bromley, mark@globalequality.org

Directions: 2 miles north of Columbia Heights Metro Stop on 16TH street; or 1 mile northwest of the Georgia Ave/Petworth Metro Stop on Quincy Street; also accessible via 16th Street buses.

The DC organizers explained the reasons for their action: "If passed, Bill Number 18 introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, will make homosexuality an offense punishable by death in Uganda. The vote on the bill may take place as early as January 2010. The Ugandan LGBTQ community has urged demonstrations of solidarity around the world in protest and to let Ugandan leaders know the whole world is watching. In America, we will let our leaders know that this bill, if adopted, would undermine Congressional funding for PEPFAR and other U.S. tax dollars that help Uganda fight AIDS. "

Carey Alan Johnson from IGLHRC sent along this info on another action for next week:

IGLHRC is also collaborating with the Coalition of African Lesbians and other groups for a demonstration at the Ugandan Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa on Tuesday next week. We are very much in favor of direct, public action as a strategic tool for LGBT liberation.

Hey, Mark and Carey, good work on this street activism at embassies and UN missions. We need more of it from you guys, and others in the gay community joining in your actions.

If anyone knows of a web site listing all the cities, times, locations, contact persons, etc., for the action, lemme know the URL. And if one doesn't exist, I'll create such a page here.

2009-11-13T11:40:00.001-08:00

Evan Wolfson and ABC's Twittercast
on Gay Marriage

A gay political insider from DC told me a few days back that I simply had to watch Evan Wolfson lose a debate with Maggie Gallagher on ABC News Nightline Twittercast. He's the leader of Freedom to Marry, while she's head of the National Organization for Marriage. Actually, debate is the wrong word, because the reporter did a lousy job of keeping the discussion civil and respectful. As too often happens on TV, the debate was really an interruption-fest, especially by Maggie, who was not adequately reined in by the reporter.

That being said, I wasn't impressed with Evan's performance and told him so in an email, asking him to reply to my concerns. Unfortunately, he declined to engage with me on the record. His response was off the record and I'll respect this. Evan's excuse for not wanting to be quoted? He'd rather not be quoted evaluating his own performance. Sounds like extreme "control queenism" to me.

A few things that bothered me were Evan's insistence that we came very close to winning in Maine last week, we're not fighting for gay marriage per se, but for marriage freedom, and that gays aren't out to redefine marriage. I believe the vote was far from close, that saying this battle is not gay-specific is not a view the voters agree with, and that gays, like straight people, are indeed reinventing the institution of marriage.

The part where Evan really tried my patience with his lawyerly and stiff debating style, was when he didn't directly answer the reporter's question about why gays can't just accept the benefits of civil unions and giving gay marriages another name. See vid number 2, at the 4:40 mark.

For once, Maggie didn't immediately interrupt Evan, but he totally avoided addressing the question at hand. Instead, Evan went off on a tangent about groups that oppose civil unions giving money to Maggie's organization, and that NOM is under investigation in three states. He tried desperately to be heard over her sniping, and the cross-talk was beyond irritating.

About 4 minutes after the civil unions question was posed, some calmed reigned, and Evan offered a response about vocabulary nuances associated with marriage as one reason why civil unions aren't enough for the gay community, which I don't think would satisfy average voters who aren't English majors. I would have preferred to hear a cogent answers why civil unions just don't cut it, and to hear the answers before a tirade about bad donors or state investigations.

Overall, I found Maggie came across on the computer monitor as a very sore winner, but one with a demeanor that lots of voters in Maine apparently like because they voted as she and her allies asked them to. And again, the ABC News reporter must be spanked for her lame control of the segment and failure to keep the talk respectful, following basic rules of decorum for a political debate, yet still entertaining to viewers.

But my biggest frustration from the program was with Evan's performance. This is unfair, but I have to say watching and listening to Evan brought back painful memories of all the infuriating appearances on TV by No on Prop 8 leaders Geoff Kors and Kate Kendell, leading up to the election last year. Just like Evan this week, when Geoff and Kate went on TV to discuss gay marriage and ballot measures, they didn't win my empathy, all because they projected cerebral lawyerly parsing of language and spent too much time denying the issue before voters was indeed gay-specific.

If we want to radically change how the gay community fights these gay marriage ballot initiatives, and potentially winning the hearts and minds of average Americans and voters, we're going to have to engage in public criticism and constructive suggestions to improve the performances of our leaders who get on national TV.

We gays are not helping the situation when we only examine how Maggie comes across in such TV interruption-fests. Over at GoodAsYou, Jeremy Hooper analyzes just Maggie and what he doesn't like about her performance. Sure, we don't like her, her arguments or her style, but she's racking up more wins than us. No one on our side is helped when we ignore or fail to evaluate how our leaders behave in such appearances.

2009-11-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

Nov 19 Gay Uganda Actions in NYC & DC

(Gay Ugandan exiles and their allies demonstrated on November 7th in London.)

Earlier this week I called attention to a demonstration over last weekend at the Uganda House governmental office in London, because of a horrific and potentially deadly bill being considered by Uganda politicians and religious leaders. It cheered my activist heart to see a street protest took place in London, organized by unpaid volunteers, after a call to action was issued by gay Ugandans, who, for myriad security and safety reasons can't demonstrate in their own country.

However, I also took the well-funded human rights non-governmental organizations in New York and DC, where many are based, to task for not getting out of their suites and into the streets on behalf our brothers and sisters in the African nation.

But today I received this information about street protests on November 19 in those two cities, and other global locations, and I am pleased to see the NGOs I criticized are taking action. I offer sincere thanks and high praise for this development by the NGO staffers on behalf of the beleaguered gay Ugandans. Let this upcoming action become a regular occurrence by NGO staffers at embassies in Washington and UN missions in Manhattan.

From an email circulating today on the web:

RALLY AGAINST UGANDA'S ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL!

When: Thursday, November 19, 12:30 pm
Where: Uganda House, 336 E. 45th St. (Btwn 1st & 2nd Aves)

This demonstration is being organized in response to the global call for action from November 9th to December 10th, Human Rights Day, by SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) a network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people's organizations based Uganda.

Join with African Services Committee, IGLHRC (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), Human Rights Watch, Health GAP and many other local HIV/AIDS and social justice organizations in the area on Thursday, November 19th at 12:30pm outside the Ugandan Consulate [sic, it's the Ugandan mission to the UN] in New York to protest this assault on the basic human rights for the Ugandan LGBT community as proposed in Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Similar actions are happening around the world including in Copenhagan, Ottowa, Pretoria and on the same day in Washington D.C.

The Issue:

The Ugandan Parliament is now considering a homophobic law that would reaffirm penalties for homosexuality and criminalize the "promotion of homosexuality." The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 targets lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans, their defenders and anyone else who fails to report them to the authorities whether they are inside or outside of Uganda.

Background:

Uganda's Penal Code Article 145a already criminalizes "carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature" – a charge used to prosecute, persecute and blackmail LGBT people with the threat of life imprisonment. The new bill would specifically penalize homosexuality, using life imprisonment to punish anything from sexual stimulation to simply "touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality." It also punishes "aggravated homosexuality" – including activity by "serial offenders" or those who are HIV positive – with the death penalty.

A tip of the hat to Bill Dobbs, for sharing this important info.

2009-11-12T14:14:00.000-08:00

Suspect in Jamaican Gay Murder Makes Bail

(Danesworth Boucher in an undated photo from one of his web profiles.)

At the end of October I blogged about Rudolph Gschloessl, a German national found dead in his Jamaican home, and the rumors that he was a gay man. The police launched an investigation into the crime and recently took a suspect, Danesworth Boucher, into custody. He was charged with the murder and yesterday made bail.

From the Radio Jamaica news account of recent developments in the case:

The man accused of the murder of Rudolph Gschloessl, the operator of Cafe Aubergine, was released on bail Wednesday.

Twenty-four year old Danesworth Boucher was released on $50,000 bond when he appeared before the Corporate Area Criminal Court.

Senior Magistrate Judith Pusey offered him bail after the investigator told the court that he was not opposed to the accused getting bail. [...]

Mr. Gschloessl, who was also the financial controller at King Alarm, was found dead at his Mona Heights residence in St. Andrew on October 25.

His throat was slashed.

Mr. Boucher who lived in the same house with the German national was charged after the cops determined that he was the [alleged] killer. [...]

The cops entered the house and found Mr. Gschloessl's nude body lying in a pool of blood with a knife wound to the neck.

Mr. Boucher who called the cops told them that an intruder had entered the house and committed the murder.

But the police became suspicious and following investigations he was charged. [...]

Boucher's next court appearance is on December 16. Prior to his arrest, Boucher created a web presence for himself. A Google search of his name turned up a number of interesting hits, like this Twitter account, a Facebook page, and a profile at Graduates.com.

I expect the Jamaican press will run updates when Boucher next appears before the court and I plan to continue monitoring this case. Let's hope justice is carried out for Gschloessl.

(Rudolph Gschloessl)

2009-11-11T14:53:00.000-08:00

FBI Has 3,000 Pages on Ted Kennedy

When a person dies, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any records on the deceased. My open government bone gets itchy many times when famous people pass away.

I experienced an episode of nosiness when homo-hating Sen. Jesse Helms died, I filed a FOIA, and the FBI soon revealed it had more than 1,000 pages on him. But more than a year after his demise, the feds still have not released a single page on the North Carolina politician.

The feds received another request from me in the summer when closeted gay singer Michael Jackson died, and in response the FBI said it had 600 pages on him, but didn't say when that file would be released.

And when the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy passed away, the FBI got a FOIA request from me for his file. Last week I got a letter from the feds saying there were over 3,000 pages located responsive to my request. That's a lot of pages.

As with the Helms and Jackson requests, the FBI doesn't know when the Kennedy pages will be ready for public inspection. The agency is to be commended for quickly locating the number of pages on these men, but as with so many FOIA requests, actual release of the information can stretch on for years.

Here's an idea for President Obama to consider as part of a package to improve the nation's FOIA law: Find the money to hire more FOIA staff at all federal agencies. More staff would speed up the review and release of documents, giving us a better understanding of our government and our leaders.

Here's the letter from the FBI on the Kennedy file:

2009-11-11T09:58:00.000-08:00

Obama's Town Hall Lesson
for HRC's Solmonese

(Joe Solmonese sits for Washington Life magazine's photographer, Clay Blakemore. September 2009.)

It's not required by law, but modern presidential hopefuls, as part of running for the nation's highest office, must subject themselves to town halls with voters. I don't know how many such forums candidate Barack Obama held, but since taking office he's held quite a few.

The White House in March created a web page to help Americans participate in an online town hall a few days later, and we saw the President begin a commitment to use the forums to keep in touch with average citizens.

Since then, Obama has held town halls abroad in Turkey, France, across the United States in Virginia, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado, and Louisiana. Counting all in-person and online forums, Obama has conducted nine town halls. As if that's not enough, while in Asia next week, he'll hold a public forum with students in China.

The President reaped many large and small rewards from the dialogues, including engaging Americans to support his legislative and political agendas, leading to accomplishments such as the House passing a health care reform package last weekend. I don't think there are any serious drawbacks to town halls for Obama, indeed, they've assisted in keeping him connected to regular folks and vice versa.

But no such town halls ever take place before a new person is installed and crowned as America's Gay Leader when they take over the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay organization.

When the then-obscure Joe Solmonese was plucked from EMILY's List in March 2005 to head up HRC, it was because the board of directors met behind close doors and picked him to be the new executive director, and for many gays, the thing they said after the decision was announced was, "Joe who?"

There was no public auditioning of the candidates for America's Gay Leader by HRC, a fact that I believe leads to lack of connection and engagement many non-HRC members and donors have toward Solmonese. This lack of commitment from the larger gay community with Solmonese is clearly exhibited in the criticism he constantly faces from a loud chorus demanding a more assertive approach by him and his organization with the Obama administration.

These days, when Solmonese issues a weekly letter to HRC supporters or appears on national TV and does a masterful job of apologizing for lack of action from Obama, many bloggers and traditional gay media folks are ready to pounce on him. He is given no slack.

If Solmonese were to learn a few lessons from Obama in how to use town halls to bring people to endorse and work for your agenda, it would be a big step forward in convincing me that HRC truly has a roadmap for pressuring the White House, but also to more fully engage a wider spectrum of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

Imagine if Solmonese began holding regular monthly town halls at HRC's state-of-the-art media center at their DC headquarters, with any member of the gay public allowed to ask direct questions and questions submitted from gays around the country via email, YouTube and Twitter, and all of it streamed on HRC's web site.

Why, we'd have some genuine transparency and utilization of modern communication tools to better mobilize and organize the community to move forward more cohesively on a gay agenda. HRC would also be seen less as a monarchy given to ruling from an ivory tower with a rainbow hued foundation. Just as with Obama's town halls, there are great things to come of Solmonese's town halls, if they ever occur.

If the leader of the free world can find the time to host many town halls to carry out his vision and dreams for America, the de facto leader of the nation's gay community should do likewise. Town halls aren't as glamorous as sitting all gussied up in formal wear for a photo session, but they should be an integral duty of Solmonese's in the very near future.

(Solmonese, back row, second from left. Washington Life magazine. Photo credit: Clay Blakemore. September 2009.)

2009-11-10T13:45:00.000-08:00

New Prop 8 Federal Suit
Transcripts Now Online

(Ted Olson and David Boies meet the press after a recent court session over their Prop 8 challenge.)

The good people at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, who are behind the federal challenge to California's Prop 8 passage last year, have shared with me transcripts from two recent hearings before Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco.

Back in July, I made an effort to secure the transcripts of such hearings, even though I was sitting through some of them, because I believed the gay community, and lots of other interested parties, would be keen to follow the case through the written word. The foundation readily agreed with me and provided me with the July 2 transcript.

So far, the proceedings have not been aired on TV, but that could change. According to UniteTheFight, Walker is considering allowing cameras into the court room, which is something I believe we all should support.

But thanks to Chad Griffin and Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, anyone with a computer can follow the case thus far through the transcripts.

Click here for a PDF of the August 19 hearing, which is 70-pages.

To read the 103-pages from the October 14 proceeding as a PDF, click here.

Many big thanks to the foundation for making the transcripts available and giving America a great glimpse into this important case. Oh, and much gratitude for filing the lawsuit. May we prevail on this matter, and put an end to the hatred and tyranny of the state ballot measures on gay marriage.

2009-11-10T10:45:00.000-08:00

Gay Ugandan Protest in London;
No USA NGO Street Visibility

(London, November 7 demonstration.)

A call to action was issued in late October by the Gay Uganda blog and the Sexual Minorities Uganda group, in response to a proposal for new draconian anti-gay law. What's so terrible about this bill? The answer comes from the BoxTurtleBulletin blog, which has performed an excellent job of following homo-hatred in the African nation:

The Ugandan legislature is considering a bill that would enhance sentencing for gay people to include the death penalty for “repeat offenders”, among other “aggravated homosexuality” offenses, and life imprisonment for others.

Much outrage has been expressed by international human rights organizations, but little has happened in the streets over the Ugandan situation. The call to action was for the second weekend in November, and as far as I have been able to determine, a single action took place, in London on November 7, at the Uganda House, a governmental welcome center.

This report comes from Dennis Hambridge, an organizer with Gay Activists Alliance International:

The protest was joined by gay Ugandan John Bosco Nyombi who was illegally and forcibly put on an air flight back to Uganda by the UK Border Agency while seeking asylum in the UK, causing British courts to order his return back to the UK.

Amongst the banners and placards that were fixed to the front of the building, were banners stating “Unconditional Love for Ugandan LGBT” and the words of Dr Martin Luther King ("An Injustice Anywhere Is a Fight for Justice Everywhere” and pledging support for the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other gender variant people.

Hundreds of leaflets asking for the “witch hunt” of gays in Uganda to be ceased were handed out to passersby, not just to Brits, but also to people from many countries visiting Trafalgar Square on Saturday. There were many people stopping and applauding the protesters, and taking pictures of the action, pledging their support and to highlight the injustice LGBT people face in Uganda to their own governments.

(At the megaphone is Davis Mac-Iyalla, a gay Nigerian man granted UK asylum earlier this year.)

Bravos to all who participated in the action and brought much-needed street visibility to gay Ugandans, and also put some pressure on a Ugandan government office.

Unfortunately, no effort was made by USA non-governmental organizations to stage similar peaceful actions at the Ugandan embassy in Washington or the country's mission to the United Nations in New York City.

Early last week, I emailed many paid international and domestic LGBT advocates from HRW, IGLHRC, HRC, NGLTF and Global Equality, including Scott Long, Carey Alan Johnson, Joe Solmonese, Rea Carey, Julie Dorf and Mark Bromley, asking if they had any plans to leave their suites for press conferences at the embassy or mission in their cities, and none of them replied, not did they stage a visibility action for the Ugandans.

I believe the NGO advocates should get out of their offices more often and organize press conferences and vigils at embassies and missions, because it will pressure foreign governments and carry other tangible benefits for our oppressed brothers and sisters around the globe who can't stage such actions. Yes, the NGOs have sent letters to Uganda's leaders, but more should be done by the NGO advocates.

(Rep. Baldwin, holding glass award, and NGO advocates.)

Recently, several of these advocates staged a photo-op with openly lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin in her office to bestow a leadership award on her for advocacy on many fronts, including at the international level. That is laudable, but how about these folks, including the good Congresswoman, getting out of their comfort zone inside Baldwin's office and pounding the pavement in front of the Uganda embassy in DC?

2009-11-08T15:30:00.000-08:00

Gay Ballot Measures Since '72:
102 Losses, 23 Wins

From the NY Times obit after William F. Buckley Jr died:

To the New York City politician Mark Green, he purred: “You’ve been on the show [Firing Line] close to 100 times over the years. Tell me, Mark, have you learned anything yet?”

This amusing anecdote sprang to mind after I compiled a list of all winning and losing ballot propositions over the decades related to gay people. Leave to conservative Buckley to sting an opponent into spirited debate, with a simple question, one that expresses what I want to ask my gay community.

Information from three lists shows gay people have suffered 102 losses and 23 wins since 1972 through the ballot initiative process. The setback in Maine this week became our 102nd loss. That is some string of failures for the sissies. Triple digits losses over forty years, and I ask, have we learned anything yet?

I took data from this list published by a straight University of Kansas professor, Don Haider-Markel, (thank you, so much, Don), and also from this Wikipedia entry on LGBT ballot initiatives, along with info at the Wikipedia entry on gay marriage measures, and tallied up wins and losses.

Last week I was upset when Maine became the 31st gay marriage prop loss, but I didn't know the larger context of all gay-specific props, and it's even more disturbing to have to wrap my head around the total figure of 102 ballot measure losses.

Like a screaming queen at the Stonewall Inn riot and rebellion, I'm fed up with being treated like dirt by the establishment, and the Mr. Nice Gay leadership that produces endless ballot box bashings damaging our collective psyche and community karma.

Let's not forget the high price of the campaigns, sucking up money that could go to better use like housing subsidies for gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender seniors. How many millions are we talking about? David Mixner has part of the answer:

We have poured over $100,000,000 in the last two years into efforts where Americans feel it is there obligation to vote on our freedom.

One-hundred million in just two years and I shudder to think of the cost to the gay community pocketbook after _decades_ of these ballot props.

How much higher than 102 failures must our losses number climb to before things change? Much higher, with the thinking expressed by a man whose career is working on these losing campaigns. From a recent Washington Post article:

Advocates say there was a partial victory even in Maine, where the vote was closer than it had been in previous campaigns.

"We're hopeful that it's a signal that there is increasing support for gay couples to marry," said Dan Hawes, field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Nationally, we're going to continue education efforts to move the needle of public opinion, especially in California."

Sorry, Dan Hawes, and the rest of the Gay Inc folks who have without question helped create 102 setbacks, with so many gay millions down the toilet. It no longer is good enough to change move the needle.

2009-11-08T13:41:00.000-08:00

Will Gays Again Squander
A Ballot Loss Crisis?

Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to President Obama, believes no serious crisis should be wasted to bring forth necessarily and valuable changes unlikely to happen at any other time.

Such a crisis befell the American gay community in the wake of Prop 8 passing in California last November, and despite many street protests, angry blog postings, the formation of dozens of new splinter groups, and other reactions, we are essentially at the same (losing) place politically. If there have been radical changes to the structure and leadership of Gay Inc and the California gay community, I've missed seeing them take effect.

Here it is, that time of the year when we've suffered another ballot proposition, No on 1 in Maine, while also racking up two wins, in Washington and Michigan, that don't wipe away the awful pain of the New England loss, and Gay Inc leaders are again pleading for the criticism to go away.

Actually, there was a preemptive move by Matt Foreman of the Haas Jr Fund, a week before the Maine failure, to keep the lid clamped tight on holding our leaders accountable for their decisions. In a column at the Bilerico.com site, Foreman opined that TV ads weren't the answer for us:

As the campaign in Maine enters the home stretch, our skeevy opponents have unleashed yet another ad claiming that unless marriage equality is overturned, same-sex marriage will be "pushed" on elementary school children.

Our side has responded with calm, rebutting the attacks with facts, statements from authoritative figures, and appeals to higher values. Sadly, that approach has been condemned by well-respected figures in our community, including Andrew Sullivan, Mike Tidmus, the Box Turtle Bulletin and the Bay Area Reporter. [...]

If, goddess forbid, we lose [Maine], can we remember why that was - and it sure as hell won't be because our side was somehow responsible.

Well, our side's response, however noble it was, again lost us the battle. Instead of considering that his way of thinking is wrong, Foreman choose to cannibalize gay bloggers and newspaper editors for having the temerity to call for new approaches in ad and campaigns. I strongly disagree with Foreman's belief that our side bears no, or little, responsibility for our 31st loss. Reading his words, there is no sense, at least at the end of October, that he'd be willing to consider us taking responsibility for our Maine effort, the great and not-so-good stuff.

The question of how important the ads were to Maine's ballot measure can be summed up by this opening sentence in an AP story:

Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads - and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement - for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

While some believe the TV ads from our side weren't our answer, our opponents again were able to use commercials to prevail with voters. Might our 31st gay marriage ballot loss finally be the opportunity for new thinking and diverse ad messages from us? Must we always lose with the same lame Hallmark marketing?

One gay political consultant, Steve Hildebrand, who served as an assistant campaign manager to Barack Obama, had this to say about Maine's ads:

We are fools to have spent all this money and time and not have defined the opponents. It's not enough to answer their charges. We need to hit them back and not let up on it until voters don't buy their lies anymore. Malpractice in my opinion.

Not helping with an honest assessment post-Maine, by his extremist framing of the issue, is the head of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese. In an email shared by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, Solmonese said:

For a lot of people in the community and our supporters, Tuesday's results feel like a good reason to throw up our hands and say forget politics. It's also tempting to find someone to blame, or a missing piece, that pesky "if," to cling to. I'm not asking you not to. I'm telling you that we can't.

First of all, no one other than Solmonese is expressing a belief Maine is a reason to forget politics. And while the community is searching for betters ways of fighting at the ballot box, and potentially winning, HRC frames the search as a blame game. Good way to deflect rightful anger that is being directed at HRC and others. Who the hell is this HRC loser to tell the rest of us what we can't do?

Can we expect some new thinking from the head of Equality California, Geoff Kors, a key leader in the Prop 8 debacle, one year later? Sure, in some ways, Kors will never repeat the mistakes he made last year, but I wonder if he'd consider re-evaluating his approach to our next gay marriage ballot initiative out here. Take a look at an interview Kors gave last week to Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:

I think we have to really look at the vote and analyze it before we can draw any specific conclusions, but what's clear is, even though we significantly outspent the opposition for the first time, and supporters of equality out-organized the opposition, our side still fell short. [...]

I think if we do the work we need to do and we can stay equal or out-raise the other side, I believe we will win in 2012.

What I would like Kors to think about is the fact, as he noted, that in Maine, even with significantly more money than our opponents, we still failed to persuade enough voters to agree with us. This means money, and lots of it, may not be the answer to gays winning in California, or any another state. Yet, Kors concluded his interview saying if the money flows like a river, we'll do well. Sorry, I just don't have faith in that method.

Money is surely important to any election, and gays sure like to open the checkbook for these losing campaigns, but I believe it going to take more than big bucks to turn the tide. We're going to need a new ideas and marketing.

But will the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community muster the courage to use the Maine crisis to bring about better, lasting changes to Gay Inc and the future campaigns on the horizon?

This skeptic is not hopeful that will happen. A recent Washington Post piece on the aftermath of Maine, delved into how Gay Inc will move forward:

For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.

Still, advocates say the strategy remains effective.

If the strategy is so damn good, why are suffering so many setbacks? Those advocates are entitled to their views, and the Post article is not about the ads and tactics employed in Maine. However, if we are to most beneficially use this latest current electoral loss and crises, we would be wise to place every aspect of the gay marriage battle on the table for discussion.

2009-11-06T15:10:00.000-08:00

BAR: Cleve's EAA Has 200 'Fuzzy' Groups

You need not be medicated on marijuana to appreciate the latest dope from Cleve Jones about the current state of his new group, Equality Across America. From the current Bay Area Reporter:

From the beginning, Jones insisted that the [march] would be a scaled down affair, with the only goal of the march being full federal equality and that the way to best achieve that would be to establish action teams in all 435 congressional districts across the country.

It remains to be seen exactly how many of those teams have been formed.

Jones said Tuesday that he thinks groups have formed in some 200 districts.

"But that's kind of fuzzy," he added. (Emphasis added.)

Planet Queer to Cleve. Dude, get a damn clue. You'd be lucky to have 2 groups in any districts.

This man's big ego and his march, barely a month after the rally at the capital, has produced what exactly? Something kind of fuzzy.

Speaking of groups to spring out of the march, how's the one in Cleve's backyard coming along? Some clues from the Desert Sun paper:

Gay rights activists took to the streets of downtown Palm Springs on Wednesday night to call for a local push to create a national network.

More than a dozen men blew whistles, chanted and waved handwritten signs at Indian Canyon Drive and Arenas Road in Palm Springs.

One of the comments says there were only 10 men who showed up. Whatever the number, not a large turnout. No indication that Cleve was there, but his hand-picked interim leader of the EAA, Tanner Efinger, was present and accounted for:

The protesters, who also blasted disco music from amplifiers, said they want to see gay-rights groups in every congressional district across the country begin to network.

“While it seems like we're preaching to the choir here — there are a lot of gay people who live here — what we're actually trying to do is say, ‘Listen, we need to start talking to each other,'” Tanner Efinger, 25, a part-time Palm Springs resident, said Wednesday.

This is beyond rich. One of the key folks at EAA who couldn't be bothered to hold a single town hall meeting anywhere in gay USA, so we could, um, talk to each other, is now standing on a street corner saying we need to talk each other. Oh, and he brought along a disco music system to show his seriousness. He must have played "I Will Survive."

All the energy, time and money that went into validating Cleve's delusions of leading an effective army to be activists at home is nothing more than some fuzzies and a Naive Equality Princess shaking her groove thang in the desert.

Will my community ever grow up and get serious?

2009-11-06T13:57:00.000-08:00

NYT: SF Maps HIV
Viral Load by Neighborhood

The Bay Area section of today's New York Times has a fascinating article by Carol Pogash about the local health department using HIV viral load mapping to ask some important new questions about using new technology to better help people with AIDS and the larger communities in which we live. Full disclosure: I'm quoted, but that is not the only reason why I say the piece is fascinating. ;-)

The HIV research under discussion could potentially become a valuable tool both for treatment and prevention protocols. From the Times:

[A shaded DPH map] shows where the sickest AIDS patients live. Many are untreated. The map is the product of a groundbreaking effort to identify where care should be focused.
The research combines medical records and epidemiological tools to show the intensity of the illness, measured by individual’s viral load, the number of viral particles in a patient’s bloodstream. [...]
Using the data of individuals’ viral load levels, the city can track where the virus is circulating and focus attention on the deepest reservoirs of H.I.V. Successful anti-retroviral treatment reduces the load in an individual so it is undetectable in the blood. The less virus in the blood, the lower the chance of infecting others.

There is good and bad news, isn't this always the case with anything to do with HIV?, showing up in data. One example:

[Researcher and DPH head of HIV prevention] Dr. Colfax worries about disparities both in viral load and in care. The Castro, for example, has more H.I.V. cases, but individuals in lower-income neighborhoods tend to have higher viral loads, the new research shows.

It's a positive step that the people with AIDS in the gay Castro district tend to have lower viral loads, but that should be replicated in all areas of the city. Much truth-telling comes from the leader of a person of color HIV org, Jimmy Loyce, who I always liked when he was head of the DPH AIDS Office many years ago:

The results of the mapping were not surprising to James Loyce, executive director of Black Coalition on AIDS in San Francisco. [...]

Historically, he said, sections like Potrero Hill have felt “benign neglect,” suspecting that services were geared to the Castro, where more H.I.V.-infected people in the city live. [...] The sickest people of color, he said, have many issues: violence, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and the perceived stigma of homosexuality.

Good for Jimmy, bringing in a larger context to black people and AIDS issues. For local activist color, the Times turned to me:

Michael Petrelis, an AIDS blogger and self-proclaimed provocateur, said, “It’s feeding two birds with one seed, helping a patient extend his life by keeping his viral load down, and that in turn makes him less infectious.”

And summing it all up, rather well, I think, is the lead researcher:

Dr. Colfax must balance individual and communal care. “I think we’re asking the right questions,” he said. “Now the issue is, What are the answers?”

FYI, the reporter, Carol Pogash, is a longtime Bay Area writer and wrote the first SF Examiner story about the murder of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. She is also the author of "As Real As It Gets," a history of SF General Hospital in the first years of the epidemic. Click here to check out her web site.

2009-11-06T11:44:00.001-08:00

DNC's Tobias:
'Big' Donation to ME Gay Marriage

Over at John Aravosis' AmericaBlog site, he yesterday took the Democratic National Committee and it's treasurer, openly gay money guru Andy Tobias and Democratic leader, to task for their b.s. and non-support to defeat Question 1 in Maine. From Aravosis:

I think we just caught the DNC lying to the gay community about the election in Maine. And an email from DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias, which we quote below, proves it.

This conflict is about the DNC's emails earlier this week about races that were important to the party leadership, and missing was a push for Mainers to vote no on Question 1. Tobias posted a long and defensive comment in reply to Aravosis' complaints, and much of this debate is inside politics, but very important for the gay community to have, if we are ever to force the Democratic Party to be our fierce advocate, after sucking up millions from gay donors.

But I digress. My real point here is that Tobias donated a big fat zero to the Maine effort, according to the information posted on the Maine ethics commission's web site. If he made a personal donation to No on 1, it's not showing up in the commission's search engine.

To be fair, even if he had donated, it wouldn't have helped win the vote for us, but it sure would have been great to say at least Tobias made a contribution.

2009-11-05T16:18:00.000-08:00

Maine: Gayja Vu All Over Again x31

The Urban Dictionary has two entries for "gayjavu" and two more for "gay ja vu," and I will soon submit a fifth entry, spelled "gayja vu" because the ones already listed don't sum up my definition of the phrase.

To me, gayja vu is when you have the same gay leaders and advocacy groups, with the same political thinking, waging the same tired campaign over a gay marriage ballot proposition, producing the same losing result. On Tuesday night in Maine, we witnessed a superb example of gayja vu. It was the 31st time the gay community has lost one of these electoral battles. That's some gayja vu losing streak.

We will easily see the 32nd instance of gay marriage losing when put up to vote, if we allow the people who've created the losses to continue, without a challenge to them and their way of operating. I'm not sure how to do this exactly, but let me give you an example of a looming loss, if we don't radically rethink how we wage the battles over the initiatives.

In mid October, the Let California Ring project of Equality California, the lead organization in the Prop 8 fight last year, announced they were launching a new phase of their existence. It was exclusively, and uncritically, heralded at UniteTheFight.com.

What was so new about Let California Ring? Not much really. Like the No on 8 campaign, it has an executive committee, self-appointed without public input, and the usual suspects are running the show. From UniteTheFight.com's report, quoting Marc Solomon of Equality California:

"The people who have stayed on is Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry; Matt Foreman of HAAS Jr. Fund and former Executive Director of the Task Force and Empire State Pride Agenda; Thalia Zepatos, consultant of the National Collaborative, and Shannon Minter [of NCLR]," Marc informed.

"New folks are me, Marc Solomon; Louis Lopez, founder of Honor PAC, who in my opinion, is the most sophisticated Latino LGBT organization that I’ve run across; Karin Wang, who's on the board of API Equality LA; Ron Buckmire, who chairs the Jordan Rustin Coalition; Rev. Madison Schockley, an amazing supporter, who is an African American United Church of Christ minister in N. County San Diego; Kathy Schwamberger, Vice Chair of EQCA Institute Board; and Roger Doughty, Executive Director of the Horizons Foundation out of San Francisco."

No word on how these folks were self-selected, what exactly qualifies them for the executive committee, other than Marc Solomon likes them, or if they'll hold public meetings, something the Prop 8 governing bodies never bothered with. On behalf of all of us, the committee will in the next few years try to move people of color communities and voters to support gay marriage in California, and the effort is expected to cost $15 million.

Sure, the committee members are good people and they only want what is best for the larger LGBT community, but the way they, both at their individual non-profits, and collectively on projects such as Prop 8, have shown they operate is that they're insular, non-transparent and committed to organizing behind closed doors.

And that has directly contributed to why we lose these initiative campaigns, and suffer other setbacks politically.

One name on the new executive committee has a long history as a paid consultant to quite a few initiatives, Thalia Zepatos, longtime director of NGLTF's training department, before moving on to another consulting gig. She's been involved in these (losing) campaigns since 1988 in Oregon, when voters rejected employment protections for state workers.

I single out Zepatos here because I think she is representative of part of the problem here, which is we have an entrenched circle of consultants who made part- or full-time careers either in ballot fights, or at Gay Inc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it ain't helping the rest of us win ballot props.

If she and the others on the executive committee had track records of successes, I probably wouldn't care, but, Zepatos and the others, despite their law degrees and years of working on (failed) campaigns, have racked up 31 losses. I see no reason to think, if left to their own devices, that some important changes, benefiting the community, will happen.

Can't we find a way to force new thinking and people into creating better and winning strategies? Must we accept that the only way to organize on gay or marriage propositions is to have the same leadership circle, with the same ivory tower thinking?

We could start with Equality California and Let California Ring holding regular, public community meetings, that are streamed on the web, and actually engaging more of the state's community. I'm sick of "community" groups making structure and personnel decisions out of public view, then announcing some supposedly great new development as a done deal.

Looking at the Let California Ring executive committee members and its structure, sends one loud message: The crisis in California's gay community of losing Prop 8 went to waste. As currently constituted, this executive committee is all-but-guaranteed to deliver the LGBT community more gayja vu at the ballot box.

2009-11-05T11:40:00.000-08:00

Cleve's EAA Leader:
Who's Pelosi? What's a Senator?

For months, Cleve Jones and backers of his march on Washington tried to persuade LGBT citizens to flock to DC and get inspired by the new post-Prop 8 younger generation of activists. I was one, for many reasons, who didn't heed the call to spend hundreds of dollars to be in the capital on October 11. Today, I learned there was another reason to criticize the leadership behind the march.

One of the key organizers, and an unpaid assistant to Cleve, Tanner Efinger, who has been named interim director of the collapsing Equality Across America org that sprang from the march, reveals his deep ignorance of one-year ago.

From the "Stonewall 2.0" article, written by Christopher Lisotta, in the current issue of The Nation,:

Before November 2008, Tanner Efinger was just another 24-year-old working at a bar in the city of West Hollywood, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) center of Los Angeles. "I was really not a political person, even a little bit," he says. "I didn't even know who Nancy Pelosi was and didn't really understand what a senator was."

But that all changed after the election of Barack Obama and the passage of Proposition 8, the voter referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California. [...] (Emphasis added.)

Well, it is good to know Efinger now has a clue about Pelosi and some understanding of what U.S. Senators do, but it ain't enough to get me to think he and Equality Across America are now about to create a national network of 435 Congressional district captains, ready to pressure lawmakers.

Efinger seems to be the perfect poster child for the Naive Equality Princesses sprouting up since November 2008. These NEPs think it's enough to use Twitter, scream in the streets for equality, have lots of Facebook friends, and clap their hands for change.

But when they are questioned about the basics of our federal government, you know, little things like who the Speaker of the House is and the role senators play in the political process, the NEPs are shockingly ignorant. Then they wonder why veteran activists don't sign up for their marches or give them much credence as effective youth leaders.

If the Stonewall 2.0 generation wants to truly create lasting changes for the LGBT community, could they first learn the basics about who leads Congress and what members do? If gay youth like Efinger want to organize teams to lobby national politicians, it would be best for them to get a clue, a few clues actually, before they set up those teams.