Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 72

PHB coverage of Equality NC's Town Hall in Durham re: marriage discrimination amendment

Tuesday, 10 PM ET: I covered the EQUALITY IN ACTION Town Hall Meeting, held at the Eno River Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Hall in Durham. A Twitterfeed of the hashtag used tonight, #equalityaction, is below the fold. (This post has been reworked to make better use of the new content).

It's important to understand that NC, a state that has repeatedly beaten back an amendment for years (Dem control of the General Assembly has killed it in committee), and now that the GOP has taken control for the first time since Reconstruction, the Religious Right sees a chance to pass this discriminatory amendment.

The fact is that a majority of North Carolinians don't think like the far right wingnuts in charge. A March poll released by Public Policy Polling showed majority support for marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples:

This comes on the heels of an Elon University Poll earlier this week with similar results. The poll had particularly interesting results when broken out by age and party affiliation, both of which suggest a political cost for attacking LGBT families.

The PPP survey showed 52% of North Carolina voters supporting marriage (24%) or another form of legal recognition (28%). The poll showed that the only age group where a majority of voters opposed any legal recognition was those over 65, while young voters are strongly supportive.

"This poll confirms that North Carolinians are increasingly supportive of basic protections of same-sex couples and their families, and as the generational shift continues that support will only increase," said Ian Palmquist, Equality NC's Executive Director.

The poll also showed 64% of independent voters, 60% of Democratic voters, and 36% of Republican voters in support of legal recognition.

With that in mind, this is what occurred during the Town Hall.

7:08: People are doing introductions and there are folks from Durham, Cary, Raleigh, Carrboro. Members of this church are here in support of full equality and there are a good number of allies and people who attended the Day of Action at the legislature. Many are here to learn more about the amendment.

7:17: Ian Palmquist on the basics: Senate Bill 106 is an attack on equality. It takes 3/5 of the House and Senate to get it on the ballot. The governor has no role in the process. The Senate bill was introduced on February 23, and it's likely to be introduced a couple of weeks, and could come up in committee in May or June.

7:22: This will cause real harm to North Carolinians take away even the most basic protections, and tells young LGBTs that their state and their neighbors think they are "less-than."

The amendment is bad for business. It harms businesses because it takes away the benefits that  could be offered to employees. It will harm the state's economy in other ways - by telegraphing to companies that are pro-diversity that they are not welcome to NC.

And besides, this past election was not even about social issues -- NC is in a budget crisis and faces high unemployment. The amendment is a political wedge issue to drive social conservative turnout in 2012.

7:29: Ian:

We want to be able to kill the bill by securing the votes of key Dems and Republicans in the House or the Senate. It will take a lot of engagement to make the legislators do the right thing. ENC has a registered lobbyist that works the General Assembly. But the grassroots advocacy is equally important:

* Day of Action (voters speaking with legislators)

* Postcard Campaign

* Online Action Network

* In-district meetings

* Phone banking

ENC's Rebecca Mann went over the Grasstops.

Grasstops Advocacy

* Business community

* Faith Leaders

* Opinion Leaders

* Political Leaders

Media

* Tell our stories

* Letters to the Editor

* Editorials

One person in the audience said that we need to bring forward our kids, day care providers -- and other vendors/people who see us as families -- ask them to speak up for equality and against the amendment.

There was a question about whether Gov. Beverly Perdue has made a public statement about the amendment. She has not, but has told ENC privately that she opposes it. [Pam - well that sh*te has to end. She needs to stand up to the bigots, LGBT NC taxpayers are teachers, state workers; people she's spent time talking about how important they are].

7:38: Another person in the room was present in a meeting with (former House Minority Leader) Skip "homohater" Stam and he made it clear that the purpose for the amendment in 2012 is to boost GOP turnout to win every state race, not for moral reasons at all.

The National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are likely to pour money into the state to make this amendment happen, and we're going to need help from around the country to counter the bigot cash.

>8:30 PM: People broke up into two groups for brainstorming about ideas for the Grasstops and the Grassroots.

The Grasstops list: click photo to enlarge.

The Grassroots List of ideas to get the word out to boost involvement against the amendment.

- Neighborhood Association Listserv

- Social Networking

- Blogging/Vlogging

- Parents @ Kids' School

- Sharing your stories

- Speaking @ church

- Ad campaign

- Make it clear that when you "want us to leave" that our taxes go with us.

- Does the state want to lose its investment (for those educated in its system)?

- Make sure to do good PR

- Frame it as the "anti-family" "hate" "anti-business" amendment in discussions

- Postcards as conversation starters

- Talk to HR directors at work

- Focusing on people/non-participants (clubs, Drag Bingo events)

- Offer Swag.

8:38 PM: I did a short interview with Equality NC's Ian Palmquist, asking about the challenges, the momentum to counter the amendment, NOM/FOTF and how you can help LGBT North Carolinians:

More below the fold - including my assessment of what the battle plan should include.

What's next? IMHO, what the LGBT community and allies need to do is pretty basic; hard, but basic:

1) Get a ground game ready-- ENC is doing that now, traveling the state with an education campaign to help people open up a discussion about the discriminatory, anti-LGBT amendment and to learn how to frame that discussion.

2) Get pro-equality ministers and pastors on board to play a public role. We need to have press conferences showing faith leaders who want the right to marry gay and lesbian couples. This completely undermines the bible beater mantra that it is about God, the bible and the history of marriage. Here in the South, you can't ignore religion; you have to address it head on even though marriage (as we are addressing it) is a civil institution.

3) Get members of the Legislative Black Caucus to speak out against the amendment. We need affirmative support, not back channel agreements for a "No" vote. Visibility is essential, and building a communications bridge with the caucus this year is a must.

4) Get the NC Dem Party to play a strong, upfront role. The right wing wants this amendment on the 2012 ballot. A strong presence and opposition by the Dem Party that will urge open discussion of the harm that this amendment will do is essential, and David Parker, the current chair has told me personally, and in a liveblog here at the Blend (prior to his election) that this is a priority for him to defeat this amendment.

5) Get business leaders out front, pronto. We have so too many pro-LGBT employee businesses in this state and most have affinity groups in-house for staff. We need commercials, YouTubes featuring the captains of industry, education, medicine, and technology to talk about why they value their LGBT employees, how an amendment may have changed their minds about coming to NC, or how it would affect recruiting.

We are already seeing LGBT issues being used as a wedge: I got a mailing yesterday addressed to 5 million Senior Christians saying that Obama's signing the Hate Crimes Bill was tantamount to criminalizing Christianity becuase the Bible speaks against homosexuality and is therefore outlawed.

...Elected officials have to talk about values to get voters out to vote -- that is why, I think, turnout was down this last election -- especially among young voters...If we do not stand FOR something, and merely try to out-bully the GOP, we will continue to fall behind.

The Marriage Amendment is coming to a voting place near you all too soon. This Radical Right ploy is designed to activate their base, agitate their contributors and GOTV...I am calling for an LGBT Caucus in NC (we need to parallel every DNC Caucus here in NC).

5) Get our national groups to make this an important effort to back. The major talk I've seen at the national level has been about preserving marriage where it exists and to move to support marriage where it has a chance of passage. Our movement cannot forget the fight by NOM et. al. to institutionalize bigotry with an amendment.

Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights was here in January and was clear that...

We thought we were going to win. "Oh it's California there's no way Prop 8 will pass." I heard that a million times when trying to raise money and advocate for defeating Prop 8. Do not let that happen in NC. You can stop your legislature from doing the worst, but only if they don't hear from you. So that's the first piece of good news.

The second piece of good news is that you are not alone. So you've got Equality NC and you also have the number of national organizations and advocates around the country including The National Center for Lesbian Rights who have your back.

We're not going to let North Carolina slide...we are not going to ignore what happens here. NCLR is the organization that pioneered second-parent adoptions. We made it up, we created it.

We hope that NC is not forgotten, lost in the battles where priorities are focused solely on protecting marriage in the states it exists or obtaining marriage rights where it's politically feasible. If we can ask the President to walk and chew gum at the same time, we have to do it ourselves as a movement.

7PM ET: Equality NC's Equality in Action Town Hall in Durham re: marriage discrimination amendment

In a bit I'll head over to the Eno River Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Hall in Durham to cover the EQUALITY IN ACTION Town Hall Meeting.

I'll post updates here; I've placed a Twitterfeed for the hashtag being used tonight, #equalityaction.

7:08: People are doing introductions and there are folks from Durham, Cary, Raleigh, Carrboro. Members of this church are here in support of full equality and there are a good number of allies and people who attended the Day of Action at the legislature. Many are here to learn more about the amendment.

7:17: Ian Palmquist on the basics: Senate Bill 106 is an attack on equality. It takes 3/5 of the House and Senate to get it on the ballot. The governor has no role in the process. The Senate bill was introduced on February 23, and it's likely to be introduced a couple of weeks, and could come up in committee in May or June.

7:22: This will cause real harm to North Carolinians take away even the most basic protections, and tells young LGBTs that their state and their neighbors think they are "less-than."

This is bad for business. It harms businesses because it takes away the benefits they could offer employees. It will harm the state's economy by saying companies that are pro-diversity will not come to NC.

And this past election was not even about social issues -- NC is in a budget crisis and faces high unemployment. The amendment is a political wedge issue to drive turnout in 2012.

Ian went on to say that, as I mentioned below the fold, that the amendment is out of step with NC values - recent polls show the public in favor of relationship recognition.

7:29: Ian:

We want to be able to kill the bill by securing the votes of key Dems and Republicans in the House or the Senate. It will take a lot of engagement to make the legislators do the right thing. ENC has a registered lobbyist that works the General Assembly. But the grassroots advocacy is equally important:

* Day of Action

* Postcard Campaign

* Online Action Network

* In-district meetings

* Phone banking

Rebecca Mann went over the Grasstops.

Grasstops Advocacy

* Business community

* Faith Leaders

* Opinion Leaders

* Political Leaders

Media

* Tell our stories

* Letters to the Editor

* Editorials

One person in the audience said that we need to bring forward our kids, day care providers people who see us as families to speak up for equality and against the amendment.

There was a question about whether Beverly Perdue has made a public statement about the amendment. She has not, but has told ENC privately that she opposes it. [Pam - well that sh*te has to end. She needs to stand up to speak freely for the legislature to do the right thing].

7:38: Another person in the room was in a meeting with Skip Stam was it clear that the need for the amendment in 2012 is to boost GOP turnout to win every state race, not for moral reasons at all.

National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are likely to pour money into the state to make this amendment happen, and we're going to need help from around the country to counter the bigot cash.

People broke up into two groups for brainstorming about ideas for the Grasstops and the Grassroots.

The list so far:

The Grassroots List of ideas to get the word out to boost involvement against the amendment.

- Neighborhood Association Listserv

- Social Networking

- Blogging/Vlogging

- Parents @ Kids' School

- Sharing your stories

- Speaking @ church

- Ad campaign

- Make it clear that when you "want us to leave" that our taxes go with us.

- Does the state want to lose its investment (for those educated in its system)?

- Make sure to do good PR

- Frame it as the "anti-family" "hate" "anti-business" amendment in discussions

- Postcards as conversation starters

- Talk to HR directors at work

- Focusing on people/non-participants (clubs, Drag Bingo events)

- Offer Swag.

8:30 PM

The Grasstops list:

8:38: I did a short interview with Equality NC's Ian Palmquist; I'll have that up a bit later.

More below the fold.  
My pre-event post:

There's so much going on with the NC Legislature these days that Equality NC is hitting the road to tell you all about it, and to enlist your help in what may be the largest campaign for LGBT rights in our state's history! We'll talk about the anti-LGBT constitutional amendment, as well as other policy that will potentially impact all of us who care about equal rights, and what you can do about it.

It's important to understand that NC, a state that has repeatedly beaten back an amendment for years (Dem control of the General Assembly has killed it in committee), and now that the GOP has taken control for the first time since Reconstruction, the Religious Right sees a chance to pass this discriminatory amendment.

The fact is that a majority of North Carolinians don't think like the far right wingnuts in charge. A March poll released by Public Policy Polling showed majority support for marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples:

This comes on the heels of an Elon University Poll earlier this week with similar results. The poll had particularly interesting results when broken out by age and party affiliation, both of which suggest a political cost for attacking LGBT families.

The PPP survey showed 52% of North Carolina voters supporting marriage (24%) or another form of legal recognition (28%). The poll showed that the only age group where a majority of voters opposed any legal recognition was those over 65, while young voters are strongly supportive.

"This poll confirms that North Carolinians are increasingly supportive of basic protections of same-sex couples and their families, and as the generational shift continues that support will only increase," said Ian Palmquist, Equality NC's Executive Director.

The poll also showed 64% of independent voters, 60% of Democratic voters, and 36% of Republican voters in support of legal recognition.

What's next? IMHO, what the LGBT community and allies need to do is pretty basic; hard, but basic:

1) Get a ground game ready-- ENC is doing that now, traveling the state with an education campaign to help people open up a discussion about the discriminatory, anti-LGBT amendment and to learn how to frame that discussion.

2) Get pro-equality ministers and pastors on board to play a public role. We need to have press conferences showing faith leaders who want the right to marry gay and lesbian couples. This completely undermines the bible beater mantra that it is about God, the bible and the history of marriage. Here in the South, you can't ignore religion; you have to address it head on even though marriage (as we are addressing it) is a civil institution.

3) Get members of the Legislative Black Caucus to speak out against the amendment. We need affirmative support, not back channel agreements for a "No" vote. Visibility is essential, and building a communications bridge with the caucus this year is a must.

4) Get the NC Dem Party to play a strong, upfront role. The right wing wants this amendment on the 2012 ballot. A strong presence and opposition by the Dem Party that will urge open discussion of the harm that this amendment will do is essential, and David Parker, the current chair has told me personally, and in a liveblog here at the Blend (prior to his election) that this is a priority for him to defeat this amendment.

We are already seeing LGBT issues being used as a wedge: I got a mailing yesterday addressed to 5 million Senior Christians saying that Obama's signing the Hate Crimes Bill was tantamount to criminalizing Christianity becuase the Bible speaks against homosexuality and is therefore outlawed.

...Elected officials have to talk about values to get voters out to vote -- that is why, I think, turnout was down this last election -- especially among young voters...If we do not stand FOR something, and merely try to out-bully the GOP, we will continue to fall behind.

The Marriage Amendment is coming to a voting place near you all too soon. This Radical Right ploy is designed to activate their base, agitate their contributors and GOTV...I am calling for an LGBT Caucus in NC (we need to parallel every DNC Caucus here in NC).

5) Get our national groups to make this an important effort to back. The major talk I've seen at the national level has been about preserving marriage where it exists and to move to support marriage where it has a chance of passage. Our movement cannot forget the fight by NOM et. al. to institutionalize bigotry with an amendment.

Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights was here in January and was clear that...

We thought we were going to win. "Oh it's California there's no way Prop 8 will pass." I heard that a million times when trying to raise money and advocate for defeating Prop 8. Do not let that happen in NC. You can stop your legislature from doing the worst, but only if they don't hear from you. So that's the first piece of good news.

The second piece of good news is that you are not alone. So you've got Equality NC and you also have the number of national organizations and advocates around the country including The National Center for Lesbian Rights who have your back.

We're not going to let North Carolina slide...we are not going to ignore what happens here. NCLR is the organization that pioneered second-parent adoptions. We made it up, we created it.

So it will be interesting to see what EqualityNC's Town Hall will generate in tonight's discussion. Stay tuned.

The CT Judiciary Committee's Hearings On The Gender Inclusive Anti-Decimation Bill

Yesterday, I spend the day (8:00am - 8:15pm) at the Legislative Office Building (otherwise known as the LOB) waiting to testify in favor of HB6599 An Act Concerning Discrimination. It was a very long day of sitting around.  The hearing opened with a statement from Governor Malloy's General Counsel,  Andrew Mc Donald, former co-chair of the Judiciary Committee. The governor's statement said the he fully supports HB6599 and that he will sign the bill when it is passed.

The way the hearing are run, is that there are a number of other bills that are heard at the same hearing and public officials get to testify first. Then the public gets to speak and the order is determined by a lottery. That was why I was there at 8:00am, to draw a number... 137. UGH! And why I left so late. They then publish the list and I was on page three.

The opposition drew an early number and they were able to speak first, Peter Wolfgang from the Family Institute of Connecticut gave his testimony and he started out by calling the bill "The Bathroom Bill" and when on to talk about how the bill will allow sexual predators in to the bathrooms. This is from their web-site

What does this mean? It means that a man who is a sexual predator could claim to be "transgendered" and enter a women's public bathroom. [Their emphasis]

When he finished his testimony, he was criticized by several legislators for calling the bill "The Bathroom Bill". They told him it was demeaning and fear mongering, and one legislator challenged him to tell them when anyone was ever arrested using a gender inclusive anti-discrimination law as an excuse to sexually assault a woman.
A few testimonies later, it was Jennifer Levi's turn to testify, she was questioned for almost an hour and she rebuffed FIC testimony. She was also asked if she knew if anyone was ever arrested using a gender inclusive anti-discrimination law and she answered that there has never been a case that a sexual predictor used the gender inclusive anti-discrimination as an excuse. She was also asked how the law would affect sex differentiated facilities and she said it would not, that it will still allow sex differentiated facilities based on their gender identity. She then was asked if the bill would change the law for sexual predator and again she answered that it would not, that a person still could arrested.

The questions for Jennifer Levi from legislators opposed to the bill were about bizarre scenarios.

Lawmakers Seek to Understand Gender Identity and Expression, Some Struggle

CT News Junkie

by Hugh McQuaid

Mar 21, 2011

That led to a lot of theoretical questions, most revolving around hypothetical scenarios playing out in bathrooms and changing rooms. That's where the mustached bride trying on wedding gowns came in. Just what are his or her rights? What are the rights of the shop owner who may wish to kick him or her out?

These are some the questions the committee pondered but Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, the bill's author, said the measure comes down to a far simpler question: do you or do you not want to discriminate against these people?

Holder-Winfield found himself at odds with Family Institute of Connecticut President Peter Wolfgang, who opposed the measure on the grounds that, among other things, the measure would force public schools to accept transgender teachers.

They also asked the same questions about the man with the mustache and sexual predators to Rachel Goldberg, a lawyer who use to work for Gov. Malloy when he was the mayor of Stamford, she asked why do you asked questions about something that never happens?

There were also questions asked of attorneys Levi and Goldberg about religious freedoms from one legislator.

Another person that spoke against the bill was someone from CT Right to Life and he spoke about  the DSM and said that it was a mental illness and that they should not be granted special rights. BIG MISTAKE!!!! Last year Peter Wolfgang used the same argument and they questioned him on what he knew about the DSM and if he favored discriminating against people who are mentally ill. They did the same thing to the head of the CT Right to Life, he said no, that he didn't favor discriminating against people who are mentally ill... then if he thought that transgender people are mentally ill, why did he feel it was OK to discriminate against trans-people? Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield asked him if he read the whole section on gender identity disorder or just the criteria, he admitted that he didn't. The legislators raked him over the coals for about a half hour.

There were a number of church officials that spoke in behalf of the bill, including an Episcopal Bishop, along with government officials, politicians, union leaders, therapist, lawyer and students. I was proud that around a dozen students from the UConn School of Social Work, where I am attending, testified for the bill.

ctEquality did an excellent job in lining up speakers!  

AFA, Scott Lively whine about 'homosexual indoctrination' (again)

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Just when I thought I had seen it all from the American Family Association's One News Now, the phony news service finds new ways to astound me with its lack of judgment and good taste.

Children in California are already required to learn about the social contributions of African-Americans, women, Asians, Native Americans, and a host of other groups. And a new bill will include lgbts to that list.

The bill would also prohibit prevent school officials to make negative comments about lgbts, which is nothing out of the unusual because schools are already prohibited from adopting classroom material which reflect negatively on anyone's race, sex, color, creed, disability, national origin or ancestry.

However, as we've seen with Obama's anti-bullying initiative, some from the religious right feel that lgbts shouldn't be respected like other groups. In this case, One News Now pushed a one-sided hatchet job against the California bill, which isn't a surprise.

It's who the publication decided to quote as its only source for the story which is a shock:

Dr. Scott Lively, president of Defend the Family International, tells OneNewsNow that now is the time for Christians to voice their concern.

"And politics is a part of every church, it's part of every family -- and frankly, the reason we're suffering the consequences that we are is because the church has abdicated its responsibilities to be stewards of civil society."

The bill would mandate that teachers, textbooks, and materials present a positive image of the LGBT lifestyle.

"This isn't about tolerance. This isn't even about acceptance," Lively emphasizes. "This is about celebration and even goes further than that -- the next step after that is forced acceptance; you're coerced into being pro-gay."

This is the same Scott Lively who went to Uganda in 2009 and spread a mess of lies about lgbts. These lies created a aura of persecution which led to the vicious murder of gay activist David Kato, not to mention that dreadful "Kill the gays" bill which may be debated on as recent as this week.
This is the same Scott Lively who in the past has:

helped write a highly discredited book which claimed that the Nazi Party was the creation of the gays in Germany,

tried to sanitize the discredited junk science of Paul Cameron, 

blamed lgbts in America and Europe for Uganda's ugly homophobic bill rather than the lies he and others spread there, and 

advocated "criminalizing homosexuality"as far back as 2007. In a piece entitled Letter to the Russian People, Lively had this to say:

My philosophy is to leave homosexuals alone if they keep their lifestyle private, and not to force them into therapy if they don't want it. However, homosexuality is destructive to individuals and to society and it should never publicly promoted. The easiest way to discourage gay pride parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal in the interest of public health and morality.

So this man is the person whom One News Now felt is a reliable source that a pro-lgbt bill in California is a danger?

It certainly tells a lot about the supposed Christian mindset of One News Now, doesn't it? Especially in light of the fact that the publication didn't even make mention of Lively's "work" in Uganda.

Seems to me that One News Now just made the case for the California bill. If Lively opposes it, then it must be a good thing.

Related posts:

Scott Lively's homophobia in living and repulsive color

Did Scott Lively's homophobic 'nuclear bomb' cause a death in Uganda?

Homophobe tries to play Joan of Arc when he really should try out for Lady MacBeth

AFA, Scott Lively whines about 'homosexual indoctrination' (again)

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Just when I thought I had seen it all from the American Family Association's One News Now, the phony news service finds new ways to astound me with its lack of judgment and good taste.

Children in California are already required to learn about the social contributions of African-Americans, women, Asians, Native Americans, and a host of other groups. And a new bill will include lgbts to that list.

The bill would also prohibit prevent school officials to make negative comments about lgbts, which is nothing out of the unusual because schools are already prohibited from adopting classroom material which reflect negatively on anyone's race, sex, color, creed, disability, national origin or ancestry.

However, as we've seen with Obama's anti-bullying initiative, some from the religious right feel that lgbts shouldn't be respected like other groups. In this case, One News Now pushed a one-sided hatchet job against the California bill, which isn't a surprise.

It's who the publication decided to quote as its only source for the story which is a shock:

Dr. Scott Lively, president of Defend the Family International, tells OneNewsNow that now is the time for Christians to voice their concern.

"And politics is a part of every church, it's part of every family -- and frankly, the reason we're suffering the consequences that we are is because the church has abdicated its responsibilities to be stewards of civil society."

The bill would mandate that teachers, textbooks, and materials present a positive image of the LGBT lifestyle.

"This isn't about tolerance. This isn't even about acceptance," Lively emphasizes. "This is about celebration and even goes further than that -- the next step after that is forced acceptance; you're coerced into being pro-gay."

This is the same Scott Lively who went to Uganda in 2009 and spread a mess of lies about lgbts. These lies created a aura of persecution which led to the vicious murder of gay activist David Kato, not to mention that dreadful "Kill the gays" bill which may be debated on as recent as this week.
This is the same Scott Lively who in the past has:

helped write a highly discredited book which claimed that the Nazi Party was the creation of the gays in Germany,

tried to sanitize the discredited junk science of Paul Cameron, 

blamed lgbts in America and Europe for Uganda's ugly homophobic bill rather than the lies he and others spread there, and 

advocated "criminalizing homosexuality"as far back as 2007. In a piece entitled Letter to the Russian People, Lively had this to say:

My philosophy is to leave homosexuals alone if they keep their lifestyle private, and not to force them into therapy if they don't want it. However, homosexuality is destructive to individuals and to society and it should never publicly promoted. The easiest way to discourage gay pride parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal in the interest of public health and morality.

So this man is the person whom One News Now felt is a reliable source that a pro-lgbt bill in California is a danger?

It certainly tells a lot about the supposed Christian mindset of One News Now, doesn't it? Especially in light of the fact that the publication didn't even make mention of Lively's "work" in Uganda.

Seems to me that One News Now just made the case for the California bill. If Lively opposes it, then it must be a good thing.

Related posts:

Scott Lively's homophobia in living and repulsive color

Did Scott Lively's homophobic 'nuclear bomb' cause a death in Uganda?

Homophobe tries to play Joan of Arc when he really should try out for Lady MacBeth

Blend Taser files of the week, including road rage Taser attack by driver

I haven't done a Taser post in a while, and it looks like the inappropriate use of the so-called non-lethal take-down tools of law enforcement, referred to as an "electronic control device" by its manufacturer Taser International, continues unabated.

NY: City, Cops Sued for 81st Precinct Taser Incident. How about getting zapped (and Maced) for objecting to being cited for double parking?

26-year-old Jonathan Zimmerman is suing the city and two cops who he says used a Taser on him for double parking outside of a friend's Brooklyn home. Zimmerman was issued a summons and told to move his car, but when he began to argue, while still in his seat belt, the cops pulled the keys from the ignition and Maced him. Zimmerman was Tasered while inside the car, pulled out and Tasered twice more.

PA: Federal lawsuit filed against state police over Taser incident . A man died when the Pennsylvania State Police, alleged investigating a domestic abuse call, asked 24-year-old Levi Mohney to exit his mobile home. When he didn't respond, they broke in and unleashed the shock device on Mohney, who was soaked in gasoline and went ablaze, suffering burnes over 98% of his body.

His father, Shawn Mohney, of New Bethlehem, is suing for violations of civil rights, wrongful death, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Geckle said Mr. Mohney was suffering from a mental disability. "In my humble opinion, there was no need to Taser the man," said Mr. Geckle. "He wasn't armed. He wasn't posing a direct threat to the officers."

NH: Stun Gun Used In Road-Rage Incident. And no, this isn't about cops doing the deed. It's a driver-on-driver event where one woman assaulted another woman (who was pregnant). Why? Because the pregnant woman was traveling 35 mph in a 35 mph zone.

Police said that once the cars stopped at a red light, [Carissa] Williams threw cans and bottles at the other car and screamed at the driver. When Williams drove off, the other driver called 911.

The two vehicles were then on the Interstate 93 exit 14 ramps, and while they were stopped there, the other driver was able to give the license plate number to the 911 dispatcher. But Williams then got out of her car, leaving her 6-month-old in the vehicle, police said.

She then got into the back seat of the other woman's car, pulled out a stun gun and used it on the woman, police said.

The victim was 10 weeks pregnant and is fortunately ok. Williams is being held on $100K cash bail.

More below the fold.
NM: Police identify man in Monday's fatal Tasing. Jerry Perea was in Albuquerque police custody after an incident with the police (they said he attacked them with a crucifix, and they Tased him). And then...

Police say Perea appeared to be OK immediately after he was Tased but as paramedics were tending to one of the injured officers, Perea entered cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. He was pronounced dead a short time later at a hospital.

NC: Fayetteville man dies after he's Tasered in jail . Law enforcement in NC have turned up multiple times in the Taser files for quick-drawing and asking questions later. In this case, it's not a given that the device was used inappropriately, but the fact that fatalities using this "non-lethal" devices continue to occur in incidents where law enforcement could have subdued someone without introducing the Taser into the encounter..

Harnett County Sheriff Larry Rollins confirmed to ABC11 Wednesday that a man is dead following an incident with a Taser at the Harnett County Detention Center in Lillington Tuesday.

Rollins said 24-year-old Brandon Jolvon Bethea of Fayetteville had been in court Tuesday and got into an altercation with detention officers when he was returned to jail. Officers used a Taser - which emits a powerful electric charge - to control Bethea. They said immediately afterwards they noticed he was non-responsive and they began CPR until EMS paramedics arrived. Bethea was taken to Betsy Johnson Regional Hospital in Dunn where he was pronounced dead at 2:14 p.m.

Related:

* The Blend Taser files

* Taser International to police: don't fire at suspect's chest, may cause 'adverse cardiac event'

* 10-year-old girl tased by Arkansas cop - and mother gave the OK

* School guards to be armed with 50K-volt Tasers for the tots

* AL: cops Tase and pepper spray deaf and mentally disabled man who was in bathroom too long  

Trevor Project to honor Daniel Radcliff

From The Seattle Times:

Daniel Radcliffe looks forward to a tolerant world where young people grow up unaffected by differences in sexual orientation.

For the past couple of years, the "Harry Potter" star has been doing his part to make that a reality with his work with the Trevor Project, the leading organization for suicide prevention efforts among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youths.

...

For his contribution, Radcliffe is being honored with the organization's Hero Award at a ceremony in New York in June.

While privileged to be a part of this group carrying forward the organization's life-saving work, Radcliffe said he feels a little bashful about it, too.

"The people that are doing the heroic things are the people answering phones 24 hours a day in the Trevor call centers," he said. "I think that out of everything that I've done so far in my career, I think this is absolutely one of the most important, if not the most important, thing that I'm associated with."

I know that I come off as a cynical, bitter curmudgeon, but it melts my heart to see that there really is hope for the future.
The Trevor Project was founded by the creators of the 1994 short film Trevor, about a gay 13 year old boy who attempts to commit suicide after he was rejected by his friends. When the film was aired on HBO, they wanted to include a PSA for suicide prevention specifically for youth in Trevor's situation. Unable to find such an organization, they created one using the licensing fee paid by HBO.

The Trevor Lifeline, which operates 24/7 as a free crisis and suicide prevention helpline for LGBTQ youth -- the only such in the United States -- operates in cooperation with the Tulare County Suicide Prevention Task Force with its phone bank in Visalia, California. Personally, this is very surprising to me: lived in Visalia for several years, and it is the jewel in the buckle of California's Bible Belt. I suppose operations here make sense, as most of the county's churches bear a lot of responsibility for driving LGBTQ youth to suicide in the first place.

Anyhow, Radcliffe has been involved with the Trevor Project since August, 2009, when he donated a large sum of money to help in their work. He later recorded a public service announcement:

More proof that HB-235 does not protect the homeless and victims of domestic violence

As we go into a new week, Equality Maryland continues to insist that HB-235 without a public accommodation provision will provide recourse for shelters.  In my previous blog on this issue, I have already gone into length about how the law sees the difference between a dwelling and an establishment for transient lodging.

To further solidify that an emergency homeless shelter is not a "dwelling" in the eyes of the federal Fair Housing Act, we can turn to Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48065 (D ID, May 12, 2010).  This is a 2010 case where a federal district court judge had determined that the faith-based shelter was not considered a "dwelling" and therefore the religious protections in the Fair Housing Act would not apply to the shelter aspect of their operation.  

The key decision was that the shelter is not considered a "dwelling".

In this ruling, "dwelling" is defined from the Fair Housing Act:

The FHA defines a "dwelling" as "any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof." 42 U.S.C. ? 3602(b); see 24 C.F.R. ? 100.20(b) (providing same definition of "dwelling").

Case law would clarify the definition of a "dwelling":

Courts have found two factors relevant in determining whether a facility is a dwelling under the FHA: (1) "whether the facility is intended or designed for occupants who 'intend to remain in the [facility] for any significant period of time'"; and (2) "whether those occupants would 'view [the facility] as a place to return to' during that period." Lakeside Resort Enterps. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Palmyra Township, 455 F.3d 154, 158 (3d Cir. 2006); see Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1215-16 (11th Cir. 2008); Cohen v. Township of Celtenham, 174 F. Supp. 2d 307, 323 (E.D. Penn. 2001); see also Hughes Mem'l Home, 396 F. Supp. at 549 (holding that children's home is a dwelling because the home is more than a place of temporary sojourn to the children who live there).

In cases where shelters allow extended stays (in this case, up to 120 days), it could be considered a "dwelling":

In Woods v. Foster, 884 F. Supp.1169, 1173-74 (N.D. Ill. 1995), the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that, under the generous construction to be given to the FHA, a homeless shelter was a "dwelling" because the individuals who stayed at the shelter had no other place to "return to" or reside. The shelter at issue in Woods provided housing for homeless families and assisted those families in obtaining other services, including permanent housing. Id. at 1171. The Woods court noted that although the length of time an individual expected to live at the shelter was a factor in determining whether the shelter was a "residence" and thus a "dwelling," it was not the exclusive factor. Id. at 1173. "Because the people who live in the Shelter have nowhere else to 'return to,' the Shelter is their residence in the sense that they live there and not in any other place." Id. at 1173-74. The court was not persuaded that a one-hundred-twenty day stay-which the defendants claimed was the maximum period of time an individual was allowed to stay at the shelter-was a transient visit" making the shelter merely a form of accommodation, like a hotel. Id. at 1174. "The women in the Shelter inhabit the Shelter, although the length of time they live there depends on their success in finding more permanent housing. Their residence is not so short-lived or transient that the Shelter can be considered a mere public accommodation."

In Johnson v. Dixon, 786 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1991), the District Court for the District of Columbia found it doubtful that an emergency overnight shelter would be subject to the FHA:

The Act, in terms, protects only "buyers" and "renters" from unlawful discrimination. Plaintiffs, and the other inhabitants of the two shelters, are neither. Such accommodations as they have had at the shelters in the past have been provided gratis by the [defendants]. It is, moreover, doubtful if "emergency overnight shelter," . . . i.e., a place of overnight repose and safety for persons whose only alternative is to sleep in the alleys or doorways, can be characterized as a "dwelling" within the Act, even if it may seem like home to them.

Various types of establishments have been considered as "dwellings" in the past:

summer bungalows, Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d at 881

cabins for migrant farm workers, Villegas v. Sandy Farms, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1324, 1327-28 (D. Or. 1996);

a nursing home, Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096, 1102 (3d Cir. 1996);

a drug-and-alcohol treatment facility, Lakeside Resort Enterps., 455 F.3d at 160;

a group home for recovering drug and alcohol addicts, Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1215-16 (11th Cir. 2008)

a group home for children, Cohen v. Township of Celtenham, 174 F. Supp. 2d 307, 323 (E.D. Penn. 2001);

a former office building converted to a hospice facility for AIDS patients, see Baxter v. City of Belleville, 720 F. Supp. 720, 721 (S.D. Ill. 1989).

In the specific case of the Union Rescue Mission in Boise, Judge Edward J. Lodge describes the facility and makes the determination that is not a "dwelling" for the purposes of the Fair Housing Act.

Here, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that guests of the shelter component are not charged a fee for staying in the shelter; are assigned a bed in a dormitory-style room, a hallway, or the day room; generally are allowed to stay for a maximum of seventeen consecutive nights (except during the winter season months when the maximum stay is more flexible due to the danger that cold weather presents to homeless individuals during the night); are not guaranteed that they will have the same bed each night they return; with limited exceptions, are not allowed to stay at the shelter during the day, are required to leave the shelter every morning by 8:00 a.m., and may not return, except for lunch, until 4:00 p.m.; are not allowed to leave the shelter once they arrive in the evening; generally are not allowed to stay at the shelter on a particular evening if they do not check in during the designated hours; are not allowed to personalize the bed area assigned to them or leave belongings in their bed area; and, with extremely limited exceptions, are not allowed to receive phone calls, mail, or have visitors at the shelter. The court finds that the shelter is neither intended nor designed for occupants who intend to remain there for any significant period of time. See Lakeside Resort, 455 F.3d at 158. Moreover, although shelter guests may have the subjective intent of returning to the shelter, see id., the court finds that the conditions under which a guest may stay at the shelter demonstrate that the shelter is not "a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode or habitation to which one intends to return," but is instead a "place of temporary sojourn or transient visit." Hughes Mem'l Home, 396 F. Supp. at 549 (quoting Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary); see Johnson, 786 F. Supp. at 4. Accordingly, the court holds that the homeless shelter is not a "dwelling" subject to the FHA. (emphasis added)

Now this takes us back to Maryland law.  ?20-705 of the Maryland State Government Code is very clear about what is covered under the Maryland fair housing law:

(1) refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin;

(2) discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling, because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin;

(3) make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin, or an intention to make any preference, limitation, or discrimination;

(4) represent to any person, because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin, that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when the dwelling is available; or

(5) for profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person of a particular race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin.  

(emphasis added)

And just a reminder from our last blog, the definition of "dwelling" from 20-701(d) of the Maryland State Government Code:

(d)  Dwelling.- "Dwelling" means:

(1) any building, structure, or portion of a building or structure that is occupied, or designed or intended for occupancy, as a residence by one or more families; and

(2) any vacant land that is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location on the land of any building, structure, or portion of a building or structure described in item (1) of this subsection.  

and one of the definitions for a type of public accommodation from 20-301(1) of the Maryland State Governmetn Code:

(1) an inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment that provides lodging to transient guests

(emphasis added)

There is recent and substantial federal case law that can be depended on to argue that an emergency homeless shelter would not be considered a "dwelling" subject to the federal Fair Housing Act.  The Maryland State Government Code does not provide any specific codification that would add any additional definition to "dwelling" that extends the state fair housing laws to include emergency homeless and domestic violence shelters.  Equality Maryland has not been able to produce any case law or public notices from the Maryland Commission on Human Relations that would interpret the Maryland State Government Code any differently.  If I was a judge (especially a conservative judge) looking at a case based on the existing law and the Boise case, I would definitely rule that an emergency homeless shelter in the state of Maryland would not be a "dwelling" but instead, a public accommodation.  

The bottom line, HR-235 without public accommodation may protect the transgender homeless and those escaping domestic violence with long term public housing and voucher housing but it does not protect the emergency need for immediate shelter.  

So with that, we have determined that HR-235 without public accommodation will not protect:



emergency access to homeless shelters

emergency access to domestic violence shelters

employment access to jobs where restroom usage would be in public places (for example, shopping malls and jobs involving driving routes)

access to public and private educational institutions

access to public transportation services

access to the ability to function daily

With all of this on the line, having employment protection without public accommodation is not compatible.  In transgender law, employment and public accommodation must go together.  California learned this the hard way.  This is why all of the states that have gender identity (or "sex" defined to include gender identity) covered in their employment anti-discrimination laws also have public accommodation.  

HB-235 is overall bad legislation and we must stop it and come back with something different.  

Try Me.

November 15, 2010, from left: Dan Fotou, Army Staff Sergeant Miriam Ben-Shalom, Michael Bedwell, Army Specialist Rob Smith, Transgender Navy Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, Roman Catholic Priest Father Geoff Farrow, Army Lieutenant Dan Choi, Army Corporal Evelyn Thomas, Marine Corps Sergeant Justin Elzie, ROTC Cadet Mara Boyd, Scott Wooledge, Army Arabic Linguist and Staff Sargent Ian Finkenbinder, Robin McGehee.

On Novermber 15, 2010, 13 Americans participated in an act of civil disobedience.   December 22, 2010, Adm. Mike Mullen
speaks with Robin McGehee.

Thirty-seven days later they stood in a room crowded with most honored heroes of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal movement. The occasion was the signing ceremony for the legislation they so passionately advocated passing. The gracious invitation, extended by President Barack Obama himself, seemed to mark, for the players and for the country, a hopeful moment of mutual conciliation.

Now this same group finds themselves still being treated like common criminals by the very same administration.

Four months of negotiations with the Obama administration's Department of Justice to broker a very simple plea agreement hit yet another wall on Friday, March 18. Some background here and here.

This is my first person account of how the "White House 13" found themselves on the path to an expensive and wholly unnecessary criminal trial.

The key sticking point from day one of the plea negotiations has been the prosecution's unrelenting insistence that we demonstrators must be left with a permanent adult criminal record for taking action. Of course, we always recognized this as a distinct possibility from the start. But it isn't actually the case for most acts of civil disobedience. This is especially true for first-time offenders, which I, and most of the demonstrators are.

 

From left: Evelyn Thomas and Father Geoff Farrow, and attorney Ann Wilcox listen to Mark Goldstone outside the courthouse on Friday.
As our attorney, Mark Goldstone, who has much experience in cases like ours, explained to us and in Friday's Metro Weekly:

"Lots of times demonstrators enter pleas of 'post and forfeit,' which is not a criminal conviction even though the charge itself might have been a crime." He also noted that there is the possibility of "deferred sentencing, in which case, if they are good, the charge will be dismissed."

From the onset prosecutors inexplicably removed the "post and forfeit" option from the table, although it is most often the standard procedure for dealing with these situations, and first time offenders like us. Many, many times our attorneys have reached out to try to find an agreeable compromise with the US Attorneys office. Assistant US Attorney Angela George in court described the negotiations as occurring almost daily since January, a fact confirmed by my counsel. Still, we have found the prosecution to be anything but compromising.

Several weeks ago the deadline passed for us to agree to a plea deal. The Justice Department never placed on the table an offer that would preserve our clean records, presented a significant sentence reduction from what we were likely to expect after a judgement at trial, or that our counsel felt was advisable for us to take. As such, as we entered the court, we were prepared to plead not guilty and ask for a trial.

Upfront our attorneys were careful to alert the court and presiding U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, that Army Staff Sargent, discharged Arabic Linguist Ian Finkenbinder, was not able to show for the hearing due to a medical emergency that left him hospitalized the night before and unable to travel to DC. This prompted Assistant US Attorney Angela George to ask the court for a bench warrant for arrest. Our attorneys objected to this motion. The warrant request was denied, as the Judge agreed it was unnecessary. His honor agreed the word of our counsel, as a respected officers of the court, was sufficient assurance the medical emergency was authentic and the client would be produced for the court when his health permitted. This failed motion is however illustrative of a pattern of overreaching, strong-arm tactics the Justice Department has exercised with the apparent intent to intimidate since the beginning of this case. More on that later.

Judge Facciola expressed a little bewilderment we two groups should be wasting time and money heading to trial. He assessed, rightly, that after the source of the dispute—"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal—had become essentially moot, what purpose could be served by the Justice Department dragging this case out with a long and costly trial of 13 defendants, mostly first time offenders over a relatively minor non-violent offense?

Our attorney pleaded our concerns about the effect of a permanent adult criminal record with Judge Facciola. Goldstone cited the examples of:

Miriam Ben-Shalom, a public school teacher, who could face the loss of her job just a few years short of retirement. (It should be noted, she's also a Wisconsin public union school teacher, and as such, is already facing significant attack on her employment and economic security.) DADT dischargee, and former ROTC Cadet Mara Boyd, who intends to reenlist as soon as possible and return to the service of her country. A criminal conviction could complicate or block her re-enlistment, and make her an inappropriate candidate for induction into the ranks of military officers.

There are other educators, parents and clergy among our ranks as well. The Judge seemed genuinely concerned for the disproportionate consequences such a record might have on all our lives, and he was clearly sympathetic to our pleas that the court should exercise mercy. But the US Attorney was not offering him a more merciful option he could exercise.

But from the start, we have been subjected to odd, unusual and unnecessarily severe (and expensive) treatment, like home visits by pairs of armed US Marshals to serve us personally when standard procedure is to send the court summons by registered mail. We were also compelled on Friday to submit to a second fingerprinting and a second mugshot, though we did so already when we were arrested by Federal officers. (I don't think our fingerprints have changed since November.)

Also, the more serious Federal statute that the US Attorney has elected to charge us with, "failure to obey a lawful order," our attorneys contend has not been used before to discipline participants in a free speech demonstration.

The application of this Federal statute to our case seemed to strike Judge Facciola as both unusual and disproportionate to the infraction, as well. He seemed to entertain Goldstone's argument it could be a troubling indication of an abusive measure taken to punish civil rights demonstrators. Judge Facciola himself, unprompted, offered a comparison Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, a landmark unanimous Supreme Court decision of the Civil Rights Era. Fred Shuttlesworth was involved in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and an ally of Dr. Martin Luther King's. In 1963, he was arrested for conducting a civil rights march in Alabama without obtaining a proper parade permit. He was convicted under a local Birmingham statute.

The Court reversed Shuttlesworth's conviction because the circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, but to censor ideas.

We took Judge Facciola's spontaneous citation of Shuttlesworth as an encouraging sign that he is cognizant and respectful of how seemingly benign statutes can be applied in a capricious, even malicious manner, to squash the free speech rights of disenfranchised and oppressed minorities.

Though the Judge has no power to dictate what charges we face—the actual filing of charges is always solely the discretion of the prosecutor—he strongly suggested the prosecutor go back to her supervisor and revise the charges. He suggested "disorderly conduct" under District of Columbia local jurisdiction might more appropriately fit to the incident. This charge carries lesser fine and a maximum of 90 days in jail, as opposed to six months for the Federal charge.

It appeared we'd made some great progress. We would reconvene in the afternoon.

But four hours later, the prosecution returned from recess to declare her office did not feel a charge of "disorderly conduct" was appropriate. Their odd position seemed to be our behavior was "polite," orderly, and insufficiently "boisterous" and, as such, didn't warrant the application of a less serious charge. A video of the event is below. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if they themselves might describe our conduct as "boisterous," as would befit the statute requirements.

So, "disorderly conduct" charges were not an option. Also still not on the table: "post and forfeit," or a deferred sentence recommendation.

But still, a trial is not a fait accompli.

The potential deal from the morning having collapsed, our counsel still worked diligently to place yet two more options our group felt were acceptable before prosecutors. The prosecution neither accepted nor rejected our proposals. Instead, they asked for time to consider them. Counsel will reconvene on May 17, hopefully for a final resolution. In the meantime our group will continue to live with the possibility of a costly, unnecessary trial and the threat of jail time hanging over our heads.

Pending the outcome of May's meeting, we will accept a plea, or continue on to trial.

The Judge again pointedly reiterated his hope to the prosecution they would very seriously consider the plea options our attorneys had laid before them.

But I am not optimistic. Since the start we have been dealing with a prosecution team that has appeared unreasonable and intransigent. Not even Friday's pressure from a Judge, who was earnestly trying to lead us to an mutually agreeable common ground seemed to have any effect. The group consensus is forming we may have no choice but to go to trial.

We are in full agreement we stand strongest when we stand in solidarity. But we all had our own reasons for choosing to go to trial. On this point, I don't speak for the group.

For myself, I have seen the office of the US Attorney repeatedly exercise what appear to be unmerciful and bullying tactics to myself and my friends and am frankly bewildered and disappointed by their behavior. We are clergy, teachers, parents, and military veterans whose only request was they be allowed to serve their country. But they seem to see us only as are hardened criminals to be dealt with severely.

I have come to the conclusion the Department of Justice's true aim is only to extract their necessary pound of flesh from myself and my friends. And I've decided they are welcome to extract it after I've fully exercised my right to equal and due process under the law. They seemed determined to force an admission of a crime from my lips. I will do no such thing.

Evelyn Thomas standing next to Joe Lieberman at the DADT Repeal Signing Ceremony. How ironic that many of the White House 13 that were honored as heroes on that happy day now still find themselves treated like common criminals by the same administration.

I will ask for my day in court because I believe I committed no crime.

I stood at the fence that day for the 66,000 gay, lesbian and bisexual troops who were, and still are, forbidden by a despicable Federal law to speak on their own behalf. And now, I am facing six months in jail for a free speech expression which I believe in my heart was just. I demonstrated my disgust and frustration at the years long delay of repeal and the continuation of an unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional law. A law that had been repudiated in Federal court, and since that day, by Congress. But still a law that continues to this very day.

I humbly acknowledge, I merely walk in the footsteps where so many giants have tread before me. I feel honored to live in a country where so many other people have already fought to preserve the rights I exercised on November 15, 2010.

And I appreciate the people who respect the sacred nature of protecting these rights. Judge Facciola took a special interest in us, making sure our case returned to his docket in May and September, saying, "I am not letting this go."

And I was glad to hear that.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, from what I've seen and heard, my fate is in the hands of a Magistrate who unlike the Justice Department, recognizes the value of tempering Justice with mercy. A man who understands the importance of respecting the basic civil rights of all Americans without caveats. Said our attorney, Goldstone:

"The judge was telegraphing very clearly that he sees the case similar to how we see this case: as a civil rights exercise, as a First Amendment exercise, as people who non-violently expressed their opposition to a policy which has now been repealed. So, what's the harm to the government if the case is dismissed, or if the case is handled in such a way that it doesn't result in a criminal conviction?"

Perhaps the US Attorney's office will at long last decide to consent to one of our compromise offers?

Or perhaps like Fred Shuttlesworth, we will ultimately find our vindication in the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee to the right to free expression?

Or, maybe we'll just be going to jail. The civilly disobedient Henry David Thoreau would see that as an indictment of America, not us:

“Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” —Henry David Thoreau

I'm happy with the company I'm keeping and confident how history will remember us.

If you'd like to offset Mark Goldstone and Ann Wilcox's legal fees for the defense of these 13 defendants, donations can be made at GetEqual. Use designation code "White House 13."

Relevant news peg: Lost in the Libyan invasion was news that Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg was among 113 anti-war protesters who were arrested at the White House on Saturday afternoon, on the Eighth anniversary of the Iraq War invasion. I suppose this means the Department of Justice won't have the resources to investigate Wall Street or war criminals anytime soon. So many DFHs to try.

 

American Family Association's Bryan Fischer calls Barack Obama 'boy president' on Twitter

Wow. Just. Wow. This is how God-fearing, "Christian" American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, the organization's Director of Issues Analysis, refers to the President of the United States when critiquing Barack Obama's decision related to military action in Libya. Via Twitter:

I'm sure that he revels in tossing "boy" at this President. Nice, Bryan, we know your color-aroused slip is showing -- in the most loving way, of course.

***

Alvin's take is at his pad (he gave me the go-ahead to post here). His reaction to Fischer's tweet "Even Washington Post has major problems with the boy president's act of war against Libya. Running out of friends. http://ow.ly/4iIcS #tcot":

I dare anyone to tell me that this isn't a racist statement.

Two things need to be noted here:

1. I doubt the AFA will take any action against Fischer. I mean the man has

?Said that "homosexuals should be disqualified from public office." (8/5/2010)

?Insisted that gays are biased, sexually deviant felons, not to mention pedophiles, and should never serve on the Supreme Court. (4/15/2010, 4/16/2010)

?Called gay adoption "a terrible, terrible, inexcusable, inhumane thing to do to children." (8/10/2010)

?Argued that we should"impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse." (2/3/2010)

?Wrote: "The inescapable conclusion is that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism." (6/10/2010)

?Said: "Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals." (5/25/2010)

If the AFA has not put a kibosh on Fischer's mouth after all of this, what makes anyone think that the supposed Christian group will condemn his racial slur of President Obama?

2. All of those African-American pastors and churches who are aligning themselves with the religious right need to take note. Will your "friends" will condemn Fischer's comments or will they pretend not to notice? You need to face facts. These folks do not care about you or African-American issues. And as quick as they play you against the lgbt community, they will turn their backs on you.

One wonders how many of them think of you in the same manner that Fischer thinks of Obama.