The Ryan Thomas Collection

I am angry and I am frustrated. One of these days I will wake up the Wednesday after voting day and not have to worry about this all. I can’t wait for that day; a day when equal rights for gays and lesbians will not be put up for a popular vote because for one, no one will think twice about taking away rights, and two systems will adjust to stop this from happening in the first place. One of the core beliefs of our nation’s finding was the idea that the minority must be protected by the tyranny of the majority. As we fight for LGBT equality, we fight for this principle.

 
We lost Maine’s Prop 1 battle. Yes on Prop 1 won. A revisit of Prop 8 a year later, to the date. This time, anti-equality voters won at a 57% to 43% margin. This gap was slightly larger than Prop 8’s 52-48 vote. This small percentage gap we keep losing by is frustrating, but also gives me a lot of hope. I think this gap will be gone by a mere departure to heaven by the oldest generation. The oldest generation still has this conservative viewpoint on a lot of things in American life. They weren’t teenagers during the sexual liberation of the 60s/70s. They were the ones who built up the conservative 1950s that helped give way to the liberal push in the 60s/70s.

I did some historical math and I see some good things in the near future. Let me give you some hope through historical discourse:
**15th Amendment – Right to vote for all races (women still excluded) – 1870
**19th Amendment – Right to vote for women – 1920
**Civil Rights Act of 1964 – No discrimination based on race, sex or religion, 1964

We have 45-50 years between these civil rights pushes. One leads to the other, but the struggle was always happening before that. Black men got the right to vote, which pushed women to keep their fight for suffrage. These two minorities then pushed together for civil rights equality, which happened 44 years after suffrage. This helped give way to the gay liberation movement with Stonewall in 1969, 40 years ago. Based purely on historical discourse, we are right at the breaking point. You can see this with the signing of the Matthew Shepard Act a couple weeks back, the first major federal gay rights law. Although citizens of states are ripping marriage rights from us, we are gaining some major ground in other facets of daily life and new levels of government not seen in quite some time.

Let this be the history lesson for the day. Get angry, but we must keep faith and hope! Our time is now, but we just have to keep fighting the good fight and remember that we have justice on our side. We did this last year and we will do it this year. We’re on the winning side of history and we must tell ourselves that every day.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I do not have faith in Jesus Christ. I do not have faith in Allah. I put no faith in religion or its deities. I really never have and I am not sure if I ever will. The one thing I have always had an undying faith in is the Constitution of the United States, the fundamental and structural core of this nation’s government. It has been altered and misconstrued. It has been abused, and it has been tested. In the end, the central principles our Founding Fathers incorporated into this living document have survived and proven to provide justice more often than not.

The Constitution has always seemed genius to me, in that, unlike the Bible, it recognizes the need to live, grow and adapt. I have an unaltered faith that the Constitution, and those in power to defend it, will realize the necessity of standing up to social injustice and provide equality to all citizens of this nation. Until this happens, I march. We march. We assemble peaceably to remind the nation of the core principles of this nation, liberty and justice for all. Like Jehovah Witnesses in a suburban neighborhood, we knocked on the White House’s door. We knocked on the Capitol Building’s door. On October 11, 2009, an estimated 200,000 people knocked to say, “Equality across America.”

In September, I got word that an equality march was being planned in Washington, DC to bring attention to gay and lesbian rights, or lack thereof. At that point, my friends and I had marched on San Francisco’s City Hall. We drove to Sacramento to march on our state’s capitol. We decided the time had come to fly to our nation’s capitol to march for what we deserve, our full civil rights. Travel plans were made and off we went to explore the core of our country’s government. Off we went to stand up to social injustice, for ourselves, for those who cannot speak, and for the future.

We did not know what to expect in numbers for the march; the effectiveness of such a march continually ridiculed by many on both sides of the political spectrum. As days neared to the march, news was released that President Obama would speak at the Human Rights Coalition (HRC) event the night before the march. This had to be a sign that the march was going to be something worthy of getting President Obama to speak the night before. In a sense, a victory had been won without anyone actually marching. President Obama speaking at the HRC got the cause of equality in the headlines for the weekend; it got people talking. The conversation fueled once more. It seemed from an outsider’s standpoint that the march we were to embark upon must have helped, even just a tad, in convincing President Obama to speak at this important event. He spoke and it was, more or less, the same rhetoric he used in his campaign, but at least we know he has not forgotten and more importantly, he knows we have not forgotten.

October 11, 2009, National Coming Out Day, our day to march on the nation’s capitol, had arrived. We walked to the gathering point of the march and waited for it to begin. As we waited, we looked up to see a huge rainbow in the sky; an actual rainbow adorning us from above. It had to be a sign that we were doing something special. Thousands of people gathered. We stood waiting for an hour thinking we were held up from marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, past the White House and to the Capitol. Unsure of the reason for the wait, we maneuvered through the crowd only to find that the turnout had the streets so filled that it took an hour to get all the marchers down the route to allow us to start moving. It was massive. Rainbow flags everywhere. Massive signs calling for equality and justice. People of all colors, all ages, all sexual orientations. It was a colorful and powerful display. 200,000-250,000 people marched in front of the White House and then stood before the Capitol Building. A spectacular site to be seen. Although, the turnout was smaller than that in marches in 2000, 1993 and the late 80s, something was done and someone heard.

Barney Frank, D-MA, said that the National Equality March was “only putting pressure on the grass” and that such peaceful assemblies do little to persuade Congress into making decisions. He said the march was more of an emotional release for those marching. I certainly agree that participating in the National Equality March was an emotional release, a powerful release of all sorts of emotions. I felt empowered, and knew that the same document that gives me the freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble will one day work to give me the equality I so rightfully am due. We had to bring attention to Maine’s Prop 1, the Prop 8 of Maine. Washington state has pending legislation to remove domestic partnership rights from the state. This was not just about pressuring Congress to act, it was about bringing attention to each piece of social injustice happening in our nation.

None of us marching expect Congress to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in the next couple weeks. Lady Gaga’s speech at the steps of the Capital Building put it perfectly, “President Obama, I know you are listening. ARE YOU LISTENING?” We marched on Sunday, October 11, 2009 to remind Congress, to remind the President and to remind America that we are not done. We marched on Sunday to get one more person to listen and say, “Enough is enough. These people are right.” This march keeps the conversation alive and in our system, the conversation must be kept alive because one day, one or all of the branches in Washington are going to acknowledge, provide and protect equal civil rights for the LGBT community. Until this day happens, I will put “pressure on the grass” for me and for my country, because as FDR said:

We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.

Below, artists use movement, color and music to spread their ideas at the National Equality March.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This week, President Obama honored Harvey Milk with the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom. Milk’s posthumous award makes him the first openly gay individual to receive the award, which seems befitting and suits his life and story. Harvey told gay and lesbians to live out of the closet with pride, and his Medal of Freedom affirms the power of what he has done for the gay and lesbian civil rights movement.

The White House released the following statement about Harvey Milk:

Milk encouraged lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens to live their lives openly and believed coming out was the only way they could change society and achieve social equality.

Gay right activists are pleased with the President’s move, and say it was a smart political move, as President Obama has been receiving much criticism for his lack of action in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA. Both of these actions must actually begin within Congress, and with Obama pushing his health care agenda first, these two ideals are bound to take the backseat for some time. With 2010 elections up and coming, it seems unlikely that Congressional leaders will touch DADT or DOMA, as the country continues its recession woes and health care reform. Though a small gesture, the gay community must realize that President Obama’s willingness to extend the Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk shows that he has not forgotten about the community. President Obama needs the nation to focus on health care and economic reforms, and for once is not using gay issues to distract the nation’s attention.

We must also recognize that Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign California legislation making Harvey Milk’s birthday a Californian “day of significance.” He suggested that Harvey Milk’s memory should be remembered at the local level and suggested that his influence does not reach far enough outside San Francisco to qualify his work worthy of this Californian honor. The California State Legislature passed this resolution, but Schwarzenegger’s veto shows yet another clear signal that he certainly is not as “socially liberal” as he always insisted. Enough about California villains.

Here’s to the legacy of Harvey Milk. Our generation could use the likes of him right about now, and yet we continue to struggle to find one. A well deserved Medal of Freedom is long overdue, but better late than never, to say the least. As gay and lesbian civil rights continue to sway back and forth, Milk’s push for gay and lesbians to live out and open lives continues to be vital in the move to push public opinion in favor of equality.

Popularity: 2% [?]

James Neiley, a 17 year old from Vermont, testifies before the state legislature advocating for equal marriage rights for gays in the state. He draws the connection between marriage inequality and unequal treatment by his peers. His testimony shows that we are on the right track as a society, but we still have walls to break through.

Popularity: 15% [?]

It what sounds like a publicity stunt, the Polarland Zoo in China wed their two gay penguins to honor their superb parenting skills of an abandoned egg. The two gay penguins were reported a few months back because they continued to steal eggs from their heterosexual counterparts to nest. Seeing this, the keepers decided to give the gay penguin couple a serrogate egg that had been rejected by a mother. Watching the couple, keepers found that the two were superb parents, exceeding many of the heterosexual penguins’ skills. To reward their efforts, the keepers decided to wed the gay penguin couple in a traditional Chinese wedding. The keepers decided which penguin would dress like a groom and which would dress more like a bride, so they haven’t quite come to terms to with same-sex marriage. On the other hand, one can only imagine what proponents of Prop 8 may do with a story like this. Envision it now, “If you let same-sex marriages be recognized by the state, what’s next penguin marriage?” Come on… you know they are capable of it!

Popularity: 15% [?]

In his annual end of year address, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the “gay threat” is as large a threat to the world as the destruction of the rainforest. Yes, according to the leader of the Roman Catholic church, saving the environment is just as important as saving humanity from the gays, or as he puts it “self destruction” of the human race. Pope Benedict told head leaders of the church, “If tropical forests deserve our protection, humankind… deserves it no less.” The Pope continued that humanity needs “an ecology of the human being.”

This end of year speech is the Pope’s way of wishing the world a merry Christmas, whilst announcing issues he finds most vital of the time.  Although the Catholic church does not condemn homosexuals, they do condemn homosexual acts and same sex marriage. The gay community breaks from traditional ideas of man and woman, and this is what Pope Benedict fears will break “God’s creation” and destroy mankind.

Pope Benedict seems to be blind to women’s rights and equality, as there has been a strong correlation between women’s equal rights to opportunity in education and the workforce with lower birth rates in the West. Apparently, this is no threat to the life of humanity. However, for the Pope to go after the “gay threat,” as he calls it, at a time when same sex marriage gains popularity, shows that the Catholic Church is deathly afraid of equality amongst all people.

In a time when the Catholic Church is finding less and less support in a more secular Europe, and finding traditionally Catholic nations legalizing same sex marriage (ie Spain), the Pope is trying to appeal to its core members in an effort to get a strong reaction. Okay, Hitler! You’ve got your scapegoat!

Popularity: 18% [?]

Coincidentally, the first business day of Gay Pride Month came with the dreaded announcement by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen that the initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage will be placed on the November 3rd ballot.

Opponents to same-sex marriage successfully gathered the necessary signatures to place the initiative on the ballot and thus, the battle for votes begins. A simple majority of votes is needed to pass the amendment. In a Field Poll released last week, a majority of likely California voters are opposed to passing such an initiative, but with a slim margin, the battle on both sides will be intense.

The right-wing fight in California is a national effort. Local and statewide donations are being made to fund discrimination in the Golden State. Visit www.equalityforall.com and www.eqca.orgto find out how you can prevent discrimination from being embedded in the Constitution.

California needs to maintain its stance at the forefront of progressive politics and social values. Let your friends and family know that every vote they can influence will keep California a place of equal opportunity and civil liberty.

Happy Gay Pride Month!

(Photo provided by The Ryan Thomas Collection. All rights reserved.)

Popularity: 7% [?]

The Netherlands said no. The UK took 18 months to say yes. How can Western nations refuse asylum to a group of individuals from a country with known laws of the death penalty for being a practicing homosexual? It is a bit baffling that the Netherlands refused asylum, being that they allow so many other things to exist in their country. Furthermore, persecution of gays in a nation should be considered a form of genocide. European countries, of all Western countries, should be particularly open to protecting people who are victims of this as they have seen it within their continent more than a few times in their past.

As an American, I don’t expect our country to have open arms to Iranian gays. Though the Statue of Liberty has a fabulous costume that only a gay could have designed, I don’t see her bright light welcoming gays, whose lives may be risked by living as a homosexual. 

I am not an expert on Middle Eastern cultures and laws, but the only argument I can see for Western nations refusing asylum to gays may be that women in these same cultures may then also qualify, if they are in pursuit of a more liberated lifestyle. Additionally, as tensions between Middle Eastern nations and the West continue to go back and forth, taking in Middle Eastern “rejects” so to speak may not fair well. However, it should be a move that Western nations make to affirm its position as a place of open societies.

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7411706.stm)

Popularity: 5% [?]

I have had a little back and forth with another blogger on another blog about utilizing the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to fight anti-gay marriage laws. I want to open the discussion on my blog to broaden its scope because it is obviously not a clear cut issue. We both support equality of marriage among hetero and homosexuals, so the discussion is not whether or not gay marriage should or should not be legal. It is more about using the tools available to fight it in the courts, where the battle belongs, in my opinion.

The discussion is below (courtesy www.thedailydalia.wordpress.com) and lets open it further:

Me:

After reading this posting, I wanted to read a bit more about the Loving v. Virginia case because to me it sounds like the key to overturning discriminatory gay marriage laws using precedent set by this case. It seems that in good time, this case may be the one to give equal rights to all. Virginia commented on the anniversary of the court case:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Justin: The reason why loving v Virginia cannot be used for gay marriage is because it was fought using the arguments of due process and equal protections under the 14th Amendment and the 14th does not cover sexual orientation.

Me:

The 14th amendment does not actually specify what it can and cant be used for or against. The Equal Protection Clause of this amendment is left open and has been used in various civil rights fights.

It states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The language is flexible enough that one can argue that the 14th amendment does in fact nullify anti-gay marriage laws because these laws could be construed as depriving a group of people in committed relationships of equal protection under the law.

The marital communications privelege is one protection marriage law provides (though many states include this protection in civil union). This privelege allows communications between a married couple to be kept confidential by both members. Therefore, my communication with my partner does not necessarily receive the same protection as my heterosexual and married counterparts.

The idea that civil unions or domestic partnership laws may include this right does not nullify the idea that the 14th amendment applies. It only brings further argument that separate, but equal is never equal. Brown v Board successfully removed separate, but equal as a solution to segregation. A main argument of this case was the 14th amendment.

Therefore, I still believe the 14th amendment to be applicable in fighting marriage discrimation laws.

(Photo provided by The Ryan Thomas Collection. All rights reserved.)

Popularity: 8% [?]

A strike of reality hit me and a group of friends this weekend. A three hour drive found four of us, all gay men, in Reno, Nevada to celebrate my 25th birthday with some drinks, gambling and fun in a less glamorous way than Las Vegas.

Describing Reno is rather difficult. One may be able to equate it with Atlantic City, NJ. Reno is known as the “The Biggest Little City in the World” and this may be the best way to describe it. Having lived in Hillcrest (San Diego’s gay neighborhood) and now living in San Francisco, day to day life typically excludes feelings of being the odd man out. However, the four of us were hit with the hard stick of reality on Saturday.

Taking a casual daytime stroll down the streets of downtown Reno, a car of African-American men drove by us yelling, “Faggots!” Thankfully it has been a long time since I have encountered such bigotry on a personal level, but we were all a bit taken back. Comfortable with what I assume these men would call our “alternative lifestyle,” a part of us was able to laugh at the sheer ignorance of our these men. Another part of us just wanted to say, “Really? Did you really just say that? Come on. It’s 2008!”

Above, the ignorant men were described as African-Americans purposefully. The irony of this is found in that these men are a part of society continually suffering from racism and ignorance. These African-American men are unable to correlate their use of the word “faggot” with the use of “ni**er.” This is where one can find comedy in the ignorance, while also frustration in the inability to make this association.

One can almost feel sorry for these men. For one, they have nothing better to do than call out vicious names to strangers. Secondly, they must feel so powerless and so threatened by four gay men casually strolling down a street that they need to call out these names in attempt to feel power and strength in a society that continues to see this race struggling for equality.

This is why I don’t feel anger towards these individuals. One has to feel sorry for such people and sometimes you just have to laugh it off. Sometimes it is easier to laugh than it is be angry.

Popularity: 18% [?]