Jamaican Consul in S.F. Won't Meet With Gays;

Concern Raised Over Buggery Penalties

According to an article in Jamaica's leading newspaper, The Gleaner, in early March the prime minister, Bruce Golding, renewed his campaign against gay people when he opposed a legislative effort to decriminalize the sodomy statutes:

[Golding] described gay advocates as "perhaps the most organised lobby in the world", but has vowed not to yield to pressure to wipe buggery from the books as a crime.

"We are not going to yield to the pressure, whether that pressure comes from individual organisations, individuals, whether that pressure comes from foreign governments or groups of countries, to liberalise the laws as it relates to buggery," Golding said in Parliament yesterday. ...

But Golding made it clear that his government was not prepared to accept suggestions or demands for the crime of buggery to disappear from the books. ...

After years of reading accounts of horrific violence perpetrated against gay Jamaicans, and rampant police and government indifference to the well-document human rights abuses and daily fears faced by gays, I left a message with Newton Gordon, DDS, the honorary consul in San Francisco for Jamaica, requesting a meeting to discuss the prime minister's remarks. Gordon and I spoke on Friday.

He explained that he's not a citizen of Jamaica, is not an official agent of the government, has absolutely no contact with the foreign ministry and that he was the wrong person to speak to regarding my concerns.

When I pointed out his listing as an honorary consul on the government's web site, listing his dental office at SF General Hospital as his official consular address, he said he had no control of such listings.

Well, what exactly does he do as the honorary consul? "Answer questions about visas," Gordon said. "I don't have a flag or a plaque or a coat of arms here at my office."

I mentioned how odd it was that the Department of Public Health allowed him to conduct consular business on the hospital's campus, and he replied that he's actually a professor with the University of California. Okay, I said, you're a UCSF employee with a diplomatic function that you carry out on the municipal hospital's campus.

Gordon suggested I pursue a meeting with either the embassy in Washington or the consulate in Miami, to which I replied I was hardly in the position to fly to either city for a meeting, and again requested a meeting with him.

After all, a letter from even an honorary consul about the concerns of San Francisco gays would carry more weight than a letter written by activists, and would be one of the points of our chat. Again, Gordon said no.

Before ending the phone conversation, I informed Gordon that moves were afoot for a boycott of Jamaican rums and the Red Stripe beer in the gay bars, restaurants and cafes of San Francisco because of the Jamaican government's deadly homo-hatred.

I didn't mention that I have also requested the health department brake any lease or agreement it may have with him to provide any consular services. If there is no such document, then I want the DPH to instruct Gordon and the foreign ministry to remove his name and contact information on all their web sites and issue a notice of such changes to the press in Jamaica and the USA.

And regarding the contention by Gordon that he's just a very minor cog in the Jamaican foreign ministry's machine, he sure didn't sound that way in this letter, in which he touts his link to the government, an ID card from the US State Department and a listing in the phone book as a rep for another nation. If that ain't someone to talk to in San Francisco about the abuse of gay people in Jamaica, then who is?

Here's the letter to the Jamaica Association of Northern California from Gordon, who is the president of the board of the group:

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000

Please be informed that I was appointed Honorary Consul for San Francisco by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Jamaica, Seymour Mullings. This appointment was certified by the U. S. State Department on January 31, 00, [sic] with issuance of a Consular Identification Card. The State Department recognizes one of my offices Locations [sic] as the address of the consulate:

Dept. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
San Francisco General Hospital
1001 Potrero Ave., NH-1N1
San Francisco, CA 94110
Tele: 415/206-5833
Fax: 415/206-5834
Home: [DELETED]

The home number will be listed under Consulate and Other Foreign Government Representatives in the yellow pages of San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Jose and Santa Clara.

I am confident there will be a mutual working relationship between the Consulate and JANC.

Signed,
Dr. Newton Gordon

[Photo credit of Newton Gordon: UCSF.]

[Welcome visitors from SF Weekly. Support this blog. Hit one of the links in the Google ad strip above. Thanks.]

Anal Condom is No Pain in the Ass;
FDA Approval Omits Sodomy

It was thirteen years ago that I discovered the female condom and that it could be used by gay men when engaging in anal sex. One of the biggest problems in 1996 in San Francisco was convincing leaders of AIDS Inc to promote the condom pouch, marketed as Reality, to sexually-active gay men.

Many gay and AIDS professionals were afraid to push Reality in the gay community because they felt it would confuse dumb homosexuals, who were receiving "cover the cock" messages as effective HIV/STD prevention.

Educating gays about the anal condom would mean a huge shift away from solely focusing on the penis and expanding prevention to embrace protecting the rectum from infections. It was so infuriating that liberal gay leaders in San Francisco, not Sen. Jesse Helms or the Moral Majority, were the stumbling block.

A 1996 story by Mike Salinas in the Bay Area Reporter included great quotes from a few AIDS Inc worker generally favorable toward Reality for gay men, but no social marketing campaigns were funded to actively encourage gays to adopt the device and have another tool to stop new HIV infections:

San Francisco AIDS activists Michael Petrelis became the first male to ask for the internal condoms at the city health clinics, which lead to a brief inquiry by the city's Human Rights Commission into whether the refusal to his request constituted sex discrimination, before the policy was changed.

Petrelis said he is outraged that the federal government stopped progress on the Aegis because of homophobia, and also derided health officials for not fully investigating the Reality, which he blamed on "the de-gaying of AIDS" and homophobia.

All these years later, we are still faced with the same situation, in which AIDS groups and professional gay leaders are silent about the female condom and that it can, and should, be used by gay men.

The Food and Drug Administration this week approved a new improved version of the female condom, again only for use in vaginal sex. Apparently the FDA and the manufacturer, aren't aware of anal sex and the need to promote Reality to all persons, gay or straight, when having butt-sex.

This health blog at the Chicago Tribune site is fairly typical of news accounts this week, omitting any mention of sodomy and homosexuals:

The agency’s decision was expected after an FDA advisory panel endorsed the product late last year. The condom is manufactured by the Female Health Company, based in Chicago.

The new version, made of synthetic rubber instead of polyurethane, is cheaper than the original female condom -- a long lubricated sheath anchored at either end by a flexible ring. When inserted, the closed end of the sheath is positioned high in the vaginal canal.

Though the material is different in the updated version, the design is not. Both products are equally effective.

Costs will run about 30 percent below current prices, making the product more affordable for individuals as well as public health organizations, according to Mary Ann Leeper, strategic adviser to the Female Health Co.

Because it was expensive, the original female condom never really caught on, although it’s the only way for sexually active women to take steps on their own initiative to avoid sexually transmitted infections. In the U.S., prices ranged from $1.15 to $2.75 apiece, depending on the means of distribution.

Meanwhile, marketing for the female condom was inadequate, by most accounts. ...

So what is AIDS Inc doing to rectify the omissions of gays and anal sex from the FDA's approval and the news accounts? Let's start with the supposedly cutting-edge Stop AIDS Project of San Francisco. Their site says nothing about the developments this week, but they are highlighting the continuing fallout over gay marriage and Prop 8.

The group is promoting a fundraiser with porn stars, so I guess I can't expect them to also devote attention and energy to the FDA and the manufacturer forgetting about HIV prevention needs of gay men.

What about the much more financially endowed behemoth SF AIDS Foundation? Not a word on their site, even from the perspective of the FDA decision this week is a solid advance for woman and girls around the globe.

Same must be said about the Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York City. However, GMHC did issue a release about Gov. Patterson appointing a lesbian to the appellate court, but the agency doesn't mention how the appointment stop HIV infections.

Over at the Foundation for AIDS Research, formerly known as AmFAR, they are also silent on Reality and the FDA moves lately.

Are Washington-based gay advocacy professional and lobbyists at all concerned about this? Both the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are equally silent.

The gay and straight mainstream media are also strangely mute about Reality for gay men. The Advocate magazine's site ran news brief from the AP wire, and failed to tell gay readers why this was of importance to them. If a gay news magazine can't be bothered to fill in what the AP wire service has omitted, who in the gay community will do that?

A Google news search didn't turn up one story on the female condom this week that dared to mention gay men.

If only we gays had an effective media watchdog to mount a campaign to work with gay and straight media to end the silence about gay anal sex, the FDA and the HIV-preventing Reality barrier.

Instead, we have GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamtion, a lapdog to the celebrities of Hollywood, focusing on its navel. GLAAD this week put out two releases, the first about searching for a new executive director and the second about the celebrities attending the group's next glittering gala. Yawn.

With so much silence and laziness on the part of the well-staffed and well-endowed, financially speaking, AIDS Inc and Gay Inc organizations right now about Reality for gays and stopping new HIV and STD infections, it's no wonder the FDA and the anal condom manfacturer are under no pressure to change their thinking and help sexually active gay men.

Economist Blog: Gay Marriage
at the Expense of Gay Health Care?

As with many gay activists, I've long thought the marriage issue has sucked the air out of practically every other important matter to gays, and single gays especially.

My long-time partner and I have been together since 1995, and despite the opportunity to get hitched in the eyes of the law, we've not done so. When it comes right down to it, we're much more concerned with having a lease than a license for marriage.

But starting in the fall, it's been virtually impossible to discuss any gay issue other than marriage, certainly in CA but also at the national level, in any real substantive way.

I can't recall the last time any professional gay advocacy organization said a word about affordable housing and health care for gay people. Or if they have, it's been in the context of why we supposedly need marriage in order to keep a roof over our heads or get in to see a doctor.

I'm so pleased to share with you an excerpt, and link to, a terrific think-piece by openly gay writer David Kaufman at the Economist's blog, More Intelligent Life, because he address such concerns:

The passage of Proposition 8 was certainly a blow to progressives. Yet in this time of economic crisis, is the battle worth all the attention its getting? Is it any more vital than tackling HIV, drug use, work-place protection or access to affordable health care--all issues that directly (and often disproportionately) affect America’s gay citizens?

Just over half of California's Lesbian women and over 40% of its gay men, aged 18-59, are in cohabiting partnerships, compared with over 60% of heterosexual couples. Whether by circumstance or design, most of gay California is single or some years away from the altar. Gay marriage would grant homo-singletons civil-rights parity, but progress in health-care coverage would have a direct affect on more people. Many gay people are simply concentrating on beginning a loving relationship. Marriage is often a vague goal, legal or not.

"Gay rights used to be about liberation, but today the movement is solely focused on 'equality'," says Bill Dobbs, a New York-based lawyer and gay activist. He believes the same-sex marriage crusade bears an awkward resemblance to the "family values" message of the Christian right--as if marriage should be everyone's ultimate goal.

"'Equality' is a powerful concept, but it is also a very dangerous way to run a movement. Equality won't get us affordable health care. It just pushes for more of the same, for the status quo rather than social justice." ...

Not only does Kaufman broach the marriage vs. every other issue debate, he also looks at the matter of fidelity in gay marriages, and brings in the loaded word "faithful" into the discussion:

Growing up without the option to marry may encourage less conventional concepts of fidelity. Yet straights stray, too, of course; half of all heterosexual couples experience infidelity at some point. Advocates of same-sex marriage say the institution would offer incentives for gay men to be faithful.

I don't think it realistic to expect gay men, same as straight dudes too, to curb their natural promiscuous sexual appetites just because they're legally bound to each other. When gay marriage is restored in California, I"m sure gay married men will still be cruising Craigslist and hooking up.

And speaking of sexual liaisons, remember that our right to sexual liberation, and in public venues without police or DPH surveillance, is never secure and always in need of defending. Why not do something for gay liberation and visit your neighborhood bathhouse, peep show, sex club or glory hole today?

Marriage is not the only item on the gay agenda.

Ocamb: EQCA Audit Results
To Be Released This Month

After reading my post yesterday about the two independent audits underway related to the loss of gay marriage in the Golden State, longtime journalist Karen Ocamb made some inquiries of the folks involved with the audits. Here's her memo:

Hey Michael -

OK - here's what I've found out so far: EQCA is conducting their own analysis - strictly of their role in the No on Prop 8 campaign - and they expect that to be completed some time this month. It will be released soon after it is presented to the board.

Michael Fleming is traveling - but I left a message. He's the one spearheading the larger post election analysis with a team at UCLA. I'll let you know what he says when he gets back to me.

Take care -
Karen O.

Thanks, Karen, for doing the follow up so important to gay journalism.

I certainly hope EQCA will keep the promise they made to Karen and that the findings are made public, and before the month is over. If Geoff Kors and the EQCA board soon share their analysis with us, I'll be among the first to praise them for doing something right.

The EQCA audit could go a very long way toward helping the community understand the strengths and weakness of the group's integral role in the campaign, and, as important, serve as a guide to the two new gay leaders EQCA just hired from Massachusetts, Marc Solomon and Amy Mello, and help them design the best plan for achieving what their home state enjoys - gay marriage.

(Jeanne Rizzo, right, and her partner Pali Cooper.)

Did Gill Action's Guerriero Kill Lesbian
Prop 8 Ad? Release it Now!

Something's bugging me about a section in Seth Hemmelgarn's excellent wrap-up piece in the current Bay Area Reporter about the February 26 town hall on Prop 8. It's the part about a ready-to-air TV spot with an actual living, breathing and talking lesbian:

One topic that got a strong reaction from the audience was the involvement of campaign consultants. Smith, a principal in Dewey Square, was discussing the decision to air an ad featuring the voice of actor Samuel L. Jackson talking about discrimination, rather than another ad featuring an out lesbian, when co-moderator Kim Corsaro, publisher and editor of the San Francisco Bay Times, asked who made that decision.

Smith said a committee comprised of him and five other consultants had been making decisions at that point in the campaign, just weeks before the election. Kors added that no executive committee members had been present when this happened. There were only two out gay people and one woman in that group, Smith and Kors said.

Asked about the exchange in an e-mail, Kors responded that Patrick Guerriero, who had taken leave from his job at the Gill Action Fund to work as No on 8's campaign director during the month before Election Day, had full decision-making authority for all aspects of the campaign.

"There was a team of consultants involved in creating, testing, and recommending ads to Patrick. The executive committee was not involved in that process" during October and November, wrote Kors in an e-mail.

He added, "Patrick kept the executive committee updated and sought input from a large number of people based on their particular experience and expertise. For example, EQCA was focused primarily on fundraising and creating the fundraising e-mails."

Kors also wrote, "The executive committee was not making the day-to-day decisions. We were the legal board of the campaign." ...

There are several ways to read this. First, Kors is attempting to shift the focus off of campaign leadership, if you can call it that, and instead question the decisions that were made by Guerriero. Nothing wrong with this really, and we should be looking at the vital role Guerriero played in the campaign.

Second, did Guerriero, and by extension the Gill Action Fund, which was paying his salary, I believe, make the decision to withhold the lesbian ad?

Thirdly, I am calling on the remnants of the executive committee and their hired consultants to release this ad. Gay community dollars were raised and spent on it, and even though it never saw the light of a TV screen or was shared on YouTube, we have a moral right to view it finally. If for no other important reasons than gay visibility and the homo-historical record, let us see the lesbian ad that was taped didn't get broadcast. Now.

Fourth, I believe Guerriero owes the San Francisco gay community a town hall to answer questions about his decisions in the campaign, if only to help us gain a fuller understanding of the operation he oversaw, share his lessoned learned with the affected gay population, and do all he can to guarantee the mistakes made in 2008 are never repeated.

While I and other bloggers and critics of the No on 8 campaign have shot much well-deserved criticism at the likes of Kors, Kate Kendell and Lori Jean, we have not focused nearly enough attention on what Guerriero did in the last weeks of the campaign, when the reins were handed to him and a miracle was expected.

It's vital that we hear and see Guerriero respond to these and many other concerns still lingering over the community like a cloud of doom from the Prop 8 campaign.

As far as I know, he was the moderator at one public meeting in LA in November after the loss, but otherwise has kept mum and out of the limelight.

Hey, Patrick, do the movement a favor. Agree to hold a few open forums in California in the very near future. We need to learn from the good decisions you made and the not-so-good.

Here's an excerpt from the BAR story by Cynthia Laird in November that first reported on the lesbian ad:

The No on Prop 8 campaign made a television ad that featured a lesbian talking about marriage but the commercial never aired, the Bay Area Reporter has learned.

Kate Kendell and Geoff Kors, members of the No on 8 executive committee, confirmed during an interview Monday, November 10 that such an ad was made and that it was not shown on television because the campaign had to counter the Yes on 8 ads that said children would be taught about same-sex marriage in schools. ...

Kendell said that the unaired ad featured local lesbian Jeanne Rizzo, who was a party to the successful lawsuit that overturned the state's anti-gay marriage laws.

Rizzo and her partner Pali Cooper were one of a handful of couples who were turned away by county clerks in March 2004 minutes after the state Supreme Court ordered same-sex marriages halted.

Rizzo, a registered nurse and executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, told the B.A.R. Wednesday in a phone interview that she was happy to help the No on 8 campaign by appearing in the ad. She said that the ad was made by Ogilvy Public Relations and taped in her home. In the 30-second spot, she said the core message was: "You've heard domestic partnerships are similar to marriage. I'm here to tell you it's not. My partner and I got married after 20 years together." The ad closed with her saying that she's 62 years old, a nurse, an American, "and I should have the same rights." ...

(If I ever had a shot at getting a grant from the Gill Action Fund, this post surely will kill the chance of receiving funds from this important foundation. But, dammit, someone has got to start asking the fund's executives who took over Prop 8 at the end to be accountable, at least to San Francisco gays.)

(Photo credit: BAR, Jane Philomen Cleland.)

The Audit Results on EQCA, No on 8

Has it really been two full months since Geoff Kors was running his mouth off about an independent audit of the No on 8 committee?

It sure has and I'm wondering when we're going to get around to getting the results of the analysis of what went wrong with the Kors-led campaign that stripped away gay marriage. Here's what Kors told Japhy Grant over at Queerty.com at the beginning of January:

Kors: Well, I know it's going to happen. We're finding people who have run similar campaigns, but it's important that we choose people who were not involved in the campaign at all. I know that there are those who disagree with me, but I believe the results of the analysis should be reported to the community. I think it's important that we do that and that there's nothing about how we lost that could, you know, be used against us in future campaigns. Again, I know there are those who disagree with me on this.

That promised No on 8 audit was to be totally separate from a second analysis that would only focus on Equality California. You should recall what Seth Hemmelgarn at the Bay Area Reporter had to say at the beginning of the year on this second audit:

[Kors] said EQCA has retained Woodward and McDowell to do an assessment.

Ted Green with Woodward and McDowell said that the company would be doing a report for EQCA that looks at EQCA's role in the No on Prop 8 campaign.

"That's a very separate and different animal from an overall analysis of the campaign," Green said.

Two accounts about the two audits from early January. What has happened since then? Karen Ocamb from Los Angeles wrote at the end of January, after the EQCA leadership summit, that a pillar of the community would carrying out one of the audits:

And I noted that Michael Fleming of the David Bohnett Foundation was conducting an independent audit (with UCLA) of the campaign.

It's been more than a month since we learned of Fleming's audit and I've not heard another word about it. Did the audit? Anyone seen the results? Still on-going? Okay, when will it conclude and what about the separate audit of just EQCA's role in the Prop 8 campaign?

If anyone would care to offer me an explanation as to why CA gays are not demanding answers about the two audits, and the release of both, if they've actually been executed, I'm all ears.

Of course, if EQCA adhered to democratic and transparent principles, and held regular public meetings, I'd ask its leaders directly whatever happened to the audits, but, as we all know, EQCA is an elite close-door organization accountable only to its board.

NYT: Hitler's Rumored Homosexuality

From the introduction in Sunday's Week in Review excerpts of reports on Germany's Nazi leader recently sold at auction:

MORE than 60 years after Adolf Hitler died, the details of his private life still grip the public imagination. Some additional glimpses emerged from a British intelligence report sold last week by the English auction house Mullock’s. Written by an unnamed British agent and dated May 3, 1945 — three days after Hitler’s death — it summarizes the interrogation of a German lieutenant colonel who was a staff member at Hitler’s headquarters in Berlin during World War II. Known only as “PW” (prisoner of war), he had observed Hitler at close quarters, dining with him at least 30 times. ...

One of the entries in the reports broaches a subject that always makes me uncomfortable, largely because I simply don't believe enough proof has ever been gathered and presented, raising the mere possibility that this dictator could have had homosexual tendencies, mentions rumors circulating at the time:

“Quite often he would retire into this privacy with some woman whom he esteemed very much (during later years particularly with a Miss Braun whose relationship to Hitler is quite unknown). It is not believed that in these sessions with women Hitler’s attitude intensified to any more than a platonic relationship. (The rumors about his homosexuality and other abnormal obsessions were rumors and nothing more. ...)”

Just one more bit of trivia to place in the "Was Hitler Gay?" file.

Blade Corrects Dallas Voice on Hate Crime
Law in Polis Gaffe Story

I've been informed by veteran gay journalist Lou Chibarro of the Washington Blade that I have shared an incorrect account and understanding of a recent national effort over hate crimes and US Congress, related to incorrect comments made by openly gay Democrat congressmember Jared Polis in Texas.

As you can see below, Lou is questioning John Wright's account of what transpired back in 2007 over the latest attempt to get gays included in federal hate crime statutes and he's sent me an article he wrote, which I've excerpted below.

First, here's his note:

Hi Michael,

Your blog report about the Rep. Jared Polis's misstatement about Congress passing the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill was most interesting and appears to be the first site to break this news.

But the quote you included from a column written by John Wright of the Dallas Voice is misleading if not totally incorrect.

The House (and Senate) did not drop the Shepard hate crimes bill as an amendment to a military authorization measure because President Bush threatened to veto it, as John Wright claims in his column.

The House refused to include it in the DOD bill, and pressured the Senate to drop it, because a group of liberal, anti-war Democrats in the House threatened to vote against it if it was part of the DOD bill. The liberal Democrats said they could not vote for any DOD bill, even one with the Shepard bill attached, because it provided support for the Iraq War.

I've copied a Blade story (see below) from December 2007 that covers all of this in detail.

All the best,
Lou Chibbaro

I bear responsibility in passing along part of what Wright wrote, which was wrong, and appreciate Lou correcting the problems in Wright's explanation.

Here's the excerpted beginning of Lou's original article:

House nixes hate crimes
Frank faults strategy, calls for freestanding bill in 2008

By LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Dec. 07, 2007

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) Thursday morning acquiesced to demands by House Democratic leaders to drop a gay and transgender inclusive hate crimes bill from the National Defense Authorization Act, a knowledgeable Capitol Hill source said.

The decision kills the hate crimes bill for this year, but House Democrats, led by gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), are calling on the Senate to pass a freestanding hate crimes bill as early as February.

Senate Democrats had hoped to pass the Department of Defense authorization bill with the hate crimes measure intact, saying it was the best strategy for discouraging President Bush from vetoing the hate crimes measure, which Bush opposes.

House Democratic leaders, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), supported the Senate strategy, but a bloc of about 30 liberal Democratic House members threatened to join Republicans in voting against the combined DOD-hate crimes bill, saying they could not support legislation advancing the president’s Iraq war policies.

Republicans support the DOD bill but more than 100 GOP House members said they wouldn’t vote for it as long as it was linked to the hate crimes bill, which they opposed.

Frank broke publicly this week with many of the nation’s gay advocacy groups by questioning their request that House members back continued funding for the Iraq war in order to support the hate crimes bill. ...

Dallas Voice: Gay Rep Polis' Gaffe

Over Federal Hate Crime Law

Gay millionaire and former web entrepreneur Jared Polis, who was elected to Congress in November to represent Boulder, CO, caused a ruckus down in Texas recently with comments about gays and federal hate crime laws. Polis was addressing the Texas Stonewall Democratic Caucus when the issue came up.

John Wright, a reporter for the Dallas Voice, a widely-respected and award-winning gay newspaper, was present at the talk, taped it and has posted a transcript on the paper's site:

RANDY BROWN [local gay advocate]: Is Washington aware of the fact that people may get hurt? Because we might get hurt in the process of trying to just come out of the closet, just trying to help the process along. It’s a very, very frightening thing.

JARED POLIS: Have your local law enforcement agencies been helpful in offering you protection when you feel threatened?

BROWN: No.

POLIS: They haven’t?

BROWN: No.

POLIS: This is one of the reasons we have a federal hate crimes law, for that very reason. Sometimes in some conservative areas they don’t prosecute hate crimes, so we have on the books a law that allows the federal government to prosecute those if your local DA refuses to. So you might want to report it to your federal attorney general for your area if you feel threatened and the local authorities are not investigating or don’t seem to care. You can turn to the federal government for investigation of potential hate crimes.

BROWN: They generally throw hate crimes right out the court window.

POLIS: Well, that’s what your local, that’s what the state does, but I’m saying there is a federal recourse for that. That’s the very reason we did it.

[AT THIS POINT, TEXAS STONEWALL PRESIDENT DAN GRANEY STANDS UP AND TELLS POLIS THAT THE MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT DIDN’T PASS.]

POLIS: Oh, it didn’t pass? OK. So we still need to pass it? OK. So we’ll try to pass that one for you, too. But that’s why we need it. And of course Obama supports that, our Congress supports that, our Senate supports that. I thought we did pass it, so we will try to get that. But that’s exactly why we need it though, because in some of the areas where gays and lesbians do feel terrorized every day, the local authorities are in league with the forces of hate. And this would, when we pass it — thanks for pointing that out — give you recourse to go to the federal government to investigate hate crimes in your area, and that’s why it’s so important.

In another Dallas Voice blog post, Wright explained the recently history of the federal hate crimes bill and its gay clause, while also giving Polis the chance to explain his ignorance:

The Matthew Shepard Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate crimes protections, passed both the House and Senate in 2007, but it was removed from a Defense Reauthorization bill after President Bush threatened to veto it.

Afterward, Polis told me he’d gotten confused because he knew the Shepard Act had passed Congress, and because protections against hate crimes based on sexual orientation are in place in his home state of Colorado.

I am not an activist who believes in hate crime laws, basically because we have plenty of existing laws on the books that can and should be used when gays are assaulted and I'm not aware of any proof that such laws prevent or reduce attacks driven by bias.

That being said, hate crimes legislation at the federal level is a top priority for professional gay advocacy organizations aligned with the Democratic Party and it seems to me Polis should be very familiar with the Shepard Act and lack of federal hate crime laws.

So far, the reaction from gay lobbyists such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Victory Fund, GLAAD, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and their allies to Polis' comments and attempt at clearing up his confusion has been silence.

Yet, my gut tells me that if a gay GOP politician or a straight congressmember, either Democrat or Republican, display blatant ignorance about hate crime laws, those groups would be howling objections all over the web.

Kudos to John Wright and the Dallas Voice for covering this Polis gaffe without fear and much balance.

(Photo credit: Dallas Voice.)

CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8;
Gay Activists React

We're here! We're queer! We lost the Supreme Court decision! Get used to it!

Okay, I'm projecting with my headline here. We have not lost the Prop 8 case before the state's highest court. Yet. But we will lose and I'm curious about how my community will respond, and how extensive the street protests will be.

I know of two plans afoot, preparing us for hitting the streets, regardless of how the court rules in the next 2-3 months.

The first is being organized by Robin McGehee of Fresno. It's called Meet in the Middle and takes place the first Saturday after the ruling is issued and is narrowly focused on making an impact on the state. Click here for their site. The basic info:

Rally for national LGBT equality the first Saturday AFTER the California Supreme Court issues its ruling on the Proposition 8 cases. Meet on the steps of City Hall in downtown Fresno at 1:00 PM.

Why Fresno? The battle for equality has to be fought in towns like Fresno, CA — not only in gay-friendly cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. California's Central Valley population is far more reflective of national attitudes towards LBGT Equality and until we engage the communities of "middle-America", we will not gain the full equality we deserve.

The second action is organized by Robin Tyler of Los Angeles and is national in focus. Go here for more details, and when your appetite with this explanation:

If we organize every sizeable city to have a "Day of Decision" action, that, in and of itself, will send a powerful message that our community will not sit idly by if the hateful Proposition 8 is allowed to stand.

Organizing now will send the message that we will no longer accept discrimination against us.

Off the bat, I have to say I'd love to see some coordination between these two important projects. I don't see the actions as competitive and it would set a fine model if both Robins could coordinate their respective actions with mutual support and cross-promotion, two things sorely missing in recent CA gay activism.

Next, I'm not sure how much interest there still is in gay marriage activism and to what degree people will again take to the streets to demonstrate against the ruling upholding Prop 8. Who really knows if gays beyond California, indeed, how many in our own backyard, are readying their marching shoes in response to the Supreme Court decision?

Regarding the Fresno action, which I think is very important to California's gay community, I hope the organizers soon let the rest us know about public transportation to their city or if someone is organizing renting vans and buses, or establishing carpools in order to get gays out of the urban ghettos and into the heartland.

Let's also see if the A-gays at Equality California and National Center for Lesbian Rights and the LA Gay Community Center kick in serious money to make the Fresno protest happen and succeed.

Then, after the "day of" and "Saturday after" actions take place, and both are wildly fabulous, we can see what plans CA gay leaders have drawn up for starting signature gathering for a 2010 ballot initiative from us.

They do have a plan for when we lose the Supreme Court ruling, right, and how to proceed after we absorb the disappointment?