At Least the Dems Showed Up

by Steve Charing

The historic HRC/LOGO Visible Vote ‘08 forum that took place on August 9 did not break any new ground as far as the content was concerned. But it was the first time a forum that dealt almost exclusively with lgbt issues was televised and appeared on the Internet live.

"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT Americans," the Human Rights Campaign, a co-sponsor, said in a statement following the forum. "We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community."

Six of the eight Democratic candidates for president appeared in an informal, almost talk show-style setting in West Hollywood. The only two who did not were Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Christopher Dodd who had scheduling conflicts. All Republican contenders were invited, and they all declined.

The event was seen on LOGO—the event’s other co-sponsor—an all-gay cable network that reaches some 26 million homes.

Each candidate was interviewed separately by a panel consisting of HRC president Joe Solmonese. Lesbian singer-composer Melissa Etheridge and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart and was given approximately 15 minutes to field questions. The moderator was journalist Margaret Carlson.

Prior to the forum, some gay journalists and bloggers were whining about the composition of the panel. In particular, they targeted Etheridge, citing more "qualified" and "experienced" individuals who might grill the candidates with strong follow-up questions and forcing them to respond directly.

But Etheridge not only acquitted herself well during the two-hour forum (as did the other panelists), but she provided two of the more dramatic moments during the exchanges.

In a question posed to a seemingly uneasy Governor Bill Richardson (NM), Etheridge asked if he believed homosexuality was a choice. He said it was, and after being given an opportunity to clarify or perhaps reverse his response, he made a foolish comment that he is not a scientist. The gaffe proved to be a low moment for Richardson as the 200 invited guests in the audience groaned. Afterwards, his campaign released a statement that said he did not believe people choose to be gay. A little late, I’m afraid.

The other significant exchange occurred when Etheridge was telling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that she had great hopes for her husband when she came out at his inaugural gala in 1993. But during his presidency she charged that gays were "pushed under the bus." Mrs. Clinton rejected that and defended her husband’s record on lgbt issues.

The questions, however, focused mainly on same-sex marriage, employment discrimination, health care, and the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, although an excellent question concerning homophobia in the African-American community was asked of Sen. Obama by Mr. Capehart. Mr. Obama said he has addressed this issue with black ministers. All of the candidates stated their desire to end "don’t ask, don’t tell" and support ENDA—the federal employment non-discrimination act that is poised for a vote in Congress.

While Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel—two long shots for the nomination—were unabashed supporters of same-sex marriage, the other four could not bring themselves to share that position. They backed civil union arrangements with the full slate of federal and state benefits that legal marriage would bring, but they could not simply agree to "same-sex marriage," almost apologetically and were not clear in providing a good reason.

But I can help them out. They want to win the general election should they capture the nomination. The country isn’t quite there yet for same-sex marriage according to recent polls. And although I believe that Clinton, Obama and Edwards deep down are personally sympathetic to the cause, for political reasons they cannot state directly they support gay marriage if they have any hopes of winning. Maybe in a couple of election cycles down the road candidates will.

These contenders understand the consequences of such a stance as the Republicans will distract the nation from their own horrendous record over the past eight years and scare Americans as they did in 2004 about an issue that truly doesn’t belong in the presidential campaign. Even Bill Richardson, who has been tagged by most gay pundits and bloggers as the loser in this forum, admitted he would do only what is "achievable."

The lack of full-throttle support for same-sex marriage by the leading candidates have angered many gay activists.

But the contemptible gaggle of Republican candidates declined to appear at the forum, and it was wise of them to make that decision from a political perspective. The main reason is they had nothing to gain.

For one thing, they have anti-gay positions on virtually all lgbt issues. They will not win over any gays or lesbians based on their records or stances. The other reason is if they are perceived in any way to be supporting the notorious "gay agenda," they would have a tough time during the primaries where the conservative base is largely unsympathetic to gay causes.

At least the Democratic candidates showed up and gave thoughtful answers to very pointed questions—often being put on the spot. The gay vote constituted only 4 percent of the total cast during the 2004 election, and of that, 73 percent voted for John Kerry. Yet these candidates rightly see the value of the gay vote during the primaries as large voter turnout from gays and lesbians could affect the outcome, and gays frequently make disproportionately more campaign donations.

Nonetheless, this forum illustrated the struggle for politicians to deal with same-sex marriage even in front of a friendly audience. The candidates distinguished themselves from the Republicans, but with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, they did little to separate themselves from their fellow Democratic opponents on this issue.

War Wastes Funds as Our Bridges Age

Letter published in Baltimore Sun--August 6, 2007

My heart goes out to the families of the victims of the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis ("Bridge Collapses," Aug. 2). According to engineers, there are nearly 150,000 other bridges in the U.S. that are experiencing structural deterioration in various degrees mainly as a result of their age and unforeseen increased traffic stress placed on them.

A recent report from the Federal Highway Administration estimates it would cost $188 billion to repair and rehabilitate all the structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in the country. But that money cannot be found because we are mired in a ridiculously costly war in Iraq that, according to projections, may ultimately cost the taxpayers over $1 trillion.

The horrible incident in Minneapolis highlights the fact that our tax dollars are being misspent on this futile war, which was launched ostensibly to protect the American people. even as many needed infrastructure repairs have been deferred because of lack of funds.

Steve Charing
Cllarksville, MD

Memo to Dems: Don't Impeach

It’s tempting and legitimate, but impeachment could hurt the Party

By Steve Charing

As momentum continues to gather towards a possible impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and/or President Bush, those aligned with the Democratic Party need to step back and examine the wisdom of such a move.

There is no question that both Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses; i.e. "high crimes and misdemeanors," which along with treason, constitutes the benchmark, however flexible, for grounds for impeachment. Notwithstanding the trampling of the Constitution and the environment by these individuals, either or both should be held accountable for the lies that pushed us into a needless, costly war and made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism.

More and more of the country are fed up with the Bush administration as his approval rating stands at an all-time low and the lowest since the good-old days of Nixon. And Cheney’s approval numbers probably don’t register; they’re that low.

The incompetence and arrogance of Bush-Cheney have been evident to the point that this is now what we expect of them. The considerable amount of antipathy towards Bush-Cheney stems mainly from their lies about Iraq and an impressive list of other failures. Even once-loyal Conservatives have begun to head for the lifeboats because of the administration’s mismanagement of the war, uncontrollable spending and their position on immigration.

The lgbt community has their own gripes with this team. It starts with the cynical wedge issue of gay marriage during the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign under the direction of puppet master Karl Rove. They sought to peel off votes that would otherwise have been cast by socially conservative and religious Democrats. Many believed that the tactic worked in such battleground states as Ohio where a constitutional amendment that would ban "gay marriage" was strategically placed on the ballot.

Gays should also be ticked off by the Bush Supreme Court nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito who now join homophobes Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They are one vote away from killing any progress towards equality or worse, rolling back some gains. Along those lines, Bush managed to nominate an anti-gay physician—Dr. James Holsinger—to be the Surgeon General, and he loaded up the Justice Department with a disproportionate number of attorneys who were products of the Christian law school, Regent University. It was founded by none other than homophobe Pat Robertson.

But it is clearly the disastrous war in Iraq and the lies that brought us there that turned the public away from Bush and Cheney. The cost in dollars is immense, and the cost of lives and ruined lives is immeasurable without one solitary thing being accomplished that would directly benefit our country. In fact, this dumb war caused us to diminish our pursuit of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden—the true perpetrators in 9/11. That made us more exposed, and the war helped to recruit more terrorists.

Moreover, our standing in the world receded to such a low level that it is virtually impossible to secure international cooperation on the war on terror. Add that to the Administration’s unwillingness to engage in substantive diplomatic dialogue causes us to be more isolated than ever. This is not a good position to be given the globalization that surrounds us.

So why not impeach?

The results of the 2006 elections were a clear sign that the country was embarking on a political realignment away from the warlike, religiously-driven dogma of the current administration. The war in Iraq and the numerous scandalous activities by government officials led the voters to scream for CHANGE.

The Republicans are going down in flames; there is no question about it. They are quickly losing the support of moderates and independents as well as displeased evangelical voters. You can thank Bush and Cheney for that.

The 2008 elections, barring any unforeseen change in circumstances, should easily add to the Democrats’ majorities in the House and Senate (where more Republicans than Democrats must defend seats), and the White House is surely within grasp—even if Hillary is the nominee.

Impeachment would be politically risky and conviction unachievable. In our history, only a handful of judges were ever convicted through the impeachment process.

The argument that impeachment during a time of war is irresponsible and perhaps unpatriotic is nonsense, of course. That is because we wouldn’t be in a time of war had it not been for the apparent impeachable actions on the part of the President and Vice President. However, that type of accusation—that it is irresponsible—has a chance to resonate with many voters.

When President Clinton was impeached (not convicted), his approval ratings, although much higher than Bush’s now, did not decline. Rather, he garnered a lot of public sympathy for a man who had been an effective president that yielded budget surpluses and kept us out of a protracted war. The impeachment process was widely seen as a highly politicized effort to derail his presidency that centered on a private matter that was not affecting the welfare or security of the state.

The last thing Democrats need is to mitigate Bush’s free-fall into oblivion by making him a sympathetic figure. Equally significant, by not impeaching Bush or Cheney, the Dems won’t have to fall into the "unpatriotic" trap that the GOP knows how to spring with such skill and efficiency. "They are impeaching the Commander-in-Chief during a war, thereby weakening our nation. That is unpatriotic if not treasonous."

Impeachment proceedings would be a dragged out process that will likely turn off the electorate at a time the Democrats need the voters to be energized to rid the country from these deceptive and incompetent jerks and their GOP following.

Democrats, let Bush and Cheney take down the GOP on their own. They are doing an effective job of it. Don’t make the public feel sorry for them or give an excuse to pummel the Dems as unpatriotic.

Don’t impeach; the rascals will be out of office soon enough.

Seaside Reflections

By Steve Charing

PROVINCETOWN, MA—Upon making my 20th visit to this fabulous gay resort, I can reflect upon how Provincetown (P-Town) has changed since my first brief stay during the summer of 1975. What was then a gay playground-by-the-sea for primarily New Yorkers, New Englanders and Canadians, has evolved into a global Mecca, and it isn’t unusual to see as many people vacationing here from San Diego as Amsterdam.

To be sure, much remains the same over these three-plus decades. The ice cream cones and pizza continue to be tasty. The Lobster Pot restaurant is always filled to capacity. The Boatslip tea dance remains a standing and modeling show by the water’s edge. The ocean is bone crunching cold. The cabarets and street theater are as outrageous and campy as they have ever been.

But there have been noticeable differences, too. With the expanded popularity there are, of course, the soaring prices of cramped guesthouse rooms, pricey dinner menus, increased cover charges at the bars and skyrocketing property values.

More straight families partake in the Cape Cod ambience of P-Town now, as acceptance of gays and lesbians is broadening. Earlier on, they were a rare presence.

There isn’t as much tawdry "action" at either the dunes or the notorious cruising at the "meat rack" because the emergence of HIV/AIDS and heightened police awareness kind of put the brakes on that.

But the most dramatic change in P-Town from a sociological and political standpoint is the fact that many of the gay and lesbian couples strolling down Commercial Street, if they are residents of Massachusetts, are actually married. And other same-sex couples from the state flock here to join in on the nuptials. That phenomenon would have been too surreal to even be imaginable back in 1975.

Since 2004, when gay marriage became legal in the Bay State as a result of a court edict, over 8,500 same-sex couples were issued marriage licenses. While some states have allowed for civil unions—a compromise of sorts between pro-marriage equality forces and anti-gay marriage types—Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation that allows for same-sex marriage. Civil unions afford a few statewide benefits, but they are separate and unequal to marriage. And same-sex couples in these arrangements are relegated to a status beneath heterosexual couples.

With their Governor’s support, the Massachusetts legislature recently rejected an effort to put the marriage issue on the ballot in 2008 that could have resulted in an amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage. Therefore, the marriages that take place in Provincetown or elsewhere in the state will continue at least until 2012.

As gay and lesbian Marylanders await the ruling from the Maryland Court of Appeals as to the legality of same-sex marriage based on a high-profile lawsuit, it is important to note that civil marriage brings in well over a thousand rights, benefits and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, most of the significant benefits that would be afforded couples as a result of marriage are within the federal domain. In 1996 President Clinton signed a bill advanced by a hoard of gutless Congressmen and Senators called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Facing re-election, Clinton was backed into the corner and had to go along with this seemingly unconstitutional law lest he be portrayed as anti-family.

One of the provisions of DOMA allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that are carried out in other states. The other key provision defines marriage as a legal union between one man and woman as husband and wife. As such, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage be it from Massachusetts or anywhere else. The consequence of that is that there can be no benefits stemming from Social Security, survivor and inheritance laws, federal retirement pensions, tax advantages and a host of other federal benefits.

Those gays and lesbians who are married and are enjoying their bike rides in P-Town and sampling the famous taffy are not reaping the awards that the heterosexual couples take for granted. The only similarity is that they can say they are married. But the federal restrictions on same-sex couples deny them the federal protections, which would be far more beneficial and meaningful financially.

The solution—and it’s a very steep hill to climb—is to repeal DOMA or have it successfully challenged in what is now an anti-gay Supreme Court.

More and more people are coming to the realization that marriage as an institution is not threatened by gays as much as it is from straight people. Massachusetts, after allowing same-sex marriage, maintains the lowest divorce rate in the country. The sky did not fall beginning in May 2004 when the first same-sex marriages took place. On the other hand, nearly half of all heterosexual marriages in the U.S. fail.

A shocking thirty-seven percent of all babies in 2005 were born out of wedlock. If couples having children that bypasses the commitment of marriage doesn’t threaten the institution, I don’t know what would.

This is the message that we must convey to get on the path to repeal DOMA. We must also maintain that we are seeking civil recognition with all the potential benefits, not a religious blessing. It’s all about equality and justice.

The younger, more tolerant and open-minded generation will lead the way. Perhaps some day, when all gay and lesbian married couples from Massachusetts, Maryland and beyond visit enchanting P-Town, they will be sharing a meal at Bubala’s or Bayside Betsy’s as completely married in the eyes of the U.S. government and in receipt of the full benefits and recognition they deserve.

Gay Jeopardy at PFLAG

June Horner with arms raised is jubilant upon learning that she was the winner of "Gay Jeopardy" presented by the Columbia/Howard County PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) on July 10 at the Owen Brown Interfaith Center. Everyone in the audience were contestants, and the three highest scores participated in "Final Jeopardy" to compete for fabulous prizes. June is a proud parent of a gay son as is co-finalist Dan McCarthy, Crystal Ogar was the recent recipient of the chapter's first scholarship. Your favorite blogger (far right) hosted the game.

Photo Credit: Bob Ford

Reading the Signs

Letter Published on TIME.com--

July 3, 2007

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1639640,00.html


Amanda Ripley was correct that constant exaggerations concerning terrorist threats will make us less safe [June 18]. She points out the dangers of using terrorism for political gain. The color-coded terrorism warnings during the 2004 presidential campaign were a cynical example of that bombast. The drumbeat from pro-Iraq-war elements aims to reassure us that we're fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them within our borders. The episode at Fort Dix in New Jersey, no matter how dumb the plotters were, is proof positive that terrorism can occur on our shores even if we're in Iraq. The war has accomplished nothing except to recruit more terrorists.


Steve Charing, CLARKSVILLE, MARYLAND, U.S.

In Defense of Pride

By Steve Charing

It’s painful for me to admit I’m old, but with one exception I have attended every single Baltimore Pride parade/festival since 1978 when it first took place along Waverly’s 31st Street. Later on, I was part of the then Baltimore Gay Paper’s delegation when it joined a handful of other marchers down Park Avenue in 1984 that ultimately became Baltimore’s first ever Pride parade in front of yes, only a handful of people.

Many of those attending this year’s Pride were not even born then. And I am sure they (as well as some others) don’t even know the roots of the Pride celebrations. But I’ve basically seen them all.

Over the years, the location, leadership, scope and size of the annual Pride galas evolved and with mixed results. Baltimore Pride has been run by the GLCCB throughout its history and emerged as a primary revenue source for the Center.

It wasn’t until three years ago, however, when Scott Baum and Ron Crognale took the helm in planning and executing Pride that it reached, in my view, a new level of success. It developed into a celebratory series of high-energy events that brought a diverse community out—a dramatic change from the early years.

This year, the behemoth task was taken over by Joel Rosado, who, I am sure would credit the efforts of Baum and Crognale and their legion of volunteers for establishing such a good foundation.

And on Rosado’s first attempt, I thought Pride went well again this time. There were flaws, to be sure, as there would be in any large undertaking. For example, Pride "Security" volunteers allowed groups of people to inconsiderately camp out on beach chairs on Eager Street’s sidewalks prior to and during the block party that made a congested thoroughfare even more challenging to negotiate. And I am certain other folks had their list of "issues" concerning the two-day event as well.

But I would like to address some of the comments published in a Letter to the Editor in the last issue of OUTloud by Joseph Kortash. He criticized Pride 2007 on all levels, basically characterizing it as "same old, same old."

I hope he can correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt that Mr. Kortash participated in any of the planning meetings that other Pride volunteers attended where he could have expressed his views and, perhaps, effect the change in vendors and entertainment he craves. To be honest, I doubt he volunteered at all for Pride.

Furthermore, I question whether Mr. Kortash appreciates the extraordinary amount of time and effort needed to carry out the myriad logistical details that are essential in producing a huge event, such as obtaining permits, vendors, entertainment, technicians, contracts, police coverage, sanitation, etc. If he did, it wasn’t acknowledged in his letter.

As for the parade, Mr. Kortash found it embarrassing to bring his straight friends because of the antics and attire of some of the marchers. It is true that footage from gay pride parades that focused on the so-called extreme behavior have been co-opted by gay rights opponents, especially religious conservatives, in an effort to suppress our progress towards equality. They use these images primarily to shock "middle America" and instill fear.

I agree that some of it is in bad taste and not conducive to a parade that has increasingly attracted children. Nonetheless, since the first gay pride march in New York in 1970, it has been a tradition to allow free expression from such a diverse community.

I think the "shock value" is waning because people have seen this before and coming to realize it is a minority of the community, not representative of it. The debate, however, will continue; Mr. Kortash does have a valid argument.

Mr. Kortash doesn’t like being "hounded" at the festival. Who does? But such worthwhile groups like Equality Maryland (he cited it specifically in the letter) and the Human Rights Campaign are working hard to secure rights and protections for Mr. Kortash and other lgbt people. If those in our community were not so politically uninvolved, there would be no need to "hound" anyone.

The festival affords an excellent opportunity for organizations to present a message and garner support to allow them to help all of us. This occurs at all Pride celebrations, and it should.

One final point about the GLCCB and Mr. Kortash’s quoting his chat room buddies who labeled the GLCCB "a mess." The debate about the Center’s efficacy has been ongoing since its inception, so there is nothing new here. For one, I have disagreed with the Center’s leadership and board over the years on some of their decision-making, personnel and the weaknesses in the Center’s financial management/transparency.

Yet ever since Harvey Schwartz moved the Center from a small, below street-level apartment on Maryland Avenue in 1980 to the current building on Chase Street, there was never a question in my mind as to the legitimacy of the organization’s purpose and mission.

Pride is a vital source of income for the GLCCB to help carry out its needed programs and services. Although I had no major complaints, questions by others have surfaced as to whether or not the GLCCB is the best entity to run Pride. The location, entertainment and vendors have been challenged, and not just by Mr. Kortash.

Perhaps an answer would be to hold an independent community meeting later this summer or early fall to hear the grievances about Pride, and more importantly, develop solutions. I think Mr. Kortash would be an excellent person to organize such a meeting.

Rights of Minorities Not Subject to Vote

Letter published in Baltimore Sun--June 22, 2007

The Massachusetts legislature, with the full-throttled support of Governor Deval Patrick, was correct in defeating a move to overturn the state's existing marriage law that includes same-sex couples (Challenge to gay marriage in Massachusetts falls short, June 15).

The backers of the proposed constitutional amendment to reverse the 2004 court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage are lamenting the outcome because they prefer the voters to decide on who should be entitled to the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

The problem with that position is that it would put minority rights up for a popular vote, which historically would be un-American. Had such a vote taken place in the past, interracial couples would not likely be allowed to be legally married today.

These same opponents have argued that expanding marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy marriage as an institution. Approximately 8,500 same-sex couples in Massachusetts have been married since 2004, and the state maintains its position as having the lowest divorce rate of the 50 states.

It is fair to conclude, based on that fact, that same-sex marriage does nothing to harm the institution, but in fact strengthens it by allowing a broader portion of the population to participate. The sky did not fall as many of same-sex marriage opponents had feared.

Steve Charing

Clarksville

Massachusetts Gave Our Pride a Boost

Defeating a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage sets a great example for Maryland and beyond

By Steve Charing

Merely two days before the first set of high heels clicked down Charles Street to kick off Baltimore’s annual Pride celebrations, we got a big time boost from our friends in Massachusetts. My guess is that not many here were aware of it or even cared, as most seem to view the Pride hoopla as a big circuit party on Saturday and a more laid back stroll-in-the-park on Sunday.

But for those who view marriage equality as a goal to strive for, at least to have the option of same-sex marriage, then the news emanating from Massachusetts was a sweet way to get us off and running, and I don’t mean in high heels.

Their legislature found a way to preserve same-sex marriage in the Bay State at least until 2012 by defeating by 5 votes an attempt to get the measure on a statewide ballot in 2008. That could have resulted in a constitutional amendment and reverse a significant victory: the first state in the U.S. where same-sex marriage is legal.

This was an awesome development. Quite a few in the legislature who previously supported the amendment changed their minds and saw that the sky did not fall from the experience of three years of same-sex couples—8,500 in all—marrying in Massachusetts.

Not only did the Massachusetts legislature see the light, but their governor, Deval Patrick, was unabashedly supportive of marriage equality and lobbied hard to defeat the proposed ban. “In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” he told a cheering crowd following the announcement of the results. “Today's vote is not just a vote for marriage equality. It was a vote for equality itself.”

On top of that, New Jersey, which has just joined those other states that have legalized civil unions, added transgender protection to the state law. These victories in the Garden State were also helped out by the backing of Governor Jon Corzine.

The efforts by these two state executives and their legislatures set a great path for Maryland to follow. Massachusetts was key.

Equality Maryland’s executive director Dan Furmansky perhaps summed it up best. He told me, “Victory in Massachusetts is important for us in Maryland, as legislators need the example of a similarly situated state that has weathered the battle for marriage equality and kept it as the law of the land.”

Most Democratic legislators are especially apprehensive about being too supportive of “gay marriage” even in blue states. They need political cover, as well as leadership, and that is what Governors Patrick and Corzine provided.

Governor Martin O’Malley has stated through his staff that he opposes a constitutional amendment in Maryland and would veto such a measure. Unfortunately, he does not have the authority to veto it, as it could go on the ballot if passed by the General Assembly with a 60 percent vote. It would mean minority rights would be put up for a popular vote, and that’s not a good thing.

Instead, it would be great if Mr. O’Malley followed the path of his fellow governors and begin to take the lead to help thwart an amendment initiative before it gains any footing. Should the Maryland Court of Appeals issue their long-awaited decision on the marriage lawsuit favorably, it would set off a chain of events that will result in a predicted cowering of some legislators and demagoguery from others—all pointing to a constitutional amendment try.

The state’s top officials failed us during the past General Assembly when a bill to protect transgendered individuals from discrimination died in committee when it appeared it had the floor votes to pass. Many blame the Senate leadership for allowing that travesty to happen. Others blame the Governor for not being more vocal, although he supported a similar measure while he was mayor of Baltimore.

Elected officials like Governors Patrick and Corzine have triumphed over “Rove-phobia”—the fear that if one supports anything gay the candidate will lose the next election—to speak out and push for fairness and equality and advocate for what is right and just.

They set out the path. We need our elected officials here to follow it without fear.

UB’s OUT Law Rides Back into Town

By Steve Charing

When Matt Feinberg (pictured) recently met to talk about OUT Law, the University of Baltimore School of Law’s lgbt student association, you could easily visualize his arguing a case in a courtroom. He was dressed in a sharp business suit, had a confident stride, friendly personality and an ability to clearly express himself. And behind his glacier-blue eyes, one can immediately sense the passion he has for the lgbt community and his organization of which he is president.

OUT Law was resurrected during Coming Out Day this past October 11 after a four-year hiatus. "Our paramount goal was to create a place for lgbt students and their families to call home at UB," Matt Feinberg, 25, a rising third year law student, told Baltimore OUTloud. "Certainly there are great ‘outside resources,’ but law school ends up becoming your life, and you don’t have the opportunity to use those outside resources as much as you would like. We needed a resource in the school, and the formation of OUT Law was the natural solution to that need."

Added Professor Odeana R. Neal, the group’s faculty advisor, "The resuscitation of a group focusing on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues is important not only for the University of Baltimore School of Law, but for the citizens of Maryland as well."

On Coming Out Day, according to Matt, OUT Law distributed information about coming out as a member of the lgbt community, being gay in Maryland, same sex marriage, educational safe havens, community events and resources and some other tolerance-based brochures.

The group is open to all gay and straight supporting students in the University of Baltimore and beyond. "OUT Law is pretty much a group for everyone," Matt said. "We are a resource for the students, the school and outside UB, but a lot of our focus is on legal issues."

OUT Law’s mission statement says their goals are to "foster acceptance, promote education and awareness and advocate on the University of Baltimore Campus and in the community at large on legal issues facing members of the LGBT community, LGBT families, and their allies."

A key priority is to educate the students and the community. "We are dedicated to promoting our message," Matt emphasized. "To educate is most of the battle. Education promotes tolerance, which hopefully will lead to equality."

The education initiative also points out areas of law that are not covered in class. Said Prof. Neal, "Law students are often not trained in dealing with legal issues that lgbt people face regularly."

As part of this effort, OUT Law is compiling a pamphlet of cases, law review articles, issue statements, news blurbs and articles, commentary, and editorials and submitting them to professors for certain subjects. "This way, if nothing else, we have made the information available to the professors," said Matt. "If they choose to use it in class, great. If not, we at least made them aware."

One of OUT Law’s two vice-presidents, Stacie Harris (pictured), is a mother of three children, ages 8 to 14, with a warm, natural smile. Stacie has found happiness with her lesbian partner Shamika Hawkes over the past three years.

Besides her several jobs that includes being a substitute teacher in the Baltimore County Public School System as well as an undergraduate at UB, Stacie is involved primarily with coordinating events and social functions for OUT Law. "We want to provide a safe haven for the community," she said. And as part of her responsibilities, Stacie is also promoting the Office of Diversity within UB. She will be a peer advisor at the school in the Fall.

OUT Law’s other vice-president and a founding member, April Nelson, is responsible for outreach beyond the walls of UB. In that capacity she sees connecting with the larger community as essential. "A key goal is increased partnerships with our straight allies among the student body and faculty who are a crucial part of the work in changing the perception of lgbt issues as ‘gay issues’ to ‘equal rights issues,’" she said.

During the short timeframe since its reincarnation, OUT Law has been a viable, active organization and saw its membership increase from 12 founding members to a total of 40 making it among the largest groups at UB. Matt Feinberg had succeeded Julie Ridgeway as president, whom he says "really took the burden of starting this group on her shoulders and made us what we are and paved the way for us to grow."

There have been some major events recently that have certainly added prominence to the group. "Our primary purpose has always been visibility," April points out.

At a same-sex marriage debate held on April 10, which was co-sponsored with the UB Federalist Society, faculty advisor Professor Neal spoke on behalf of same-sex marriage while Professor Amy Wax from the University of Pennsylvania spoke against it. Over 100 people attended the event.

In addition, there was a speaker panel, which featured Sharra Greer, Director of Law and Policy for the ServiceMembers Legal Defense Network, who discussed the consequences of the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy.

There was also a panel on "LGBT Issues in the Classroom" that featured Mark Scurti, a well-known attorney in the lgbt community; Professor Margaret Johnson; Chris Edelson of the Human Rights Campaign; and Dr. David Haltwinger who is Director of Chase-Brexton.

And just last month, OUT Law sponsored the First Annual COBALT (Celebrating Our Baltimore Area LGBT Trailblazers) Awards, where they honored Judge M. Brooke Murdock of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and Mark Scurti. Judge Murdock had ruled favorably in the marriage equality lawsuit, whose ruling was stayed pending a decision from the Maryland Court of Appeals. Both were honored as UB distinguished alumni for their support and efforts on behalf of the lgbt community.

"We look forward to another year of sponsoring panel discussions and bringing in national speakers to address topics affecting lgbt families," said April Nelson. Such plans include an event surrounding the on-campus interview program whereby Army and JAG corps representatives interview perspective law clerks.

This will be an opportunity to make a statement against the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. "We feel that allowing a group to interview on campus that makes discrimination a part of their daily mission isn't acceptable," Matt Feinberg explained.

OUT Law will also hold a World AIDS Day event, and will have a table at the National Coming Out Day. They will also have a presence at the orientation for incoming students for the first time. And, of course, there will be the 2nd annual COBALT awards when they will honor 2-3 leading members of the community.

While trying to balance their busy academic, professional and personal schedules, the officers and members of OUT Law are attempting to make lives better for the broader lgbt community. In such a short time, the group is already successful with a bright future ahead.

Anyone interested in seeking volunteers from OUT Law, co-sponsoring an event, nominating someone for a COBALT award (doesn’t have to be a UB alumnus) or to obtain additional information, may contact the group at ubalt.outlaw@gmail.com.

The Legacy of Stonewall

We celebrate Pride because of the courage of heroes 38 years ago

By Steve Charing

Fortunately today’s generation of lgbt folks do not have to face the conditions that pre-dated the historic Stonewall Riots that began June 27, 1969. In fact, this new generation wasn’t even born then.

Frequent bar raids occurred with police demanding ID’s under the threat of arrest. Entrapment by the police was astonishingly commonplace especially in "cruising areas." So was blackmail.
Names of the arrested were published in the newspapers: Jobs lost. Tenants evicted from apartments. Families torn apart.

Gays were beaten up by straights with alarming frequency. They purposely sought out queers to beat up outside gay establishments. Same-sex dancing was prohibited, as was touching. Sodomy was criminal behavior.

Mafia-owned bars serving overpriced watered down drinks whose owners often worked in collusion with the police and cared not one bit about the gays and lesbians who were their customers as long as they can make money off of them. Thugs acting as bar bouncers roughed up drunken gays.

There were no laws on the books to protect against discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations. Homosexuals were banished from the military following sadistic witch-hunts.

There were no domestic partner benefits or any rights based on same-sex relationships at major corporations and few universities. There were no openly gay elected officials, and anyone in the public eye remained in the closet. No officeholder supported an end to the harassment, much less advocated for equality. The thought of marriage between same-sex partners didn’t even exist.

A television show with a major gay character was unthinkable, as well as an openly gay actor. Any gay characters portrayed in movies were either depressed, suicidal, flamboyant or a victim of some sort. There were few, if any, gay-related periodicals.

Homosexuality was viewed as a psychological disorder; queers were considered sick and fair game by a hostile, homophobic society. Most chose to remain in the closet.

This was pre-Stonewall.

As we prepare to gather for the annual Pride parade, block party, and festival in the park, it may be difficult for the younger members of the community to relate to such pre-Stonewall conditions. While that is good for them, it is important that they reflect upon the courage of their brothers and sisters from earlier generations who helped pave the way for a much smoother gay experience.

The Stonewall Riots occurred in New York’s Greenwich Village on a sultry Friday night-early Saturday morning and lasted on and off for the better part of a week. It resulted from the second police raid of that week at the Stonewall Inn, New York’s largest gay club. The patrons, many of which were transvestites and young homeless gay men and hustlers, resisted the police’s actions inside the club.

As patrons were being expelled from the bar, chaos developed in the streets immediately outside. The crowd swelled to hundreds, and many began hurling bottles, bricks and other objects as well as an uprooted parking meter towards the police vehicles and the bar itself. The embattled police, who never encountered such resistance to any previous raids, were forced to take refuge inside the Stonewall Inn until reinforcements showed up.

Although the riots received relatively little play in New York’s daily newspapers at the time, this became a turning point—a seminal event—in the long and frustrating struggle for gay and lesbian rights. By the courageous actions of these individuals—often maligned and shunned as fringe people by even the gay community—a statement was made that "enough is enough."

The ensuing commemorative marches, parades and festivals that have been celebrated around the world since 1970 have emboldened the lgbt community to come out and stop being ashamed of who we are.

Yes, it is true that footage focusing on the more bizarre costumes that are typically on display at such celebrations have been used by religious extremists and political opponents to denigrate the gay community. They have been tools in the effort to keep us down, often succeeding.

But on balance the parades and other events are beneficial. They are an affirmation of our self-identity. The gruesome conditions of pre-Stonewall gay America that were described earlier have virtually flipped around in the decades that followed.

While we have had to endure a phenomenal amount of setbacks politically during this period—including the politicizing of HIV/AIDS—we have come so far as a community it defies imagination. We have evolved from merely seeking tolerance to seeking acceptance, and now full equality will hopefully be within our grasp some day.

Since those riots support groups and political advocacy organizations abound. With the publication of countless gay and lesbian newspapers, books and magazines and the advent of the Internet, an infinite amount of resources are available to those seeking information on gay and lesbian life.

Attitudes towards gays and lesbians are improving and reached a high-water mark according to a Gallup poll taken last month. The nation’s younger generation is leading the way. They constitute the beacon for the rest of society to follow.

We should enter Pride with the optimism from what we have accomplished as a diverse community and as individuals and how we will succeed in the future. There will be battles lost and won over the years, but the tide is with us.

The heroes of Stonewall helped make all this possible. That is their legacy. And this is our Pride.

The Dangers of Political Apathy

Text of Speech given to G & L Jewish Group at the Havurah Brunch in Mount Washington,

June 3, 2007

Let’s see if you recognize this place:

On a given night, hundreds would cram the city’s streets, some carrying a gay periodical, and patronize the dozens of gay bars, cafes, nightclubs, pornography shops, cabarets and bathhouses. Adding to the crowd was an ample supply of hustlers that was visible along the dim, nighttime corridors.

Inside the buildings, female impersonators, wearing lavish brightly colored costumes, performed amidst a foggy, smoky cloud that enveloped the jammed rooms. Toe-tapping songs were played to the resounding joy of the gay and straight audiences of the packed nightclubs and cabarets with the music drifting outside into the streets.

In other establishments, men freely danced with men; women danced with women. They openly embraced. An anti-gay law on the books was seldom enforced. Gay life was colorful, free and vibrant. Gay neighborhoods were established throughout the city. It had the most active gay culture on the entire continent, and it was a sexual Mecca.

Does this scene describe New York? San Francisco? Washington, D.C.? Or even Baltimore? Not hardly.

It happens to be Berlin, Germany, just prior to the Nazis’ rise to power. It was estimated that there were more gay establishments and periodicals in 1920 Berlin than in 1980 New York. Not only was homosexuality tolerated, it flourished.

But as the music played inside Berlin’s gay clubs, sweeping political and social change was about to unfold that would rock the world.

The patrons (and owners) of these establishments were oblivious to the new political reality; they continued to dance, seek out sex partners and lived in their own secluded, care-free world, unsuspecting of the emerging satanic forces and the horror of what was about to befall them. It sneaked up on them, and when they realized what was happening, it was too late.

As fast as a snap of a whip, there was the accession of Nazism and Hitler and the enforcement of the infamous Paragraph 175 that severely criminalized homosexual behavior.

All gay clubs, hotels and other similar establishments were closed down. Known homosexuals were ordered to appear at police stations and were pressured to identify other homosexuals. School children were asked to inform on teachers who were suspected of being homosexual, employers on employees, and vice-versa.

Their tragic journey had begun. Gay men in Germany were sought out and rounded up with most being shipped to concentration camps for imprisonment and extermination.

They were forced to wear a pink triangle for easy identification and lived in separate blocks apart from the other prisoners. The prisoners wearing the pink triangles were brutally treated by the guards and by inmates from other categories.

Approximately 100,000 gay men were arrested, 50,000 sent to prison camps, and hundreds were castrated.

All told, an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 homosexuals, mainly those who were deemed "incurable," were exterminated in the death camps. Their death rate was said to have been three to four times higher than other non-Jewish categories during the Holocaust.

Many factors contributed to this tragedy, but there is no question that apathy was among them.
I’m not saying that gays were the only apathetic group in Germany nor am I blaming them for the rise of Nazism. Apathy afflicted all segments of society, and the rest of the world was blind-sided as well.

But we must never allow that to happen again. To do so, we must fight apathy. Apathy creates a vacuum for extremism to take hold.

Today we do have large numbers of people in the gay and lesbian community who are politically indifferent. Sadly, many are even proud of that.

From a survey taken at a Pride festival a couple of years ago, few knew what the Human Rights Campaign was. Many didn’t even know who Maryland’s governor was. Almost as astonishing is a friend of mine—a Jew, no less—who doesn’t even know what Hamas is. Incredible.

Clearly the horrors of Nazi Germany are not likely to be repeated here. I am not suggesting we have a government that is sympathetic to such thinking. Nor am I correlating our government to the atrocities of the Nazis or diminishing the human tragedy of the Holocaust.
But it is worth taking a look at some frightening similarities: We basically have an anti-gay government at the federal level that has been obviously hijacked by religious, homophobic extremists.

Gays and pro-choice supporters are vilified by extreme right wing elements.
There are hate groups all over the country that would like nothing else but to see gays remanded to concentration camps or exterminated.

Don’t believe me? Read their websites. You’ll see.

Just last Monday, there was this article in the Baltimore Sun that told of a website for the Alabama Department of Homeland Security. It named gay rights groups among others as potential terrorists. And this is a state government agency!

There is a definite rise in the number of white supremacist organizations, which target gays and other minorities.

Many individuals and groups, in fact, have thanked God for AIDS. They have blamed gays and lesbians for natural disasters and terrorist attacks. These so-called people of God, like the late Jerry Falwell, profited from their hateful rhetoric.

Hate crimes directed towards LGBT individuals are increasing and are now the third largest target of hate crimes committed.

These hate crimes are rationalized based on the extreme, hate-filled condemnations of gay people by the religious right who use the Bible as a weapon.

Who is to say for certain these modern-day extremists will not come to power at a given point in time?
The gays in Berlin surely didn’t expect such terror to envelop their nation.

The anti-gay, pro-life forces in this country are well funded, well motivated and well represented.

That is why the LGBT community cannot afford to sit back in their own comfort zones while progress towards equality is slammed shut or worse, our rights are being beaten back.

What can we do?

There is no shame in being active politically. It doesn’t matter which Party you want to align with. For example, the Log Cabin Republicans—a gay group—have been doing good work in trying to stop the extremists within their Party who want to crush our rights.

Join a civil rights organization like Equality Maryland or the Human Rights Campaign. Write your representatives at the Federal and State levels to tell them where you stand on issues that affect you as a gay man or lesbian.

Read the gay press and stay informed on these issues.

Don’t take anything for granted or wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting for you.
Even on the heels of the Stonewall riots in June 1969, which many believe was the launch of the gay rights movement, there was a concern for apathy.

Merely two weeks after the uprising, a flier distributed by Mattachine-New York—a gay political organization—called for gay people to end their isolation and apathy by attending a gay liberation meeting so that "homosexuals are no longer going to sit back and be apathetic pawns for every politician who comes along."

Even then they had to fight apathy.

Apathy is nothing to be proud of, and as history has taught us it can be dangerous.

Gay Man Announces City Council Bid

By Steve Charing

A bright, comfortable spring afternoon in Lafayette Square provided an appropriate backdrop for Fred D. Mason III to announce his candidacy for the 11th Council District in Baltimore City.

In many ways this event on May 21 resembled most local political announcements. Other politicians, such as Carl Stokes; union officials; friends from his church; and community residents gathered to hear Mason’s strong speech. The candidate’s father, Fred Mason, Jr., who is head of the Maryland and D.C. AFL-CIO, was also present as was his campaign chairman Bob Moore of the Service Employees International Union.

On the surface it seemed like your garden-variety political announcement, but this one was far more unique than the others. Because also attending this event was Phillip Lovett, the candidate’s gay partner of almost nine years.

Should Mason win this council seat vacated by mayoral hopeful Keiffer Mitchell by defeating a field that so far counts at least four other opponents including a former state delegate, it would be historic. If elected, Mason said he would become the first openly gay person to be a member of the Baltimore City Council and would be the first openly gay African-American to hold an elected office anywhere in Maryland.

Indeed, Mason does not conceal his sexuality in this endeavor. He pointed out in his speech that he and Phillip have been residents of Reservoir Hill for seven years. And he acknowledged the value of diversity: "We are a mix of incomes, races, ethnicities, creeds, sexual orientations, and national origins."

The 11th District encompasses Baltimore’s downtown business district and spans Reservoir Hill to Federal Hill and the Jones Falls to Harlem Park. It includes the heavily gay populated neighborhoods of Mount Vernon and Bolton Hill.

With a crowded field of candidates Mason, 35, feels he can distinguish himself from the others. "I believe that my broad background and ability to relate to the diverse communities that make up the 11th District separates me from the other candidates," he told Baltimore OUTloud. "I have a vision for the district. I want a safe community where the people can learn, earn and build." He added, "I can build partnerships and coalitions with those that do not always cooperate."

And he knows what is needed to be successful as a council member. "A city council person must be a great advocate, a bridge builder, and a problem solver," he said in his speech. "The 11th District needs a councilperson who can hit the ground running—someone who can relate to all parts of the district and build effective relationships."

A strong supporter of marriage equality, Mason told OUTloud that he also wants to "improve the stature and funding of the Mayor’s GLBT Task Force."

Fred Mason III, a project architect, received a Bachelor’s degree in Political Economy from Tulane University and holds Masters degrees in Public Policy from Georgetown University and Architecture from Morgan State University.

A native Baltimorean, Mason, while working for the state, was involved in the financing of the Hippodrome and the Inner Harbor Welcome Center, and was on the construction management team for the first building of the University of Maryland Baltimore BioPark, and the Baltimore School for the Arts.

He had internships with Rep. Kweisi Mfume and Senator Paul Sarbanes, which provided him a good understanding of how government serves its citizens and how to form coalitions.

Mason is a strong believer of community involvement. Besides his lifelong involvement with Saint James Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square, he has worked with HERO and Sandtown Habitat for Humanity.

"I live, work, and worship in the 11th District, and I want to place all of my knowledge and experience at the service of our diverse communities," he writes on his website .

His love of his community and his strong educational and professional background will make Fred D. Mason III a strong contender for the seat. And a win would be a historic breakthrough for the lgbt community.

Two Deaths, Opposite Reactions

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

I admit that when the news flashed across my computer screen on May 15 announcing the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell’s death at age 73, I pumped my fist and shouted, "Yes!" To some, I suppose that reaction would be considered irreverent, but I will not apologize for it. I am delighted he’s dead, and to paraphrase our esteemed president when he referred to the fall of Saddam, the world is a better place without him.

On the other hand, news of the death of Yolanda King later the same night caused me sorrow. The civil rights activist and eldest daughter of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King left us at age 51, but the world, unlike Falwell, is more diminished from her departure.

What these two individuals shared in common is that both appeared to have died from heart-related problems. But it was Yolanda who actually had a heart.

For nearly three decades, Jerry Falwell was enemy number one to the lgbt community and its supporters. Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, aptly characterized the man as "a calculating charlatan who cruelly demonized and scapegoated gays and lesbians throughout his twisted career."

The founder of the Moral Majority evolved into a larger-than-life figure, literally and figuratively, and became a major force in U.S. politics. Falwell, who was in favor of segregation early on, is widely credited for helping Ronald Reagan capture the White House in 1980, but I believe that’s an exaggeration. Reagan was poised to win it anyway, with help from then President Jimmy Carter, Iran, and double-digit inflation and interest rates.

Nonetheless, Falwell galvanized religious social conservatives to the extent they did vote in strong numbers, particularly in the election cycles beginning in 2000. But to do so, Falwell demonized gay people with reckless abandon. Bigoted rhetoric is one thing; exploiting tragedy is another. And he did so for personal, financial and political gain. This is why I am celebrating his passing.

First he shamelessly exploited the AIDS crisis by blaming it on gays or declaring that it was deserved. He said, "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." Without any evidence of a medical background, Falwell relentlessly attributed the scourge to gays. He never changed his views even with millions dying in Africa and worldwide of AIDS—the overwhelming majority being heterosexual.

Then he ridiculously—almost insanely—blamed gays and lesbians, among others, for the ills of our society, which led to the attacks on September 11, 2001. "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’" He later apologized, but not without first firing up the religious right and gaining the attention he so desperately sought.

Even more troubling was his ongoing preaching of animus towards homosexuals. He did so in a calm voice and cheesy grin that highlighted his double-chinned bloated face. But he taught lgbt kids growing up that homosexuality was immoral and they are destined for hell. These attacks on gays and lesbians brought dollars to his coffers thereby raising his political viability and influence.

How many families have broken up because of Falwell’s hate-filled diatribes? How many kids attempted suicide because of his degrading messages? How many gay people were attacked and killed using his brand of hatred and Bible-waving as a rationale? That is the legacy of Jerry Falwell.

While Falwell sought to divide Americans, Yolanda King was the polar opposite. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson put it, she had civil rights in her DNA. Yes, Yolanda King was lesser known than Falwell, but she was far more beautiful spiritually and in her view of mankind. She was an actress, producer, motivational speaker and civil rights advocate.

Yolanda King modeled her words and deeds after her revered parents in trying to end discrimination and was pro-gay rights. "If you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, you do not have the same rights as other Americans. You cannot marry . . . you still face discrimination in the workplace, and in our armed forces. For a nation that prides itself on liberty, justice and equality for all, this is totally unacceptable," Yolanda had said.

According to PlantOut, Inc., Yolanda King was among 187 arrested in a Cleveland in 2000 during a peaceful protest to end discrimination against lgbt people by the United Methodist Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Conversely, her younger sister, Rev. Bernice King, an evangelical, opposed same-sex marriage in a high profile manner by participating in an anti-gay marriage march.

I am saddened by the passing of Yolanda King because she embodied the spirit of her parents and others trying to advance civil rights for all. Jerry Falwell with his dark legacy is the reason we still need people like Yolanda King.

Christians and Hate Crimes

Letter Published in the Baltimore Sun--May 12, 2007

It is appalling and ironic that "a coalition of evangelical, fundamentalist and black religious leaders" staunchly opposes the expansion of hate crimes laws to cover crimes based on sexual orientation ("Christian leaders oppose bill on hate," May 4).

The bill passed in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote of 237-180, with all Maryland representatives except Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett voting for the measure.

Among the arguments cited to explain the opposition to the legislation was the fact that the bill didn't include such groups as U.S. soldiers and rich kids, and therefore should not cover victims of hate crimes motivated by the victims' sexual orientation.

That is a ridiculous red herring. The opposition to the bill is really all about the obvious homophobia of its foes.

The latest FBI statistics, for 2005, indicate that hate crimes based on sexual orientation ranked third among all categories of hate crimes, behind only crimes motivated by the race and the religion of the victims.

The fact that one out of six victims of hate crimes is victimized because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity clearly demonstrates that hate crimes laws need to be expanded to cover such crimes.

Nobody has been able to point to any documented message from Jesus Christ in which he condemned homosexuality.

Instead, Jesus promoted tolerance and acceptance of all mankind.
What would Jesus say to these Christian leaders' opposition to the hate crimes bill?

Steve Charing

Clarksville

Gravesite Battle Causing Financial Hardship

Baltimore man struggles to keep late partner’s gravesite

By Steve Charing

For Kevin-Douglas Olive of Baltimore’s Seton Hill, the battle only began once his partner Russell Groff (l.) died from staph infection in November 2004 at the age of 26. Groff was buried in a rural Tennessee cemetery that the partners had agreed on in a will and burial agreements. Both were from Tennessee.

But Groff’s parents, Lowell and Carolyn Groff, had challenged the burial site and the right of Olive to be executor since July 2005. The expensive legal battles that have ensued and are continuing to strap the finances of Olive to the point he must sell his car and try to raise funds to ward off the Groffs’ challenges.

Russell Groff’s parents have been virulently anti-gay, which is ostensibly motivating them in their pursuit to deny their son’s expressed wishes. They even did a Fred Phelps-like protest during Knoxville, TN’s LGBT "Come Out Knoxville" celebration.

According to the Knoxville Metro Pulse, Carolyn Groff blames the "destructive gay lifestyle" for the death of her son, an aspiring playwright. "He wasn’t like that until he got involved in the theater group at Maryville College," she explains. Several other members of her Bible Baptist Church brought signs denoting that gays are destined to hell. Their brand of Christianity drove Russell away from the Christian church and joined Kevin as a Quaker after they met.

Conversely, Kevin-Douglas Olive parents were active in the Greater Knoxville PFLAG chapter where his mother served as treasurer. Kevin, too, was active in the chapter. But his family does not have the financial means to help Kevin in his series of lawsuits.

Although he is facing financial ruin, Kevin, 35, a French teacher, is determined to win for Russell what he had wanted. "He was the most important person in the world to me," he told Baltimore OUTloud. "I owe it to him that his wishes are carried out."

The legal battles, which are sapping his funds, are a two-pronged approach: one to impeach Kevin as an administrator of the estate and the other to overturn the will. He had won the initial round in a Baltimore City Orphans Court but Groff’s parents have appealed the decision so that they may move their son’s body to a family cemetery. During the appeal, the entire case must be presented from scratch.

Kevin says the legal fees are currently running $22,000. Thus far, he has raised only $5,000 to meet those obligations. He can use whatever financial help is available.

Contributions can be made to:

Kevin Olive Defense Fund

c/o Homewood Friends Meeting

3107 N. Charles St.

Baltimore, MD 21218

Back and Forth

Equality struggle shifts back to Federal arena

By Steve Charing

While the lgbt community and its allies anxiously await the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling on the lawsuit that may ultimately legalize same-sex marriage here, the latest front in the struggle for equality has shifted for now back to the Federal government.

On May 3, the House of Representatives passed on to the Senate the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, (HR-1592), in a bi-partisan vote of 237 to 180. This bill covers crimes committed based on sexual orientation and identity as well as gender, race, color, national origin and religion. The Senate will be considering a similar bill called the Matthew Shepard Act to memorialize Matthew Shepard, the high profile victim of a brutal hate-filled murder in Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. It is likely to pass the measure.

Judy Shepard, Matthew’s mother and a major hate crime legislation activist, Joe Solomonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign and other interested observers were present as the historic vote was taken.

"This is a historic day that moves all Americans closer to safety from the scourge of hate violence," said Solmonese. "Today legislators sided with the 73 percent of the American people who support the expansion of hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity."

However, President Bush, in a predictable bow to the religious right that includes a significant number of socially conservative black clergy who have applied major pressure in opposing the bill, threatened to veto the legislation. A White House statement said that state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement." The bill would add resources to prosecute hate crime cases and increase sentences.

Less than two weeks prior, legislation had been introduced in the House to prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill, Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR-2015) or ENDA, was introduced by openly gay legislators Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) as well as Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Deborah Pryce (R-OH).

The outlook for passage of this bill is uncertain, to be sure, but I believe it will make it through both chambers and might even survive a presidential veto if "religious" organizations are exempted.

And even before that, in February, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR-1246) was reintroduced in the House of Representatives. This bill would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and replace it with a statute banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

While all these legislative initiatives hold some promise, and the fact that they may pass either or both houses is sign of progress, the role of the Federal sector on marriage equality is less encouraging.

True, with a Democratic controlled Congress the infamous Federal Marriage Amendment will not be brought up. But DOMA—the Defense of Marriage Act—will stay in tact for now. DOMA restricts Federal benefits to same-sex couples and offers the states the option of not recognizing same-sex couples from other states.

(Oddly, nowhere in the "Defense of Marriage Act" does it ban divorces, out-of-wedlock births, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence and myriad other factors that contribute to a successful marriage rate of only 50 percent.)

Of the 18 declared presidential candidates from both parties, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a marginal candidate, supports same-sex marriage by saying that no state has a right to abridge basic rights to privacy. The rest of the Democratic candidates scatter from the issue as if a skunk was dropped from a tree at their feet.

The GOP contenders—and boy is that a weak field—will never support it, but Rudy Giuliani at least backed civil unions. He will have difficulty with that issue plus abortion during the Iowa and South Carolina primaries, so look out for a "conversion" or yet another flip-flop from flip-flop prone Republican candidates.

With political fright preventing even traditional supporters of lgbt rights from taking a marriage equality stand and DOMA forever likely to remain in place, where do we go to secure the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive?

The answer may lie in chipping away at the resistance state-by-state. While many states have passed constitutional amendments, most haven’t. Some have civil union arrangements in place or marriage itself as in the case of Massachusetts. Little by little, rights can be gained at the state level and efforts can be made at the Federal level to secure benefits for same-sex couples from such agencies as the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

"Creating a change at the federal level will take some time," said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland who, along with the Maryland ACLU, is in the forefront of the quest for marriage equality locally. "A victory in Maryland for marriage equality will be a tremendous step forward nationally for the marriage equality movement, which is far from over."

He added, "The passage of relationship recognition laws in New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon are important steps towards marriage, and Connecticut’s judiciary committee just passed a marriage equality bill. There are baby steps, toddler steps, and giant marathon sprints. We hope Maryland will take home the gold."

The battle for equality will be an evolving process from states to the Federal government and back and forth. Historically, that is how rights are gained, and that’s why it’s important to push hard both locally and at the Federal level.