• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

GLAD's Mary Bonauto (center) poses for a photo with Gill plaintiffs (Blade photo by Chris Johnson)

BOSTON — There was optimism in the air outside the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse after advocates seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act emerged from the first-ever appellate hearing on the constitutionality of the law.

Nancy Gill, the lead plaintiff in one of the cases before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, said she “absolutely” thinks she’s on the cusp of  seeing the end of the anti-gay statute prohibiting federal recognition of her marriage.

“It’s definitely going to happen,” Gill told the Washington Blade. “We can’t fathom how anybody can make an argument against a relationship that’s 31 years old. We’ve been married for eight, have two children. We add to society, and we just want to make sure that we have the same rights and protections that our other married friends have.”

Gill, a postal worker who married her spouse, Marcelle Letourneau, in 2004 after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, is suing the federal government on the basis that DOMA unfairly precludes them from obtaining health insurance and pensions afforded to other federal workers.

The Washington Blade interviewed several individuals outside the courtroom following the court hearing on Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Speaking to reporters, Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director, reiterated some of the arguments she made against DOMA during the oral arguments when she contended that DOMA violates the equal protection rights of her plaintiffs. Bonauto was lead counsel in the Goodridge case that led to the 2003 legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

“Nobody’s trying to throw stones here but Congress wasn’t at its best for this,” Bonauto said. “They are supposed to act neutrally when it comes to the rights of people, but Congress couldn’t have been clearer that it disapproved of gay people and did not want them to have the same protections everyone else has. We all come before our government as equals, and it needs a reason other than ‘I don’t like you’ to treat people differently, especially on such a massive scale.”

Coakley expressed confidence the court would strike down DOMA after her deputy Maura Healey presented the argument that DOMA was unconstitutional on the basis that it violates state’s rights under the Tenth Amendment.

“I can’t speak for the judges, and I’m sure they will look at all the arguments fairly, but when you look at the thinness of the legal argument on the other side and really the emotional and real fact-based arguments made by the plaintiffs, I’m confident that Judge Tauro will be upheld,” Coakley said.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, a Nixon appointee, ruled against DOMA in 2010 in the two cases that are now before the appellate court on the basis that the anti-gay law fails the rational standard basis of review. The cases were brought to the First Circuit upon appeal.

Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general whom House Speaker John Boehner hired to defend DOMA, wasn’t seen outside along with plaintiff couples and attorneys. Fresh from arguing against the health care law before the Supreme Court, Clement appeared to argue on behalf of DOMA and was set to argue in favor of the controversial Arizona immigration law later this month.

Clement bore the brunt of disparaging comments from LGBT advocates after the hearing for arguments he made in court. Among them, his claims that opposite-sex marriages are beneficial because they’re the only union that can produce children. He also said DOMA allows the federal government to stay out of the way while states decide the issue of same-sex marriage.

Dean Hara, another plaintiff in the GLAD case, said he thought Clement talked about DOMA in “abstract terms” that didn’t show the anti-gay law has a real effect on same-sex couples seeking federal benefits.

“It was the same arguments that they have used before,” Hara said. “If something has always been that way, it shouldn’t change, and I don’t think that’s a valid argument in anything. much less marriage.”

Hara, the widower of the late Rep. Gerry Studds, is suing the federal government to obtain the Social Security survivor benefits he would have been able to receive had he been in an opposite-sex marriage.

“I never thought that I would be a plaintiff challenging the Defense of Marriage Act — much less did I ever think that I’d be at the Court of Appeals where we are now,” Herra said. “We’ve come a long ways.”

Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations and an immigration attorney at Masliah & Soloway, was also dismissive of the arguments that Clement brought before the three-judge panel hearing the case.

“I was surprised by the weakness of the arguments put forward by BLAG,” Soloway said. “I felt that they did not acquit themselves very well of the obligation that was placed upon them by the House Republicans to defend the statute. Their defense was very weak.”

Soloway isn’t a party to any of the DOMA cases that were brought before the First Circuit, but has advocated against the anti-gay law on the basis that it threatens to tear apart married bi-national same-sex couples living in the United States — some of whom are his clients.

One development during the hearing that pleased Soloway was the Justice Department’s Stuart Delery announcement that he wouldn’t defend DOMA on a rational basis standard of review if judges should examine it on that basis. The Justice Department had previously said it wouldn’t defend the anti-gay law because it doesn’t pass muster under heightened scrutiny.

“In the First Circuit, there’s an open question as to whether heightened scrutiny would be applied in this case,” Soloway said. “Mr. Delery for the Department of Justice informed the court that the government’s position is that the Defense of Marriage Act fails under rational basis.”

What the court will ultimately decide remains to be seen. Paul Smith, who delivered the arguments before the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas, was present during the oral arguments for the appeals court and said he’s “not really able to predict” the outcome of the cases. He’s a pro-bono counsel for the GLAD case.

“The court was listening closely to everyone,” Smith said. “They were somewhat surprisingly not asking very many questions except of Mr. Clement. You’re not always sure how to read that, but we come away very hopeful.”

Soloway said he thinks “there’s a strong chance” judges will uphold Tauro’s ruling from 2010, although he expects an appeal.

“I don’t know that the rationale will be the same,” Soloway said. “I think that the attorneys for the congressional Republicans will seek an en banc hearing, and will, of course, ultimately appeal to the Supreme Court.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Retiring Rep. Barney Frank spoke to the Blade this week about a wide range of topics, including the state of the LGBT movement and his future plans. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who announced last week that he won’t run for re-election next year, said the LGBT community has seen an “enormous” amount of progress during his more than 30 years in Congress and would achieve close to full equality in 12 years.

“I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so,” he told the Washington Blade in an interview in his office on Tuesday.

“That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally,” he said. “I don’t think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.”

Frank said he became the first member of Congress to voluntarily disclose he was gay in 1987, six years after taking office in 1981, after he determined staying in the closet was too constraining on his personal life.

“I got there and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted,” he said. “But it didn’t work. I found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life.”

Frank said that during the years he withheld disclosing his sexual orientation, both as a congressman and a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, he promised himself that he would never hold back on his strong political support for LGBT rights in an effort to conceal his status as a gay person.

“I remember my thought process was, well I can’t be honest about being gay. I wouldn’t win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive,” he said.

In a wide-ranging discussion of his views on how the LGBT movement should push for civil rights legislation in Congress and through the states, Frank expressed in the blunt way he has been known to do that LGBT activists should use the most effective means of moving their agenda, even if that sometimes means making compromises.

He described as “political suicide” the call by some LGBT activists and bloggers for withholding support for President Barack Obama on grounds that Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress didn’t push harder for more LGBT legislative advances, including the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which remains stalled in Congress.

Frank said he has seen important advances in the support for transgender rights in Congress and several states, including Massachusetts, which just passed a transgender non-discrimination bill that includes protections in employment, housing, credit and adds transgender protections to the state’s hate crimes law.

But Frank noted that the bill passed after transgender leaders and their supporters in the legislature agreed to a compromise that eliminated public accommodations protections from the bill. Lawmakers supportive of the bill said they would add public accommodations protections to the law as soon they can line up the votes in the legislature needed to do so.

Frank dismissed as “ridiculous” the attacks by some LGBT activists who called the compromise unacceptable and an outrage against the transgender community.

“That is an example of their political stupidity,” he said, noting that the compromise bill provides employment and housing protections that otherwise would not have passed if advocates held out for an all-or-nothing bill.

Frank described as “reasonable” a proposal by LGBT advocates that President Obama issue an executive order requiring companies that receive federal contracts in the defense and other industries to provide non-discrimination protections for their LGBT employees.

“I think that’s a reasonable thing to keep pushing for,” he said. ”There are limits to what you can do. You don’t want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think that’s worth pushing for if it’s carefully done.”

A transcript of the Blade’s interview with Rep. Frank follows. The interview was conducted on Dec. 6, 2011, in Frank’s Capitol Hill office.

Washington Blade: To what degree have you seen support for LGBT equality increase in the U.S. Congress since you took office as a congressman in 1981?

Rep. Barney Frank: Oh, enormously. When I first got here, the first vote we had was in 1981 when the House – as it was able to do then by a one-house vote – overturned the D.C. Council’s repeal of the [city’s] sodomy law. It was a heavy vote against us. And we’ve just made very great progress since then. It’s to the point where now — and it’s unfortunate that it’s gotten very partisan. The country has gotten much better in its view on LGBT rights. The Democrats have gotten better — equal to or ahead of the country. But the Republicans have gotten much worse. So it’s now one of the major partisan issues. It’s unfortunate how terrible the Republicans have become. You saw that in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ for instance, in the House. But in general the expectation is the Democrats in the House will be supportive on most issues, and I think that reflects the country.

Blade: What prompted you to come out as gay in 1987?

Frank: First, my personal life. I’ve known I’ve been gay since I was 13. I lived a very repressed life until then. And then, because I had emotional and physical needs that needed an outlet, I got here and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted. But it didn’t work. I just found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life. So it was primarily my personal life. But it was also the secondary factor that I thought it would be helpful in fighting prejudice. One of the things I realized about talking a lot about gay rights – and increasingly by then people knew I was gay. I wasn’t out publicly. I realized they did not understand what it was like, what we went through, what the pain was. But that’s because they didn’t know anybody. It’s hard to sympathize with people when you don’t know who they are. You don’t see what it is.

Blade: Unlike other gay public officials who were in the closet, you didn’t seem to hold back in your public support for gay rights.

Frank: It was quite the opposite. I decided to run for office in 1972 – to run for the state legislature in Massachusetts. And I remember my thought process was, well I can’t be honest about being gay. I wouldn’t win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive … There were then two gay groups, a men’s group and a women’s group. And they wrote to everybody who was running for the state legislature in 1972. It was just a couple of years after Stonewall. And for the first time you had organized gay political activity. And they said, ‘Would you introduce legislation to provide legal equality for gay people, which was the term we used then. And I said yes. I was the only one who said yes. So that’s how I became the prime sponsor of the legislation. I was the only one. But I was glad to take on the role. So, yeah, I clearly decided I would not in any way retreat. And I remember the first time I testified on gay rights. I was 32, unmarried. And I thought, well, what are they going to think? And my answer was, oh, the hell with what they think. I was prepared to sacrifice enough not to come out. But I was not prepared to degrade myself by pretending to be anything less than supportive of who I was.

Blade: When you came out in Congress did you sense you were being held back from advancing because of a so-called glass ceiling due to your sexual orientation?

Frank: I think there was one at first. I think, now, yes and no. Certainly it didn’t interfere with my being the chair of a very powerful committee and being, frankly, because of the circumstances, one of the major leaders. In fact I said that on the floor. I remember saying when we were talking about the hate crimes bill, ‘I’m a big shot now but I used to be 15 and I remember what it was like.’ … If I were running for a leadership position it might be a problem in the House. Some of the Democrats come from the few areas left where they’re afraid. But now we have almost all the Democrats on board. We have a handful that aren’t. So no. And the other – I assumed it would have been a bar to [running for] the Senate. But in 2004, when we thought John Kerry might get elected president, we had a mock election for the Senate in Massachusetts. Five of us were running – Congressman Markey, Congressman Lynch, myself, then Congressman Meehan and Martha Coakley, now the attorney general. And we were running and I’ve had people who worked in the other camps say I would have won that race. So if Kerry had been elected president I believe I would have been elected to the Senate in 2004. So I mean other than the presidency and the vice presidency I think there’s probably not one.

Blade: Where does the LGBT movement stand now in its ability to advance legislation?

Frank: We’ve gotten better. I think there’s two good examples of great victories. They didn’t involve demonstrations, they didn’t involve marches. They involved some discretion and some compromising. Deferring to [New York Governor] Andrew Cuomo’s leadership politically in the battle for [same-sex] marriage in New York, and he told them how to do it. And then accepting the exclusion of public accommodations from the trans [non-discrimination bill, which passed in November 2011] in Massachusetts.

Blade: The trans bill in Massachusetts became an issue to some—

Frank: An issue to whom?

Blade: Some of the more outspoken trans activists, who say they are outraged because it includes employment, housing and other protections but not public accommodations protections.

Frank: No, I would say ridiculous trans activists who are outraged, who would prefer there be no rights for employment than this. That is an example of their political stupidity. They may be very bright about other things. I don’t see how anybody can see that as a rational argument right now, nor, by the way, do I think it represents five percent of our community. I don’t even think it represents a majority of the transgender people. How can it possibly be – and by the way, these people don’t know history, because I will tell you that Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders would not for a second have hesitated to accept that deal. They were constantly moving toward making things better but those are both examples, I think, of the political maturity of our community – of knowing how to go about it. And I think as a result we are on the verge – well, by the way, we did the same thing with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We didn’t abolish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We didn’t ban statutorily discrimination against us in the military. We banned the requirement that we discriminate. And there was some, ‘Oh, gee, how do you know they maybe will not do it fairly?’ I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so. That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally. I don’t think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.

Blade: Are you concerned about the provision of DOMA – if it’s repealed – that says the states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states –

Frank: That doesn’t mean anything. I’ve said this all along. That doesn’t mean anything at all. The court will disregard that. Quite frankly people don’t understand that. That’s a matter of interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will tell Congress, ‘Mind your own business.’ It has nothing to do with you. That is totally meaningless, that section. It doesn’t mean a thing. Congress cannot affect by statute a constitutional interpretation. By the way, the Constitution always was that states did not have to recognize that. When the Supreme Court threw out the law against inter marriage racially it wasn’t based on one state having to recognize another state’s marriage. The assumption was in 1967 that Virginia, which is where the case was brought, didn’t have to recognize a marriage in Europe. So everybody agreed – an African American and a white person can get married in New York and Virginia can disregard it. It was thrown out on constitutional segregation grounds. So in the first place, that’s been the Constitution anyway. Secondly, if it was, Congress would have nothing to do with it. It’s an entirely meaningless provision.

Blade: Some, like Hillary Clinton when she ran for president in 2008, said her husband signed DOMA because it would act as a safeguard against passing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Frank: That’s nonsense. Her husband signed it because he was afraid politically about what would happen if he didn’t sign it. It has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment. He signed it because it was politically necessary to sign it. And I understood that. The Republicans threw it on his lap three months before the election. [Liberal, gay-supportive Senator] Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] voted for it. He was up for re-election that year and he was afraid of it. It had nothing to do with stopping a constitutional amendment. And the fact is it does not mean anything. And no good lawyer will tell you it has any meaning whatsoever. This is a matter of the Constitution. It would be like if Congress passed a law saying the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean this or that. No, it’s none of our business what it means or not. We can decide for ourselves what it means, and I can govern my vote. But whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels marriage recognition or not is entirely up to the Supreme Court. And clearly up until now they have said it doesn’t.

Blade: Do you have any predictions of what the Supreme Court might do if the Proposition 8 case gets there?

Frank: I think that’s not a good case. I think the better case is Mary Bonauto’s case [the attorney with the LGBT litigation group in Boston, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in court on behalf of a same-sex couple.]

Blade: In your 1992 book, “Speaking Frankly: What’s Wrong with the Democrats and How to Fix It,” you said some liberal Democrats unnecessarily alienated voters by being reluctant to “demonstrate that liberals are patriotic supporters of the free-enterprise system who think that hard work should be rewarded and violent criminals severely punished.” Do some of these things still apply today and do they have any relevance to the gay movement?

Frank: Yes, I still believe it’s a mistake, for example, to insist that every Democrat be for gun control. That’s a great loser for us in most of the country. I’ll vote for gun control. But it’s a great loser. I also believe it has to do with – I’ll go back to marriage in New York and the non-discrimination bill in Massachusetts. Yeah, it’s very, very relevant still. You have to be smart about it, that you engage in political activity to advance your goals, not to feel morally superior.

Blade: Everybody’s talking about the presidential election. Are the Republican presidential candidates as horrible as a lot of gay activists are saying they are on LGBT issues?

Frank: Yes – they are. Romney is a total faker, having said he was going to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy and he’s moved against us on everything, not just on marriage. And Gingrich was the leader of homophobic stuff when he was here. Gingrich was the man who put the Defense of Marriage Act on the agenda in 1996 when he was the Speaker. I don’t know where Huntsman is, but he is irrelevant. It’s the whole Republican Party. On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ you saw the overwhelming majority of Republicans vote against the defense bill in the House because it included the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ They ordinarily all vote for the defense bill. We did get a couple of votes in the Senate. [Senator] Susan Collins’ [R-Maine] support was very important in that. But in general the Republicans have become a 90 plus percent anti-gay party. By the way, [President George W.] Bush didn’t undo stuff. He wouldn’t do anything good. But I’m not at all confident that a Republican president won’t reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

Blade: Is there a chance that the Congress would block that, even if there’s a Republican-controlled House?

Frank: Well Congress couldn’t reinstate it because they would never get it through the Senate and the president would veto it. But if the Republicans win the presidency they don’t need the Congress. The president could reinstate it by executive order.

Blade: Is it completely settled now that every gay civil rights bill will include gender identity and expression protections or it won’t be introduced, whether it would be ENDA or another bill?

Frank: I think it’s unlikely that it wouldn’t but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will pass. I think you’ll see transgender protections included. We’ve made progress on transgender. But my view is the same in that we still have the problem with the situation where people get naked together. But short of that, I think the next time we have a Democratic House, Senate and president – remember, we can only pass pro-LGBT legislation when we have a Democratic House, Senate and president. We’ve only had that twice since Jimmy Carter left office—two years under Bill Clinton and two years under Barack Obama. That’s the exception, not the norm. So the next time we get a Democratic House, Senate and president we’ll be able to pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA. But like the Massachusetts law, probably not allowing full and unrestricted access to locker and shower rooms

Blade: We get emails and calls from some activists saying the Democrats should have been held to a higher standard, that they should have done more on LGBT legislation during the period that they did have the House and Senate and the presidency under Obama.

Frank: Which was?

Blade: Among other things, ENDA.

Frank: We had a transgender inclusive hate crimes bill and a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ I think that’s pretty good. I wish we had done ENDA. But part of the problem was the community refused to accept the kind of compromise that Massachusetts did. If we had that – one of the things the [House] leadership was worried about was … what are we going to pass the bill for if some of the people who are going to be the beneficiaries are attacking us? So what’s the point of that? People are holding us to a higher standard? Whose standard? Where did you become the standard setter? What we got, as I said, was the president coming out against DOMA and very importantly elevating the level of scrutiny that’s needed for ending discrimination. And we got hate crimes through and we got ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repealed. I think that’s pretty good.

Blade: Many in the community agree with that assessment.

Frank: In general, the people who are complaining — well, what’s their remedy? They’re complaining, what do they want, sympathy? If they’re saying they wish we had more, I do too. Are they saying that’s a reason not to be supporting Barack Obama? That’s political suicide. The next president will probably appoint another Supreme Court justice or two. I don’t see how people can say, oh, we care about the lawsuit for Prop 8, we care about the DOMA lawsuit but let’s make sure that a homophobe will appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

Blade: It’s hard to argue with that.

Frank: Well you raised it.

Blade: Some bloggers and activists have raised it.

Frank: And the answer is that it is suicidal and dumb and self-defeating. Plus, you focus much too much on this. They are a very small percentage of our community and I think that’s a tendency, whether you’re in the media or whether they blog. That is a very small percentage of the community. Do you think most transgender people – Diego would know better than you or I – What do most transgender people in Massachusetts think about the bill?

Diego Sanchez [Frank’s legislative assistant and longtime transgender advocate]: They support it.

Frank: OK.

Blade: A similar situation occurred this year in Maryland when most transgender leaders, including veteran transgender activist Dana Beyer, agreed to a compromise transgender non-discrimination bill that didn’t include public accommodations protections. Beyer was denounced by other trans activists for accepting the compromise.

Frank: Stop paying so much attention to a handful of people with terrible political judgment who are acting out emotionally. They’re only important to you, to be honest. They’re not important me. They’re not important to anyone in the Maryland Legislature.

Blade: What do you think about the possibility of an executive order by President Obama to require defense contractors or any private companies getting government contracts to have a non-discrimination policy for their LGBT employees?

Frank: I think that’s a reasonable thing to keep pushing for. There are limits to what you can do. You don’t want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think that’s worth pushing for if it’s carefully done.

Blade: To issue that executive order?

Frank: For contractors, yeah, using race as a model. The problem we do have is this. Racial discrimination is embodied in the Constitution and we’re not. So there is more power where race is concerned.

Blade: In terms of your own plans, can you say a little about what you plan to do when you leave Congress?

Frank: I’m going to teach, lecture for money, and write.

Blade: And did you say you don’t plan to become a lobbyist?

Frank: Oh, absolutely not. Now I will still be a supporter and an advocate, but I won’t lobby for money. I will continue to work on LGBT issues but not as a lobbyist for money.

Blade: Would you consider going on the board of one of the prominent national gay groups?

Frank: No, I don’t want to go to any more meetings and vote any more. I’ll do what I can do but I don’t want to go on a board. I’m just looking for freedom from that kind of responsibility. But I will continue to be an advocate and strategist.

Blade: Will you consider testifying on LGBT issues before –

Frank: Remember that for the year 2013 I will be under an ethics one-year pause. But I will be picking up again in 2014.

Blade: That’s an ethics requirement on the Hill?

Frank: One year – I can’t talk to my colleagues for a year about business.

Blade: We just saw a photo of you with your partner James Ready at a White House holiday party this week. You’ve been taking your partner to functions for quite a while. Has that caused any complications or negative political repercussions?

Frank: I read a book that was very important by a man named Charles Hamilton. It was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell. When Adam Clayton Powell got elected to Congress, while he was the third African American, he was the first to be self-respecting. The two before him had accepted segregation in the Congress. When Adam Powell got here, I think it was 1943, he was not allowed to use the House restaurant. He was told he couldn’t use either the restaurant or the swimming pool. He said ‘Screw you,’ and he did it. And what he then did, and this is what my view was. I should not do anything just to make a point. But I shouldn’t not do something because somebody else was trying to make a point. So I have insisted with the three partners I’ve had, but particularly with Jimmy Ready, we do everything everybody else does. He goes to the spouses’ lunches. We travel together. We do everything everybody else does. Not to make a point but because that’s what we want to do and I think we have come a long way in acceptance. I spoke earlier this year at the Bank of America in New York to a meeting of a couple of hundred LGBT people who are in the financial services industry, many of them younger. And Jimmy and I were there and Jimmy and I talked to them. And a couple of them, a number of them, said, boy, it really means a lot to us because you’re working in this financial industry, it’s somewhat conservative, can I put a picture of my girlfriend up on the desk? That’s what a woman said. I said, well, if the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee can bring his partner there, sure. And there’s also another reason. It’s a little easier for them to think of us other than this abstract embodiment of rights. I want them to think of us as flesh-and-blood people who love each other and are physical with each other.

Blade: In the course of your role as chairman of the Financial Services Committee, you were dealing with nation’s leading financial and corporate leaders. Did you sense any attempt by these people to take advantage of you because you were gay?

Frank: No, they didn’t dare. I don’t think most of them wanted to be. But early on, Jimmy and I went to in 2007 or 2008 into Manhattan. We had a series of meetings and Tim Geithner was then president of the New York Federal Reserve. And Jimmy went up to take a nap on Tim Geithner’s couch in his office while I had a meeting with him. But at the time, some guy said the Fed doesn’t yet have an affinity group for gay people. So we fixed that up that day. No, I’ve never sensed any problem.

And Hank Paulson, the then Secretary of the Treasury, to his credit, in his book, in the index, you can find Jimmy’s name. We’ve been out to dinner with him and his wife a couple of times. He and I get along very well. He said at one point the negotiations were breaking down, he was worried. And he knew that if he talked to me we could make a deal. And so he sent his two top guys to find me. He said they went looking for Congressman Frank and they found him on the third floor of the Capitol having dinner with his partner Jim Ready, which was just a gratuitous nice reference. But I’ll also tell you what I said. We had the [House Democratic] caucus [meeting] on hate crimes in 2008 when Judy Shepard [mother of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime]. And they asked me about some of the African Americans who were being told by ministers that if we passed a hate crimes bill they would be criminally liable if they said homosexuality was against the Bible, which, of course, is nonsense. So I said let me address this because this has nothing to do with free speech. It’s only a crime if you hit somebody and harm somebody when you commit a crime. So I said let me put it this way. If this bill became law tomorrow it would still be entirely legal to call me a fag. I just wouldn’t recommend it if you were in the banking business. And that was my way of getting it across to my colleagues.

Blade: Is there anything else you’d like to bring up?

Frank: Well there’s one last thing. I think we’re winning. And the public opinion is on our side. But some people say if you’re winning you can take it easy. I say no. When you read military history they say sometimes military leaders make a mistake that they ease up at the point where they’re winning. That’s when you crack down. That’s when you’ve got them on the run. You have to continue to press, because I think we’re on the verge of winning this fight.

Blade: The opponents seem to be saying now, in response to the marriage fight, that society will be seriously harmed if the gay side prevails and gays are allowed to marry. How do you address that?

Frank: And the mainstream media always lets them get away with it. They’re always making these stupid predictions. They never come through. By the way, I give credit to the commandant of the Marine Corps, General [James] Amos, who just admitted that his gloom and doom predictions of six months ago aren’t true. Remember, he’s the guy who opposed repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ He said he was wrong. It was a non-event. But I think we ought to do a better job on that, to get the stupidities that they’ve predicted and show that they weren’t true. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I’ve heard those same predictions about the Equal Rights Amendment for women, about protecting people with disabilities, about gay rights, about race. Any time you talk discrimination they say, well, I don’t dislike those people but it’s going to be chaotic. And it never is. The fact is, unfortunately, given the nature of things, anti-discrimination laws are hard to enforce. The bigots are sophisticated. It’s hard to catch them.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Melba Abreu & Beatrice Hernandez are plaintiffs in the case Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. (Photo courtesy GLAD)

A federal court in Massachusetts has issued two decisions finding that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in response to legal challenges against the statute.

Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts ruled July 8 in the case of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his decision, Tauro writes that “only sexual orientation” differentiates married couples that can receive federal benefits and those who cannot.

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he writes.

In a separate decision in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, Tauro concludes that regulating marriage is a state’s right under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment. He says that DOMA violates this right for Massachusetts.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro writes. “For that reason, the statute is invalid.”

In a statement, Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson praised the court for its decision in the Gill case.

“Today’s ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional,” he said. “The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for LGBT couples, criticized the decisions and Tauro’s willingness to overturn DOMA.

“With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996,” Brown said. “A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States.”

Brown attributed the rulings to the failure of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to defend DOMA adequately. Her nomination to become an associate justice for the U.S. Supreme Court is pending before the U.S. Senate.

“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was solicitor general, Obama’s Justice Department deliberately sabotaged this case,” Brown said.

The rulings came in response to separate legal challenges filed last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

During a conference call Thursday, Coakley said the court rulings were “a landmark decision” and a “very important step toward achieving equality for all married couples, particularly here in Massachusetts.”

“We believe that today is a victory for civil rights in Massachusetts and I hope progress toward the understanding of all as to why marriage equality is a civil rights issue,” she said.

Janson Wu, staff attorney for GLAD, said, “it’s almost certain” that both decisions will be stayed upon appeal to a higher court and that access to federal benefits for married same-sex couples right now is “almost somewhat an irrelevant point.”

“I think it’s safe to say that it’s likely that the judgment for both cases will not go into effect while the case is being appealed,” Wu said.

Both lawsuits in which the court reached decisions were aimed at Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

But Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said the result of the Gill case doesn’t necessarily mean an end to Section 3 of DOMA, but only the programs to which the plaintiff couples in the case were denied access.

“This decision itself, while it puts pressure on Congress to repeal DOMA and provide case law in which to have broader challenges, it’s just sort of an initial chipping away at Section 3,” he said.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said her understanding of the Gill lawsuit is that it “only deals with the particular programs that these plaintiffs were challenging.”

“However, if they sustain this victory on appeal, there won’t be anything left of Section 3 of DOMA,” she said. “It won’t make sense for a court to uphold it as to any other provisions of federal law.”

NeJaime said the Gill opinion could set precedent that would influence marriage lawsuits elsewhere. In particular, NeJaime noted a passage in which Tauro discusses the relationship between procreation and marriage.

“This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA,” Tauro writes.

The judge adds “a consensus” has emerged among the medical and psychological communities that children raised by LGBT people “are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.”

NeJaime said Tauro’s decision to make this point as part of his ruling is “very relevant to broader analysis of the right to marry for same-sex couples.”

“I think he’s going down that path in a way that other courts might look to it,” he said.

NeJaime said this reasoning could be applied in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a legal challenge against the ban on same-sex marriage in California that is pending before Judge Vaughn Walker in district court.

Although social conservative groups defending the ban in this case have used the argument that marriage is for procreation, NeJaime said the Gill decision can provide a reference to counter that rationale.

“I think Judge Walker can look to not only the federal government’s rejection of those rationales in the DOMA cases, but this judge’s reasoning about why that’s not a good interest anyway,” NeJaime said.

Appeals likely for lawsuits

According to GLAD, the next step in the Gill case is for the federal government to decide whether it will appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision is expected within the next 60 days.

Tracy Schamler, a spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department, said last week the Obama administration was still “reviewing the decision.” Many observers expect the rulings to be appealed.

Gary Buseck, legal director for GLAD, said he believed the Justice Department would have to appeal the decisions.

“Everyone tells us — and it seems to be true — that the executive branch has a responsibility to defend acts of Congress and it would be very difficult for them not to take an appeal of this,” he said. “I suppose anything is technically possible, but I think it would be unusual for them — highly unusual — for them not to appeal this decision from the judge.”

NeJaime said he also believed the Justice Department would appeal the decisions, although he didn’t believe the administration is required to do so.

“It’s certainly conventional to see a case like this [go] up the appeals chain, but there’s instances in which the government loses at the district court level and then there’s a policy change, so there’s nothing that forecloses that,” he said.

Still, Buseck said having a win at a lower court is helpful going into appeal and that Tauro wrote a “strong opinion” that will be helpful if the case goes to a higher court.

“We’ve got a platform, which is about the best possible platform we can have going to the First Circuit,” Buseck said.

NeJaime said the plaintiffs would have an added edge upon appeal with the Gill case because Tauro didn’t apply heightened scrutiny or consider LGBT people a suspect class in his opinion.

“If you went down the path of there’s a fundamental right because of the family relationship or sexual orientation as a suspect class, it would provide a sort of threshold question for both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to really say, ‘Oh, he got it wrong,’ and then the rest of the analysis then sort of goes out the window,” NeJaime said.

Hunter said she believed having the case be appealed and succeed at a higher court would be beneficial in the effort to overturn DOMA.

“To have DOMA struck down by just one judge’s opinion — it’s not a very strong basis for getting rid of the statute,” she said. “So personally — and this is probably a reflection that I’m pretty optimistic about the overcome of repeal — I think we may better off, frankly, if they do appeal it and it goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals and wins in the Court of Appeals.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Republican Scott Brown secured a victory Tuesday in the Massachusetts special election, leaving many LGBT activists stunned and angry over the loss of the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and wondering whether the LGBT agenda can advance in Congress.

Brown, a state senator, won his bid to capture the seat previously held by the late Edward Kennedy after taking 52 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press. Turnout was high; more people reportedly voted in Massachusetts on Tuesday than in any non-presidential general election in the state since 1990.

Many in the LGBT community were disappointed by Brown’s victory because he has a history of opposition to same-sex marriage and hasn’t expressed an interest in fighting for LGBT causes in Congress. In 2007, he voted for a failed state constitutional amendment that would have ended same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

By comparison, Democratic contender Martha Coakley, as the state’s attorney general, last year filed a lawsuit on behalf on the State of Massachusetts against the Defense of Marriage Act, citing that 16,000 married couples in the state are denied federal benefits because of the law.

Dee Dee Edmundson, political director for MassEquality, said Brown’s win was “a call to action” for LGBT people to become more politically involved.

“This is a rallying cry that we need to step up our efforts; we can’t be apathetic anymore,” she said. “If the haters are going to win in Massachusetts, they can win anywhere, and [LGBT civil rights supporters] have a lot of work to do for the 2010 election.”

Brad Reichard, a gay D.C. resident who volunteered for the Coakley campaign, said the candidate’s loss was “clearly disappointment,” but urged for a greater effort from the LGBT community in moving forward.

“I think Sen. [John] Kerry said it best: This isn’t about a circular firing squad, this is about looking forward and moving forward,” Reichard said.

Coakley had a double-digit lead on Brown as recently as last month, but the Republican candidate played up his image as a populist candidate during the campaign and surged ahead in the last couple weeks to win.

Edmundson said a number of factors played into Coakley’s loss, such as the lack of interest until the final weeks of the campaign from national groups, including the Democratic National Committee. Edmundson also noted Massachusetts’ historical resistance to electing female candidates and noted that the state has never elected women to the offices of governor or U.S. senator.

“The electorate doesn’t like strong, powerful women,” Edmundson said. “You have a guy with a beer and truck versus a prosecutor who has done her best for justice in the world. The guy with the beer is probably going to win three out of four times.”

Edmundson expressed skepticism about Brown’s commitment to fight for LGBT residents of Massachusetts while in office.

“He’s already come out against [repealing] DOMA, against [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said. “He’s not going to be representative of the electorate in Massachusetts.”

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, strongly supported Brown during the final week of the campaign.

Over the weekend, the organization reportedly arranged for robocalls to Massachusetts residents, asking voters if they oppose same-sex marriage, and if so, to vote for Brown in the election.

In an e-mail blast Monday, NOM said Brown’s vote in the U.S. Senate would help derail efforts to overturn DOMA.

“His election would help protect DOMA and send a resounding message to the pro-same-sex marriage leadership in Washington,” says the e-mail. “And if a Republican can win in Massachusetts … how many red-state Democrats would be willing to put their seats on the line by voting to repeal DOMA in an election year?”

But Edmundson said Coakley’s loss wasn’t a referendum on same-sex marriage, noting marriage rights for gay couples have been available in the state since 2003.

“Her support of same-sex marriage wasn’t a huge factor,” Edmundson said. “I don’t think it was a referendum on marriage at all. … I think it was a referendum on health care, I think it was a referendum on the state of the economy and the likability of the candidates.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Massachusetts voters stunned political observers Tuesday by electing former pinup Scott Brown to replace Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Brown overcame a double-digit lead by milquetoast candidate Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, to become the junior senator from Massachusetts.

As a Maryland resident, I had a front row seat to what I’d considered the worst campaign ever run: that of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for governor in 2002. She lost to Republican Robert Ehrlich, who became Maryland’s first GOP governor in more than 30 years.

Now comes Coakley, whose campaign ominously mirrored that of Kennedy Townsend: A well-known female candidate with solid credentials on paper but who lacked charisma. More deadly to a political campaign: taking votes for granted, failing to excite the base and, worst of all, failing to connect with independent voters who decide elections.

In fairness to Coakley, she ran smack into the GOP’s fear mongering over health care reform, handing Brown a plum opportunity to run as a faux populist ready to march into Washington and derail a costly plan that probably no one fully understands.

The implications for the LGBT rights agenda could be grave. The mid-term elections loom and many conservative Democrats, already known for their lack of spine, will surely run for cover from our issues.

And despite wishful thinking from the folks at GOProud, Scott Brown will be an obstacle to pro-LGBT advances in Congress. GOProud’s Christopher Barron wrote for DC Agenda last week, “The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay.’ This paper ran a headline that blared ‘Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s seat?”

I wrote that headline and here’s why:

• In 2007, Brown voted for a failed state constitutional amendment that would have ended same-sex marriage in Massachusetts;

• He opposes repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, even though it would benefit residents of his own state who are legally wed there;

• Brown opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, according to MassEquality;

• And he opposes repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to MassEquality.

It’s not enough to wish for moderate, gay-friendly Republican candidates. Log Cabin and GOProud should give us a reason to trust such politicians by meeting with them, securing promises related to our issues and taking a seat at the table with them. Barron is right that the Democrats have delivered precious little after a full year with overwhelming majorities in Congress and control of the White House. President Obama’s cautious approach and his quest for consensus building with Republicans who are bent on opposing his every move have failed to deliver the change he promised. Obama has gone from fierce advocate to paper champion.

But turning to someone like Scott Brown as a means of protesting the Democrats’ slow-going will only set back the congressional agenda.

Luckily, we have a few Democrats who aren’t afraid to take up LGBT causes. Reps. Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis, Patrick Murphy and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to name a few, must now redouble their efforts to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the fall.

By then, the political math will be far worse for Democrats. Maybe Coakley’s embarrassing loss will teach the party to assert itself again, to make the most of their current majorities, to reconnect with independents and to improve their messaging. If not, they face the very real prospect of losing the House this year.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The National Organization for Marriage on Monday sent out an e-mail blast to supporters encouraging a vote for Republican Scott Brown because of the candidate’s history of opposition to same-sex marriage.

Apparently following up on reported anti-gay robocalls the organization sent out to Massachusetts residents over the weekend,  NOM’s e-mail urges a vote for Brown in the Tuesday special election that will determine who will succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate.

“Tomorrow’s special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts could be a game-changer when it comes to protecting marriage in Washington, DC!” the email states. “If you live in Massachusetts or know anyone who does, please do whatever you can to help get people to the polls to help Scott Brown pull off an amazing upset in the race for U.S. Senate!”

NOM calls Brown “one of a courageous few” who as state senator in 2007 voted in favor of an amendment that would have ended same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The e-mail refers to Democratic candidate and state Attorney General Martha Coakley as “a radical same-sex marriage activist” and criticizes her for last year filing a federal lawsuit against part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

NOM says it contributed $50,000 in independent expediture to Brown’s campaign in the past several days. DC Agenda couldn’t immediately confirm whether NOM in fact contributed this amount to the Republican candidate.

“Scott Brown may be on the verge of becoming the first Republican Senator from Massachusetts since 1972,” the e-mail states. ”More importantly, his election would help protect DOMA and send a resounding message to the pro-same-sex marriage leadership in Washington.”

“And if a Republican can win in Massachusetts (or even come close!) how many red-state Democrats would be willing to put their seats on the line by voting to repeal DOMA in an election year?” the e-mail continues.

While NOM suggests a vote to repeal DOMA could take place in Congress this year, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of legislation that would overturn the law, told DC Agenda last month repeal wouldn’t legislatively happen in 2010 and that the earliest it would take place would be at the end of the next Congress.

NOM sends this e-mail blast to supporters after a number of LGBT advocates blasted Brown for his record on LGBT issues. The advocates expresssed their views in a joint statement DC Agenda received on Sunday.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a gay lawmaker in the U.S. House, said “it’s important for people to know about the underground right-wing campaign Scott Brown is running.”

“His plan is to benefit from the support of the most active, extreme conservatives while he falsely portrays himself as a moderate,” Frank said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was similarly critical of Brown and said NOM’s backing of the candidate shows his true nature.

“Make no mistake — Scott Brown is an anti-equality candidate showing his true colors by aligning his election prospects with the National Organization for Marriage,” Solmonese said. “NOM wouldn’t be calling into Massachusetts if it weren’t convinced that Brown will continue … his anti-equality record in the Senate.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The National Organization for Marriage is apparently sending out robocalls in Masschusetts smearing a pro-LGBT Democratic Senate candidate for supporting same-sex marriage and encouraging a vote for the Republican nominee in an upcoming election.

A supporter of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley recently relayed to DC Agenda a message from someone who said they received a robocall from NOM that attacks Coakley for her views on marriage and encourages a vote for Republican candidate and state Sen. Scott Brown:

Our household just got an automated call from the “National Organization for Marriage,” with a 202 area code. The auto call features a male voice, which is clearly a recording, asking if you support marriage as being only between a man and a woman. If you say “yes,” then the voice urges you to vote for Scott Brown as the only candidate with a proven record of supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. The call says that his opponent is a “radical” supporter of same-sex marriage who has opposed letting the people decide and has used taxpayer dollars to support the agenda of same-sex marriage. The call ends by asking if “we can count on you to vote for Scott Brown.” The quality of the recording is mediocre at best.

NOM didn’t immediately respond to DC Agenda’s request to confirm whether the organization was indeed sending these calls to Massachusetts residents.

It’s true that Coakley and Brown have strikingly different positions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Brown opposes same-sex marriage and in 2007 voted for an amendment that would have eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts.

By comparison, Coakley supports same-sex marriage and as attorney general has been a proponent of federal recognition for married gay couples. Last year, she filed a lawsuit on behalf on the State of Massachusetts against the Defense of Marriage Act. She’s also called for the legislative repeal of DOMA.

The two candidates are in the midst of a heated race that some pundits are calling a toss-up. The election is set for Tuesday.

UPDATE: The Coakley campaign responds to the robocalls, condemning NOM for the attacks and calling on Brown to repudiate them.

“This is the usual last-minute attack by one of the biggest anti-equality organizations in the country,” said Representative Katherine Clark, Coakley Campaign Finance Committee Co-Chair.  “This just reaffirms what we already knew — Scott Brown is the favorite candidate of ultra right-wing conservatives. Marriage equality has been the law of the land in Massachusetts for nearly six years, and it’s supported by a majority of voters who know first-hand that the sky hasn’t fallen just because we have marriage equality.”

The Brown campaign hasn’t yet responded to DC Agenda’s request to comment on the issue.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The big LGBT story this week was the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Elsewhere, from Bozeman, Mont., to Beijing, China, our community and allies also fought discrimination, persecution and marginalization, winning some and losing a few.

On Monday, just before the Prop 8 trial was about to commence, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the videotaping and subsequent showing on YouTube of the proceedings. LGBT journalists, bloggers and advocates stepped up and made sure that information flowed through several outlets. Two days later, the high court ruled that the trial could not be broadcast, questioning the propriety and haste of the federal judge’s decision to record the proceedings. The Supreme Court apparently heeded the fear of harassment among those who rabidly promote the continued oppression of a minority.

In other places in the U.S., the community had some gains. The City Commission of Bozeman voted Monday to protect LGBT city employees by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the categories covered by the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

The following day, the California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety passed the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Prisoner Safety Act, which is designed to prevent violence against LGBT people in the state prison system. According to a recent study, 69 percent of trans inmates report sexual victimization while incarcerated.

In Iowa, as the 2010 legislative session began, supporters and opponents of marriage equality rallied their forces. On Sunday, leaders from labor, faith and civil rights groups gathered in Des Moines, calling for all Iowans to speak up in support of same-sex marriage. Two days later, supporters of LGBT rights gathered again at the capital in an effort to thwart opponents’ attempt to co-opt Gov. Chet Culver’s state of the state address and intimidate Iowa legislators into pushing for a constitutional amendment that would revoke the rights of lesbian and gay Iowans to wed.

In Washington, D.C., the countdown to legalized same-sex marriage in the District began. On Monday, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton confirmed that the bill approved by the D.C. Council last month had arrived on Capitol Hill and that Congress will have 30 legislative days to review it. The bill becomes law immediately after that review period has ended. In the meantime, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah announced his scheme to introduce legislation that would subject LGBT rights to mob rule, even though he admits that his chances for success are slim.

Other civil rights opponents were kept at bay. Yesterday, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso upheld the city election board’s decision to keep gay marriage off the ballot, finding that ballot initiatives are indeed subject to the city’s Human Right Act, which prohibits discrimination of LGBT individuals.

The importance of having pro-equality elected officials was highlighted in two national contests. In New York, supporters of Democratic U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand were up in arms over former U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr.’s interest in becoming the state’s junior senator, in part due to his about face on same-sex marriage and abortion. Ford had been against a woman’s right to choose and was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, the constitutional ban on same-sex unions. His carpetbagger status does not engender him to many New Yorkers, either.

In Massachusetts, the race between State Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican state Sen. Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was closely monitored. Brown, who had posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine, does not support equal rights for all Americans. In 2007, he voted for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In Puerto Rico, justice may yet be served for Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado and his family. The teenager’s alleged murderer, Juan Martinez Matos, was found fit to stand trial Wednesday. However, the island’s LGBT community may be dealt more injustice. Last Friday, it was reported that during an address to religious leaders, Gov. Luis Fortuño proposed that the commonwealth’s constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriage.

Internationally, the pressure on Uganda continues. On Tuesday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon called for a review of Uganda’s preferred trade status as a result of the country’s proposed anti-LGBT bill — a bill that would make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment or death. Wyden said in a press release that passage of the bill would be a violation of the African Growth & Opportunity Act, which authorizes duty-free importation of certain goods from preferred status countries. He also sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to request that they “communicate immediately to the Ugandan government, and President Yoweri Museveni directly, that Uganda’s beneficiary status under AGOA will be revoked should the proposed legislation be enacted.”

Protests by American and other foreign leaders may have had some effect on Uganda’s president. On Tuesday, Museveni said that the country must take into consideration its foreign policy interests when debating an anti-homosexuality bill. He was quoted as saying, “The prime minister of Canada came to see me and what was he talking about? Gays. Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to see me and what was he talking about? Gays. Mrs. Clinton rang me. What was she talking about? Gays.”

Meanwhile, in Malawi, the lawyers of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, the couple arrested for holding a wedding ceremony last December challenged
the constitutionality of the nation’s homosexuality ban. Homosexuality is punishable in Malawi by up to 14 years in prison.

The religious venom that fuels much of the hatred such as that in Uganda and Malawi spewed forth from the Vatican this week. Reacting to Portugal’s move to legalize same-sex marriage, Pope Benedict XVI called laws enabling such marriages an “attack” on nature.

In Northern Ireland, a rabid homophobe who likewise fanned anti-LGBT sentiment got her comeuppance. The hypocrisy of Parliament Member Iris Robinson was revealed last week when reports came out that she had an affair with a teenage boy. Moreover, she solicited loans for her young lover to open a business. The May-December romance occurred in the summer of 2008, when Robinson was making a name for herself as a bigot, hurling a string of offensive comments about homosexuality.

In Japan, the transgender community suffered a setback this week. A trans man who had a child with his wife was informed by officials that his child was classified as illegitimate. The 27-year-old man transitioned in 2008 and later that year, his wife gave birth to a son using his brother’s sperm. The decision to class his child as illegitimate was based on the grounds that a couple of the same gender cannot have a child.

But in China, the LGBT community continues to gain visibility and officially sanctioned tolerance. On Wednesday, the state newspaper splashed a front-page photo of the country’s first publicly “married” gay couple. Today, China’s first gay pageant is being held in Beijing to choose a representative for the Mr. Gay World contest in Norway next month. And this weekend, the top state-run radio network plans to launch a new program about AIDS that features an HIV-positive host. It’s not clear, however, whether the host is gay. Still, homosexuality remains a sensitive issue in China. It was only decriminalized in 1997 and it was officially considered a form of mental illness until 2001. Same-sex marriages or civil unions have no legal standing.

In South Africa, there appeared to be some confusion over Olympic athlete Caster Semenya’s future. On Wednesday, her coach told the Associated Press that her lawyers confirmed she could compete internationally despite the ongoing controversy over her gender. However, her lawyers later said that they are still working with international track officials to settle the matter.

Finally, in Italy, plans to open one of the world’s first prisons for transgender inmates surfaced. The prison, which will accommodate about 30 people, is expected to house inmates who mainly have convictions for drug-related offences and prostitution. It is thought that Italy has a total of some 60 transgender prisoners. Until now, transgender prisoners have been located in women’s prisons and are often segregated.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Special to DC Agenda

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley. As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they predictably turn to smears, distortions and name-calling.

The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay’. This paper ran a headline that blared “Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s Seat?” The Edge, a New England gay paper, had a similar headline in December, “Anti-gay Mass. Pol Seeks to Succeed Kennedy.”

Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

Despite Brown being in favor of civil unions, opposing a federal marriage amendment and having the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has, the gay left would have us believe that the future of gay rights hangs on the Democrat winning this special election. Indeed, Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10 percent, spending spiraling out of control, an expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam.

For gay Democrats, what has your unquestioning loyalty to the Democratic Party brought? More than three years after Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress, and more than a year after a Democrat captured the White House, gay Democrats have almost nothing to show for their fealty to their party. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remains in place, the employment non-discrimination bill hasn’t been passed, neither has the domestic partner benefits bill, and instead of a repeal of DOMA you have a White House that has defended DOMA in court — going as far as to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.

No one party deserves blind loyalty and not all Republicans deserve the votes of gays, lesbians and those who care about us and our families. If you care about stopping the expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, if you want to stop the growth and influence of the federal government in every aspect of our lives, if you believe that we should confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam, then Scott Brown, while not perfect, is a Republican who deserves your support.

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts have an opportunity to send a message to the current crop of elected leaders in Washington. Nothing would send a clearer message about the unhappiness about the direction of our country than a win by Scott Brown.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The race to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate could be tightening up as one recent poll shows an anti-gay Republican running even with the pro-LGBT Democratic candidate.

A poll published Saturday by Public Policy Polling shows state Sen. Scott Brown, the GOP candidate vying to succeed Kennedy, one point ahead of Democratic nominee and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

In a poll of residents who planned to vote in the special election — which occurs Jan. 19 — Public Policy Polling found that 48 percent said they intended to vote for Brown, while 47 percent said they would vote for Coakley. Six percent of responders said they were undecided.

Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling, said in a statement that the poll shows the special election is “shaping up to be a potential disaster for Democrats.”

“Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable,” Debnam said.

Public Policy Polling’s poll speculated that Brown found strong support in an overwhelmingly “blue” state because of depressed Democratic interest in the election and because he’s favored by independent voters.

The poll could be an outlier. Another poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and published Sunday by the Boston Globe found Coakley had a 17-point lead over Brown. Fifty-three percent of responders said they would vote for her, while 36 percent said they intended to vote for Brown.

Neither Coakley’s campaign nor Brown’s campaign responded to DC Agenda’s requests for comment, but the candidates’ records significantly diverge on LGBT issues, particularly with regard to same-sex marriage.

In 2007, Brown voted in the state legislature for a failed state constitutional amendment that would have taken marriage rights away from gay couples in the first state in the country to allow same-sex marriage.

By comparison, Coakley supports same-sex marriage and as attorney general has been a proponent of federal recognition for married same-sex couples. Last year, she filed a lawsuit on behalf on the State of Massachusetts against the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that prohibits married same-sex couples from receiving the federal benefits of marriage.

The candidates’ campaign web sites also are markedly different in how they handle LGBT issues. Coakley’s site details how she supports legislation that would affect the LGBT community, such as legislative repeal of DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Her site additionally notes that as attorney general she has “aggressively prosecuted” hate crimes at the state level — including those against LGBT people — and that she in 2008 was the first statewide official to endorse state legislation that included gender expression and identity in Massachusetts discrimination and hate crimes laws.

Brown’s site lacks mention of issues specifically affecting LGBT people — with the exception of marriage. The site says that Brown believes marriage is between one man and woman and says, “States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long at they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.”

Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

“I think that things are going to be a lot worse off if there’s 59 Democrats in the Senate instead of 60,” he said.

Noting that the election will determine who would succeed Kennedy —perhaps the greatest proponent of LGBT issues in the Senate — Mitchell said “it would be a strange world indeed” to replace the so-called Liberal Lion with a Republican like Brown.

Mitchell said Stonewall was “pulling out all the stops” to help Coakley win the election. He noted that the organization is sending out an e-mail blast to members across the country, urging them to contribute to Coakley’s campaign and participate in phone banking activities.

The local Stonewall chapter in Massachusetts, Mitchell said, is hosting an event where supporters can gather to do phone banking for Coakley.

Also backing Coakley in the special election is MassEquality, the statewide LGBT organization in Massachusetts. The organization endorsed Coakley in November.