Connect with us

Local

Marines urged to stop sponsorship of sports group that ‘condones’ anti-gay slurs

Union members, vets seek to deliver petitions to Marine Barracks in D.C.

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A contingent of 58 military veterans and union members assembled in front of the U.S. Marine Corps Barracks at 8th and I streets, S.E., in D.C. on Thursday to call on the Marines to stop sponsoring a sports organization said to condone “homophobic slurs.”

The veterans, some of whom are gay, and members of Unite Here, a union that represents 250,000 workers in the hotel, food service, restaurant and other industries, said they object to the Marine Corps sponsorship of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the nation’s largest promoter of martial arts or “cage” fighting.

“The UFC is an organization that has tolerated people associated with it making jokes about rape, homophobic slurs, and sexually explicit remarks that are demeaning towards women,” the vets and union members said in a statement.

Organizers cited Defense Department figures showing that the Marines have spent more than $2 million purchasing Marine recruitment advertising, including TV ads, linked to UFC fights and events.

The veterans participating in the contingent that approached the Marine Barracks on Thursday attempted to present copies of petitions with about 5,000 signatures calling for ending the Marines’ sponsorship of the UFC to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who resides in a house next to the barracks.

Capt. John Norton, public affairs officer at the barracks, told the veterans the barracks could not accept the petitions. Norton told the veterans and others with them to instead deliver the petitions to either Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon or at a Marine base in Quantico, Va., which organizes the Marine Corps recruitment program.

Unite Here spokesperson Chris Serres said a veterans committee associated with the union had sent in advance a letter to Amos informing Amos of the union’s objections to the Marine Corps sponsorship of the UFC.

“We believe that, by aligning with the UFC, an organization that has tolerated homophobia, misogyny, and hate speech, the Marine Corps is violating its stated commitment of ‘maintaining dignity and respect for one another,’” the letter says. “Homophobia and hatred, in any form, are not consistent with the values that make the Marines an elite fighting force,” the letter says.

Chuck Liddell, Rich Franklin, UFC, gay news, Washington Blade

UFC fighters stare one another down. (Photo by Bad Intentionz via Wikimedia)

A spokesperson for the UFC couldn’t immediately be reached.

Advertising Age magazine reported in April that Anheuser-Busch Company, which regularly purchases Budweiser Beer ads from the UFC, complained to UFC officials about remarks made by UFC fighters in recent months that the beer company considered objectionable.

The magazine quoted an Anheuser-Bush statement saying the company “embraces diversity and does not condone insensitive and derogatory comments rooted in ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, etc.”

According to Advertising Age, the UFC responded by sending the magazine a statement saying, “With over 425 athletes on our roster, there have unfortunately been instances where a couple athletes have made insensitive or inappropriate comments. We don’t condone this behavior, and in no way is it reflective of the company or its values.”

Ryan Hand, a Marine veteran and member of Unite Here’s local union branch in Saco, Maine, told the Blade he was skeptical over the UFC’s claim that it doesn’t condone anti-gay or hostile remarks toward women, saying UFC fighters continue to make such remarks.

“As a Marine, I am deeply offended that the Marine Corps would ever associate itself with an organization that tolerates homophobia and hate speech like the UFC,” Hand said in a statement. “As a taxpayer, our money can be better spent elsewhere, particularly as the Defense Department prepares deep cuts to the military.”

“I’m here because I’m a survivor of a sexual assault and I’m a queer woman,” said Chloe Connelly, a Philadelphia resident who traveled to D.C. with Unite Here members to participate in the gathering at the Marine Barracks. “So I find the UFC very, very offensive. They perpetuate homophobia. They perpetuate a rape culture and I don’t think any organizations that my tax dollars pay for should be supporting an organization like the UFC.”

Barracks spokesperson Capt. Norton, when pressed by the veterans at Thursday’s gathering, returned to his office and came back out with a brief written statement, which he gave to the group.

“The issues articulated in the petition regarding inappropriate conduct, alleged or substantiated, by a handful of UFC competitors and leadership are an area of concern that has been addressed with the UFC,” says the statement, which is attributed to the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Command.

“We are monitoring the issue and continuously evaluate the effectiveness of our advertising and lead generation partnership,” the statement says. “If corrective action is not implemented, we reserve the option to respond accordingly.”

Ethan Snow, a spokesperson for the group that gathered at the Marine Barracks in D.C. said separate continents of union members and veterans were scheduled to deliver copies of the petitions to U.S. Marine recruiting stations several other cities on Thursday. Among the cities, he said, were Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and D.C.

He said Unite Here and its veterans contingent also were lobbying for an amendment to the U.S. defense appropriations bill currently pending in Congress that would prohibit the Marines and all other military branches from sponsoring any professional sports event, including major league baseball and football.

A spokesperson for the House Appropriations Committee said the committee accepted the amendment as part of the defense appropriations bill and the measure was expected to reach the House floor next week. However, the House Rules Committee approved a rule allowing any member to introduce an amendment to remove the provision from the bill on the House floor, the spokesperson said.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that advocates on behalf of LGBT service members, didn’t immediately respond to a Blade inquiry about whether the group has taken a position on the amendment.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case

Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge

Published

on

Sean Charles Dunn was found not guilty on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10. 

Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets. 

Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers  standing in front of the shop.

 Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.

 “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.

 “And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”

The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.

Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured. 

Prosecutors  with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1. 

Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom. 

Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various  provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.

The dispute over the intricacies of  the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.

Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called  “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.

DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.

“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.

Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.

Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident. 

“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it  was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.” 

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.

“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Democrats hold leads in almost every race of Annapolis municipal election

Jared Littmann ahead in mayor’s race.

Published

on

Preliminary election results from Tuesday show Democrats likely will remain in control of Annapolis City Hall. Jared Littmann thanks his wife, Marlene Niefeld, as he addresses supporters after polls closed Tuesday night. (Photo by Rick Hutzell for the Baltimore Banner)

By CODY BOTELER | The Democratic candidates in the Annapolis election held early leads in the races for mayor and nearly every city council seat, according to unofficial results released on election night.

Jared Littmann, a former alderman and the owner of K&B Ace Hardware, did not go so far as to declare victory in his race to be the next mayor of Annapolis, but said he’s optimistic that the mail-in ballots to be counted later this week will support his lead.

Littmannn said November and December will “fly by” as he plans to meet with the city department heads and chiefs to “pepper them with questions.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Democrats increase majority in Va. House of Delegates

Tuesday was Election Day in state.

Published

on

Virginia Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democrats on Tuesday increased their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

The Associated Press notes the party now has 61 seats in the chamber. Democrats before Election Day had a 51-48 majority in the House.

All six openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual candidates — state Dels. Rozia Henson (D-Prince William County), Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County), Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), Marcia Price (D-Newport News), Adele McClure (D-Arlington County), and Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) — won re-election.

Lindsey Dougherty, a bisexual Democrat, defeated state Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield County) in House District 75 that includes portions of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties. (Attorney General-elect Jay Jones in 2022 texted Coyner about a scenario in which he shot former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican.)

Other notable election results include Democrat John McAuliff defeating state Del. Geary Higgins (R-Loudoun County) in House District 30. Former state Del. Elizabeth Guzmán beat state Del. Ian Lovejoy (R-Prince William County) in House District 22.

Democrats increased their majority in the House on the same night they won all three statewide offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Narissa Rahaman is the executive director of Equality Virginia Advocates, the advocacy branch of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, last week noted the election results will determine the future of LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights in the state.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.

The General Assembly earlier this year approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment that defines marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. The resolution must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.

Shreya Jyotishi contributed to this article.

Continue Reading

Popular