Weekly Queer Index: 4/19/09-4/25/09

This week saw some important advances for us queers including two big leaps forward for the transgender community.

A COLORADO MAN BEING SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON IN THE FIRST PROSECUTION OF A HATE CRIMES LAW AGAINST A TRANS PERSON IN THE COUNTRY IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS*.

Angie Zapata was a 18 year old trans woman who had been living as a woman for at least two years. She had a loving and supportive family, often bringing home boyfriends to meet her mother and siblings. In the summer of 2008 Angie Zapata started corresponding with Allen Andrade, 32, over a social networking site. They met on July15th, spent several days together and then Andrade beat Angie to do with a fire extinguisher. He was arrested and claimed a classic "gay panic" defense, in this case a trans panic defense. But the evidence showed that his actions were not the result of some temporary insanity but came out of a deep hatred. Andrade told police that he had "killed it." In a phone call from jail to a girlfriend Andrade said, "all gay things must die...It’s not like I went up to a school teacher and shot her in the head… or like I killed a law-abiding straight citizen."
It was statements like these that lead Andrade to be charged for first degree murder and hate crimes. On Wednesday April 22nd, Andrade was found guilty on all counts, it took the jury less than two hours to deliberate and the judge sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This the first successful conviction of defendant under a transgender hate crime statute. This is really a historic event, prosecuting murderers of transgender persons has been a notoriously difficult task. In 2002, two men were convicted of second degree murder for the death of another transgendered teen, Gwen Araujo, but were not found guilty of the "hate crime enhancements" that would have added years to their sentences. And in 1994, William Palmer was acquitted of murdering a transgender woman in Boston in what has to be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this town has ever seen. Justice was done last week in Denver, and for that we should be hopeful. *Gay used here (as always) as an umbrella term encompassing everyone in the GLBT alphabet soup.

WASHINGTON STATE PASSING A TRANS-INCLUSIVE HATE CRIME BILL INTO LAW IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
Speaking of transgender hate crime protections, the state of Washington just amended it's hate crimes statute by, "modifying the definition of "sexual orientation" for malicious harassment prosecution purposes" to include "gender expression or identity."

Washington is only the 12th state to enact trans-inclusive hate crime protections (even pinko Massachusetts hasn't secured that yet) and as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force noted Washington is only the 7th state to enact "a clearly trans-inclusive safe schools law."As if the tragic case of Angie Zapata wasn't strong enough evidence to show how important transgender protection laws are, Joe McDermott writing on the Washington State Democrats Blog observed:

According to a recent study by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, reported acts of violence against LGBT people rose by 24 percent in 2007. Of the reported incidents, 16 percent were motivated by anti-transgender bias. Hate crimes against transgender men alone increased by 65 percent

And now moving onto the gay marriage front....

A MAJORITY OF NEW YORKERS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS (in theory).

Last week's WQI celebrated Gov Paterson's decision to introduce a bill into the state legislature that would approve gay marriage in the state. Two recent polls of NY state residents show robust support for gay marriage. A Siena College Research Institute Poll shows a 53% to 39% approval, and a few weeks ago a Quinnipiac University poll found 41% approve of gay marriages, 33% of civil unions, and 19% for no recognition. However, the gay marriage bill is stalled in the Senate, where majority leader (and gay marriage supporter) Malcolm Smith has promised to table the bill until there are enough votes to ensure its passage (when that will be is unclear). Paterson for his part has agreed to follow the state senate's lead (or lack thereof).

So there you have it, unambiguous public support for an incredibly important civil rights issue which does not translate into effective legislative action. Queer New York activists better get a move on if they don't want to be upstaged by Iowa.

A MAJORITY OF NEW JERSIANS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS (in theory).


Another Quinnipiac poll out last week shows that New Jersey residents approve of gay marriage 49% to 43%. When civil unions are thrown in as a poll option gay marriage still polls best with 42% for marriage, 30% for unions, and 20% for no recognition respectively. Only 30% of those polled believed that gay marriage was a threat to "traditional marriage." The New Jersey legislature will vote on a gay marriage bill later this year.


Did I mention this poll was taken a week AFTER N.O.M. started airing their "Gathering Storm" ad in the state.

The tides are turning.

MISS CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING "OPPOSITE MARRIAGE" AND LOOSING THE MISS USA CROWN IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS.

It all started Sunday April 19th, when Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a question by "celebrity blogger" Perez Hilton during the Miss USA pageant.

“Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

Let's go to the tape:

Miss California lost the MISS USA Pageant but finished as a runner-up and blamed the results of the pageant on Perez.

THEN Perez Hilton made a video blog about the whole situation.


With that "dumb bitch" and the threat that he would have "smacked that tiara off her head" had she won, Perez perhaps undid all the goodwill his question had created. It's one thing to ask a contestant a contentious question, but when you pick on someone with a persecution complex or very low self-esteem (the general make-up of beauty pageant contestants and gay opposition) they fight back because they feel it validates their irrational feelings of persecution. Miss California basically said in her answer what Perez said he wanted to hear from her, she talked about personal rather than state choice, but the idea was the same. Of course Ms. Prejean sounded dumber than a barbie doll, but this is a beauty contest not Jeopardy. And it would have been totally fine for Perez Hilton to talk, post show, about how sickening it is to think of civil rights being put up to a vote. But just as it's rather sickening to turn civil rights into an electoral question, it's EQUALLY SICKENING TO TURN THE BATTLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INTO A CAT FIGHT.

Let's elevate the discourse PLEASE, there's nothing saying we can't call haters dumb or bitches, but strategically speaking, picking on beauty pageant contestants is about as useful as the pageants themselves.

WQI Total

Good: 4
Mixed: 1
Bad: 0

Thoughts on The First 100 Days...

The first 100 days of any presidency is a comparatively arbitrary measurement of progress. You can try and compare one administration's first 100 days against another, and there is certainly criteria for basic success, but Presidential history is not a good constant against which to measure itself. Would Obama's first 100 days have been more successful if Mr. Specter had switched parties three months ago? Maybe. Would Obama have the political capital he has now if the economy wasn't in the shitter? Maybe. It's not what Obama has accomplished so much as the way Obama has tried to accomplish things that give us insight into what the next four years hold.

Three things can be said about Obama and his first 100 days.

1) He's not embarrassing the country at home or abroad. Even though the G20 isn't going along with his plans for worldwide stimulus, it's clear they like him and perhaps even respect him.

2) There's a firm belief that our President isn't prone to doing colossally stupid things. In other words, unlike his predecessor, we don't have to worry about our President getting a signal from God to bomb random countries. Or say, completely ignore a drowning city.

3) Obama is trying to build a broad coalition. While the GOP is quite literally shrinking to the point of temporary irrelevance, Obama has made a number of good faith efforts to reach out to his "loyal opposition." This may infuriate those on the left, like myself, who want the president to make few concessions and plow ahead with a progressive agenda, but in the end the Democratic party will be strengthened the more people it represents. The real trick will be making sure the Democratic party effectively serves all its constituencies.

A good public image, not making reckless choices, and trying to be bi-partisan, these have lead to historically high public opinion ratings. One could see these three accomplishments as baseline for a competent presidency. And one could make the argument that Obama is suffering from the "bigotry of lowered expectations." But this has nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with Bush. The first 100 days has shown us we can breathe easier again (not easy, easier), and after eight years of holding my breath that's change I can believe in.

Now if only he would nationalize the banks....

Arlen Specter, no longer bi-partisan, now a flamming Dem!

The Washington Post is breaking the story. Arlen Specter the moderate Republican whom the Republicans love to hate (and try and unseat) is SWITCHING PARTY AFFILIATION, from now on he'll be a Democrat, with Al Franken expected to eventually get seated over Coleman in the still legally unresolved Minnesota Senate race the Democrats will have a FILIBUSTER PROOF 60-SEAT MAJORITY. Well a fillibuster proof majority on SOME issues, in a statement released today Specter made clear he wasn't giving Dems a carte blanche on their entire legislative agenda:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Specter announced he will run to keep his Senate seat in 2010 by taking part in the Democratic primaries.

Why the change? Specter, faces a Liebermanesque dilemma for 2010, with a candidate more palatable to the base of his affiliated party planning on challenging the long-seated incumbent. The main challenger right now, Pat Tommey, lost by just one point in the 2004 GOP primary against Specter, and the lastest polling data shows Specter trailing Tom mey by 21 points. If Tommey wins Specter would have to run as an Independant or Democrat anyway. This way Specter has a fighting chance at keeping his seat.

Of course underlying this pragmatic decision is the ideological tumult that is threatening to hobble the GOP for years to come. Last week I described two moderate republicans as part of the "centrist fringe" of their party. Specter's statement on his decision to change parties shows my hyperbole may not be as exagerrated as I though:

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary...Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans...When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing...I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

Speaking of Lieberman, I bet the Dems are glad now that they didn't strip him of his committee appointments as recompense for his McCain support. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to see a powerless Lieberman abandoning the party that abandoned him to join the GOP in the name of a "loyal opposition."


Specter (first on the left) with Schumer (D-NY) and Leahy (D-VT), his new party colleagues.

RIP Bea Aurthur

There are now as many surviving Beatles as Golden Girls.

Coincidence???

Three of the best Youtube clips floating around there to remember that Golden Girl of stage and screen.

BEA READING FROM PAMELA ANDERSON'S OPUS


BEA AND ROCK HUDSON SINGING ABOUT POPPERS, SPEED, AND MARY JANE


Golden Girls Bloopers - Watch more funny videos here
GOLDEN GIRL BLOOPERS

Obama backtracking on promises for greater civil liberties?

Hours ago the AP announced some unsettling news: the Obama administration will be asking the Supreme Court to overturn a 1986 ruling that forbids police to question suspects in custody unless an attorney is present.

As the AP noted:

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

This seems at EXTREME ODDS with several proposed reforms posted on the White House's webpage which acknowledges, "America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities." Two solutions to this crisis are suggested on the Administration's Civil Right's Agenda webpage:

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support: President Obama and Vice President Biden will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama and Biden will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.

It seems more than a little disingenuous to call for an end to sentence disparities and then remove one of the greatest protections against coercion and false evidence currently in our legal arsenal. It's also extremely disconcerting to see the Obama administration putting more effort into post-incarceration interventions than into steps designed to avoid unnecessary incarceration in the first place. Does the prison industrial complex have the administration over a barrel or something?

Beyond the practical problems this reversal could present to Obama's stated goals of reduced incarceration rates, this move just seems patently unconstitutional, violating the right against self-incrimination and the right to legal representation .

Here's hoping the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, or that the Administration decides to reconsider its position.

Quote of the Day

"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, okay? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear -
(Laughter in courtroom)
Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever. "

--Justice Stephen Breyer revealing his tortured past yesterday during oral arguments concerning a case where a 13 year old girl was strip searched after another student told school authorities the girl had ibuprofen in her underwear.

Weekly Queer Index: 4/12/09-4/18/09

If the two weeks before last were seismic events for us gays, than last week was marked less by a continued shaking than by minor aftershocks.

THE OBAMAS INVITING CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO THE TRADITIONAL WHITE HOUSE EASTER EGG ROLL IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS


The White House Easter Egg Roll is one of those supremely hokey and highly ritualized public performances that the White House has to pull out the stops for every year. As if electing someone President isn't enough, we demand to see footage of our Commander In Chief interacting with children in a competent way (the armchair shrink in me says it has something to do with us projecting onto our President a paternal role that casts the voters as the de facto children).


Anywho, traditionally tickets to the event are given out on a first-come-first-serve basis but this year special efforts were made to give blocks of tickets to GLBT organizations including: Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality Council and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. This is actually a big step beause it means the White House is going out of its way to be inclusive towards the GLBT community (inclusive though not down right progressive).

Compare this year's event to the Roll in 2006, when 100 gay families obtained a block of tickets (by camping out all night in front of the White House) to show Bush that gays and lesbians exist in real life and don't have horns and the sign of the beast tattooed onto their foreheads. At the time the Weekly Standard lamented that gays planned to, "crash the event with a 'family visibility action' to spotlight their non-traditional families. " Bear in mind this was only three years ago.

This distinction between the acts of past and current administration is important in measuring the pace of progress. As Alisa Surkis, a gay mother who took part in the 2006 "crashing" and also attended this year's Roll wrote in the HuffPo:

I've heard people complain that the invitation extended to the gay and lesbian families by the Obama administration is just a symbolic gesture, but symbols are powerful. This one sends the message that at the very highest levels, our families are acknowledged and appreciated as part of the diversity of families that make this country great...Sure, I wish that the administration was spearheading the repeal of DOMA and DADT. I wish that President Obama was speaking out in favor of marriage equality. But I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Does society change in response to the signals sent by legislative changes, or do changes in people's attitudes push forward legislation? I think it's a little bit of chicken and a little bit of egg, and this Monday is a day to celebrate the egg (roll).

Amen sister.


AMAZON.COM CAUSING A CYBERSTORM AFTER "ACCIDENTALLY" DELETING THE RANKING OF GLBT BOOKS ON THEIR SITE IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS.


This story isn't just notable for the potentially intentional actions of Amazon, but also for the massive shit storm of cyber outrage that the so-called "glitch" incited. To sum up the events: last weekend gay author Mark Probst posted a blog entry about the mysterious disappearance of sales-rankings for gay-themed books on Amazon.com. Amazon was still selling the books in question, but because they weren't ranked they didn't show up prominently in search results. More damning was an email from Amazon to Probst explaining that the de-ranking was part of Amazon's policy of excluding "'adult' material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists."

As the outrage spread on twitter and the blogosphere it became clear that Amazon’s stated rationale didn’t hold water. The de-ranking covered a HUGE range of GLBT books from self-help: Outing Yourself: How to Come Out as Lesbian or Gay to Your Family, Friends, and Coworkers and Hello Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws to classics like Giovanni's Room, Heather Has Two Mommies, and Brokeback Mountain. Entertainment Weekly also noted that heterosexual erotica such as, "a raunchy memoir by porn star Ron Jeremy and Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds, which includes pictures of more than 600 naked women, are still being ranked."

By last Monday Amazon had re-established rankings for the excluded books and upgraded its excuse for the debacle from a "glitch" to a "ham-fisted cataloging error ." The exact nature of what caused the rankings to be stripped is still being debated, but the most salient feature of this whole episode is the fact that within days, perhaps even hours after the glitch occurred, us queers and our allies were mobilized and putting Amazon on the defensive. This is exactly the kind of rapid response that the queer community needs if it’s going to successfully fight for its civil rights in a number of future uphill battles. This may only have been a test, but we passed with flying colors.

MCCAIN'S DAUGHTER, AND CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST COMING OUT TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS.

Gays last week got a purely symbolic boost from what can only be described as the "centrist fringe" of the Republican party as both Steve Schmidt, McCain's former campaign strategist, and Meghan McCain, his daughter (and "blogger") both came out in support of gay marriage. Sure, it's always good to have more people on our side, but within the GOP these are the last people anyone is going to listen to. The McCain campaign isn't thought of very highly (think how the left feels about Kerry and his campaign), and when it comes to campaign strategy, Mr. Schidt's domain, the consensus has been negative across the aisle. Weeks before the presidential race was even decided in November, the NYTimes magazine ran a scathing article entitled "The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of the Candidate"showing just how inept the McCain campaign (and especially Steve Schmidt) was at selling a long serving senator, decorated war-hero, and the loving father of several children (including one adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage no less) as a winning presidential candidate. The failure (and anger) towards McCain, Schmidt, and Co. in the eyes of the right is even greater when one considers that from their perspective McCain's opponent was a largely unknown, bi-racial, first-term senator whom a tenth of the electorate stupidly believe is a Muslim.

Schmidt, who has a gay sister, gave his endorsement for gay marriage at a Log Cabin Republican Convention last Friday. Even his verbal support for gay marriage came in the form of a backhanded compliment:

I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts.

Apparently one can be for gay marriage and feed the right talking points at the same time. Glad to see Mr. Schmidt has overcome his messaging problems.

As for Meghan McCain, she's fast morphing into a savvy blogger more than any sort of political figure. Sensing a vacancy of young GOP contrarians, Ms. McCain has lambasted Ann Coulter as well as Karl Rove, and in a blog post on the Daily Beast last week confusingly declared herself a "pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican." Might I suggest the slogan: Government, out of our bedroom, into our exam rooms? She also gave a speech at the Log Cabin Republican's Convention that was curiously almost completely devoid of any mention of sexual orientation.

The biggest problem for queers with these endorsements is that the Republicans could siphon even more gay votes away from the Democrats. Last election more queers voted for McCain than voted for Bush in 2004, we were the only demographic to move more to the right. The Democrats talk a good game but outside of invites to the White House Easter Egg Roll, actual action on a federal level by the Dems for gay rights has been consistantly nill. If the GOP splits the gay vote it will be because they'll be able to talk the talk like the Dems, but neither party will be walking the walk, and that will benefit no one. Still nice to see the sane among the GOP are raising their voices.

WASHINGTON STATE'S LEGISLATURE EXPANDING RIGHTS COVERED UNDER CIVIL UNIONS IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS
Last week the Washington State Legislature approved a bill that would extend the benefits from an earlier civil unions law passed two years ago, to include all the rights currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples in the state. All rights and benefits save marriage itself. Governor Chris Gregoire has promised to sign the bill into law. The bill was hotly debated but passed with a two-thirds majority. Despite being home to Seattle, the second gayest city in the country, Washington state has a Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in 1998. The state Supreme Court refused to overturn the DOMA three years ago citing the legislature's right to, "further the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children." Pardon me while I gag.

On the one hand, civil unions seem like a great compromise, except that if you recall last week's WQI, Nate Silver made the astonishing prediction that support for anti-gay marriage amendments would become a minority opinion in all states by 2024. Washington State was among the states that Silver predicts already has an anti-gay marriage minority. So it's disheartening to see progress in the state manifest itself through what is essentially the final piece of a a civil rights installment plan that grants same-sex couples "everything but marriage." Will passing a civil unions law today kick the fight for full marriage down the road? Only time will tell.

NY GOV PATERSON PLANNING TO INTRODUCE A BILL TO THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.

New York, which has no civil unions or domestic partnership laws, could become the fifth state in the union to allow gay marriage.

Two years ago, then Gov Elliot Spitzer promised to introduce a bill to allow gay marriage in the state. Then Spitzer decided to spend more time with his family (ahem). His successor, Paterson, had a grand introduction onto the queer stage months after taking office by marching in the NYC gay pride parade, the first Governor in the state to do so.

The legislation is far from a sure thing though. According to Gothamist:

The State Assembly has previously passed a gay marriage bill in 2007, but it stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. Though the Senate is now controlled by Democrats, the majority is fractured and Senate Majority leader Smith's spokesperson said last week, "Currently, there are not sufficient votes in the Senate to pass the marriage equality bill.

NEVADA'S GOV PROMISING TO VETO A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP LAW IS: BAD FOR THE GAYS AND ABSOLUTELY INSANE.
So, suppose you're the Governor of a state that invented the drive-thru wedding, the quickie divorce (once referred to as a "Reno Divorce"), has legalized prostitution, and who's primary tourist attraction is advertised as a haven for bad behavior. Now suppose your legislature sends you a bill that would set-up domestic partnerships in your state, a law you don't want to sign for some stupid reason. You can't argue that signing the bill would detract from the institution of marriage because eroding the sanctity of marriage is big business for your state. You can't argue that the bill would encourage deviant behavior because that too turns a profit in your state. But you have to give SOME reason for vetoing the bill so you merely say, "I just don't believe in it."

Way to go Governor! Las Vegas is feeling the financial crunch and you're turning down domestic partnerships when you should be pushing for gay marriages to prop up your economy. Don't let the door hit you on your way out of office.

This Week's Totals
GOOD: 2
MIXED: 3
BAD (and insane): 1