Archive for the ‘Bigotry’ category

On Civil Wars and Symbols

April 11th, 2010

Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos

If you take a bus ride from Madrid to El Escorial Palace, you will at some point see in the distance an enormous cross jutting 500 feet out from the valley like a scar across the sky. It is the largest cross in the world. It is the Valle de los Caídos, a monument built by Francisco Franco as a memorial to those Nationalists (pro-Franco) who died in the Spanish Civil War. His body now rests within the basillica below the cross. It was partially built with labor from Republican (anti-Franco) prisoners. Many died during its construction. And it remains a controversial and painful reminder of a terrible time in Spanish history.

The right-wing People’s Party has long held that the past should remain in the past. That there were atrocities on both sides and Franco was a complicated and maybe even ultimately necessary figure for the Spanish people. The left-wing PSOE (socialist party) which is now in power has, like many Spaniards, an uncomfortable feeling about what to do with this symbol of Nationalist victory. Certain symbols from that time are rarely seen anymore. The Spanish flag with the black eagle is rare while there remains supporters of the old Spain under Franco.

After the transition to democracy, there was a Pact of Forgetting that was felt to be the only way to move forward. It allowed past Nationalists to participate in the nascent democracy. Spain placed its eyes firmly forward and not to the past.

But ghosts refuse to stay silent. Mass graves have been found. Families want their relatives’ bodies returned. Judges have called for a review of past war crimes. The Socialist government has spoken of changing this Valley Cross to that of a memorial for Spain on its way to Democracy. While I lived there, the government removed the final statue of Franco, late in the dark of the night without notice.

But unlike South Africa and many other countries, there has not been a Truth and Reconciliation process; and that cross still divides.

Recently in the United States, governors of several southern states have declared Confederacy History months. In large parts of the south, it is not unusual to see the Confederate Flag flown. Many of these governors and southerners want to talk about the South and its role in the American Civil War as if that flag were not a symbol of treason and white supremacy. That it symbolizes a lifestyle that was divorced from its slavery. The Original Sin of the United States, the founding of this country as a slave owning country is part and parcel of the Civil War. Sadly, in both Spain and the US, religion is often connected hand in hand with these symbols.

That Confederate Flag will always be tied to slavery and the South. As slavery will always be tied to the South. The terrible Civil War that led to the deaths of 2% of all Americans at the time, and a 100 years of poverty and limited progress in the old Dixie slave states.

Right wing Americans go to pains to define that symbol as not a racist one; as something that beckons to a time that needs to be honored and commerated. Yet it is not surprising to note that the flag’s presence is more common when issues of racism are up and front in this country: during the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s, some states added the Confederate Flag to their state flag; and now, when Northerners are prominent in the government and we are led by our first African-American president.

This flag is a wound on our country’s soul. I am frustrated to read its defense by politicians. Recently the governor of Mississipee said that the issue of slavery was not a major issue in the Civil War, joining his peer from Virginia.

When we talk of Confederacy History month, or of the “War of Northern Agression,” we are celebrating the darkest part of our National story. There is nothing to celebrate here. There is no way to detach this symbolism from its message of hate. There was no glorious past of this country that include slavery, Southern or Northern.

Perhaps it’s time for our own Truth and Reconcilation.

CBS Reports: The Homosexuals 1967

February 14th, 2010

Pretty fascinating stuff.  And as I have been watching it, I’m reminded that this was the environment of my early years.  I would have been about 8 years old at the time of this report.  I certainly already knew I was gay, though I probably used the term “homosexual” in that quasi-clinical way all the books of the time described it.  Everything I read or saw in those years described the perversion and unhappiness and loneliness that my life would lead to.

Of course, I have had times of unhappiness and loneliness in my life.  Who hasn’t?  Once I stopped trying to pray my gay away, and accepted who I was, I’ve been happy much more often than unhappy.  I’ve known much love in many of the forms it takes, long-term partners, shorter term intense sparks, and the love of friends and family.

Last night there was an all-male gay acepella group from Cal that was fierce in their gayness.  And someone next to me, of my age group, said to me:  God to be that comfortable at that young an age.  To experience love and heartbreak and knowledge of yourself at such a young age is so powerful.

We’ve come a long way.

OK. I may have misjudged…

February 4th, 2010

I have been beyond frustrated with the President’s slow progress on the DADT and other LGBT issues. Frankly, a lot of what he has done is far too “center-right” in its policy tone for me. But that’s a different blog entry. For now, all credit is due the President. I believe he has handled a complicated management and policy problem (not to mention political problem) in a way I actually find I work myself. He has lined up as many ducks in a row as he can and has put the Republicans in a very tight place. Republican after republican have stated in the past that they would defer to the military’s opinion on DADT.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in October 2009 that for a reversal of DADT to be successful, there would have to be a “buy-in by the military.”

“They should be included in this,” said Graham. “I am open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you, I’m not going to make policy based on a campaign rally.”

Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a November 2007 debate was asked if he looked forward to “a day when gays can serve openly in the military?”

“I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say,” he replied.

In another Republican presidential debate a month later, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joined Romney in insisting that the country needed to hear first from military command.

“I probably would let the military make that decision,” he said, when pressed. “One thing I don’t think you need is a president who’s trying to tell the military how to run the military, other than set broad policy agenda. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is the best way to handle that and I would leave it to — to those who run the military.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) has insisted, as recently as 2009, that he would “defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness.”

In a 2008 interview, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) defended DADT as a sound military policy by arguing that he had not “sensed that the military is calling for a change.”

Any change to these sorts of comments will again show the blunt bigotry that truly lies behind these men.

I truly don’t believe that this can be done overnight.  I think a year is reasonable.  My fear was always that the President would not do anything on this at all.  It now appears he may have been doing quite a lot.  Recently joining in with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is now the former man that held that position; a man who helped to draft this policy:  Collin Powell.

So Mr. President, when I’m wrong, I’m wrong.  So far on this, I am feeling a lot better.  Now about that other stuff…oh, just let well enough alone, Lynch.

The Case for Gay Marriage

January 12th, 2010

I’m beat down tired, but so impressed with the trial so far in San Francisco on the Federal Challenge to Prop 8.  I’ll have more to say, but let me share this with you:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stunning Development from Supreme Court

January 11th, 2010

Yes, I am being sarcastic. To no one’s surprise the Supreme Court has stayed the order to post delayed court proceedings on youtube. The possible retribution to those bigots may be too great a burden for this once great country to bare.

This whole trial has always scared me. Yes, the facts are on our side, the Constitution is on our side, precedent is on our side, and the American Exceptionalism is on our side. Yet, the bigots hold a lot of power.

President Obama has stayed silent. The Court is stacked against us. This is not a legal issue, but a political issue in practice. Can you imagine President Obama doing what Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson did to uphold the rule of law? The administration is already ignoring court orders to give spousal benefits to a government employee. Just ignoring it. Yikes.

I’m Mr. Grumpy today.

The Anti-Marriage Closet

January 10th, 2010

Coming off of a decade where up is down and down is up when it comes to the truth and conservatives, the fight over cameras in the hearing tomorrow on the Constitutionality of the Prop 8 vote also turns history on its head.  For years, LGBT people have lived in the closet.  There were of course many reasons for this.  Many of us felt shame over a life that was vilified by our communities.  But the largest part of life in the closet was fear.  It certainly was for me.  Fear of losing our jobs, of losing our family and friends, of violence and ridicule.

In the great Julianne Moore move “Far from Heaven,” we glimpsed scenes of the dark and frightened corners of a closeted gay man in the 50s.

My, have the times changed.  Now those opposed to equality wish to make their statements in the dark, without the light of a camera recording their statements.  They say that they are frightened by potential retribution for their opinions.  They are ashamed and afraid.  The gay men and lesbians are those fighting to speak in the full view of the public.

The federal judge has ruled for cameras in the courtroom.  It is being appealed to the US Supreme Court by those opposed to equality.  The question for us is does a gay person have any hope in this country for help by the courts; by the US Supreme Court in particular.

That those on the anti-marriage side have few arguments other than their God says its wrong and most people don’t like it, only demonstrates the bankruptcy of their fight.  Popular hatred is not a public policy.  And the light of day needs to shine on the truth.

Republicans: Use a death for political reasons – never!

August 28th, 2009

Ok, I have a little experience in watching Republicans use funerals for political gain.  I was widely quoted for saying that, hey, you know, maybe we should dial it back a bit.  Well, it seems the republicans are very concerned about how Kennedy’s death will affect the health care debate.  They are afraid that it will become politicized.  

So here comes Pastor Huckabee, the most honest man in America saying that essentially, Teddy would have died much earlier if we had the health care plan that Obama wants.  

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate suggested during his radio show, “The Huckabee Report,” on Thursday that, under President Obama’s health care plan, Kennedy would have been told to “go home to take pain pills and die” during his last year of life.

“[I]t was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don’t have as long to live might want to consider just taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them,” said Huckabee. “Yet when Sen. Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die? Of course not. He freely did what most of us would do. He choose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments. He saw his work as vitally important and so he fought for every minute he could stay on this earth doing it. He would be a very fortunate man if his heroic last few months were what future generations remember him most for.”

Of course, every last word of the good reverend is an absolute lie.  My head is spinning with what the Republicans are throwing out there this week.  Tagging Obama so he can be hunted down and shot, looking for the “last great white hope” to take on the president, and anything Glenn Beck is doing right now deserves its own wing at the psychiatric hospital.

 

They are willing to tell these lies because they know that the future success or failure of the Presidency is tied to health care.  That’s the real agenda.  But they are really willing to go to some pretty scary places.

 Todd Gitlin reports that Grassley was silent when a town meeting nutter called the President a Nazi and said he wanted to kill him. The Senator from Iowa is making a first-class fool of himself these days.

Things I’ll never understand…

August 28th, 2009

614As some of you know, my youth was filled with religion and church and well into my twenties, I tried to serve an angry God.  God was angry for many reasons, but with me, mostly because I liked men.  How those years still affect me, I can never really explain in full.  To, as many before and after have, pray fervently for the removal of these desires day after day was painful.  

So I left the church.  And I became a secular agnostic.  Certainly an atheist in any way that the Pentecostals of my youth would understand.  To this day, the majority of the Christian community in this country battles against the lives of those like me, and those whom I love and cherish.  The rules are enormously complicated and petty in the extreme.

And so it is with the passing of Ted Kennedy, who the Vatican has described as a “nobody.”  All his work to feed the poor, to aid the immigrants, to stand against war, to give voice to the powerless, all this means nothing because he did not see that he should impose the religious beliefs of a church on women in this country when it came to abortion.  From Time Magazine: 

During Benedict’s 2008 trip to the U.S., there was some heated debate — with conflicting photographs and eyewitness accounts — about whether Kennedy took Holy Communion at the papal Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington, with conservatives insisting that the Pope says the rite should be denied to prochoice politicians. With this in mind, Church observers are keen to see if Boston’s Archbishop Cardinal Sean O’Malley will preside over Kennedy’s funeral. Some conservatives already see the fact that the rites are not being held in a cathedral (but rather at the Senator’s favorite church) as significant.

For four decades Ted Kennedy remained the nation’s most prominent Roman Catholic politician, as well as brother of America’s first and only Catholic President…

“Here in Rome, Ted Kennedy is nobody. He’s a legend with his own constituency,” says the Vatican official. “If he had influence in the past, it was only with the Archdiocese of Boston, and that eventually disappeared too.” Some say the final sunset on the Kennedy name within Catholic halls of power was the Vatican’s decision in 2007 to overturn the annulment of the first marriage of former U.S. Representative Joe Kennedy, the eldest son of Robert Kennedy. The successful appeal by Joe Kennedy’s ex-wife Sheila Rauch, an Episcopalian, was another blow to the Kennedy image in Catholic circles.

Cathedrals versus churches, marriages, divorces, and annulments, blessings, communion:  all a game-like house of cards.  When my father, a lapsed Catholic, was dying, all he wanted was confession, communion, and the last rites.  He hadn’t been in church in years.  But he was very sick for a very long time.  He used to say that you can take the boy out of the Catholic Church, but you could never take the Catholic Church out of the boy.  

He was denied his last request of the Catholic Church.  He had married a protestant in a civil service.  He had three bastard children (in the eyes of the Church).  We could all convert, and he could marry them and then he would bless him.  My mother offered to convert (a bigger offer than you could ever imagine for this Scottish born Protestant).  My father said no.

In this story, President Obama delivers a note from Ted Kennedy.  Even the president is ignorant to its contents.  Probably a request for a blessing, supposes the magazine.  So what I’ll never understand is how a man of God could deny a dying man his last wish on his deathbed because of some rule.  Surely if there is a God, he would not care.  And if he did, he wouldn’t be a God worth serving.

Obama, Racism, and Gay White Leadership

August 24th, 2009

obama_lgbt_logoAs some of you have been reading my posts over the last few months know, I’ve been pretty harsh with some of the decisions and strategy of the President, particularly on the issues of health care reform and LGBT rights.  It hasn’t just been the president that I’ve been critical of, it’s also been the Democratic Party in general.  

I had a brief, but very interesting conversation with someone tonight about how the White House has taken on some of these issues.  This guy is a smart guy, works at Harvard, and is politically astute.  He suggested that things would turn out fine, that the politics of the moment meant that a very strategic president needed to reach these goals differently and with patience.  

Pretty standard argument.  These are hard things to do, the right will eat him up, one step at a time.  Not an argument that I am prone to buy into anymore.  But one thing he said did really strike me.

It’s no secret that the LGBT movement and its fight for rights does not do as well politically among people of color as it should be doing.  Though I don’t buy into the Prop 8 myth that blacks caused us to lose, I do believe that we have not built the bridges that we need to build.  So his point was basically this:

How does it look when white gay leaders and activists are among the most vocal critics of the first African-American president in US history? 

Doesn’t it feed into an already difficult relationship?  And does it mean that we can not criticize Mr. Obama?  

I think it would be very difficult for anyone to deny that many of the right-wing attacks against the president and his place of birth and socialism and all the rest, does not have, in some form, a racist tone.  There is a strong cord of racism in this country and in particular going back to the Palin rallies, racist attacks against President Obama.

So, I want to be more aware of how I frame my critique of the White House.  I don’t want to ignore what I think are problems.  But let me be more clear about what I think the genesis of many of those strategy errors are.  The Democrats, including the White House, are allowing the right wing to frame every debate.  

Our policy prescriptions are good ones, but we start out by being defensive about how the Republican Party will attack them.  We don’t fight for our own beliefs.  We have bought into the notion that progressive ideas are radical ideas.  Where in reality, they are popular and workable ideas.  

So, where my focus will be is in trying to get the Democrats to fight from a position of strength, to be willing to lose with your best ideas, and not water everything down out of fear of what a minority, regional party may say.

The truth is, they are willing to say anything.  We should be willing to say the truth and fight for our own ideals.

Thoughts on Obama

July 1st, 2009

same_sex_flagSo, while I was traveling, President Obama held a party for the gays.

I really, really, really want to believe.  But we have danced down this yellow brick road many times before.  Do any of you remember once candidate Obama saying that by the end of his term we would be happy?  Or did he run on change?  Do you recall hearing that DADT needed to wait until more of the military leadership was ready for the change?  Did you hear about the audacity of hope or call for the patience of Job?

It was disappointing to see so many of our LGBT leaders hanging on every word the president had to say.  He has progressed beyond the actions of Bill Clinton only in symbolism and yet we still seem to believe it is 1993, excited to hear the acknowledgement of our mere existence.

Atlantic Magazine writer Ta-Nehisi Coates gets to the key problem we should be having with how the entire Democratic Party is responding to the the LGBT community:

It’s very interesting to see a man who opposes gays should not have the right to wed, claim credit for talking to “African American church members” about homophobia. It’s even more interesting to see a man who lives in a majority black city, poised to go further than he, himself, ever would, claim that credit. I’ve heard it said, many times, on this board that Obama is actually pro-gay marriage, but that he can’t come out all the way. If that’s the case, then we must conclude that he is lying about his stance. Moreover, he’s invoking his relationship with religion, and his God, in that lie. Perhaps worse, he isn’t being fully honest with the very audiences he wants credit for addressing–the very audiences, that by his logic, would most benefit from that honesty.

We desperately need to be unsatisfied with this sort of stance.  The wink and nudge of democratic party support is not sufficient.  I am happy to have patience.  I can wait and I can be pragmatic.  But I don´t see that as what is happening here at all.  This is old school politics.  “The Congress has to do it, the President has to do it”

I remember during the campaign, then Senator Obama would not have his picture taken with Mayor Gavin Newsom.  I was concerned about the message that sent then, and he continues to send the same message.  He is saying he will back the LGBT community as look as it is not painful for him, politically or personally.

No more words Mr. President.  I will be patient after I have seen one significant piece of evidence that you will fight for me.  Otherwise, I will not back the democrats nor the President in the future.  I will have been too painful, politically and personally.