Connect with us

Gay Pride: Embroiled In Flag Flap Space Needle Finds Charitable Solution

Published

on

Last year, in an historic tribute to gay pride month, Seattle’s iconic Space Needle flew the gay pride flag. This year they declined — and met extreme disappointment and anger. So, they came up with a unique solution. Guest author and Seattle-area resident Stuart Wilber explains.

 

THE RAINBOW FLAG

Last year the Rainbow Flag flew atop the Space Needle on Pride weekend for the first time. It was a significant moment for Seattle, home to what is said to be the second-largest LGBT community in the country. People literally wept, posed for photos with the be-rainbowed Space Needle in the background, and sent hundreds of thank you messages to the corporation that owns it.  And of course, the expected complaints about special treatment for ‘The Gays’ also emerged.

 

THAT WAS LAST YEAR

On June 3, word got out that Seattle Out & Proud (SO&P), the organization responsible for the annual Pride Parade, had accepted the flag to use instead of it being flown atop the Needle. Within minutes a polite petition thanking the Space Needle Corporation (SNC) for flying the flag last year and asking them to re-consider their decision to not fly it again was initiated on change.org, and in eleven days, over 9700 people signed it and members of the City Council and columnists in both the alternative and mainstream media joined the clamor to fly the rainbow flag.

After all, when you see photos of the Eiffel Tower you think Paris, when you see the Needle you think Seattle. The Rainbow Flag flying on our iconic structure was a statement of inclusion and welcome. Not flying it seemed a rejection as hurtful as unrequited love or being turned down by a cutie at last call – it stung!

I confess, I was part of the kerfuffle – I e-mailed, I posted, I re-posted, I tweeted and re-tweeted, I harangued friends and strangers, activists and neighbors to join the fray and sign the petition. For the most part the reaction I received was positive and I am responsible for getting more than a few of those 9700 signatures. But I was also confronted by some stinging remarks. After all, marriage equality, DADT, ENDA, homeless LGBT youth and transgender bashing, not to mention the economy, famine and war, are more important than a piece of colored cloth flying on a corporate structure.

Then the Seattle Gay News (SGN) upped the ante by calling on all local businesses to fly the Pride Flag.  Healio, a local café, offered free pride flags to any business that would fly one. A flag-sewing party was proposed to take place at a counter-protest of the Westboro Church, which will be protesting the Pride Picnic. The image of drag queens dressed as Betsy Ross sewing strips of brightly colored cloth while the Phelps Gang shouts “God Hates Fags!” made it into my dreams last night.

 

A PR NIGHTMARE

Now the Space Needle Corporation had a PR nightmare on their hands. Seattle Gay News reported the Space Needle had committed “to sponsoring a fundraiser on-site in the fall to benefit the community and create the program that would take the flag on tour and use it as an education and inspirational message.”  SO&P had announced the giant flag would be leading the Pride Parade carried by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, The Abbey of St. Joan who said in a statement to the press, “we are delighted and honored” to march with the flag. “As we carry this beacon of hope through downtown Seattle, we will perpetuate our mission to support and represent our community in all its magnificent glory. The past and future of a particular flag we carry is of less import to us than ensuring that this powerful symbol is present on the parade route.” Even I in my enthusiasm to get that flag atop the Needle know better than to try to take it away from the Sisters.

 

A CORPORATE SOLUTION

SNC came up with a solution that allows the Sisters to carry the flag, SO&P to have their fundraiser and Seattle to see the Pride Flag fly again. Their press release states, “In response to a ground swell of support requesting the Rainbow Flag being raised again on Seattle Pride Weekend, the Space Needle has issued an exciting new fundraising challenge. If the community can raise $50,000 for 4 local charities, the Space Needle will raise the Rainbow Flag on Sunday of Seattle Pride weekend in Seattle. The Space Needle will also kick off the challenge with an inaugural donation of $5000.00.”

“According to Jeff Wright, Chairman of Space Needle LLC, ‘We want to harness the enthusiasm that has built up to raise the flag for the encore performance. Our entire community gets involved in whatever issue is at hand and we think that is what makes us so strong. This challenge can reap great benefits for these worthwhile organizations.’

Four charities have been selected to be the recipients of the fundraising challenge. Greater Seattle Business Association Scholarship Program, Lambda Legal, It Gets Better for The Trevor Project, and Mary’s Place, a homeless shelter for women and children. The $50,000 will be divided equally between the four organizations, SNC states.

 

COMMUNITY REACTION

For those not familiar with Seattle organizations, The GSBA Scholarship Program supports LGBTA students. Often such students, most belonging to a marginalized group, had no family support or financial aid from more traditional sources. Mary’s Place is a shelter that, unlike most, is LGBT welcoming and inclusive. All are worthy causes – ones I personally support. And I believe the challenge will probably be met.

Comments on the Space Needle Face Book page are mixed — most are hostile. Protests are being threatened. What was a PR Nightmare has become a PR catastrophe. Why didn’t SNC just agree to fly the flag and issue the challenge? There should have been ropes attached to that flag, not strings. I still hope they will change their corporate mind.

 

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

I have been asked why it matters so much if the rainbow flag flies over the Space Needle again this year. My partner reminded me that our domestic partnership is only recognized in a few states and our marriage only in Canada and scolded me, saying I had more important issues to address. Some activist friends complained I should be devoting my time lobbying my senators and representatives as if I couldn’t multi-task. Some told me that the Space Needle is privately owned so the decision to fly the flag is a corporate one and their decision should be respected. But a gift once given becomes more precious when it is taken away.

 

ANOTHER KIND OF ACTIVISM – GENTLE PERSUASION

New media has transformed our ability to make things happen. With just a few clicks of a mouse we can sign a petition, post it to our Facebook page, tweet it and send our message to multiple recipients. The petition to the SNC was appreciative and polite. Some said it was too polite.

But when the Pride Flag flies on June 26 – there is no doubt in my mind that it will – more than 9700 people will see their activism rewarded. And emboldened by this success, they may again sign a petition with a few clicks of a mouse, or call their representatives or even take to the streets when the cause warrants it.

Those of us who live in Seattle and Washington State are fortunate — many of our representatives are supportive of our equality. And when we saw that rainbow flag flying over the iconic Needle, we for a brief time felt included and welcomed — a feeling many of us as LGBTQI folk never get to experience. Many of our youth are homeless and have no access to computers. Others watch the “It Gets Better” videos and wonder, “when?”

Our President and our Governor, the King County Council, the Seattle City Council and our Mayor again proclaim Gay Pride. The flag that flew over the Space Needle last year will lead the parade on June 26. But June 27, no one will remember that flag or those proclamations, but thousands would remember the disappointment of not seeing it fly over the Needle.

This year, when that flag flies over our Needle, everyone who sees it will know that it has already gotten a little better.

 

(image)

Stuart Wilber is a Seattle activist who skipped high school to watch the McCarthy-Army Hearings. Having seen it get better and worse and better again over the years, he continues to hope he will experience equality in his lifetime. The Space Needle Challenge can be accessed at Pride Needle.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

on

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

on

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.