Connect with us

The Big Tent

Published

on

It’s Time The Most Diverse Group In History Became One

 

 

As an independent voice in LGBT politics, I have the luxury and the responsibility to support those ideas that bring us closer to our goals. I received an email yesterday from Tacoma Washington resident and Board Chair of Tacoma Rainbow Center, Willie Painter. In it, he addresses an issue I have struggled with over the past few months: our diversity, which is our greatest strength, is under-utilized, untapped, and, as a result, is becoming our Achilles heel. Our diversity has led us to our recent wins in Vermont, Maine, even Iowa, but is also inhibiting our ability to address challenges with one clear voice in the battlegrounds of New Hampshire, New York, and especially California. In fact, California has become the “Groundhog Day” in our fight for equality: we continue to loose there, over and over, and we will continue to do so until we figure out how to move our message forward.

It’s no secret we lost California because we didn’t talk to the right people, use the right words, or use our greatest strength: our selves. That’s changing, and, while the travesty that is Proposition 8 has won and won again, we are moving towards the right message. But our adversaries are waging an all-out war, using the most heinous of all weapons: lies told about children, using children. It’s time we call NOM and others on this ugly tactic.

We have simple truths: we are the faceless, nameless, average, ordinary citizens who live simple lives, unknown to most, and we are the superstars of stage and screen, science, and services. Many of us want families, and children, and many of us do not. There is a strong meme wafting about the Internet right now, bemoaning the gentrification and assimilation of our outliers, our most colorful and unique members. But the more we wage these battles within our group, the more we risk taking our eye off the ball. Already, this week, we let the media control the conversation: instead of focusing our energies on next week’s fight in New Hampshire, or the three weeks left in our New York battle, or the work left to do on the Hate Crimes Bill, we let our anger over a lost Proposition 8 move our efforts. Now, we risk two losses: the one we have already lost over and over in California, and, in my opinion, the more important battle in New Hampshire. Why more important? Because our battle in New Hampshire was won, by the people already there. They won the war the right way: by being themselves, convincing their friends and neighbors without outside armies. And, since 2003, the majority of New Hampshire voters support gay marriage. For us to loose a tangible result of the battle in which we have already won hearts and minds is inexcusable.

All this brings me back to where I started. I received an email yesterday from Willie Painter, a man I have never met, never spoken with, and until yesterday had never even heard of. We have exchanged a few emails now. And now, I will share with you his message. And following it, the thoughts of two of our better-known LGBT orgainzations: Freedom To Marry, and The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Dear LGBTQ organization leaders:

In the past 24 hours, I have been solicited for donations by Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, my state’s local Equal Rights Washington, and a handful of others! All these aforementioned organizations have communicated their opinions regarding the California Supreme Court’s decision in response to Prop. 8. All these aforementioned organizations have made a plea for funds to enable them to advocate on behalf of LGBTQ people in the fight for marriage equality. However, in all of these communications, there has been no indication that these wonderful, like-minded organizations (and presumably many other federal and state LGBTQ organizations with a mission that seeks equality under the law for LGBTQ citizens) are collaborating and using donations in a collective, leveraging way to most effectively fight for equality on behalf of all those of us who desire and seek to get married and have marriage rights legally recognized in every state, throughout the United States.

We are strongest when we collaborate, when like-minded organizations are completely transparent with one another and their respective stakeholders, and when donors know that their donations are maximized by the leveraged use of their precious funds. I believe that we will soon see a day when LGBTQ people have the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts in every state. That day will come much sooner when all LGBTQ organizations commit and actively work together in ways that leverage the collective power of their respective supporters/volunteers/donors. So, that is a challenge I offer to all those in leadership positions of our LGBTQ organizations throughout the United States. And I, hopefully just like all the other hundreds of thousands of US citizens just like me, want our day, the day of true and actual equality, to come sooner rather than later. And I am confident that the hundred of thousands of US citizens just like me will become more actively involved than ever when LGBTQ organizations throughout the United States unite on this common front that will define this remarkable period in our humanity.

I ask you leaders to strongly consider holding a summit to tie the bond that your respective organizations share–equality. Please seek to find a way to most effectively and collaboratively advocate on behalf of us LGBTQ people in the United States who, perhaps more than ever before, need your leadership during this pivotal time of our shared future, soon to be our shared history. Let’s together make the transition from future to history one that we can all be proud of.

Sincerely,

Willie Painter

I reached out to a few friends in the LGBTQ arena. I’m grateful to them for their responses:

“While we know all of our partners in the movement for the freedom to marry work hard to collaborate, it’s also true that there should be more.  With the progress recently achieved in the number of states joining Massachusetts and Connecticut in embracing marriage and the increasing efforts being made by our opponents to slow that progress through fear and innuendo, now is clearly the time for us all to work together as closely and forcefully as possible.  We need to win more states and build the climate for change nationally, and that will only happen if we all individually talk about why marriage matters with our friends and family, neighbors and colleagues while helping to support a co-ordinated, collaborative movement of partner organizations, both gay and non-gay, in the struggle to end discrimination in marriage. “   —  Evan Wolfson, Freedom To Marry

“We agree that a collaborating movement is a stronger movement! The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has worked with numerous LGBT and non-LGBT organizations over the last 36 years. While each LGBT organization makes a unique contribution to our movement, we are proud of our extensive history of collaborative initiatives. For example, we:
work in partnership with SAGE (the premier LGBT organization working on aging issues) to address LGBT aging concerns and we receive collaborative funding for this work;
work in ongoing coalition with many national LGBT advocacy organizations in lobbying for pro-LGBT legislation and administration policy changes;
have hosted for over a decade the National Policy Roundtable (over 35 national LGBT organizations coordinating policy work and sharing strategies) and the National Religious Leadership Roundtable (a convening of over 65 faith leaders working to counter religious-based bigotry and promote understanding of and respect for LGBT people);
worked side by side with state, local and national organizations to win marriage equality in Massachusetts and Maine, and work with states across the country on nondiscrimination measures and marriage equality. And we have worked in partnership with organizations in California for over five years on marriage equality.
Our National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change has been called the “Town Square of the Movement,” where our colleagues come together to strategize about collaborative efforts, share resources and hone new skills and technologies. We invite advocates and activists from across the country to join us for next year’s Creating Change in Dallas, Texas.

We are honored to collaborate with so many talented and dynamic organizations.”
—  Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

For the record, I agree with Willie: It’s time our LGBTQ organizations find a way to work together, publicly, to move the ball forward. Our diversity is most effective when it’s leveraged. Together.

So, what’s your thought? How do you feel our leaders are serving us? What do you feel are the necessary next steps for us to achieve full equality, in marriage and civil rights, for all LGBTQ peoples?

(image: thms.nl)

Related Topics:
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

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

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

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

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

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

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

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

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

22 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

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

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.