Waymon Hudson2013-05-19T15:31:10-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=waymon-hudsonCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Waymon HudsonGood old fashioned elbow grease.From Anita Bryant to Today: 'Critical Thinking' Debunks the 'Save Our Children' Argument (VIDEO)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27842142013-03-01T19:56:00-05:002013-05-01T05:12:01-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson focuses on the anti-gay myth that has been blocking LGBT equality progress for decades: the vicious and debunked "Save Our Children" argument that gays are somehow dangerous to children. It is a narrative that we see far too often in political discourse, cultural issue debates and legal fights. Law Professor Anthony Niedwiecki, who teaches "Law and Sexual Orientation" at the John Marshall Law School and has written extensively about this long-debunked argument, discusses this false narrative, from its historical roots in the days of Anita Bryant to its use in political campaigns to its current place in cases being heard by the Supreme Court. It is a timely discussion, as we still see these arguments being used in debates and discussions over LGBT rights.
Though this argument is continually being taken apart in the long, deliberative, fact-based process of court cases, the emotional impact of the "Save Our Children" myth still holds considerable weight in cultural debates. For example, during the recent debate over the Boy Scouts of America possibly ending its ban on openly gay scouts and leaders, conservative commentators continued to push this long-disproven claim that gays are dangerous to children, in order to incite fear. People like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, televangelist Pat Robertson, Fox News host Mike Huckabee, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer and Linda Harvey of Mission: America all pushed the erroneous and damaging connection between pedophila and homosexuality across various news outlets.
Looking at the just how deeply ingrained this damaging "Save Our Children" narrative has become in our culture proves how much more work needs to be done in our fight for LGBT equality. The idea that our community is in any way harmful to children not only affects every issue facing us, from marriage to employment discrimination, but it also dehumanizes us and devalues our families.
A new report from Political Research Associates, "The Right's Marriage Message: Talking Tolerance, Marketing Inequality," reveals the impact of the "Save Our Children" argument used by equality opponents and how we can continue to weaken its efficacy. The report showed that during California's Prop 8 campaign in 2008 and Maine's Question 1 campaign in 2009, nearly every anti-marriage-equality advertisement warned voters that legalizing same-sex marriage would force public schools to discuss same-sex relationships and sexual behavior with children, arguments that propelled both anti-equality ballot measures to victory. Yet in the 2012 election, fewer than half the ads in the four state ballot measures featured "Save Our Kids" messaging, and often as only a side note to the main theme -- and all those campaigns lost.
This clearly shows that our civil rights struggle isn't just about the important fight for passing laws and pushing court cases but about educating our fellow Americans about our lives, our families and our values. We must continue to point out and combat this long-ago-disproven narrative with our own stories of love. Only with constant vigilance, continued political and legal pressure and, perhaps most importantly, visibility can we relegate this offensive and damaging narrative to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Make sure you catch the entire interview on Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson on Gay TV on the Go, and join the show's discussions on Twitter with the hashtag #CriticalThinkingTV, and on our Critical Thinking Facebook page.]]>A Conversation About Intersections of Race and LGBT Issues (VIDEO)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25434312013-01-28T22:00:00-05:002013-03-30T05:12:01-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson turns its focus to what for too long has been seen as a divide in the fight for civil rights and equality: the intersection of race and LGBT issues. Constitutional law professor Olympia Duhart, who has also written a companion piece to this one, about the critical need for alliances between minority communities, sits down to discuss how race and LGBT issues connect, how lack of visibility for LGBT people of color hurts both their rights and the movement as a whole, and how we combat cynical efforts from opponents of equality to divide minority communities in the effort to stop the march toward equal rights.
The commonalities between the struggles for equal and civil rights among all communities have come into sharp focus recently, thanks in large part to the historic speech from President Barack Obama on his second inauguration. In his speech the president not only called for equality for LGBT Americans but included a reference to the Stonewall riots, widely seen as the start of the modern LGBT rights movement, along with mentions of Seneca Falls and Selma in a list of historic civil rights moments. The inclusion of the LGBT rights struggle as part of the larger, shared American experience of fighting for civil rights among women and people of color highlighted the intersections and commonalities that many minority groups face when seeking equality under the law.
But beyond the shared historic fight, talk of racial and LGBT equality often seeks to discuss the two struggles as separate, completely ignoring the fact that LGBT people of color exist. It is that separation that can cause real harm to LGBT people of color, who are often harder hit by discrimination and more marginalized in their needs due to the combined exposure to anti-gay and/or anti-transgender policies and institutionalized racial discrimination.
For example, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Program's annual report on hate violence motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity and expression showed that over 70 percent of these victims were people of color, while 44 percent of them were transgender women. Transgender people of color are also almost 2.5 times as likely to experience discrimination as their white peers.
A recent report by the Center for American Progress' FIRE Initiative also found that this combination of anti-LGBT bias and racial discrimination derails black gay and transgender Americans' financial stability, creates barriers to accessing quality health care and erodes safeguards for LGBT families. This is also true for other LGBT communities of color, like Hispanic, Native American and Asian communities.
Consequently, this combination causes LGBT people of color to face high rates of unemployment or underemployment, overall lower rates of pay, higher rates of poverty and a greater likelihood of being uninsured. The youth in these communities also experience lower educational attainment and higher rates of homelessness than their peers. Unwelcoming school climates, employment discrimination and outdated family policies -- which bar LGBT parents from having legal relationships to their children and limit their access to safety net programs, family tax credits and health insurance -- perpetuate these negative outcomes.
Professor Duhart perfectly sums up why examining these intersections of race and LGBT identities are so vital, saying, "[T]he alliances we are forming are forged in common struggles. In many cases we are fighting common oppressors. By building bridges instead of barriers, we make the march easier for all of us on this long and arduous journey."
Professor Duhart goes on to to describe why embracing these commonalities matter:
This is a lesson that members of all oppressed communities -- and anyone committed to social justice -- should remember. Racism and homophobia intersect in complex ways to affect the lives of LGBT people of color and all of us. Rather than redeploying oppressive strategies against each other, people from disenfranchised communities are finally learning to focus on commonalities. The struggle for civil rights is expansive and universal. The work to be done is exhaustive.
Until we acknowledge the interconnectivity of our communities, including the common oppressors that seek to keep minority communities less powerful by dividing them, these staggering numbers will continue to build. By having these conversations, not only will we gain allies in the fight for civil rights, but we will become allies in struggles that lift up all minority communities by expanding racial, social, gender and economic justice.
Our goal should be, quite simply, equality for all.
Make sure you catch the entire interview onCritical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudsonon Gay TV on the Go, and join the show's discussions on Twitter with the hashtag #WaymonWrapUp, and on our Critical Thinking Facebook page.]]>Inauguration Reflections: By Linking Stonewall With Seneca Falls and Selma, Obama Reminds Us That LGBT Rights Are Civil Rightstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25295402013-01-23T16:21:00-05:002013-03-25T05:12:01-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/
To be sure, having our president call for full equality for gay Americans in what is one of the biggest and most viewed speeches of his presidency is monumental. "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well," Obama said to cheering crowds. He made this statement not only before the entire nation but mere feet from the Supreme Court justices who will be deciding two historic legal cases regarding marriage equality this term: California's Prop 8 case and a challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
But more important than the meaningful (and not-to-be-downplayed) nod to gays and lesbians was Obama's more far-reaching inclusion of the struggle for LGBT equality in the broader civil rights history of the United States. "We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths, that all of us are created equal, is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall." With this thundering line President Obama gave recognition to the commonality of our civil rights struggles, from women's suffrage to African-American civil rights to LGBT equality. He took the story of the LGBT community's fight for equality and folded it completely into the fabric of what America really means.
This inclusion goes beyond simple words. For the first black president, on both his second inauguration and the federal holiday recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to so completely embrace the LGBT rights struggle as part of our common experience is to turn the page on the idea of "gay rights as special rights" that so many opponents of equality use, instead embracing the idea of a shared American quest for civil rights and justice under the law.
There are moments in history when a speech can transcend words and actually become action, and that is precisely what weaving the story of the Stonewall riots (which birthed the modern LGBT rights movement) into the American experience of "becoming a more perfect union" did. The fight for LGBT equality is no longer the story of a small group seeking its rights; it has become part of the American story of civil rights and freedom.
This fuller integration and recognition of LGBT Americans was apparent not only in Obama's historic words but in the choices of who would speak and participate in the inauguration itself. The first openly gay inaugural poet, Richard Blanco, delivered his poem "One Today." The Rev. Luis Leon of St. John's Episcopal Church in D.C. delivered the benediction and made reference to gay Americans in his prayer. (He replaced Rev. Louie Giglio, who withdrew from the ceremony when an anti-gay sermon he'd delivered in the mid 1990s surfaced.) Even Michelle Obama's inaugural ball gown was made by openly gay designer Jason Wu.
As the president said, our journey is not complete. But what we witnessed on inauguration day was a dramatic shift, and a long-fought-for victory for inclusion and recognition. Our fight -- the decades-long fight of LGBT people for the right to fully live the American dream -- is truly an American endeavor that we all must take part in.
The spirit of Stonewall was alive and well at the inauguration -- and it lives on to carry us forward in the fights ahead.]]>Critical Thinking Gives LGBT Post-Election Analysis (VIDEO)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21844972012-11-27T13:31:00-05:002013-01-27T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/Critical Thinking, I break down the historic 2012 election.
Without a doubt, election night was a landslide victory for equality. Watching the historic results roll in on issues and candidates that matter to the progress of civil rights for LGBTQ people was truly a snapshot of just how much, and how quickly, this country has changed on social issues.
Throughout the episode I discuss the huge wins for equality around the country -- and how the LGBTQ community can move forward with the momentum witnessed for civil rights.
Make sure you catch the entire interview on Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson on Gay Chicago TV, with new episodes added every month. You can join the show's discussions on Twitter with the hashtag #WaymonWrapUp, and on our Critical Thinking Facebook page.]]>Historic Election for Equality Means We Must Work Even Hardertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20896832012-11-08T15:14:00-05:002013-01-08T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/
Obviously the reelection of President Obama is a huge win for LGBT equality. Bringing back the first sitting president who not only came out in support of marriage equality but signed comprehensive hate crimes legislation and ended "don't ask, don't tell" proved that supporting and legislating equality isn't the political suicide opponents said it would be. In fact, his party's out-of-touch views on social issues like LGBT rights were actively used against Mitt Romney, who was endorsed by groups like the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage. The president's reelection proves that vocal support for our rights can now be seen as a political plus, and that regressive policies about equality are politically damaging.
Election Day also saw the end of a long pattern of losses for state-level marriage equality at the ballot box. We saw first-of-their-kind marriage equality victories in three new states -- Maine, Maryland and Washington -- and also saw the defeat a marriage rights ban in Minnesota. Remember, just a few short years ago we lost marriage rights in the reliably liberal state of California with Prop 8. Now we have a historic clean sweep for equality around the country. Equality opponents poured millions of dollars into fighting basic rights for LGBT people and their families -- and the electorate finally rejected the lies, smears and scare tactics used against our community for decades. As Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley so finely put it, "A message to Maryland's kids: whether your parents happen to be gay or straight, your families are equal under the law."
We also saw records shatter in the federal government as an unprecedented number of LGBT candidates got elected to Congress. The Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus will grow with the addition of three new members: Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who is poised to become the first openly bisexual member of Congress; Mark Takano (D-Calif.), first Asian-American openly gay member of Congress; and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.). They join several reelected and newly elected LGBT equality supporters in both chambers. Another rainbow glass ceiling shattered with the election of Tammy Baldwin, a lesbian, as the historic first out LGBT United States Senator. Less reported but just as important is that fact that we saw a huge number of state legislatures get their first out LGBT lawmakers ever. North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, New Mexico, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania all got out LGBT lawmakers in state government for the first time in history. Having a government on all levels that better reflects the diversity of our country, and our community's place in it, is truly amazing and groundbreaking.
Beyond the sheer historic number of equality wins on Election Day, we see an even more important fact emerging: Being anti-equality isn't good, or even safe, politics anymore. And that is a huge change in a short period of time.
And therein lies the real lesson from this election: We have to harness that equality momentum.
The wins of out and allied lawmakers at all levels of government, from the presidency down to local city commissions, is vitally important. But now the real work begins. We have to use these political tools given to us to push forward on vital LGBT issues, like a comprehensive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, in this next cycle. We have to seize the narrative from this election and drive home the truth to anti-equality politicians and organizations alike that they do not have the support of the American people and will pay for it at the ballot box. We have to continue to shine a light on the fact that opponents of LGBT equality are also the same people making "legitimate rape" comments and telling minorities to "self-deport" so that we can continue to build on the large network of fair-minded voters, organizations and communities fighting for their equality, as well.
Equality has turned a corner in our country, and there is no going back. But what we do with the victories we worked so hard for this election cycle is truly up to us. Now is when we roll up our sleeves and continue our march toward full equality.
As Ted Kennedy said at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, "The work begins anew, the hope rises again, and the dream lives on."]]>Election 2012: Trust Romney... Because He's Lying?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20583892012-11-01T17:14:00-04:002013-01-01T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/great! Trust us!" They can't defend his views because they can't nail any of them down without them changing the next day.
If his constant flip-flopping and contortions during the campaign are any indication, his presidency would be a rubber stamp for dangerous, regressive policies put forward in this year's Republican Party Platform, whose sections on social issues were written by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group.
The danger of a malleable Mitt Romney has been a common theme this election cycle, and for good reason. Romney has proven that whatever his core values are, they aren't strong enough to buck the rightward trend of his party.
Even Romney's choice of a running mate, Paul Ryan, should give sane and educated voters pause. Paul Ryan is the perfect face of today's extreme GOP, seeking to hide extreme social conservatism under talk of supposed conservative fiscal views. His record echoes that of the Republican legislators in power in Congress and in states across this country, and it is reflected in the party's 2012 platform. Republicans claim to be all about the economy and jobs, yet their actions and legislative records speak of a different agenda: to push our country's social progress back decades by attacking women's rights, LGBT rights and the social safety net that are part of the very fabric of our country. And anyone who thinks a strong-willed vice president and a vocal party can't shape a malleable president needs only to look back three short years ago, to the influence of Vice President Dick Cheney on President George W. Bush. Sometimes a vice president isn't even a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Even supporters of Romney are now trying desperately to spin his lack of moral certainty as a good thing. Conservative columnist David Brooks tried his best at this game in The New York Times in a rather shocking endorsement of Romney entitled "The Upside of Opportunism." Yes, in this new Romneyverse, political opportunism should be praised as a good thing in leaders, with Brooks actually saying, "Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done." Somehow the impossible leap from flip-flopper to strong leader able to wrangle intransigence happens in the space of one sentence.
That same argument was the basis of the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement of Romney. Among other anti-gay stances, Romney signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge to support a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, force a referendum on marriage equality in Washington, D.C., appoint anti-equality federal judges, defend DOMA in courts and create a panel on ''religious freedom'' to address the imaginary assault on Christians. Yet despite his long history of anti-LGBT views, the Log Cabin Republicans decided that Romney's malleability was a good thing and that his lack of conviction would really work out for us all in the end, saying that the NOM pledge was simply "an empty promise made to a vocal but shrinking constituency. ... In our judgment, the NOM pledge is ultimately merely symbolic and thus should not be the basis of a decision to withhold an endorsement."
That's right: They honestly call a signed pledge an "empty promise." Of course, don't tell NOM that, because they endorsed Romney because of his pledge to them. The argument for Romney has become: "You can't really trust anything he says, so just trust that he'll flip-flop in the direction you want." That's an interesting knot to tie oneself into.
As for a post-election Romney, does anyone honestly think he won't be driven by the extreme fringe currently controlling the GOP? He's going to suddenly grow a bipartisan moral compass and buck the party he needs to support him so that he can get reelected for a second term? If he'll act like he's acted during this election just to get into office, what makes you think he'll be any different as he tries to stay in office?
Talk about "leading from behind."
In Romney's new political world, lying, lack of leadership, directionless pandering and moral ambiguity aren't things to run from but things to embrace. Forgive me if I don't simply "trust" that Romney and the extreme voices running the GOP will suddenly break out in enlightenment and bipartisan handholding after a contentious election.
When things like my basic rights and equality as an American are at stake, I prefer to base my vote on policy and facts, not those "empty promises" touted by Romney's supporters.]]>The Victory Fund Talks Electing LGBT Politicians With Gay Chicago TVtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19225422012-09-28T14:01:59-04:002012-11-28T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/LGBT politics show Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson turns its focus to the upcoming elections to discuss the importance of electing out LGBT politicians and leaders -- and how that can change the face of American politics and LGBT rights.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender office holders are our clearest and most convincing champions for true equality. As leaders in government, they become the face and voice of our community. They challenge the lies of extremists and speak authentically about themselves, their families and our community.
One of the most effective organizations working to achieve that goal is the Victory Fund, a nonpartisan organization that helps LGBT leaders win elections and then serve effectively. Since its inception in 1991, the Victory Fund has helped thousands of openly LGBT candidates win election to local, state and federal offices.
To help break down the the importance of having LGBT leaders in office, this episode of Critical Thinking features an in-depth discussion with Chuck Wolfe, President and CEO of the Victory Fund and Institute. To speak with Mr. Wolfe, the show traveled to Wisconsin, one of the main battlegrounds for the LGBT community that is looking to make history with the election of Tammy Baldwin, an out lesbian, as the first openly LGBT member of the Senate. The interview discusses the importance of having LGBT leaders elected, some of the races around the country this election cycle, and the work the Victory Fund does to train and educate future politicians.
Getting directly involved in politics and having our voices heard is vitally important to the movement for LGBT equality. That is why we need to run for office at every level of government -- and support those in our community that step up to represent us. Visibility in the political process, whether it be at the national and state level or city commissions and local school boards, can have huge impacts. By being part of the political process and having visibility in people's every day lives, we can break down stereotypes, remove stigma, and literally change hearts and minds by putting a human face on our community
Having that all important seat at the political table changes the debate on LGBT rights. It becomes harder for hostile lawmakers to make inflammatory, false, and degrading statements about our community when they have to look one of their fellow legislators who is openly LGBT in the eye day in and day out. Having our voices in the debate and in the political decision making process itself is vital to continuing the momentum for equality, fairness, and civil rights.
There is nothing more powerful than having someone in power who knows our community's issues because they live them every day.
Make sure you catch the entire interview on Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson on Gay Chicago TV, with new episodes added every second and fourth Thursday of the month. You can join the show's discussions on Twitter with the hashtag #WaymonWrapUp, and on our Critical Thinking Facebook page.]]>This Is What DOMA Discrimination Looks Like (PHOTO)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19127012012-09-26T19:36:00-04:002012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/
And then you get a letter in the mail reminding you of just that.
My husband, whom I legally wed in California prior to Proposition 8 passing (thereby being grandfathered into a state of pseudo-marriage-equality limbo), got a letter in the mail from TIAA-CREF Financial Services, entitled "Notice Regarding Civil Unions in the State of Illinois." The letter, like a slap in the face, laid out in stark terms exactly how the patchwork of rights created by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) affects same-sex couples in ways many don't even consider.
The letter states:
Pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), same-sex couples and civil unions are not recognized for the purposes of federal law. Therefore, the favorable income-deferral options afforded by federal tax law to an opposite-sex spouse under Internal Revenue Code sections 72(s) and 401(a)(9) and "spousal continuation" rights are currently not available to a party in a civil union.
PHOTO:
This is what discrimination looks like, even when it comes in a form letter. There on a page, in black and white, is a reminder to same-sex couples that their relationships aren't viewed as equal in the eyes of their government. I'm not sure many heterosexual couples can imagine what it's like to open your mail and get a letter like this out of the blue, a written dig at your life and family. Being reminded, even by something as innocuous as a tax update about life insurance or annuity plans, can still sting.
We fight for marriage equality for a reason. People who think that civil unions are equal "just without the word marriage" need only look at the harsh language of this simple form letter to see that nothing short of full equality for all couples will be enough. And to be sure, the anger that is felt when we get caught off guard by moments like these only fuels us to fight harder.
There will be a day when reminders of our inequity, of how we are viewed as second-class citizens by our government, like this tax notice, will be a thing of the past. But until then I'll keep opening our mail with that little feeling of trepidation, always wondering what insult to the life and family we've built may be lurking inside.]]>Election 2012: Voter ID Laws, Suppression, and Equalitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18986132012-09-20T18:34:00-04:002012-11-20T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/ History of Voting Rights and Disenfranchisement in the U.S.
Voter suppression and disenfranchisement are nothing new in our country. After our country was founded and the Constitution was adopted in 1787, only white, male property owners (a mere 10 percent to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the right to vote. The act of voting was reserved for rich, white males, leaving out women, minorities, and poor people. Voting was slowly expanded throughout the 1800s to other groups of men, but ways to suppress the vote of non-white and non-wealthy citizens ran rampant throughout the country. Literacy tests and poll taxes, prerequisites for voting, had the effect of disenfranchising many people of color as well as poor whites. States even made up impossible hurdles for voting, like the "eight box law," whereby voters were required to place ballots in correct boxes, which were then shifted throughout the day. The battle for women's suffrage went on even longer. Voting rights for women were first proposed in July 1848, yet it took 72 years of protest and activism for the 19th Amendment to become law in 1920.
It wasn't until 1957 that the Civil Rights Act was passed, setting up the Civil Rights Commission, which has among its duties investigation into voter discrimination. Disenfranchising poll taxes were finally outlawed in 1964 with the adoption of the 24th Amendment. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed to protect the rights of minority voters, eliminating voting barriers such as the literacy test.
With the often bloody and hard struggles to win and protect voting, it is amazing, yet perhaps not surprising, given our history, that a new move to roll back these hard-won rights is underway in many states around the country.
Current Voter Suppression and Disenfranchisement Efforts
It seems that many in our country haven't learned from this past and are doomed to repeat it.
In 2011 Republicans gained control of both chambers in 26 state legislatures, with 21 of those states also having GOP governors. Republican-controlled legislatures have passed a wide range of new bills that restrict, rather than broaden, access to the voting rights.
The numbers are staggering. At least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced in 41 states since the beginning of 2011. There are 27 restrictive bills currently pending in six states. Twenty-five laws and two executive actions have passed in 19 states since the beginning of 2011. Seventeen states have passed restrictive voting laws that have the potential to affect the 2012 election; these states account for 218 electoral votes, or nearly 80 percent of the total needed to win the presidency. These GOP-led efforts impose a series of new restrictions on voting: strict, new voter-ID laws, limits on voter-registration drives, and closing early-voting windows, which creates fewer voting precincts and longer lines.
Photo ID mandates are the most pervasive new restriction on the right to vote. In 2011 Republicans proposed in more than 30 states laws requiring Americans to possess and show unexpired, government-issued photo identification as a prerequisite to voting. The new requirements and costs associated with photo-ID laws are quite simply a new form of poll tax. And the the laws don't solve any problem with voter fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University found fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare, saying:
Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible... Most allegations of voter fraud simply evaporate when more rigorous analysis is conducted.
This year the Department of Justice has struck down voter-ID laws in Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Wisconsin under the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that states with a history of racially discriminatory voting procedures get their laws cleared by the DOJ. But many states either have tougher news laws that disenfranchise voters or are still in the middle of the judicial process that will decide if these laws stand. This uncertainty in the laws around voting rights and requirements creates confusion and doubt and further alienates voters in targeted groups.
Beyond Numbers: Voter Suppression's Impacts
Each tactic disproportionately burdens the same voters: youth, students, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, seniors, low-income voters, and Americans with disabilities. Voter-suppression efforts, like newly enacted photo-ID laws, will also have a disproportionately harmful impact on those who are transgender. According to a recent study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, over 25,000 otherwise eligible transgender voters could be turned away at their polling places come November due to the potential discrepancy between a voter's gender identity and his or her designated sex on state-issued identification. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) found over 40 percent of transgender men and women do not have an ID that accurately reflects their gender.
Removing these voters from the equation affects not only the presidential race (which could have dire consequences on many policies affecting the country) but down-ticket races for state legislature and judge seats (which could have a huge impact on issues like women's rights and LGBT equality). The removal of voters more likely to lean socially moderate or liberal also has a potentially outcome-altering impact on state ballot initiatives, like gay-marriage bans on the ballots in many states in 2012.
For example, almost all the Republican photo-ID mandates make it more difficult for students to vote. In Texas you can vote with a gun license but not a student ID. South Carolina and Tennessee expressly prohibit the use of student IDs, while Wisconsin allows student IDs but has strict qualifications that no university ID in the state currently meets. Suppressing young, progressive voters does more than just changing the outcome of one presidential election: It shapes social policy by removing their voices from the process and disenfranchising them for years to come. This would set progress on social issues back decades, from reproductive rights to minority issues to LGBT equality.
We have seen throughout our history how restricting voting rights doesn't strengthen us as a country; it muffles the voices of the very people who most need to be heard. Voter suppression and disenfranchisement is about fear of progress and change. Silencing swathes of the electorate for political gain may seem like a good idea in the short run, but it causes our country to stagnate. These laws prove some haven't learned from the mistakes and growth of those before us who fought and died for the right to cast that ballot on Election Day.
Voting can't be taken for granted, nor can its impact on us all.]]>Gay Chicago TV Talks Lesbian Political Power With LPAC Chair Sarah Schmidt (VIDEO)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18749902012-09-17T11:49:00-04:002012-11-17T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/The latest episode of Gay Chicago TV's LGBT politics show Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson takes on the topic of super PACs, specifically the new lesbian super PAC LPAC, which is the first political action committee focused directly on amplifying the political power of the lesbian community.
After the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, money poured into elections with the creation of super PACs -- political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. While the vast majority of that unlimited money has been flowing directly to conservative groups and causes, like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, progressives are trying to play catchup to the new, no-holds-barred rules of campaign finance. And it is certainly an uphill battle. Conservative super PACs have far outpaced their liberal counterparts in 2012, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Liberal super PACs spent a total of $31.1 million dollars through the end of July, while conservatives spent $137.1 million dollars -- over four times as much.
One group trying to balance that out is LPAC. The organization intends to back federal and state candidates as well as some ballot measures. All targets of the group's support must back an end to discrimination for LGBT individuals; reproductive rights and access to quality health care; and social, racial, and economic justice. LPAC's advisory board includes powerful women like Chicago Cubs co-owner Laura Ricketts and longtime LGBT leader Urvashi Vaid. The group has also drawn support from prominent women in the lesbian community, like Jane Lynch and Billie Jean King.
To help break down the issues around super PACs, this episode of Critical Thinking features an in-depth discussion with LPAC chair and spokesperson Sarah Schmidt about the group's mission, the races they are throwing their support behind, how LPAC is focusing on transparency with donors, and why having women's voices in politics is vital for our country. The mission of LPAC and their important efforts to get strong, progressive women into office is highlighted by the recent attacks on women's rights we've seen this political cycle, from stomach-churning "legitimate rape" rhetoric to laws requiring forced ultrasounds to regressive attacks on birth control.
The topic of super PACs and money in politics is extremely complex but vitally important as we move forward with issues we care about. If we didn't use superPACs for our causes, we'd be handicapping ourselves and our issues by not trying to combat the outpouring of conservative and anti-LGBT money flowing to our opponents. We also need to change these laws around money in politics and fix the damage created by Citizens United and unlimited spending by super PACs.
There is no simple answer. But one thing is clear: We must fight against this broken political system and still live in it so we can effect that change. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. It's like they say in politics: If you don't have a seat at the table, most likely you're on the menu.
Make sure you catch the entire interview onCritical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudsonon Gay Chicago TV, with new episodes added every second and fourth Thursday of the month. You can join the show's discussions on Twitter with the hashtag #WaymonWrapUp, and on our Critical Thinking Facebook page.]]>Election 2012: LGBT Equality Is an Economic Issuetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18749612012-09-14T15:55:00-04:002012-11-14T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/ Jobs, Wages, Poverty, and Workplace Discrimination
While some may try to separate the need for a focus on jobs and economic recovery from LGBT equality, the two are closely connected for many in the LGBT community. While media portrayals of affluent, white gays dominate the airwaves, the truth is that LGBT people face higher rates of joblessness, lower wages, and higher rates of poverty than their heterosexual counterparts, due in large part to the compounded issues of workplace discrimination and a slow economic recovery.
LGBT people, particularly LGBT people of color, face significant discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Recent studies show that anywhere from 15 to 43 percent of gay people experience some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. For transgender Americans, the situation is even worse, with a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers reporting some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.
To be clear, it is still perfectly legal to fire, or to refuse to hire, someone for no other reason than the fact they are gay or transgender, or even perceived as such, in the majority of states. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, while just 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.
This pervasive discrimination against LGBT people leads to vast socioeconomic inequalities. Discrimination directly causes job instability and high turnover, resulting in greater unemployment and poverty rates for LGBT people, which strikes doubly hard in tough economic times.
The discrimination also leads to a wage gap between LGBT and straight workers. Gay men earn 10- to 32-percent less than similarly qualified heterosexual males, while older gay and lesbian adults experience higher poverty rates than their heterosexual counterparts. Findings also show that lesbian women across the board are consistently poorer than their heterosexual counterparts. Transgender people are twice as likely to be unemployed and are four times as likely to live in poverty. Nearly 20 percent have been or are currently homeless due to the issues stemming from workplace discrimination.
The economic news for LGBT families is startling, as well. Being denied the legal protections and economic safeguards provided to married heterosexual couples and parents contributes to higher economic insecurity for LGBT families. A 2009 Williams Institute report, "Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples," finds that same-sex couples often pay more in taxes than heterosexual couples because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. The report shows that the economic impact of marriage discrimination is significant: Same-sex couples are not able to file federal joint tax returns, cannot transfer property tax to their partners freely, and are not eligible for Social Security survival benefits.
And again, all these numbers multiply when factors like race and gender are added to the mix for LGBT people and their families.
This job insecurity in the LGBT community often results in insufficient income, sporadic health-care coverage, and inadequate or unsafe housing. The issues that many Americans are facing are compounded because of systemic discrimination on many fronts for the LGBT community, from employment discrimination to lack of relationship recognition.
It's the Economy, Stupid
So while many may criticize the LGBT community for focusing on basic equality and protections from discrimination, it is clear that these issues directly affect the economic stability of our lives and families. To try to claim that calls of "jobs, jobs, jobs" is more important than, or not even connected to, issues of equality is to deny the complex and systemic history of bias and discrimination that hurts LGBT people, women, and people of color.
That's why fully inclusive nondiscrimination laws that protect all LGBT workers on the local, state, and federal levels are essential to boosting the economic security of our community. It is also why having equal access to civil marriage rights, health coverage, and governmental services is vital to LGBT people's economic well-being. Securing equal rights for all would ensure that bigotry and ignorance do not perpetuate joblessness and economic hardship in the LGBT community.
To pretend that there is no connection between LGBT rights and economic security is to speak from a position of disconnect that is steeped in dishonesty and affluent privilege. It is clear that you have one political party seeking to strip rights from LGBT people, to the point of writing those calls for continued discrimination into their party platform and into their candidate's stump speeches, which goes straight to the heart of economic insecurity for the LGBT community. You also have another party seeking to expand access to equality through both their platform and actions. The choice should be clear for LGBT Americans.
There is simply no denying that equality is an economic issue.]]>Election 2012: Rhetoric, the Record, and the Reality of Equalitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18591412012-09-06T20:31:00-04:002012-11-06T05:12:01-05:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/
Yet the rhetoric, with mindless soundbites and talking points flooding the airwaves, has somehow muddied the water, especially when it comes to the reality of each candidate's record. That rhetoric has at times obscured, and at other times purposefully obfuscated, what that choice really means -- especially when it comes to basic equality, civil rights, and social issues.
Rhetoric vs. the Record
One of the favored talking points that conservatives like to direct at the LGBT community is that "Obama is just pandering for your votes with his support of marriage equality." This nasty bit of campaign rhetoric has sunk into the psyche of some fiscally conservative members of the community and our equality allies, giving them an easy out for voting against basic civil rights with the idea that "Obama hasn't done anything concrete for equality."
But a look beyond that rhetoric, going deep into the record of both sides, tells a vastly different story.
The platform also criticizes the Obama administration's decision not to defend the horrendous Defense of Marriage Act in court, attacks the judiciary for making pro-LGBT decisions in states, and makes its arguments using attacks that denigrate and discount the lives and families of LGBT people. Even the choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate, who has one of the most anti-equality and socially extreme voting records in the Congress, further adds to a solid record of anti-LGBT positions.
The Obama Record on Equality
Beyond seeking to ease the consciences of those LGBT people who are fiscally conservative so that they can vote against their own interests, the "Obama doesn't care about gay people except for your votes" rhetoric is also meant to erase a long, solid record of movement toward LGBT equality by this administration.
While most people only talk about Obama's recent support of marriage equality or the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" as his lone accomplishments for LGBT rights, the record of the administration speaks for itself.
The administration's record on LGBT rights goes far beyond DADT repeal. Yes, he signed and implemented the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but he has also kept a vigilant eye on the process, including permitting military chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages where legal. Obama also signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, allowed transgender Americans to receive passports that reflect their gender identity without requiring them to show proof of gender-reassignment surgery, ended the Social Security Administration's gender "no-match" letters that unfairly targeted transgender citizens, and clarified the meaning of "family" to include LGBT relationships in order to help protect binational families threatened with the deportation of a same-sex spouse.
Beyond legislative action, Obama has moved quickly to include LGBT people and their rights in all areas of government, closing loopholes and long-held discriminatory practices that hurt many in the community. The administration announced the Department of Housing and Urban Development's new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders, released America's first comprehensive plan to prevent and end homelessness (which included homeless LGBT youth), hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in America's schools, and announced a White House LGBT Conference Series to address issues affecting LGBT Americans (including health, housing, and safety),
The Obama administration has made many concrete moves that have huge impacts on the lives of LGBT people when it comes to government jobs, as well. Obama ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, banned discrimination in federal workplaces based on gender identity, issued guidance to foster safer working environments for transgender federal employees, and ensured transgender veterans receive respectful care according to their true gender through the Veterans Health Administration.
When it comes to health care, the Obama administration has a record that goes beyond just enacting the Affordable Care Act, which contained many provisions that help the LGBT community's health needs. They clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees, promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-sex partner benefits on Healthcare.gov, completed a first-of-its-kind Institute of Medicine study on LGBT health, included specific data on health needs of lesbian and bisexual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration's "Women's Health USA 2011" federal report, and ensured hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for gay and lesbian patients. They even ended the discriminatory and sickening ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States.
The long record on fighting for LGBT rights goes beyond our borders, as well. The Obama administration led a United Nations measure to restore sexual orientation to the definition of human rights and created the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human-rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad.
Even the opposition's rhetoric about Obama just giving "lip service" to marriage equality for same-sex couples is completely false. One of the most important moves for our fight for marriage rights in the courts was this administration declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and announcing that they would no longer defend it in court. Beyond that game-changing move, Obama has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and supported lesbian widow Edith Windsor in her suit against DOMA. Even in his presidential proclamation of National Adoption Month, President Obama called for equal treatment for same-sex adoptive parents.
This long, detailed record of pro-equality moves by the Obama administration stands in stark contrast to the Republican Party, which has spent millions of taxpayer dollars defending DOMA in courts, opposed DADT repeal, criticized international involvement in LGBT human-rights abuses, and attacked LGBT rights on every front.
The Political Reality
What is amazing about the Republicans' rhetoric on LGBT rights is that they try to paint dueling pictures of the president's record on equality. On the one hand they seek to appease LGBT conservatives by saying he hasn't done anything for equality, and on the other they try to paint him as an advocate of the "radical homosexual agenda," to fire up the ever-shrinking group of social extremists who make up their current base. The very incongruent nature of those taking points should be the first sign that this rhetoric isn't based in reality in any way.
To be clear, there are times when the campaign and candidate rhetoric itself can be enlightening, like contrasting Ann Romney's "my real marriage" anti-gay dog-whistle speech with Michelle Obama's "proud Americans can ... boldly stand at the altar with who they love" convention speech. In fact, the content of the speeches and the inclusion of diverse faces and voices in the Democratic National Convention, compared with the erasure of, and at time open hostility to, LGBT Americans at the Republican National Convention, speaks volumes. Nearly every speech at the DNC has had multiple, substantive, policy-supported mentions of LGBT equality that were completely organic and turned into applause lines. That stands in stark contrast to the language of the RNC on equality, which ranged from openly hostile and demeaning to seeking to erase our families and lives from the conversation.
Elections are about debating what we want our country to be and where we want it to go. It's time to debate the issues based on the truth, not distortions. We can only have that debate if we cut through the rhetoric, remove the distractions, and talk about the real policies and records of the candidates. It may be easier to listen to the talking heads on TV spin their version of reality, but only by being an educated electorate can we really see the choice we have to make.]]>Republican National Convention Highlights the Dangers of a Malleable Mitt Romneytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18390272012-08-29T09:32:51-04:002012-10-29T05:12:04-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/
It's a telling lineup for a party trying desperately to sell the talking point that they are all about "jobs, jobs, jobs." Highlighting these truly radical speakers and elevating once fringe figures with extreme views highlights what the Republican Party of 2012 has truly become -- a party taken over by far-right zealots who distract with tax and deficit talk as they seek to legislate their own narrow definition of "morality."
And therein lies one of the most important, and underreported, problems of a Mitt Romney candidacy. Romney doesn't lead as much as follow the loudest voices in his party.
Romney has proven that whatever his core values are, they aren't strong enough to buck the rightward trend of his party. The mercurial, malleable Mitt would be a rubber stamp for dangerous, regressive policies put forward by a Republican party that wants to drive America back generations and erase hard won rights for many in our country.
Those regressive policies are on full display in this year's Republican Party Platform, which literally had the sections on social issues written by Tony Perkins, leader of the hate group the Family Research Council. Like the featured speakers at the convention, this anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-immigrant manifesto shows a party that has handed it's moral compass over to the most divisive and extreme voices once thought too be too far out of the mainstream. Those are the voices that will be calling the shots on the Republican governing policies and controlling an easily swayed President Romney, something we have already seen in the campaign as Romney continuously capitulated to social conservatives to shake off the "moderate Mitt" attack from opponents.
Even Romney's choice of a running mate, Paul Ryan, should give sane and educated voters pause. Paul Ryan is the perfect face of today's extreme GOP, seeking to hide extreme social conservatism under talk of supposed conservative fiscal views. His record echoes that of the Republican legislators in power in Congress and states across this country and that of the party's 2012 platform. They claim to be all about the economy and jobs, yet their actions and legislative records speak of a different agenda to push our country's social progress back decades by attacking women's rights, LGBT people, and the social safety net that are part of the very fabric of our country.
And anyone who thinks a strong willed Vice-President and vocal party can't shape a malleable President need only look back three short years to the influence of Dick Cheney on George W. Bush. Sometimes, a VP isn't even a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
So as the Republican party marches forward speakers at their carefully orchestrated convention, look at the message they are sending. Listen to the loudest voices in their party that are given a national platform, from Governor Bob " Forced Ultrasound" McDonnell to Mike "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation" Huckabee to Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. These are the voices calling the shots for the current party and shaping the agenda of a Romney presidency.]]>Election 2012: Party Platforms Highlight Stark Differences in Democratic and Republican Positions on LGBT Equalitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18191842012-08-24T18:50:00-04:002012-10-24T05:12:11-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/ The 2012 Democratic Party Platform
On the one hand, this year's Democratic Party platform is the most pro-LGBT in history, complete with support for both marriage equality and fully-inclusive employment nondiscrimination protections:
We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples...
We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
We know that putting America back to work is job one, and we are committed to ensuring Americans do not face employment discrimination. We support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because people should not be fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Having one of the two main parties include support for marriage equality, condemnation of the odious "Defense of Marriage Act," and support for a version of ENDA that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes is a historic move. Moreover, the language used, tying employment discrimination protections directly to the larger fiscal issue of job creation, shows a party that finally understands that for many in the LGBT community, social issues like equality are very much inexorably tied to fiscal and financial issues; many in the LGBT community get hit with the double struggle of a bad economy and still-legal employment discrimination against them.
The Democratic Party Platform shows a party willing to see where the majority of Americans are when it comes to basic equality for LGBT people. It also shows a party willing to move forward, despite vocal opposition and social controversy around equality.
The 2012 Republican Party Platform
On the other hand, this year's Republican Party platform seems to want to pull the country backwards when it comes to equality for LGBT people. While the conservative gay organization the Log Cabin Republicans said that the Republican Party platform might actually include a "positive nod" toward LGBT people with a vague line about the "dignity and respect" of all Americans, the reference made no specific mention of LGBT people. In fact, the party platform includes some horrific language that proves that for the GOP, LGBT people are not among the Americans who deserve "dignity and respect."
And the language speaks volumes about that influence. The Republican Party platform opposes marriage equality and supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the "union of one man and one woman." The platform also criticizes the Obama administration's decision not to defend the horrendous Defense of Marriage Act in court, attacks the judiciary for making pro-LGBT decisions in states, and makes its arguments using attacks on the lives of LGBT people and blatant distortions torn from the pages of the publications of hate groups like the Family Research Council:
A serious threat to our country's constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values...
An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our country. We oppose the Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle -- in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts -- makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath.
We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.
It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less likely to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom... We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.
To be perfectly clear, the Republican Party platform not only opposes basic rights for LGBT people but erases the very idea of our families. The underlying message in the language is that only heterosexual couples with children are "families," while any other make-up outside that antiquated notion (including same-sex couples with children) simply aren't "real" families. In fact, the social science they refer to by "intact married families" absolutely includes same-sex couples raising children, yet the GOP seeks to use distortion to erase our very existence.
Beyond that, the Republican Party wants to write that level of discrimination into our federal constitution; they want to change the document they constantly wrap themselves in to take rights away from a specific group of people.
This platform shows a party taken over by extreme social zealots, like Tony Perkins, who want to strip LGBT people of their rights and drag forward-moving social progress in our country to a grinding halt.
The Stark Contrast
While not everyone in a political party agrees with every plank in a party platform, the political manifestos do shed important light on the stark differences in the two major parties of today. One party seeks to respect and expand rights for LGBT people, while the other looks to take rights away and make our community invisible.
While some political issues thrive from healthy debate and disagreement, like fiscal or foreign policy, some things should be beyond "political stances." Basic civil rights and respect for all Americans should be a given, despite the politics at play. But when a party like the GOP hands its moral compass over to divisive and extreme people like Tony Perkins, we cannot look away. There are lines in the sand that must be drawn to stop the people who would drag us all back instead of forward, whatever your political persuasion or views on issues beyond equality.
The choice has never been clearer when it comes to civil rights for LGBT people. Which platform would you be proud to stand on?]]>Gay Chicago TV Tackles Bisexuality, Biphobia, and Bi Erasuretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18213432012-08-22T16:52:17-04:002012-10-22T05:12:07-04:00Waymon Hudsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/LGBT politics show Critical Thinking on Gay Chicago TV takes on the topic of bisexuality, which has for far too long been the focus of jokes, discrimination, misinformation, and just plain ignorance from both anti-equality forces and the LGBT community itself. Extreme biphobia and bi erasure, meant to make the bisexual community invisible even within the larger LGBT rights movement, have created an atmosphere of misunderstanding that the episode addresses head on.
To help break down the issues of biphobia, bi erasure, and bi history in the LGBT movement, the episode features an in-depth discussion with bisexual activist, Brother Michael Oboza, an activist monk and Michael Page Life Time Award winner who founded the New Liaison for Bisexual programs at the Center on Halsted in Chicago. The discussion looks at the issues that face the bisexual community from both anti-equality forces and from within the gay and lesbian communities.
It's a hard place to be in for many in the bisexual community. The very concept of bisexuality often finds itself trapped in a position of both invisibility and hypervisibility -- despite the fact that bisexuals constitute the largest population within the LGBT community. Can you imagine the pain caused by not only being rejected and demeaned by anti-equality forces who call you "sinful" or "sick," but also being rejected or told you don't exist by the very community you are supposed to be part of? In truth, how are these claims by some in the gay community any different than the homophobic rhetoric we fight against from the far-right about gays being a perversion or something than can be changed or prayed away. The truth is, they aren't. Comments like "bisexuality is just a stop on the way to gay" can be as demeaning and damaging as calls of fag and dyke.
These facts are underscored by the groundbreaking report from the San Francisco Human Rights Commission called "Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations." The report contains some startling facts that only further show how vital this conversation is, saying:
Bisexuals experience high rates of being ignored, discriminated against, demonized, or rendered invisible by both the heterosexual world and the lesbian and gay communities. Often, the entire sexual orientation is branded as invalid, immoral, or irrelevant. Despite years of activism, the needs of bisexuals still go unaddressed and their very existence is still called into question. This erasure has serious consequences on bisexuals' health, economic well-being, and funding for bi organizations and programs.
We cannot, as a community, be part of erasing a vital and thriving part of our movement and history. In the same fashion, simply throwing a "B" into the acronym LGBT isn't enough-- we have to celebrate, educate, and support bisexual people in our movement with true inclusion and visibility in all areas of our community. Having frank and honest discussions amongst ourselves like on this episode can help that process along.
Ignorance, close-mindedness, and refusal to accept others is what we are fighting AGAINST as LGBT people -- we have to demand better of ourselves and be examples for others of what true acceptance looks like.
Though this argument is continually being taken apart in the long, deliberative, fact-based process of court cases, the emotional impact of the "Save Our Children" myth still holds considerable weight in cultural debates. For example, during the recent debate over the Boy Scouts of America possibly ending its ban on openly gay scouts and leaders, conservative commentators continued to push this long-disproven claim that gays are dangerous to children, in order to incite fear. People like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, televangelist Pat Robertson, Fox News host Mike Huckabee, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer and Linda Harvey of Mission: America all pushed the erroneous and damaging connection between pedophila and homosexuality across various news outlets.
A new report from Political Research Associates, "The Right's Marriage Message: Talking Tolerance, Marketing Inequality," reveals the impact of the "Save Our Children" argument used by equality opponents and how we can continue to weaken its efficacy. The report showed that during California's Prop 8 campaign in 2008 and Maine's Question 1 campaign in 2009, nearly every anti-marriage-equality advertisement warned voters that legalizing same-sex marriage would force public schools to discuss same-sex relationships and sexual behavior with children, arguments that propelled both anti-equality ballot measures to victory. Yet in the 2012 election, fewer than half the ads in the four state ballot measures featured "Save Our Kids" messaging, and often as only a side note to the main theme -- and all those campaigns lost.
For example, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Program's annual report on hate violence motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity and expression showed that over 70 percent of these victims were people of color, while 44 percent of them were transgender women. Transgender people of color are also almost 2.5 times as likely to experience discrimination as their white peers.
The latest episode of Gay Chicago TV's LGBT politics show Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson takes on the topic of super PACs, specifically the new lesbian super PAC LPAC, which is the first political action committee focused directly on amplifying the political power of the lesbian community.
To help break down the issues around super PACs, this episode of Critical Thinking features an in-depth discussion with LPAC chair and spokesperson Sarah Schmidt about the group's mission, the races they are throwing their support behind, how LPAC is focusing on transparency with donors, and why having women's voices in politics is vital for our country. The mission of LPAC and their important efforts to get strong, progressive women into office is highlighted by the recent attacks on women's rights we've seen this political cycle, from stomach-churning "legitimate rape" rhetoric to laws requiring forced ultrasounds to regressive attacks on birth control.