Queer Musings

Hate Crime Legislation a Symbolic Gesture?

It's not often that I find myself disagreeing with Dan Savage. When it comes to the passing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act I have to say he's wrong that it is a purely symbolic piece of legislation.

During the time I lived in Oklahoma City I was a victim of hate crime two different times. The first time the police didn't find my attackers. The second time they did. If I would've had the ability to try and get the crime into federal jurisdiction instead of the state I would have been more likely to follow through on pressing charges.

When I was attacked the second time, I got lucky and an off duty police officer saw what was going on, called for back-up and then stopped my assailants. He then reported to the officers that arrived on the scene that the attackers had been calling me faggot while beating on me.

One would think with an officer making that kind of statement I would have pressed charges. Well this was in Oklahoma which is one of the most homo-unfriendly states around. The on duty officer that took my statement actually seemed to be encouraging me to not press charged. He said that at most the attackers would spend the night in jail, get out the next morning and only have to pay a fine.

Given what I knew about Oklahoma, I decided not to press charges.

If I would of had the protection of hate crime legislation I would definitely have pursued prosecution. With the off duty officer's statement about the attackers calling me faggot, I can't help but think that would have moved it from the state level to the federal level. The one attackers that hit me in the head with a beer bottle would have been facing a lot more than just a fine.

So Mr. Savage, just because the hate crime bill doesn't directly affect every member of the LGBT community, it's still an important piece of legislation. Honestly I feel it's much more important than trying to get the White House to move on marriage as you seem to want them to do. I personally feel that the repeal of DOMA is the least of our concerns.

If you want to discuss something that will affect more LGBT citizens then let's talk ENDA. It is currently legal in 29 states to fire an employee simply for being gay. Surely that would affect more LGBT citizens than the hate crime bill.

Maybe you want to talk about something that affects every American citizen. If so let's talk about DADT. During a time when we are fighting two wars, both in the Middle East, it is insane that we are discharging service members that can translate Arabic. Lt. Dan Choi is a perfect example of this. An Iraq war veteran, and West Point graduate that studied linguistics, and is fluent in Arabic was discharged for challenging DADT. Is America safe now that we don't have him translating intelligence reports that could indicate another attack here in the US?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage equality. That issue, however, is one that I feel needs to be fought on the state level. Once we achieve a victory in more states would it be necessary to pressure DC to repeal DOMA. Sure Obama could come out and say he opposed Proposition 1 in Maine and for the approval Referendum 71 in Washington where you live. I think that would be a wise move for him. After all he did say he was a "fierce advocate" of LGBT rights.

If I was to be 100% honest, when Mr. Savage and other respected LGBT advocates spend so much time in the national press talking about marriage; it makes me feel like a bad queer for not wanting it as bad as they seem to want it.

I will admit that you are probably right that the passing of the hate crime bill affects fewer members of our community. I still feel having been a victim of a hate crime that it is a much needed piece of legislation. I'm glad to see it finally passed, and that we have a President that has stated he will sign it into law.

(via AC360 Talks Hate Crimes with Corey Johnson and Dan Savage - Towleroad, More than gay news. More gay men)

Buy 'Music for Matthew' Support a Worthy Cause

While debating the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009," H.R. 1913, better known by many as the Matthew Shepard Act, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R - North Carolina) called the events surrounding Matthew's death a hoax.

In the Congresswoman's own words:

"The hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard Bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed. But we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s, it’s really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."

In response to the hurtful and shameful comments Foxx made on the House floor, my friend Lee wrote a song that he is using to raise money for the Matthew Shepard Foundation. All the money he makes from his song 'Virginia' will be donated with a note on the check that the donation is "in the name of Virginia Foxx." Lee is selling the track for the bargain basement price of 99¢ be sure to get yours now so he can make a nice donation to a worthy cause.

You can visit his blog to get the listen to 'Virginia' before purchasing it, or you can just visit 7 Digital directly and purchase it from there.

White House Adds a Bittersweet Note to Iowa Ruling

With a first ever unanimous ruling in favor of gay marriage last Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court, history was made in the mid-western United States. Needless to say the GLBT community across the nation has been celebrating.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I saw the White House statement about the ruling, it became a very bittersweet moment for me.

The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law.

While it's not as bad as anything that would have come out of the Bush White House, it still promotes the unfair "separate but equal" policy that is anything but. Marriage, not civil unions, would be equal treatment under the law.

The struggle is far from over, and end the end we will have full marriage rights regardless of what the current administration supports. We shouldn't let the fact that Obama only supports civil unions.

Head of the GOP Says Gay is not a Choice

We should all be prepared for the news that Rush Limbaugh has been admitted to hospital because his head has exploded. The new leader of the Republican party, Michael Steele is now saying that homosexuality is not a choice.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."

I have no doubt that this is the end of his GOP leadership. This is so contrary to his party's belief. Especially when just late last month he followed party lines in saying that there should be no conversation on civil unions.

Well Mr. Steele in light of your recent words on homosexuality I have to agree on one point there should be no conversation about civil unions. We should instead be holding a conversation about 100% equal marriage for the GLBT community.

As Mr. Steele points out, one can not stop being black. Well there once was a time when blacks and whites could not marry in some states. A black person could only marry another person that was black. That was until Loving v. Virginia was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967. Being black or white is something that can not be changed, and yet it used to be okay to deny them equal protection under the law.

If, as Mr. Steele says, I can't stop being gay there should be no reason to deny me the right to marry. GLBT couples that decide they want to marry should have the same equal protection under the law as mixed raced colour. By stating being gay is non-changeable all arguments denying us the right to marriage becomes invalid.

You can read his entire interview on the GQ Blog.

White House Civil Rights Agenda Criticized

As expected the right wing has come out against the White House's web site listing civil rights issues that the President would like to see passed. Mike Huckabee, host of Fox news' Huckabee, and Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel discuss how quickly the WhiteHouse.gov was updated.

One thing to keep in mind about the Ocean Grove case they talk about. It was never an issue of making the church perform the civil union. It was about use of a public facility owned by the church. The church always has the right to totally close off the pavilion to anyone that's not a member of their church. It was decided that by allowing it to be open to the public, they had to allow anyone to use it for religious or civil functions.

via: [Joe. My. God.]