"The Emergence of the Invisible Deviant circa 1950 and What That Meant for Queer U. S. History"

"The Emergence of the Invisible Deviant circa 1950 and What That Meant for Queer U. S. History"
Jim Schultz, Professor of German and Chair of the Department of Germanic Languages, UCLA

Monday, September 27, 2010   4-6pm     119 Humanities Building
Lesbian/gay history and transgender history have usually been written independent of, sometimes in explicit competition with, each other. Focusing first on a constellation of noteworthy events around 1950, this talk outlines the patterns that emerge if one tracks the combined history of same-sex and cross-gender in the United States from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century.

Aubrey Sarvis

Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Posted: September 23, 2010 01:45 PM

Outrage Is Overdue

Let's call Tuesday's pitifully embarrassing Senate performance on the defense authorization bill exactly what it was: shameful. They blocked debate because the bill included repeal of the federally imposed ban on gays in the military, a repeal the American people overwhelmingly support. I'm outraged that the Senate used gay and lesbian service members as political pawns.
There's plenty of blame to go around but at the end of the day it comes down to the fact that 43 senators voted to keep this disgraceful ban in place.
Why wasn't the White House lobbying senators for the vote? What happened to "the fierce urgency of now"? From the get go the White House didn't want a vote on the ban until after the midterm elections. They miscalculated how much support nationwide there was for repeal and now they and some of the senators are stumbling over their own timeline. After Tuesday's setback, and some stunning primary results, the political dynamics have changed. It's by no means certain we're going to get another shot in the lame-duck session in December.
While finger pointing is unlikely to serve any constructive purpose, some plain old-fashioned outrage is very much in order. If you don't speak up when both your political allies and opponents do a number on you, one thing is certain: they will do it again. The nation's gay and lesbian troops were expendable in the eyes of the 43 senators who voted against repeal. They thought there would be no price to pay, that we would understand it was only politics and not about the real lives of patriotic service members.
Minorities are used to putting up with benevolent politicians telling us to be patient, the right time will come. No longer. Gay men and women within the military and outside the military won't continue putting up with this same old, same old. What if 10,000 of the 65,000 gays and lesbians now on active duty decided in December they had had enough? What kind of impact would that have on military readiness and morale?
Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) made it clear that she takes her advice on military matters from Secretary Robert Gates and JCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, not from Lady Gaga. Fine, but both made it clear in testimony before her that they had set a course to make this change, and under the proposal before the Senate there would be no repeal until they, along with the President, signed off on it. Nonetheless, Senator Collins voted against proceeding to debate the same bill she voted for in committee. It was a painful, contorted vote and obviously not from her heart.
And how does Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) explain her vote? She was on record for repeal before she voted against it Tuesday. The timing was all. She's up for re-election, she's way behind, and apparently she thinks casting a vote that might be considered controversial back home could cost her votes. Is Arkansas so different from the rest of the country? Do most people there believe it's OK to allow this kind of blatant discrimination to continue?
The failure in the Senate is not likely to be set right until the two leaders, Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), feel they need to reach an agreement on how the debate should proceed. Tuesday senators went at it and the resulting free-for-all wasn't pretty. Minority Leader McConnell showed he could keep his caucus of 41 united even if it meant that senators like Susan Collins and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) had to go against what they had previously supported. The two senators from Arkansas looked like they were caught in a time warp from another era voting against 1960's civil rights legislation.
And then there was Senator McCain whose decision to filibuster brought about this whole contretemps. Anyone who saw his incoherent ranting Tuesday can only wonder why.
The damage has been done; the Senate impasse continues. Only when the Majority and Minority Leaders decide they don't want to preside over the first Senate to fail to pass a bill for our nation's defense in almost 50 years, and the White House makes it clear that repeal this year is a priority for the President, will the damage be repaired.
None of us should forget that every day this law remains in place patriotic men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us all are being discriminated against by their own government.
Our troops deserve better from their leaders.
AUBREY SARVIS, U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was formerly chief counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee and later executive vice president for public policy and legislative affairs at Bell Atlantic/Verizon Communications.

Gay Houston Mayor Gets High Marks

By Julie Bolcer

A new poll indicates that a solid majority of Houston residents say that Mayor Annise Parker is doing a “good” or “excellent” job.
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund reported on the poll from 11 News/KUHF-Houston Public Radio.
“Fourteen percent of poll respondents rated Parker’s job performance as ‘excellent,’” reported the Victory Fund’s blog, GayPolitics.com. “Forty-two percent said she was doing a ‘good’ job. Twenty-seven percent described her performance as ‘fair,’ and just six percent said she was doing a ‘poor’ job.”
Parker was elected last December and made Houston the largest U.S. city to date to elect an openly gay mayor.

Obama and the Gays

A Political Marriage

Authored by Tracy Baim

An in-depth look at the career of President Barack Obama and his views about gay-related issues, starting when he ran for Illinois senate in 1996 and ending mid-way through his term as president. Written by Tracy Baim, publisher of Windy City Times, the book also includes articles and essays by some of the most respected journalists, bloggers and activists in gay media.

This book, available soon as book a print-on-demand and ebook, has extensive coverage, in words and images, of Obama's record on gay and AIDS issues, including detailed quotes from his speeches, photos at gay events, and answers to surveys early in his career.

Essayists and writers in the book include Lisa Keen, Kerry Eleveld, Michelangelo Signorile, Phill Wilson, Chuck Colbert, Pam Spaulding, Wayne Besen, and many more.

Publication Date:

Sep 12 2010

ISBN/EAN13:

1453801715 / 9781453801710

Page Count:

576

Binding Type:

US Trade Paper

Trim Size:

7" x 10"

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Related Categories:

Political Science / Genera

Cornyn defends decision to speak to gay Republican group

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is defending his decision to speak at an upcoming meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans. In a letter faxed yesterday to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a socially conservative group, Cornyn said he believes in "working together where possible" with other Republicans, even when he may disagree with them.
As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn is charged with electing as many Republicans as possible to the Senate. He has been under attack in recent weeks from some hardline conservatives who believe that he has recruited too many moderates in the 2010 primary season — including some, like Mike Castle of Delaware, who lost in primaries to insurgent conservatives.
Cornyn said he accepted the invitation because the Log Cabin Republicans are "committed to defeat Senate Democrats this November." He said they "stand for fiscal discipline, limited government and a strong national defense. We may not agree on several key issues, but we do agree that every committee in the United States Senate should be chaired by a Republican."
Cornyn's commitment to appear at the event has been known publicly since July, but Perkins wrote him a letter on Monday raising questions about the Texan's plans.
In a polite response, Cornyn recites his social conservative bona fides and notes that "my record on social issues is well-established."
But, he added, "as social conservatives we affirm the basic dignity of every human life, including not only unborn children, but also adults with whom we may disagree."
"I believe the beauty and blessing of America is that people of different faiths and creeds can live together in peace, despite serious disagreements," he said.
Cornyn- Perkins Log Cabin Letter

Biden, Maddow Talk DADT Repeal

Biden, Maddow Talk DADT Repeal
Advocate.com Editors
JOE BIDEN ON RACHEL MADDOW X390

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/16/Biden_Maddow_Talk_DADT_Repeal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AdvocatecomDailyNews+%28Advocate.com+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Rachel Maddow interviewed Vice President Joseph Biden, who said he was personally involved in the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the senate and expressed confidence that a potential Republican filibuster could be overcome.

On Wednesday Maddow asked Biden, a former senator from Delaware, whether he was personally involved in efforts to repeal the policy through the National Defense Authorization Act, he said, “Absolutely, I was personally involved in getting it out of committee. I not only think we should repeal it, I think everyone who was fired should be able to be reinstated if they want to.”

The vice president addressed the possibility that Republicans could introduce an amendment to strike DADT repeal from the bill, saying, “We’ve got the votes to defeat that.”

On the question of a Republican filibuster, Biden said, “I believe that at that point, the issue is, are these guys so out there that they are willing to punish the defense department and the fighting women and men who we have in Afghanistan, which you just visited. Iraq. That’s the frame.”

“We have enough votes to sustain support for repeal 'don’t ask, don’t vote' [sic], and we’re just going to push it as hard as we can,” said Biden.

Asked why discharges could not be stopped now while efforts to repeal the policy continue, Biden attributed it to “compromise.”

“That’s the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it,” he said.

“In my view, if I could just wave a wand, it would just be flat repeal,” said Biden. “No one else would be suspended, and everyone suspended would be able to come back if they wanted to. But the truth of the matter is, we had to build a consensus for this. Everybody’s looking for the orderly elimination of this law.”

More than half of child rapists priests in England and Wales still active priests

by Chris in Paris on 9/15/2010 06:29:00 AM

Of course it's immoral, but we're talking about the Catholic Church after all. The church never seems to learn any lessons and keeps repeating the same horrible behavior. How could anyone support this institution as it stands today? The Guardian:

But at least 14 of the 22 priests who have served a year or more behind bars are still members of the clergy and 10 of these appear in the most recent edition of the Catholic Directory, the official yearbook of the church. Only eight of the 22 men have been dismissed from their positions.

One of those featured in tonight's programme, Fr John Coughlan, was jailed in 2005. Although he no longer leads services, he is still a priest and lives in church-owned property. He refused to appear on camera but said he was "in limbo" and that he was in touch with other priests who were in a similar situation.

His home is in the diocese of Westminster, which is run by Vincent Nichols, who is the most senior Catholic in the country and who played a pivotal part in developing child protection policies for the church. He has frequently said the Catholic church in England and Wales leads the way in child protection.

Bill White declines interview with Dallas Voice prior to his upcoming appearance at gay Pride

Posted on 09 Sep 2010 at 10:09am

Bill White was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign in March.

Dallas Voice has had a standing interview request in with Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White’s campaign for months. After Stonewall Democrats of Dallas announced this week that White will be marching in the upcoming gay Pride parade, we figured it would be a perfect opportunity to reiterate our request. We received a reply e-mail from White spokeswoman Katy Bacon on Wednesday night:

“Unfortunately we’re not going to be able to make it work, John, I am sorry,” Bacon wrote.

This is disappointing but hardly surprising. For one thing, we’re guessing White is extremely busy right now and closely managing his priorities. But White has also been extremely reluctant to discuss LGBT issues publicly or in detail since he emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination almost a year ago. His obvious concern is that Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who has a long history of anti-gay politicking, would try to use whatever statements he makes to rile up conservative voters. We’ll continue to seek an interview with White right up until Election Day, but for now you can read previous stories about him by going here, here and here.

— John Wright

Group looks at gay couples' census participation

Windy City Times
From a News Release, posted Sept. 7, 2010

Williams Institute survey shows that 1 in 7 same-sex couples will not be identified in Census 2010; 30% of same-sex couples are in legal relationships
"Government surveys must improve and adapt to the changing landscape of relationship recognition in this country," says Williams Institute Scholar Dr. Gary Gates

LOS ANGELES — The Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law issued results of a survey showing that while 99% of same-sex couples participated in Census 2010, 1 in 7 same-sex couples will not be identified as such in Census 2010. In addition, survey findings also show that 30% of same-sex couples are either married ( 14% ) or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership ( 15% ) . More than 4 in 10 of those couples in legal relationships do not live in states that recognize their marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.

Williams Institute scholars designed the national survey conducted by Harris Interactive in June, 2010 that asked more than 600 individuals in cohabiting same-sex couples about their participation in Census 2010. The survey was designed to understand if and how same-sex couples completed their Census 2010 form and why they chose the options they did to identify their relationship.

Same-sex couples are identified in Census data when one partner is "Person 1" in a household and designates the other as a husband, wife, or an unmarried partner. The survey found that 1 in 10 individuals in same-sex couples opted to identify as roommates on their Census forms. An additional 5% of couples are not identified because they live in a household where neither partner is Person 1.

Respondents who used terms other than spouse or unmarried partner cited three main reasons for their decision. About a third said that they just thought of their relationship in some other way, a quarter cited confidentiality concerns about disclosing their relationship, and a third were protesting either because they opposed the fact that the Census was not asking a sexual orientation or gender identity question or they were offended by the options presented.

Study author and Williams Distinguished Scholar Gary J. Gates notes that, "The survey reveals an interesting contrast in the reasons why some same-sex couples won't be identified in the Census. While many still experience stigma and are reluctant to call themselves spouses or partners, an even larger group seems perfectly comfortable identifying but feels the Census does not provide an appropriate term or even a question to identify their sexual orientation."

The survey also shows a high level of correspondence between couples' legal relationship status and their responses on the Census. While virtually all couples who were not in a legally recognized relationship called themselves unmarried partners, the census form options were more challenging for those in legal relationships.

Most married couples ( 80% ) called themselves spouses but that figure was higher ( 89% ) in states that recognized the marriage. Only 62% of married couples in states that did not recognize the marriage used husband or wife.

Approximately 84% of those in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships called themselves unmarried partners. A quarter of these couples who lived in states where their status was recognized called themselves spouses compared to just 12% among those who lived in states with no recognition.

Gates comments that, "Choosing unmarried partner seems obvious for couples who are not married and not in a civil union or registered domestic partnership, but the Census forms are more challenging and confusing for those who are married but live in states that do not recognize the marriage or those who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships. Government surveys must improve and adapt to the changing landscape of relationship recognition in this country."

The findings provide insight into how to interpret same-sex couple data from Census 2010 that will be released next year. Most couples ( 86% ) who called themselves spouses were either married ( 71% ) or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership ( 15% ) . Virtually all couples ( 99% ) who used unmarried partner were either not married ( 96% ) or were married but lived in a state that did not recognize their marriage ( 3% ) .

Other study findings include:
• More than 9 in 10 same-sex couples completed and mailed their surveys back, a figure higher than the general population mail-back rate of 7 in 10 households.
• Nearly all married couples who selected unmarried partner to describe their relationship said that they did so because either the federal or state government does not recognize their marriage.
• Among those in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships who selected husband or wife to describe their relationship, virtually all said it was because they were in a legal relationship status or they simply thought of themselves as spouses.
• More than 3% of individuals in same-sex couples indicated that they were transgender or had a transgender partner. Of that group, 55% said that they were either married or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership compared to only 28% of non-transgender respondents. 


 

Fifth District Court Reverses Dallas County Divorce Case

For Immediate Release Contact: Chuck Smith, Deputy Director 512-474-5475

Fifth District Court Reverses Dallas County Divorce Case

AUSTIN, Texas (August 31, 2010):

Statement from Dennis Coleman, Executive Director, Equality Texas on today's ruling In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.: The Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled today that Texas district courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case. In its ruling, the Appeals Court has taken the most extreme, the most conservative view possible on each issue before it. It's not as if they wanted to just overturn the trial court's decision, they wanted to smash it into the ground and discourage anyone from ever filing a pro-LGBT suit ever again. The ruling harkens back to a view of the world from generations past - a world where lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people were content to live in closets, and were afraid to demand to be treated with dignity and respect. A dignity and respect that this court goes out of its way to completely deny. In going so far to overturn the trial court's decision, with such an extreme opinion, the appellate court has lowered the bar for any effort to overturn its ruling:     * The Court's view of marriage is historically inaccurate. Marriage existed in many forms, for many reasons, for many thousands of years.     * Refusal to view sexual orientation as a suspect class singled out for disparate and discriminatory treatment ignores both the entire purpose of DOMA and the    anti-marriage amendment, as well as the well-documented history of discrimination, hate crimes, and statutory treatment of LGBT individuals.     * The Court's view of same-sex relationships is uninformed, outdated and homophobic-predicating its decision upon the ability to have children naturally--thereby ignoring the thousands of Texas households raising kids with same-sex parents, or even single parent households.     * The ruling holds Texas' laws are "rationally related to the legitimate state interest in fostering the best possible environment for procreation and child-raising."  Evidently to the exclusion of all others, and without a shred of evidence in the record--particularly since longitudinal studies have demonstrated that same-sex parents are as good as raising children as straight couples. -30-

---

Equality Texas advocates and lobbies for the elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

---

Go here to tell your friends about this.

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for the Equality Texas Action Center.

Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop receiving Equality Texas messages, click here to remove yourself from our lists.

Appeals court overrules gay divorce ruling

Appeals court overrules gay divorce ruling

Sep 1st, 2010

by Charles Kuffner.

Gay couples who got married outside of Texas can’t get a divorce inside Texas, according to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas.

Two men won’t be able to turn their Massachusetts marriage into a Texas divorce, the Dallas Court of Appeals ruled today. At Attorney General Greg Abbott’s request, the court overruled a lower court’s order that granted them a divorce.
When a Dallas family court moved forward with the case last October, Abbott appealed, saying that “the laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman” and that the court’s decision “purports to strike down that constitutional definition.” The appeals court agreed with Abbott’s argument — essentially, that the state can’t dissolve a marriage that it doesn’t recognize — and asked the lower court today to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. [...]
Randall Terrell, the political director of gay rights advocacy group Equality Texas, says the language interpreting the Constitution in the Dallas court’s ruling is “tailor-made” for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is, “if the parties have the financial wherewithal and the desire to push this case that far.” If the men decide to appeal today’s ruling — and their lawyer Pete Schulte says they haven’t yet made that decision — the next stop would first be the Texas Supreme Court.

You can read the ruling here (PDF); background on the case is here, here, and here. There are two things I know today. One is that it will take federal action for marriage equality to come to Texas. As was the case with the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage, this is the sort of thing that cannot be left up to the states. Whether by Congress or by the Supreme Court, this basic right will need to be federally enforced. That day is coming – not soon enough, of course, but it’s coming. And when it does, the other thing I know is that some day we will look back at this and wonder why it wasn’t always this way. We’ll marvel at the lengths that opponents went to delude themselves and distort the truth. And we’ll look at how far we’ve come and be glad. A statement from Equality Texas about this ruling is here.