Is It Time To Take Back Pride?

(Thanks to ENC Communication Intern Matthew McGibney.)

As we approach the 40^th anniversary of the first Gay Liberation Day March, one group is questioning the character of current Pride events. Take Back Pride is a New York City-based organization that thinks Pride should focus on activism and protesting and not just be a big street party.

As the group’s website says, “It’s time for us all to remember this is a march, not a parade.”

This raises an interesting question. What is the correct role of Pride? Is it a celebration of the LGBT community, or is it an opportunity to highlight and object to the continued injustices facing LGBT individuals? Is it a little bit of both?

According to the group’s website, the purpose of Take Back Pride is to remind the world that “we are not content with what we have.” It points out several areas where equality is not yet achieved, including Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and marriage equality. Equality NC deals with many issues at the state level, issues like workplace non-discrimination and HIV/AIDS funding.

Take Back Pride would like to see more people at Pride events addressing these problems, through chants and signs.

In the end, Pride is both about celebrating past successes and working towards future victories. Many of the developments that we’ve seen in the 40 years since that first march must have seemed impossible at the time. Still, there are plenty of injustices that continue to this day. By educating people, Pride participants can act as agents of change while still having a great time.

Pride can maintain its Mardi Gras atmosphere while also promoting education and acceptance. There’s no reason we can’t have both.

Rating The Hating

(Thanks to ENC Communication Intern Matthew McGibney.)

This week, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) released their “Report of Hate Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Communities.”

Overall, the conclusions of the report were not positive. The LGBTQ community had the second-highest murder rate this decade in 2009. Almost 80 percent of these victims were people of color, and most were transgender women or at least feminine in their appearance.

This comes at the same time as the economic crisis has hurt resources for LGBTQ victims. Seventy percent of NCAVP-reporting programs had budget cuts, and half had to lay off staff. (The information in this report does not even include the South, unfortunately, as there were not enough functioning programs here to collect data.)

It’s an alarming situation when violence spikes, yet our mechanisms for dealing with the victims are blunted by budgetary issues. Proponents of a culture of hate are able to impose an atmosphere of fear on an entire community. The majority of the hate murders were minorities or transgender women, reflecting dangerous positions towards race and gender.

Disturbingly, the biggest spike in anti-LGBTQ violence came in October, the same month as the passage of the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The report posits that an increase in visibility brought about by the act might have led to higher levels of harassment and discrimination. At the same time, 62 percent of incidents reported to the centers were not covered by criminal statutes. This includes harassment and intimidation against the LGBTQ community that stops short of violence.

The report calls on federal and state governments to provide more funds to anti-violence and to end discriminatory practices that bolster anti-LGBTQ feelings.

I don’t know how practical the first option is, given the economic conditions we see today, but the second option is a practical and necessary step.

We expect everyone to not harass or discriminate against the LGBTQ community, but that’s still a completely legal option for businesses and our state government. They can fire, or refuse hiring or promotions, based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity. A change of cultural attitudes is needed, and this change has to include the end of discriminatory practices by the government.

What About The Children? LGBT Homeless Youth

(Thanks to ENC Communication Intern Matthew McGibney.)

The Obama administration listened to the voices of LGBT advocates last month as it crafted a plan to attack homelessness in America.

The new plan, titled “Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent & End Homelessness 2010,” was crafted by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessnes. It addresses, among other things, the role of outreach to LGBT youth in the war against homelessness.

U.S. Housing & Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donavan said LGBT youth are often subjected to harassment that can lead to becoming homeless, as well as further discrimination on the streets.

“What I would say is so many of those at risk of homelessness are marginalized in various ways,” Donavan said in an interview with the Washington Blade. “As we’ve seen with youth, those who age out of foster care … [and] who are ostracized and targeted because of their gender identity or sexual orientation are one of the populations that are at increased risk for homelessness."

The plan came after the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the National Coalition for the Homeless issued a ground-breaking report on the state of LGBT homeless youth. The report indicated that between 20 percent and 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT, which is a huge problem by itself. But it's made even worse, according to the report, because they then face discrimination at many shelters, as well as anti-gay preaching at religious-based shelters.

The Obama administration plan also recognized that some of the youth were pushed from their home specifically because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, so it's not always best to try and reunify them with their families.

The LGBT homeless youth constitute an important facet of the homelessness problem in America, and it's good to see this is being addressed in a national plan and on the national level.

ACT NOW: Call on NBC to Open Today Show Wedding Contest! Marriage Equality and Family Fairness

UPDATE, 7/9/10 - Today Show reverses course, opens contest to LGBT couples. SUCCESS! Thanks to everyone who acted!


(Thanks to ENC Communication Intern Matthew McGibney.)

The “Modern Day Wedding Contest” on NBC’s Today Show wants to throw the perfect wedding for a pair of contestants … as long as the couple is straight. Not very modern! (Especially when you consider that the Today Show welcomed gay couples in their past “Hometown Wedding Contest.”)

The Today Show is accepting applications for its contest until this Friday, July 9. The winning couple’s wedding will be broadcast live in October, and their honeymoon will be paid for by the show. That sounds like a ton of fun, but it’s only for people who can enter “bride” and “groom” separately on the website.

Good As You noticed this quirk and brought it to the attention of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). When GLAAD contacted the show for an explanation, they got this response:

“For the TODAY show wedding, the couple must be able to be legally married in New York, which is where the wedding will take place."

As you might have realized, New York hasn't established marriage equality. But as GLAAD points out, the show is looking to award a wedding ceremony, not a marriage certificate. New York State recognizes marriage certificates from other states, including those with equal marriage laws.

Here is the problem in The Today Show's reasoning in GLAAD’s own words:

“NBC is mistakenly equating the marriage license with the wedding celebration. Same-sex weddings are entirely legal in New York State. As long as the marriage license is conferred upon the same-sex couple by another state, New York State recognizes the marriage as a fully valid and legal one. NBC’s exclusion of same-sex couples from its contest is not motivated by the law, but bias against these couples.”

GLAAD started an action campaign against the show’s actions. You can find more information on the campaign here: http://www.glaad.org/2010/calltoaction/todayshow

Back here in North Carolina, Equality NC is gearing up to counter the myths spun by the Summer Marriage Inequality Tour (as we’ve taken to calling it) by the National Organization for Marriage, whom you might remember for their role in the passage of Prop 8 in California. The tour, which pushes for heterosexual-only marriage, will pass through Raleigh in August.

We’ll be starting a blog this summer with stories from LGBT and allied couples about their marriages, relationships, and families. Bigotry is based on ignorance, and by sharing the stories of our families, both biological and of-choice, we can show the reality of diversity and starkly show the unfairness of discrimination and how it affects us, our loved ones, and our children.

If you have a story about your family or relationship, we very much encourage you to share it with us. There are two ways you can do this:

1. You can write your story and e-mail it to matthew@equalitync.org. Include a photo of your family, too!

2. You can record a video (with your webcam or video camera), upload it to YouTube, and then e-mail us the link. Or if you prefer, you can skip the uploading and e-mail us the video file and we'll upload it for you.

Stay tuned for more ....

International Football - No, Not That One, Or Even That Other One: Rugby!

Though the World Cup soccer tournament has captured most folks' attention, the US recently hosted another international sporting event: the Bingham Cup tournament. This is the international competition for gay ruggers. The competition was held in Minneapolis near the end of June.

(In Europe, 'football' is the term used for soccer, because soccer is so popular there it gets the more generic name. In America, 'football' refers to American Football, so 'soccer,' which is short for 'association football,' is used. 'Rugby' is the universal term for 'rugby football.')

The Bingham Cup is a biannual international, non-professional, gay rugby union tournament, first convened in 2002. The tournament was named after Mark Bingham, a former University of California, Berkeley, rugby player. Mark Bingham died in the September 11, 2001 attacks on board United Airlines Flight 93.

North Carolina sports a few rugby teams, and has even had players go to the Bingham Cup.

This year in Minneapolis, the Mayhem Rugby Football Club (RFC) hosted the tournament.

The Bingham Cup was first hosted by the San Francisco Fog RFC, Mark Bingham’s home team. That year, eight teams traveled to California to compete over two days with Fog RFC coming out on top as the tournament’s first winners. With each of the following tournaments, The Bingham Cup has become progressively bigger and better.

The Bingham Cup tournament has been hosted by Fog RFC (San Francisco), King’s Cross Steelers RFC (London), Gotham Knights RFC (New York), Emerald Warriors RFC (Dublin), and now

Winners from this year's competition were:

• Cup Division – New York Gotham Knights RFC (A)
• Plate Division – Los Angeles Rebellion RFC
• Bowl Division – Sydney Convicts RFC (B)
• Shield Division – Ireland Emerald Warriors RFC
• Crest Division – Phoenix Storm RFC

Here're a few pictures from the competition, as well as a brief introduction to rugby vocabulary:

A scrum:









A tackle:











A line out:
















A couple of group shots:




















A couple of action shots:
























Rugby culture is generally very gay-friendly. Rugby is incredibly butch and it's incredibly gay, in ways that overlap and in ways that are totally different. If you've always wanted to play sports but have been worried about homophobia, rugby is the way to go. Even putatively straight rugby teams are gay-positive.

Rugby is a great kind of gateway sport for the inclusion and openness of gay athletes.

Torn Apart: Ed and Tim, Binational Gay Couple in Durham

(Thanks to ENC Communication Intern Matthew McGibney.)

I met Ed at the Equality NC Day of Action in May, while we were both waiting to speak with Representative EllieKinnaird. We got to talking (mostly of our love for Kinnaird) and I learned that Ed’s partner of 10 years, Tim, is a Canadian citizen. This usually wouldn’t be too terrible, but then I learned that Tim will have to leave the country in August for a year when his visa expires (which actually is terrible).

It’s made worse because Ed would be able to sponsor Tim’s permanent citizenship, but their decade-long relationship is not recognized by the Immigration Department (they’re gay, see).

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is a bill that would recognize their commitment and make it possible for Ed and Tim to stay together here in America, but it’s currently stalled in Congress.

Imagine all the problems you’d have if you had to pack up and leave the country for a year. Tim’s employer won’t be able to leave his job open for that time, and there are no guarantees at all that he’d be able to get it back when he returns. There will be inconveniences when it comes to housing and work. But these are just practical problems compared to the fact that Ed and Tim will be forced to live apart for a year.

Sometimes, when discussing national issues, it’s easier to treat them in the abstract. But here is a concrete example that these issues affect the lives of everyday Americans. A policy from Washington, D.C. will keep apart a couple in Durham, North Carolina.

There are 36,000 same-sex binational couples in America, according to the Census. That’s a huge number for me. I can’t conceptualize the shared problems of 72,000 people, but I can identify the plight of two, living right over in Durham.

It feels so unfair because straight couples can just get married and sponsor their partner for citizenship, but this isn’t an option for Ed and Tim. Their journey is going to include a year where they can’t be together in their country of choice, and plenty of hoops to jump through after that. They deserve all the rights and protection afforded to their straight neighbors, but their relationship is not considered by the immigration authorities.

You can find more information on the Facebook group dedicated to the couple, Keep Ed and Tim Together- Fight Immigration Injustice or at Immigration Equality.
Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121, ask to speak with your Senators and Representative, and let them know you support Immigration Equality and the UAFA.

We Are Family ... Under the FMLA

(Thanks to ENC Communication Intern Matthew McGibney.)

There’s been another recent step in the right direction from Washington, where the Labor Department extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to gay couples.

The 1993 law allows workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of themselves or their families, but it had only been applied to straight couples.

The Labor Department said last week it interprets the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow an employee to take leave to care for any child for whom that employee is the primary caregiver, “regardless of the legal or biological relationship.” This means it now applies to gay couples. This is the latest in a series of small administrative steps the Obama administration has taken to be more LGBT-inclusive.

The FMLA covers all public employers, as well as private employers with at least 50 employees. It was designed to help workers balance their work and family lives by giving them some unpaid time off to deal with family or personal emergencies.

While this new policy will be good for gay employees, there are also questions about its effectiveness. This is not an act of Congress, and a less friendly administration in the future could easily overturn the provision. It would take a permanent alteration to the law to secure these rights more permanently.

Chris Geidner, a writer for MetroWeekly, points out another issue with the policy. According to his article, it “will be limited to an expansion related to individuals who are the non-legal, non biological parents of their same-sex partner's children.” This would not include legally-recognized gay couples because the so-called Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage” and “spouse” as between opposite-sex couples, and this policy change would have to be in accordance with federal law.

Geidner continues, “The changes … also would apply if one's partner is having a child that is not the person's child biologically or legally or if a person's same-sex partner is adopting a child and the person, due to state law, doesn't have a legal relationship to that child.”

This is certainly a victory, small though it may be, toward equality. Any advance in equal rights lays the foundation for future successes, hopefully ones more solidly codified in law.