KnowThyNeighbor.org

Should Gay Politicians and Celebrities Be Outed ?

In the Wake of National Coming Out Day Last Week, KnowThyNeighbor Weighs In  On Opening the Discussion of The Values Of Outing Public Figures

Does anyone really care anymore who is and who isn't gay?  As long as there seems to be some sort of perceived "power" with motives good or bad placed in the outing, together with the fact that we seem to still have the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy not only in our military but in Hollywood and in Politics...I say the answer is "yes."

On a recent national level we had Perez Hilton making an attempt to out New Kids on the Block's Jonathan Night mimicing a similar tactic used by Out Magazine's placement of Anderson Cooper and Jody Foster among its list of Power Gays--just say it and maybe the celebs will nibble the bait.  None of these three bought into it though.  But is the motive here pure?  One most definitely could and should argue the importance of the LGBT community being connected with role models of this magnitude, but just like the motivation of papparazi, one finds the real reasons suspect.

And what about politicians?  Any sort of hypocricy among our public figures should be the basis for outing.  If a lege is against gay marriage and that lege is a closeted gay Republican then I would say, "yes, out him."  But in like if a lege is into cracking down on tax offenders and she hasn't paid her own taxes for years, then she needs to be "outed" for that too. 

Not many know this but KnowThyNeighor stopped a very dangerous and major public outing of Massachusetts legislators back in 2006 after the failing of the infamous "yes, yes, no" vote "procedural" strategy.  The fate of Same Sex Marriage was in play then and very tenuous.  Tom Lang was approached by the Editor of an LGBT Newspaper asking for the names of two additional people who would go on record to support the sexual orientation of a specific state legislator that this Editor intended to drag through the coals.  When I asked why this was in the works, I was told, "because we want those other 'closet cases' in the State House to understand that they need to do what we want them to do." 

To this day I still do not know if MassEquality or our lobbyists were behind this or if it was solely a roge attempt by the news publication, but it was dangerous on many levels.  The most important was that this lege was well respected within a group of other legislators who I suspected might indeed use this "public attack" as an excuse to not side with us--in other words, this lege was part of a block vote.  I knew the personalities of this group very, very well and was astonished that this Editor or the MassEquality Coalition had not taken that into consideration.  Thank God I was able to stop this and in the end of the 45 minute conversation was even threatened with, "if I regret listening to you on this, then I am coming after you." 

This piece of history hits right to the heart of the whole public outing idea and begs these questions... Is outing a good thing?  Does the end justify the means?  What are the consequences, as there are always consequences?  Are LGBT Leaders justified to use the outing process as a means to intimidate or blackmail if the end legislation or policy is a valuable one, one that will secure equality for future generations?  How can LGBT keep the motives pure?  Why is it really so difficult for us to be public about our sexual orientation?  And how do we as LGBT people (out or not) take the power away from those who use our existence as a means of control?

Tom Lang, Co-Director

Petition Fraud in California Connected to Anti-Gay Marriage Petition in Massachusetts

Young Political Majors (YPM) finds itself in yet another state defending itself again from the allegations that it's employees are duping voters, this time in California. This time the gatherers are asked to collect republican registration signatures and paid $7 to $12 per each signature collected, but the essence of the alleged deception (bait and switch) is the same as it was here in Massachusetts.

From the Los Angeles Times report by Evan Halper and Michael Rothfeld:

Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.

It is a bait-and-switch scheme familiar to election experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party -- a small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states -- has been accused of using the tactic across the country.

Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.

In 2005 Massachusetts Family Institute, led by Kris Mineau, made a failed attempt to ammend the state constitution to limit marriage as between one man and one woman in order to exclude same sex marriages. This organization was responsible for hiring outside of the state "mercenaries" through Arno Political Consultants. Some were accused of collecting these signatures by duping people into thinking they were signing a petition to allow wine to be sold at grocery stores, the motivation being that they are paid a certain amount for each signature. One of these signature collectors was Angela McElroy, who turned whistle-blower and alerted KTN that the sub-contractor she worked for (Young Political Majors aka YPM) were actually teaching their employees how to fool people into giving their signature which she demonstrated for a Fox25 Investigative News Report. There was a special meeting of the Election Committee at the State House where KTN and others were called to testify. "Kris Mineau, spokesman for the petition sponsors, claimed that the fraud allegations were nothing more than the result of a conspiracy by "ho-mo-sexual activists" and admitted that his organization has made no effort to check into the allegations of fraud by monitoring what is going on in the field." -KTN October 19, 2005

From a March 2006 article in the Advocate we learn:

Prosecutors from Massachusetts attorney general Tom Reilly's office have launched a criminal investigation to determine whether workers gathering support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage forged the signatures of some voters last year. "Because some of these concerns raised allege the crime of forgery, these allegations were referred to our criminal bureau," assistant attorney general Stephanie Lovell said in a letter to secretary of state William Galvin dated Tuesday.

When I tried to follow up on this investigation here is what I was told:

Mr. Hosty, There is no investigation at the present time because the opponents of same-sex marriage apparently gathered more than enough signatures to move their cause along through the Secretary of State's office for certification, and on to the legislature, as we have seen recently. At the time of the investigation there were no laws on the books to prosecute individuals fraudulently collecting signatures, though there are laws governing such practices now. Sincerely, Investigator N. Paras (Dated July 23, 2007)

Since 2005 there have been other accusations of fraud in other states filed. One such complaint against another sub-contracting company that worked on the Anti-gay marriage petition here in Massachusetts under Arno Political Consultants is an example, like this one in Michigan. Could all these instances be a coincidence?

Recent developments make one wonder how effective the art of deception was here in Massachusetts when the same group was allegedly defrauding our citizens, but we have no investigation from the Attorney General to gain any understanding from. Here is what the LA Times found when they investigated YPM in this newest instance:

The Times randomly interviewed 46 of the hundreds of voters whose election records show they were recently re-registered as Republicans by YPM, and 37 of them -- more than 80% -- said that they were misled into making the change or that it was done without their knowledge.

If 80% of all signatures on the Anti-Gay Marriage petition were fraudulent we would not have had to mire ourselves in a divisive two year battle for equality, and the eventual outcome would have been the same. If only the investigation had been conducted perhaps we would have undercovered similar fraud and this instance would not have cost us so much. Perhaps Californians would have been more prepared for YPM's questionable tactics if we had been more vigilant when we had the opportunity.

It may not be too late to revisit our own criminal investigation and hold responsible parties accountable for the wrongs they've done here. We need to ensure we are protected by law so people can't get away with deliberately misrepresenting the facts on our own future petitions. You can contact the Attorney General's Office by clicking here.

John Hosty-Grinnell

The Year of the Questionable Voter

The big, loud battles this Presidential election may be on debate stages, in ad campaigns, and on the trail. Yet, the decisive raids and scuffles seem to be at the precinct, county and state levels. These tactics, tricks and even scams may be determine who sits in that Oval Office.

Right now:

• The GOP and John McCain specifically repeatedly accuse Barack Obama of letting ACORN perpetuate massive voter-registration fraud.
• GOP-contracted operatives Young Political Majors (YPM) have been caught slamming registering voters-to-be in several states, including California. (This deserves a whole separate post for this complex issue.)
• The heavy weapon is the most insidious — voter suppression. In parts of Ohio and other states with minority, poor and other Dem-leaning voters, GOP operatives challenging large numbers of voters at such polling places slow down the process, driving many Obama-favorable voters away before they can cast ballots.

Thus, the multifront assault involves first a smoke screen trying to put Dems on the defensive and possibility distracting from the Republican tricks and techniques. The claims now are that the 1.3 million-plus voters from Acorn's effort are filled with fake voters.

The strongest impact so far has been in pivotal Ohio. There, GOP claims have led to court-mandated verification of several hundred thousand new voters with only three weeks to go. The GOP can claim it is only trying to keep things honest when the obvious effect is to try to disenfranchise new voters, who tend to vote Democratic.

The suppression techniques may prove the most harmful and could cost one or more states and even the election. This is a relatively new version of voter suppression The more classic and illegal forms include poll taxes, literacy tests and other Jim Crow techniques.

With the per-state election rules and laws, the ability to play dirty tricks varies by locale. For example, Ohio seems to have no penalties for the current set of tactics. On the other hand, California is well covered in several ways.

First, the slamming techniques are illegal there. That is if YPM voter registration teams do any of a number of things, there are criminal penalties including fines and jail. Dems charge that YPM folk have:

1. Presented a petition to protect children from pedophiles
2. Asked for a second signature on a concealed card, which in actuality switches party registration to Republican

In California, assigning party registration without permission or tricking someone into switching are both crimes.

More important, California is ahead of the voter-suppression by challenge game by its laws.Specifically its voting law 14253 reads:

In the event that the precinct board determines that persistent challenging of voters is resulting in a delay of voting sufficient to cause voters to (forgo) voting because of insufficient time or for fear of unwarranted intimidation, the board shall discontinue all challenges, and so note on the roster.

Where such common-sense polling procedures do not exist, suppression and related disenfranchisement are much easier. This election should lead more states to add California's regulation to theirs.

Grasping at Straws

In last night's final Presidential-candidate debate, McCain tried again to claim that Obama aided ACORN in the fraud for Dems. Perhaps a bit too gently, Obama noted that he — in concert with the U.S. Justice Department — worked in training ACORN staff 13 year ago.

It's likely that only someone determined to reinforce a reason not to vote Democratic this time would hold onto McCain's tenuous links. Yet this style and level of accusation illustrated both McCain's desperation and how little he has to use against Obama. The other debate slap was that Obama sat on a community board with former Weatherman (from over 40 years ago) William Ayres, who since became a college professor who does good work for the poor.

In contrast, techniques to rob new voters and those in Dem-leaning areas are much less obvious. Given McCain's failure to increase his electability with his attacks, the voting tricks and scams seem like much more powerful weapons.

Proposition 8 Proponents Lead by $10 Million

We need to come to the aid of our GLBT brothers and sisters in California and give them the financial support they need to win their battle against this discriminatory ammendment effort. visit http://www.noonprop8.com/ and make your contribution, none is too small nor unwelcome. Remember, Californians helped support our fight here in Massachusetts, so it is only fair that we reciprocate the effort. Maintaining equality in California is essential to the progress of other states in the future and the time to act is now.

John Hosty-Grinnell

And Then There Were Three...

Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report. Thanks to Aaron Toleos for alerting me to this...

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

------

Visit the original article to read the rest of the story here.

As we watch trepiditiously the vote in California this is a great, sudden, and unexpected victory for GLBT rights. As more news develops we shall keep you informed.

-John Hosty-Grinnell

California's Marriage Equality in Jeopardy

I've written about how momentum is shifting toward Team Homophobia in California, fueled in large part by the money outsiders have raised to promote hatred and inequality in the state. The Church of Latter Day Saints, aka the Mormon church, has been out on the forefront, raising significant funds that have helped put the Yes-on-Hate, I mean 8, crowd in a $10 million dollar advantage. Mormons have also been leading the way for Team Homophobia on the phones and putting in the volunteer hours that can make a crucial difference. I hate to say this, but the fact that many Mormons are put on the streets for two years of organizing seems to have made them an effective force in spreading their message, even if it's a message of hatred, intolerance and discrimination.

Equality California, so far, has not been equal to the task. Couple that with the fact that the elites in California, be it Hollywood or Sillicon Valley, just haven't put their money where their mouths are (with a few notable exceptions, like Brad Pitt). All of this has lead to a perilious situation where the haters have a clear momentum and polls have been very unclear as to who's currently winning. Of course, the smart thing to do is act like we're down - and play to win big. No matter where anyone is, they can make a financial donation. But getting on the phones and talking to your Californian friends and family is an even more important thing to do.

Bonus: The Yes on 8, Thou-Doth-Protest-Too-Much Theme Song.

-Ryan

Minority Voters Huge in Proposition 8

In California, the other Barack Obama race issue has increasing weight. One manifestation was a 9/21 piece in the New York Times suggesting a large November 4th black turnout in California for him might help pass ballot Proposition 8. That measure would halt recently legalized same-sex marriages in our most populist state.

“There’s no question African-American and Latino voters are among our strongest supporters,” said Frank Schubert, the co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, the leading group behind the measure. “And to the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us.”

While it seems a fair statement than many black ministers preach against SSM, some of the inferences drawn from that are more questionable. Over at Bloggernista, for example, three key points arise:

1. It ties historic electoral enthusiasm among Black voters to an anti-gay proposal put forth by white evangelical conservatives.
2. White voters are a majority in California.
3. The article assumes black voters are a monolith that all vote the same way.

To those, I would add that nodding affirmatively in the pew does not necessarily translate into voting affirmatively in the booth. Also, the influence and pervasiveness of preachers in the black community is increasingly an atavism. While approximately 40% of U.S. Christians report weekly church attendance, more accurate large phone polls suggest that figure is about half that.

You can break that out in many ways to produce a hypothetical majority for or against Prop. 8. Neither black voters nor black and Latino voters together would pass or sink the measure. However, white voters are a majority and could, as are women.

Even though there are many socially conservative white voters in California, analysts don't tend to think they will vote in a block any more than they do women will. In contrast, the underlying assumption that most black voters will vote yes on 8, to overturn SSM, is common. It remains to be proven.

Prop. 8 has been slowly and steadily sinking in the polls, presently 55% no and 38% yes. Yet, the no-on-8 forces, like by Equality California, look at up to 20% undecided voters and are not confident. The Times article says each side will spend about $20 million on advocacy advertising.

The Obama connection has the additional convolution of his not supporting SSM. He and VP candidate Joe Biden are both on record favoring civil unions and opposing SSM. Moreover, the Democratic platform for this year is similarly spongy. It states opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, but is non-specific on marriage with "We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections."

That's tepid until you consider the GOP side. An amusing overlap with the Dems is that both Obama and John McCain avoid the SSM issue and each suggests that the decision resides with the states. The similarities end there, with McCain and VP candidate Sarah Palin opposing both SSM and any extension of tax, benefits or other rights and privileges to SS couples.

The Republican platform claims it is for equal rights but very opposed to SSM. In its Preserving Traditional Marriage plank, it includes:

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

It decries what it says are Massachusetts and California "activist judges" and urges the Congress to prevent such decisions. It supports the Defense of Marriage Act and "...oppose(s) initiatives to erode parental rights."

The Times article suggests that neither any subset of black anti-gay voters nor even white evangelicals can pass Prop. 8. It notes that black voters should represent 6% of those at the polls and Latinos 15%. "Taken together, those two groups could easily decide the election, people on both sides of the issue said."

Of course, while the outcome of Prop. 8 is extremely important to the California GLBT community, it could be a real catalyst for marriage equality nationwide. As the most populous state, California's 36.6 million residents is nearly six times Massachusetts 6.4 million. Out-of-state couples find it much easier and quicker to marry on in California as well.

The flood of anti-SSM money into California is understandable, as is that for the no-on-8 movement. Now both sides are advertising to and canvassing the black and Latino communities. No one can count on a lock-step vote into the polls.

At the moment, Obama resides on that nebulous ground that his party inhabits. As a gay-rights advocate and avowed progressive, he is in stark contrast to his opponent and the GOP in general. However, in what many see as a necessary concession to get elected, he claims that the marriage-between-man-and-woman (oh, but civil unions are fine). Further complicating his wishy-washy stance, in his book The Audacity of Hope, he wrote "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Short-term, that's no help for voters.

Palin, Log Cabins and HRC

People are challenging John McCain on the qualifications of his VP selection, Sarah Palin - and he's none too happy about it. Her problems have been well established in the media - and aren't even fully fleshed out yet. We've only seen a glimpse of her potential for Republican self destruction, with the Troopergate bombshell waiting in the wings. Her few interviews have been a disaster, in which she's sounded even less intelligent than Dan Quayle (the word trainwreck comes to mind). However, the one that all glbt people should listen to is here:

Sarah Palin thinks being gay is a matter of choice. Few would expect more from her, but her position is one that's very dangerous for all glbt people. If she were to win this election and be spouting this kind of message, be trying to enforce it in government, it would continue to set back our movement for years.

I've looked far and wide to find an old article I read a year or two ago, but the intertubes weren't as helpful as I'd like. Suffice it to say, those who view homosexuality as a choice don't support the expansion of civil rights for glbt people by overwhelming numbers. People who view being gay as a sexual orientation, something that's just a part of us and can't be changed, support policies like marriage equality and ENDA by overwhelming numbers. So, this notion of choice is key to winning the civil rights battle: it's unlikely that we can convince a super majority of Americans to support glbt civil rights until people realize that being gay is as ingrained in someone as the color of their eyes. It can be masked, it can be hidden - but it can't be changed.

Now, why do I bring up the Log Cabins and HRC? Well, the answer should be obvious, at least in the case of the Log Cabins. By supporting Republicans of any kind, they're propping people like Palin up. A Republican would vote to approve whoever a McCain/Palin administration would nominate for the courts. Even a "moderate" Republican will do so. That same moderate Republican will vote to place fringe-right politicians as the head of committees, controlling the fate of thousands of bills - many of them that will effect us. In fact, glbt people are starting to call for the Log Cabins to disband. As long as Log Cabins ever support a Republican when Republicans prop the Sarah Palins of the world up to national heights, it's an organization that deserves no support and no members.

The Human Rights Campaign, the supposed leader in advocating for GLBT rights on the national level, has unfortunately been a Log Cabin supporter. Per several sources, along with this article I found using google, they've donated at least $10,000 to the Log Cabin Republicans, who have endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket, along with other GLBT Republican organizations. They've donated nothing to the Stonewall Democrats. HRC's supported candidates like Joe Lieberman, who was thrown out of the party in a primary, and Susan Collins, a Republican. In Lieberman's case, not only has he been an embarrassment since being reelected as an Independent, but he also won a close election over a candidate who was pro marriage equality (Lieberman's never been in favor of marriage equality). HRC's money and support may have helped Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, tip the scale and win the General as he did in the primary. 

However, at least Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats (for now, anyway). Susan Collins would have some of the most fringe-right politicians chair committees on DC. Those Chairs have a great say in which bills see the light of day - and which ones don't. More importantly, while these 'moderate' Republicans may be able to squeeze in decent voting records on matters civil rights, they can't be counted on when the votes will be close. The Republicans are traditionally very good at keeping their caucus together. They'll let the moderates vote against the party when they already have enough votes to accomplish their goals, but not when it'll make a difference. So, people can throw away Susan Collins's 78% 2004 HRC ranking, especially when the challenger is even more pro-equality, scoring a 100% in the same year. Why does HRC go out of its way to support conservative candidates when there are other candidates running against them who have much stronger records on glbt rights?

There's a lot of ground the GLBT movement has to cover to achieve our goals. First thing's first, we've got to get our own house in order. We can't have organizations like the Log Cabins be anything but a farce. We most certainly can't have our standard-bearing organizations supporting Log Cabins. If HRC is going to donate to Log Cabins, it's time for our money to go to other national GLBT organizations, like the Stonewall Democrats. After all, any help that goes to Log Cabins, through HRC or otherwise, is going toward helping people like Sarah Freaking Palin inch closer to national office. It's money and support going toward continuing this Republican Reign of Terror that, even to this day, allows people in most states to be fired or denied housing simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Enough.

-Ryan