Conversations

OP-e

2011-11-23T18:29:00.003-05:00

My posts for Feet in 2 Worlds, WNYC's It's A Free Country, Urban Institute's MetroTrends Blog, the Nonprofit Quarterly, and other outlets are now gathered in my new website OP-e. Just click on the link and see you there!

Death is Just So Inconvenient

2011-06-24T07:21:00.004-04:00

A friend from grad school died less than two week ago. She had completed her doctoral degree last year and had moved to Washington, D.C. with her fiancé early this spring to start the job she always wanted. Ten days before she collapsed, she had given birth to their beautiful daughter.

A church family member and motherly figure to me and my husband died last night. She had retired from a long career in education a couple of years ago and had just stepped down as the senior lay leader of our parish a few weeks ago. When she hit her head and fainted last night, she had been working on old documents and photos at the church office.

Death is just so inconvenient. My young friend was starting a family and embarking on an exciting new career. She came to Washington to make a difference, to continue the work with refugees and immigrants she had started in Nebraska. My church mother was working on our archives and learning to master her new computer in order to catalogue and safeguard our parish family’s history as we celebrate our centennial and plan for the next hundred years.

The death of both women have painfully disrupted and rudely upended the lives of their family and friends. Daily routine has been derailed, long term plans canceled. Those of us who grieve go about in a haze, hearts profoundly heavy, trying our best to get through the day.

But at a memorial service for my grad school buddy a couple of days ago, we smiled amidst tears as we remembered how our friend supported and cheered us on as she struggled with her own research and thesis. Last night as my husband and I consoled each other over the loss of our beloved sister, we recalled how she regaled us with her stories and lifted us with her hearty and infectious laugh. I wanted nothing more then than a slice of her lard-laden sweet potato bread.

Death IS inconvenient. It forces us to stop. It also gives us the chance to think back, celebrate and be comforted by the love and lives of the ones we lost. Farewell sisters and thank you.

Image by George Gozum.

Light at the End of the Tunnel for Gay Binational Couples?

2011-05-11T19:45:00.000-04:00

A couple of days ago, I wrote a post for Integrity USA encouraging those of us who care about the plight of gay binational couples to curb our enthusiasm:

At the end of last week, a couple of news items raised the hopes of gay binational couples, their families and allies. Again.

On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. suspended the deportation of a gay Irishman, Paul Dorman, who is joined with an American in a civil union and instructed the courts to look into the possibility of Dorman staying based on his union. The following day, a federal immigration judge stopped the deportation of a Venezuelan man at the eleventh hour, apparently spurred by the Attorney General’s move. Henry Valandia, who is married to American, can remain in the country for now while the Obama administration and the Justice Department figure out what to do with legally married gay binational couples entangled in our dysfunctional immigration system.

While I am delighted for both couples, the fact remains that all they have been granted is a reprieve. As a matter of fact, the Justice Department cautioned on Saturday that that it will continue to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which bars the U.S. government from recognizing gay marriages. There is no guarantee that the courts will rule in favor of Dorman and he may be sent back to Ireland. Valandia will have to appear in front of an immigration judge in December and he may also be separated from his husband and deported back to Venezuela.

The raw reality for thousands of married gay binational couples is that their families can easily be broken. They do not have the protections and privileges granted married straight couples. Their unions do not amount to much beyond the borders of the states and jurisdictions that have legalized or recognize marriage for all Americans. Bottom line is, gay citizens and permanent residents, unlike their straight counterparts, still cannot sponsor their loved ones for a green card because of DOMA. Immigration falls under the purview of the federal government and there is no more straightforward and simple solution as the repeal of DOMA. Only Congress or the Supreme Court can get rid of this unjust law and by the look of things, this is not going to happen anytime soon.

I am the foreign-born half of a binational couple myself and I could certainly use some good news. However, I have been wrestling with the broken immigration system and the inequity wrought on queer people in America for over twenty years that last week’s developments did not get me excited, much less hopeful for a resolution in the near future.

Rather, this got me concerned that some gay binational couples might think they’re out of the woods, apply for green cards, and thus expose themselves to the very real possibility of their families torn apart by the government. Likewise, our community and allies might think that this fight is over and stop pressuring our elected officials to end the unfair treatment of married couples that happen to be gay.

Our memories tend to be short. It was just a few weeks ago when many of us got all in a tizzy because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a hold on cases in which green cards petitioned by gay Americans for their spouses were denied because of DOMA. Then and now, well-meaning friends have come up to me saying, “This is great news, isn’t it? This solves your immigration issue!”

Well, it doesn’t. So we need to curb our enthusiasm, roll up our sleeves and get back to work.

Yesterday, Chris Geidner pointed out that in an extensive speech about comprehensive immigration reform earlier that day, President Obama had left out the issue of gay binational couples. This comes as no surprise. If any constituent were to be thrown under the bus, it would be the gays. In the unlikely event that immigration reform is actually tackled by Congress in the near future, guess which group will be first to be sacrificed by the Democrats? Yup, you guessed it. Gay binational couples.

So there. No need to get all excited folks.

An intimate and true Italian-American wedding

2011-05-07T10:10:00.003-04:00

Last week, I was fortunate to witness a wedding ceremony which, in my mind, should be the way nuptials ought to be. The couple opted out of the usual extravagance, not feeling beholden to tradition, familial and societal expectations, or calculated returns. It was not about the clothes, flowers, gifts, guests or party. It was not about either one of them. In a small stone church, it was purely about love and commitment. It was just the two of them, the officiating minister, and a handful of family and friends.

Marco, the Italian groom, said that while most nuptials are an expression of a hope – a hope that the union stands the test of time – this one was a commemoration of a bond that has survived strong and intact after over two decades of living together as individuals and as a couple.

Most people spend so much money, energy and good will to put on a show on their wedding day. Most of us have bought into the hype and the marriage industry is benefiting royally. Sadly, many marriages end up in divorce.

I think unions should be feted. Celebrations however, should start modest and get bigger as couples mark more years together. Let the cake tower, the champagne overflow and the music blare after the commitment has been proven not when it is just about to be tested.

Marco and Bob’s love and dedication to one another deserves a big fat wedding – they’ve been inseparable for 23 years. They were not expressing a hope but rather affirming what already is. Yet they chose a quiet ceremony followed by a simple meal with those closest to them. To me, this marriage rings true more so than other extravaganzas I’ve attended. Salute!

From the New York Times: For Catholics, Open Attitudes on Gay Issues

2011-04-23T09:02:00.003-04:00

By Austine Cosidine for the New York Times

AS the tranquil tones of church bells and choirs usher in another Easter Sunday, you may hear stirrings of controversy beneath those sounds — set to the pounding of a Lady Gaga tune.

It’s no accident that Lady Gaga decided to release the video for her provocative single, “Judas,” this Easter. From wearing see-through nun habits to suggestively swallowing a rosary, the pop star, who was raised a Catholic, has consistently prodded her faith’s strict sexual conventions.

But if Lady Gaga has managed to offend some Catholics, her progressiveness, specifically her support for gay equality, reflects a genuine cultural moment. A recent study indicates that today’s Catholics are the most progressive Christians in the country regarding gay equality — and more open than Americans in general.

Last month, the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit group, reported that 74 percent of American Catholics surveyed supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry or form civil unions (43 percent and 31 percent, respectively). The telephone survey asked more than 3,000 adults to choose among three options: whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, should be allowed to form civil unions or should receive no legal recognition. By comparison, 16 percent of white evangelical Christians approved of same-sex marriages; 24 percent approved of civil unions. Among the general public, those rates climb to 37 and 27 percent, respectively — still lower than among Catholics.

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an independent group that has worked on gay Catholic issues since 1977, said he had seen Catholics open up in recent years. His group maintains a list of “gay-friendly parishes and faith communities” around the country, which has grown to more than 200 from about 20 since 1997.

Church traditions in social-justice advocacy play a strong role, he said. “These people aren’t picking and choosing their Catholicism; their Catholicism has motivated them.”

Official church policy is tough on gay issues: homosexual acts are deemed sinful (though being homosexual is not); same-sex marriage is forbidden. Embracing diversity while toeing the Vatican line requires a delicate balance.

Some seek nontraditional ministry. Dignity New York, a chapter of Dignity USA, an independent gay ministry group, has liturgical services especially for gay Catholics, given mostly by nonactive priests, at St. John’s in the Village, an Episcopal church.

Yet Catholic churches from Texas to Wisconsin find ways to be welcoming. St. Francis Xavier in Chelsea, the Oratory Church of St. Boniface in Brooklyn and many others are known for programs offering spiritual and intellectual fulfillment for gay Catholics in a context once perceived as hostile.

The Rev. Gilbert Martinez, pastor at St. Paul the Apostle, a gay-friendly parish near Lincoln Center, said the study did not surprise him: Catholics have always struggled with moral issues on which the diocese and parishioners do not always agree.

Catholics believe God incarnates in diverse forms, Father Martinez said — like human beings.

“Once you say that God is a human person — I mean we’re just so varied and diverse that way — I think the real Catholicity of that is to acknowledge that and accept that,” he said.

Being American and Filipino

2011-03-14T08:48:00.009-04:00

Last week, I attended the Filipino Cultural Association of the University of Maryland's Filipino American Studies Gala. It was encouraging to learn of an ethnic studies program that is actually thriving rather than being criticized, or worse, cut. It was also heartening, as it always is, to see Fil-Am youth proud of both their American and Filipino identities.

There is an obvious thirst among these second and third generation immigrants to learn about and connect with their Asian roots – with being Filipino. At this event, they played Filipino ballads I have not heard since my childhood as well as “soft jazz” and muzak popular among many Filipinos. They performed dances from the Philippine Muslim South and Christian North.

It was these awkward but endearing renditions of the Kapa Malong-Malong and Sakuting that made me think, what exactly are these kids connecting to? What are they approximating? Fact is, 99.9 percent of all Filipinos, have never danced this way in real life. My parent’s generation knew how to boogie and cha-cha, while in the eighties, my friends and I did punk rock and new wave in Manila.

This is not the only way or the first time that Filipinos in diaspora have romanticized and conceptualized what it is to be Filipino. Reme Grefalda, Curator of the Library of Congress' Asian American Pacific Collection and speaker at the event, would characterize this as a need to return to our parents' sense of nostalgia which is to be expected and respected. There is nothing wrong in wanting to learn a Philippine language and being familiar with Filipino heritage and history. There is much to be said about imbibing some of our forebears' core values.

Being Filipino is more than language, dance and history however. I recall debates from decades back about what true Filipino culture and identity is. Some hearkened back to pre-colonial times. Others argued that 300 years under Spanish rule had indelibly marked us with Latin culture. Still it cannot be denied that it didn’t take long for Americans to pump Hollywood, English, liberal democracy and aspiration for all things American into our veins.

Being Filipino and American makes it all the more complex and rich, worthy to be known and celebrated independently. Grefalda exhorts Filipino Americans to use Philippine history as a background, a starting point, for their own history distinct from their ancestors. She would like us to begin a new narrative which celebrates our hyphenated identity in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree.

Food for Pride

2011-01-30T08:11:00.005-05:00

Maharlika, in contemporary Tagalog, means nobility or aristocracy, though in pre-colonial Philippines, it referred to a lower class that served the datu or chieftain during times of war. The term gained its current connotation during the Marcos era when patriotism was promoted. Student of Philippine history and culture Paul Morrow writes

“Maharlika culture” was his (Marcos) propaganda tool for promoting nationalism during the days of the “New Society.” The word became very fashionable and was used in naming streets, buildings, banquet halls, villages and cultural groups. Marcos named a highway, a broadcast company and the reception area of Malacañang Palace, Maharlika. He even toyed with the idea of renaming the whole country as Maharlika.

However one would like to consider the word, it is with apparent pride that Nicole Ponseca, Enzo Lim and Miguel Trinidad named their pop-up restaurant in New York City's East Village Maharlika . They wanted to make Filipino cuisine available once more to Manhattanites and in a form worthy of the trendy and finicky. After all, Filipino food as offered by most places in the United States is not exactly the most attractive and distinctive.

As my childhood pal, George Gozum, gushed after our brunch

Possibly the best Filipino brunch I've had in NYC, because they really 'got' the concept of an American brunch, but with Filipino dishes that had a level of authenticity that few other pinoy restos in Manhattan achieved. And it was packed! Maharlika mastermind Nicole Ponseca's done it right.

The food is excellent. I had the Eggs Imelda, chef Trinidad's take on Eggs Florentine, with laing instead of spinach, underneath two poached eggs, on pan de sal, with grilled prawns and a sweet potato hash and side salad. The presentation is worthy of the woman of a thousand shoes.

Trinidad masterfully balances authenticity with creativity. The laing tasted as it should but rather than a gloppy green mess (think saag paneer), I got delicately julienned tarot leaves peeking underneath perfectly poached eggs. It was a brilliant combination - the creamy yolk tempered the heat of the laing.

George had sisig - pork ears and jowl, boiled, chopped then marinated - better known in Philippine beer gardens and ordinarily served sizzling and spattering on platters. He got his portion in a cast iron skillet topped with an egg.

Maharlika opened less than two week ago and has become the latest thing. It is packed not mainly by Filipinos seeking comfort in familiar tastes and smells, but by New Yorkers of various races and ethnicities. A Malaysian friend who has been a number of times since its opening had to settle for a seat at the bar since he had no reservations. Two gorgeous Carribean young women asked about the calamansi mimosa. A few tables over a mixed group of fashionistas tasted each other's plate.

I always believed that Filipino cuisine has its place in the food scene. Maharlika confirms my faith and pride. I hope that it's here to stay.

Photo by Yvette Santos Cuenco.

Off the chopping block

2011-01-27T12:10:00.004-05:00

For my Feet in 2 Worlds post on immigrants and gay marriage in New York, I asked Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, for his response to skeptics of marriage equality efforts in the state.

I pointed out that some queer activists question the energy and resources put on passing gay marriage legislation by LGBT advocates and groups when queers of color face larger and more pressing problems like poverty, unemployment and inequality. Moreover, doubters object to the heteronormative nature of marriage which privileges the nuclear family over other kinds of families.

Evan sent me an email, part of which was quoted in the article. Here is his entire response:

The denial of the freedom to marry with all its tangible and intangible protections, consequences, and meaning hurts everyone -- not least because it is state-sponsored discrimination based on who we are and who we love, which is intolerable. But it falls harshest on those who are most vulnerable -- people dealing with illness, immigration status, low means, and other challenges -- because it means denial of an extraordinary safety-net that touches virtually every area of life from birth to death, with health and taxes and in between. What's more, the work to win the freedom to marry has spurred more progress across a variety of fronts we all care about -- non-discrimination laws, gender identity and youth protections, other forms of family recognition. Rather than imposing false either/or's on LGBT people, we should be working together for full equality and inclusion as well as enlarged possibilities for all, and ending the exclusion from marriage is a big part of, and engine, in that advance.

Personally, I am for marriage equality and support efforts to make it a reality at the state and federal levels. I nonetheless agree with queer activists who complain that little attention is given to the concerns and issues of those in the community who are of color, foreign, poor and transgressive of the predominant gay norm. Gaining the freedom to marry will be a boon to many lesbian and gay couples but not necessarily to those who need help most.

Gay not same-sex please

2011-01-17T08:14:00.004-05:00

Over the weekend, I tweeted

Stop using 'same-sex' - being lesbian or gay is more than just sex. Not to mention 'opposite-sex' simply sounds awkward.

Which promptly netted

@ErwindeLeon ?! "member of the opposite-sex" has been common use in Anglosphere society well before same-sex came to replace gay.

My tweet did get a few likes on Facebook from friends who understood where I am coming from.

I advocate the use of the word gay instead of same-sex when describing relationships, especially marriages, between two individuals who happen to be lesbian or gay.

Same-sex has the connotation that a relationship is purely sexual and reinforces the myth that queer folk, particularly gay men, are predatory and promiscuous (one simply has to turn on the television, go to the movies, or surf the Web to confirm that straight people can be no less predatory and promiscuous).

At the end of the day however, I strongly believe that marriage need not be categorized as gay or straight. Just marriage. Any society that purports to uphold the dignity and equality of all should allow its citizens the freedom to marry, regardless of gender orientation.

But if we must, then please use gay. Thanks.

Aye matey ... from the mouth of babes

2011-01-13T13:52:00.005-05:00

Most Sundays, I sit behind this family with two funny and smart boys - one almost a teenager, the other, a precocious little one in pre-K. One of their dads sent me and my husband an email which reminds me why, aside from being the minister's spouse, I attend my church.

John and Erwin,

I have to share with you both a little vignette from G's bath time last night. He likes to play with little Playmobile figures in the bath-tub and we have several sets -- Vikings, knights, and pirates, some of which are larger than the others. As I was sitting there watching him play, he took one of the figures, dressed mainly in black garb, and told me that this one is "Father John" ... "I love Father John," he said. He then began to fish around in the water for another figure saying to himself, "Now I have to find Erwin ... I love Erwin, too, Daddy ... " He kept fishing, found one, placed him beside the Father John figurine and then said, grimacing, "It's Erwin so he needs to be a little shorter." Not able to find a "shorter" one, he found another very colorful, red, yellow and green pirate, put it beside Father John and announced "There, Father John and Erwin. ... I love them both very much." So, the two of you have ARRIVED ... you are now official inhabitants of G's bath-time Pantheon. Congratulations.

xoxo,
D

My heart is full knowing that I am the very colorful plastic pirate in a sweet child's world.

Looking back at LGBT gains and ahead at challenges

2010-12-31T09:53:00.004-05:00

As the year ends and along with it Democratic dominance, now is a good time to take stock of progress made by the Obama administration and 111^th Congress on behalf of LGBT civil rights, spurred by queer activists, advocacy groups, bloggers and allies.

In the foreseeable future, with the Republican and Tea Parties at the reins of Congress and all politicians eyeing the 2012 elections, no federal legislation or initiative that promotes equality for queer people can be expected.

In October 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was enacted. The bill expanded the existing federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

A week ago, President Obama signed into law the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” the odious Clinton-era policy that barred lesbians and gays from serving openly in the armed forces.

In between these two landmark civil rights legislation, the 22-year HIV/AIDs immigration ban was lifted; the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program was extended; the Family and Medical Leave Act was expanded to include gay employees taking unpaid leave to care for their children; domestic violence protections was redefined to include LGBT victims; benefits were extended to same-sex partners of federal employees; diplomatic passports and other benefits were issued to the partners of gay foreign service employees; job discrimination based on gender identity was banned throughout the federal government; and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development were instructed to allow LGBT visitation rights and counter LGBT housing discrimination respectively.

The Obama administration also reversed a Bush-era policy, signing a United Nations declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality. Last week, the U.S. government worked to reinstate a reference to sexual orientation in a U.N. resolution that condemned extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions (the General Assembly’s human rights committee had removed the reference from last month). U.N. Ambassador Rice also successfully advocated for the accreditation of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

Since taking office, President Obama has appointed more openly LGBT officials – about 150 agency heads, commission members, policy officials and senior staffers – than any previous administration. He is the first president to release LGBT Pride proclamations and host an LGBT Pride Month celebration in the White House. He bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King, the same honorific bestowed on Rosa Parks.

No matter what one thinks of Mr. Obama, his administration and his party, it cannot be denied that progress has been had. Nonetheless, many of us are justified in protesting that often our fierce advocate seemed absent and when a few of us bravely held his feet to the fire – as he had requested – had the audacity to scold.

Most of all, while some lesbians and gays benefit from the administration’s initiatives, most of us do not. Certainly not those at the margins – transgenders, queers of color and low-income LGBTs. Policies and promises that will truly make a difference in our lives remain unfulfilled: a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act; repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act; and immigration reform which includes LGBT families.

Now is a good time to look back and acknowledge some gains but we have a long way to go.

It doesn't take much

2010-12-29T12:32:00.004-05:00

John and I have reached that point in our lives when we really don't ask for anything for Christmas. This is not to say that we do not welcome or appreciate presents, we just don't want for much and are as grateful for a heartfelt greeting.

We did get a swell gift this year though. My brother-in-law and his wife gave us a cookbook. Beautiful as it is, it is the inscription inside that made us smile and be grateful.

Our families have come around on this "gay thing" for the most part though it was not too long ago that they'd sooner not discuss "it." We know you're gay and we know you're together but let's just not talk about it.

So we cherish what was written in the inside cover:

To John & Erwin,

Please come home for some good cooking.

Frank Stitt

We don't know Frank Stitt and have not been to his restaurant in Birmigham, Alabama, but my brother-in-law has. And the thought that Scott went up to the chef and asked him to dedicate the book to John AND Erwin, well, that certainly keeps us coming home to North Carolina and family.

Ask, Tell and Dream

2010-12-22T17:35:00.002-05:00

Last Saturday was bittersweet for gay immigrants. The Senate voted to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” – the Clinton-era policy which barred gay troops from serving openly – while dashing any hope of passing the DREAM Act, which would have paved a way to citizenship for millions of foreign-born youth who are no less American than their native-born cousins.

Progress in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights should nonetheless be celebrated, not only by the LGBT community and its allies but by immigrant communities too. Certainly those among us who straddle both groups have some reason to cheer.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” discriminated against lesbians and gays, some of whom are foreign-born or second generation immigrants. Its demise offers an opportunity for immigrant communities to see and take pride in their gay daughters and sons who defend their country with honor, honesty and integrity. The work and collaboration required to finally repeal the policy show how minority communities partner for shared goals.

The Immigration Policy Center reports that about 115,000 foreign‐born women and men serve in the U.S. armed forces – eight percent of the 1.4 million military personnel on active duty. The Migration Policy Institute adds that among these immigrant troops, 23 percent are Filipino; 10 percent are Mexican; 5 percent are Jamaican; 3 percent are Korean; and 2.5 percent are Dominican.

Under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” women and minorities were disproportionately affected. Among the 619 troops discharged in 2008, 209 were women and 279 were minorities.

Lt. Dan Choi is perhaps one of the most outspoken advocates against the discriminatory policy and an exemplar for gays and immigrants alike. The son of Korean immigrants, he served in Iraq as an Arabic translator and jeopardized his military career for principles imbued by his family and the military.

Choi and other out service members of color have challenged notions immigrants might have about gay people. They have also inspired many Americans, newcomers and native-born, young and old. Now more lesbian and gay soldiers will be able to set examples and change hearts and minds within their own ethnic communities.

Along with many other members of the LGBT community, Choi also advocates for immigrant rights. Indeed, major LGBT groups have rallied alongside immigrant rights groups and vice-versa. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” has ended because of the hard work and support of allies of the LGBT community.

Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates supports passing the DREAM Act, for “military readiness,” just as he encouraged the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Full equality for LGBTs and immigrants has a way to go, but together progress can and will happen by being open to each other and marching forward shoulder-to-shoulder.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds, an immigration news website featuring the work of immigrant journalists from across the U.S.

Why L, G & Bs should care about Ts

2010-12-04T05:13:00.006-05:00

Amanda Simpson, one of President Obama's 150 or so LGBT appointees, reminds lesbians, gays and bisexuals why they should care about transgender issues.

She was a panelist at the woman's roundtable in this year's International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference, during which she decried the missing outrage over the persecution and decimation of a segment of the community. She asked how many of those present in the ballroom - elected officials, organizational leaders and activists - knew of the staggering murder rate of transgenders.

Transgender Europe reports that from 2008 to 2009, 121 trans women and men were reported murdered worldwide. One reported murder every three days. Human Rights Campaign estimates that in the United States, at least 15 transgender people are killed each year in hate-based attacks. Both groups stress that their numbers most likely underestimate the reality, based on trans people's common fear of going to the police and widespread misreporting.

Simpson points out that transgender oppression is lesbian, gay and bisexual oppression as well. She reasons that discrimination against us is not due to gender orientation - being gay or bisexual - but on gender expression. After all, she says, "we don't wear orientation on our sleeves." Others identify us as queers because we don't look, act or speak "straight."

People, queer and straight, are targeted because they are gender non-conforming. We are picked out and upon because of our gender expression which often does not conform with what society expects of our assigned gender. Girls who are deemed butch and boys who are judged effeminate are bullied by their peers.

Simpson also reminds us that gender non-conforming people have always been the ones who storm the gates of exclusion. The Compton Cafeteria riot of 1966 and the Stonewall riot of 1969 were led by transgender people who had enough. She quoted earlier speakers who attribute the burgeoning LGBT movement in India to hijras who courageously express their gender and fight for their proper place in society.

Personally, this brings to mind Filipino baklas and tibos who are at the forefront of the movement in the predominantly Roman Catholic Southeast Asian nation. Earlier this year, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled against the country's Commission on Elections which had disqualified Ang Ladlad, an LGBT-rights group, as an official political party.

Simpson is right in spotlighting the lack of concern among most of us for our transgender sisters and brothers. We need to realize that we have much in common and at stake with those among us who bravely choose to be themselves and not conform.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

If it looks like a Carlos ...

2010-11-28T10:12:00.008-05:00

Woodley Park, Washington, D.C. is an affluent neighborhood of predominantly white, highly educated, liberal Washingtonians. Single family homes start at about $800,000 and can run into the millions, while a renovated one bedroom apartment can be had by four interns sharing the rent.

I appreciate, for the most part, residing in this part the District. I take the Metro to work alongside well-scrubbed and clearly smart folk who keep the government running, ruminate at think tanks and serve at nonprofits. I like coming home to tree-lined streets with squealing toddlers chasing after squirrels under the watchful eyes of brown-skinned nannies on smart phones.

There are times however when I am reminded that just like everybody else, my progressive worldly neighbors have their own set of racial blinders. I am judged, in spite of my education, profession and surrender to the Washingtonian navy blazer and khakis drag, according to the color of my skin and facial features. Since I look Latino then I must be Latino. Never mind the fact that I am not.

During my first year at the "luxury" apartment where I live, the head of the tenants' association summarily assumed without looking me in the eye that I was one of the building's custodians. "You're coming up later to fix my cable, right?"

Just last week, a middle-aged woman admitted that though we have met multiple times, she can't seem to remember my name and wants to call me Carlos. "I don't know why I think your name is Carlos ... you just don't look like an Erwin."

The funny thing is, she pretty much solved her puzzle - I don't look like an Erwin to her. In her mind, I look more like a Carlos or a Mario. Admitting that however would be owning up to her deeply ingrained racial stereotypes. And we all know that well-off and educated liberals are post-racial.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

A Broader Understanding of Marriage

2010-11-13T12:20:00.004-05:00

My husband John, from a Christian minister's perspective, offers a broader view of marriage during our interview with a local radio show.

John: There is a passage in scripture, Jesus is talking about marriage, not as an end in itself, but as something that points to a greater love. The marriage doesn't just exist for those two people. It's meant as something that overflows in love and generosity and happiness and joy.

Interviewer: And John says, as more gay and lesbian people marry...

John: I think all the more that excitement and that happiness does overflow and hopefully that can change hearts and minds.

He is picking up from a sermon he preached last Sunday.

Marriage is for those of “this age,” Jesus says—those who need to provide for a family or provide for the wellbeing of others. The typical marriage in First Century Palestine, like much of the first millennium, was more about property and possessions than it was about love and sharing.

But whenever Jesus talks about marriage, he talks about it as something that always points beyond itself. Marriage doesn’t exists as an end in itself. It doesn’t exist simply for the two partners, or even the nuclear family. Marriage is a preparation for something to come, a training ground for love, a hint of something even more incredible to follow, something that will be even better than the closes of human relationships, at the resurrection.

One need not be a Christian or a believer to see that this generous view of marriage is more beneficial to society than the prevalent notion which greatly limits the relationship and institution.

From a purely secular and humanistic perspective, extending the freedom and right to marry to all can only strengthen the community and improve everyone's well-being.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

Minority Hierarchies

2010-11-06T15:48:00.007-04:00

It is important for most of us to belong to the right group - one that privileges us over others in real and perceived ways. And within any group, there will be jockeying for the better position, even among those who belong to a marginalized sector of society.

In the book Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation, Gwendolyn Ann Smith, transgender writer and activist, writes that those of us who belong to the LGBT community observe "a hierarchical order of who is acceptable and who is not."

Let me break it down this way: some lesbians and gays feel that their issues are more important than transgender issues, because transgender people are freaks. Some transgender people - often, but not only, transsexuals - view transsexual issues as more important than the issues of say, cross-dressers. Some among the more genderqueer portions of our community look down upon those who opt to live in a more "normatively gendered" space. There are even groups that cross-dressers feel superior to: sissies, drag kings and queens, "little girls," and so on.

The same distinctions and divisions can be seen within communities of color - among races and ethnicities, between native- and foreign-born, and among haves and have-nots.

Smith assumes that this "is some sort of human failing that makes us always need to shun someone who we perceive as 'more different than thou.'" But she acknowledges that "this does not help move us further along in the world at large."

We can argue about who is this and who is that, we can argue about who does or doesn't belong. We can talk about how much more legitimate one or another of us is. In the end, we are all somebody's freak - and basic human dignity is not a privilege of the lucky superior few, but a right of all or none.

As progress of civil rights is stalled by the nation's current toxic and polarized political reality, it is crucial that those of us who are relegated to America's social, political and economic margins - queers, immigrants, communities of color - fight the urge to divide ourselves and remain conquered.

There is after all strength in numbers and power in unity.

You can follow me on Twitter at ErwindeLeon.

What are you voting for?

2010-10-31T09:40:00.008-04:00

On Tuesday, the United States will hold elections that will determine its political, economic and social trajectory. Over the weekend, Brazil had its citizens decide their collective future.

What strikes me is the difference in what Americans and Brazilians are going to the polls for.

Brazilians are electing the successor of their current president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and it looks like his chosen heir, Dilma Roussef, will win. This confirms the desire of most Brazilians to continue in the path Lula (as he is popularly known) has taken his country - a socialist, big government experiment that has brought 20 million Brazilians out of poverty and addressed social inequity at little cost to the government and no impact on the nation's economic growth. It is a model some Latin American countries are emulating to improve their lot.

Americans on the other hand, will be voting into office members of the 112th Congress, and it seems inevitable that the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate. It reflects how many Americans feel about the direction President Obama has steered the nation - one with an expanded role of federal government, a response in part to a devastating recession and an attempt to fix a broken health care system. Enough people feel overwhelmed and frightened by what they perceive as too much change too soon that they are stepping on the brakes.

During any election, the question is what are citizens voting for? For Brazilians, it is to lift up those at the bottom of society and bridge social and economic gaps.

What will you be voting for?

You can follow me on Twitter at ErwindeLeon.

The Importance of Story Telling

2010-10-29T10:27:00.004-04:00

Legislative progress for LGBT and immigrant rights after the midterm elections will proceed at a snail's pace at best or screech to a grinding halt at worst. I tend to think the latter, considering the current political climate and lack of leadership in Congress and the White House on civil rights and immigration reform.

As such, I think it is crucial that we all go back to the basics and continue chipping away at the ground level by changing hearts and minds one at a time. An effective way to achieve this is by sharing our stories as queer folk, as immigrants, or as both. This puts forth faces that challenge stereotypes thereby encouraging some fair-minded individuals to change their positions and take on seemingly intractable issues.

So when the Michael Eric Dyson Radio Show invited me to tell my story as both a gay man and an immigrant, I jumped at the opportunity. I was able to shed light on the unique challenges faced by same-sex binational couples like my husband and me, as well as point out the many problems that beset America's immigration system. My interview begins at the 13:30 minute mark.

You can follow me on Twitter at ErwindeLeon.

Husband, partner, does it matter?

2010-10-09T08:02:00.003-04:00

You call John your husband? A colleague asked.

I was recounting a recent event I attended, which had me surrounded by card-carrying, gun-toting, anti-Washington conservatives. It was a business dinner and I was the guest, so I talked mostly about work. Until the conversation turned to families and children.

A woman across the table looked at me, pointed at her diamond encrusted ring finger and said, “I noticed your wedding band; tell us about your wife.”

Funny she should ask. Immediately after John and I got married last April, I enthusiastically embraced the term “husband,” after all, that was now a legal and lived fact. But lately, I have noticed myself weighing between using “partner” or “husband” when referring to my spouse. Often, my mouth would start to form a huh … but end up with a capitulated puh…rtner.

I would rationalize to myself that I was generously accommodating other people’s sensitivities. As my colleague points out, “husband” carries a lot of baggage especially when used by gay men like me.

Yet a clear small voice challenges – is that really all it is? Or do I carry the same baggage most in society still do? We’re just getting used to “partner” for heaven’s sake … can you gays please give us more time?

So when I was asked about my wife, I put down my fork, smiled and said, “husband.”

Surprisingly, the conversation didn’t turn awkward and I actually got to tell my dinner companions about my family just as they have been for the past hour. At the end of the evening the women hugged me and the men shook my hand. “This has been enlightening Erwin,” one man confessed.

“Husband” does carry some baggage but I believe that if it is used more often by married gay men, then the load would lessen.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

Principles I can live by

2010-10-02T08:34:00.005-04:00

An article about a rift among American humanists led me to the website of the newly formed Institute for Science and Human Values.

The group's mission statement easily resonates with me.

We are committed to scientific inquiry and the enhancement of human values. This combines both reason and compassion in realizing ethical wisdom. It focuses on the principles of personal integrity: individual freedom and responsibility. It includes a commitment to social justice, planetary ethics, and developing shared values for the human family.

They argue that in a rapidly changing global community with conflicting religious, ideological and nationalist value systems, we need to discover values and principles, which can be shared by all people and which transcend dogmas and ideologies of the past.

I strongly agree with the institute's principles for personal integrity. These principles truly transcend religious belief systems and political ideologies which tend to divide us and at worse contribute to prejudice, oppression, inequity and injustice.

1. The equal dignity and value of each person.

2. The right of each person to pursue one's own rights consonant with the social good.

3. The right of privacy concerning a person’s own beliefs and values.

4. Each person should be treated as an end and not as a means.

5. Each person is responsible for her/his own life and career.

6. Society should provide wherever feasible the right to education and health care, safety and protection, and the satisfaction of the basic needs.

7. Each individual should have equal opportunity where feasible to fulfill her/his own unique talents and potentialities.

8. Cultivate reason, moral and aesthetic values, to raise her/his level of taste and appreciation, to expand her/his horizons for growth, to achieve creativity.

9. The right to live with a partner or partners of her/his choice in equality, in a family and to raise children

10. It is important that every effort be made to cultivate empathic and compassion attitude towards others, and altruistic concern.

11. Every person shall have the right to participate democratically in society.

12. To develop the common moral decencies and the excellences of the good life.

13. To be concerned with an enlightened self interest and also the common good.

14. Hopefully she/he will express good will toward others and develop an optimistic outlook in life in which happiness and exuberance will be realized.

15. All individuals live in a common habitat, the planet earth, hence every individual has a responsibility to be concerned with environmental integrity and to avoid the pollution of natural resources.

Perhaps if we tried to live by these principles, we'd all be in a better place.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

Walking with Integrity: Why People of Faith Should Welcome Immigrants

2010-09-29T18:40:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on Integrity USA's blog.

At the March for America rally in DC, earlier this year, members of the LGBT and religious communities joined immigrant and minority groups calling for immigration reform. I stood alongside other LGBT activists who support an overhaul of the immigration system and demand that LGBT families be included in any reform effort.

It was a defiant, electric and hopeful moment but I was dismayed to hear a gay man emphasize – without being prompted – “I’m not here to support these illegals, I’m here for my husband.” His husband is a foreign national whom he cannot sponsor for legal permanent residency because the federal government does not recognize lesbian and gay unions.

Aside from the fact that most immigrants are NOT undocumented, the man does not realize that he should protest not only for his husband and for the inclusion of binational couples in immigration reform legislation but for all immigrants.

I would argue that one does not even have to have a foreign-born spouse or partner to support an inclusive and truly comprehensive immigration legislation.

Strategically, it is makes sense for minority groups such as LGBTs and immigrants to support each other - strength in numbers. By showing up for other minorities, they will also show up for us. And it is an effective way to gain visibility and challenge prejudice within ethnic communities.

But I believe that there are more profound reasons to welcome strangers.

As Americans, we need to remember that this nation was founded by immigrants and continues to thrive because of newcomers who only want to better their families’ lives. We should recall our core principles of equality, freedom and justice not for a select few but for all.

As people of faith, we believe that all people are created in the image of God and that we are all called to love one another. Let us not forget our mandate to welcome the stranger – LGBT, of color, immigrant.

I urge my fellow Episcopalians – gay, straight, native-born, foreign-born – to live up to our ideals as citizens and as Christians. Please support comprehensive immigration reform which includes LGBT families.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon .

Why Asian Americans should care about Immigration Reform

2010-09-27T12:40:00.004-04:00

Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco writes an essay arguing for the support of progressive immigration reform by Asian American Pacific Islanders. The abstract of the article which can be downloaded from the Social Science Research Network website reads:

Asian Americans have a lot to gain from progressive immigration reform. Today, our relatives abroad make up the bulk of those who are on a waiting list that can last almost two decades in some categories. Many young men and women from our communities face deportation even though they have grown up in the United States. Some are subjected to harsh Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and detention policies. Of the estimated twelve million undocumented immigrants in the country, demographers tell us that more than 10 percent are from Asian or Pacific countries. Many undocumented Asian Americans are college or college-bound students who have been praying for the passage of the DREAM Act so that they can get legalized and contribute more fully to U.S. society.

Perhaps most importantly, Asian Americans should care about immigration policies because even the most cursory review of Asian American history informs us that immigration laws and enforcement have shaped and reshaped our communities since the 1800s. Today, every Asian American subgroup, with the exception of Japanese Americans, remains predominately foreign-born. And when anti-immigrant restrictionists wage attacks on newcomers, it should not take much to realize that the targets could be us, because in fact, the target is us.

In this essay, I first review a handful of policies that relate directly to issues affecting Asian immigration. Then I turn to other big immigration policy questions that all Americans, including Asian Americans, should contemplate. Addressing those questions directly and without delay is an important step in resolving the tension over immigration that affects all communities of color in the United States.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Image from LIFE.

Mr. Ratzinger, this is what a secular society is all about

2010-09-18T18:10:00.006-04:00

Evan Harris, a former UK member of parliament, shared his secularist manifesto on the Guardian, a response to the pope's warning against "aggressive" secularism. It is an excellent rejoinder of what a secular society is.

Secularism is unfairly characterised and attacked by religious leaders as a way of seeking to protect their privileges.
Secularism is not atheism (lack of belief in God) and nor is it humanism (a nonreligious belief system). It is a political movement seeking specific policy end-points. Many secularists are religious and many religious people – recognising the value of keeping government and religion separate – are secular.
Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, seeks to maximise freedom of religious and other expression and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. This is essentially a summary of article 9 of the European convention on human rights. In addition secularism aims to end religious privileges or persecutions and to fully separate the state from religion which is a necessary means to that end.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Image by Inez Templeton.

Religious leader responds to Post article

2010-09-18T09:29:00.004-04:00

In response to the Washington Post's September 13 front-page article "Gay couples seeking immigration rights", Bill Mefford, director of civil and human rights for the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, wrote the editors:

While I appreciate The Post's coverage of the need to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] immigrant families, it was disappointing that this story did not include more supportive voices from the faith community. The article failed to represent the people of various faiths -- including my own -- who believe that all families must be included in any reform if it is truly to be called comprehensive.
United Methodist, Episcopalian, Jewish, Unitarian and other denominations have wholeheartedly embraced reform that leaves no family behind. Our belief that we must "love thy neighbor as thyself" compels us to speak out for our LGBT neighbors.

This echoes my last post.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

What was missing in today's Post

2010-09-13T07:40:00.006-04:00

On the cover of today's Washington Post is an article about the immigration challenge faced by thousands of binational same-sex couples. My husband and I were interviewed for the piece and I find it for the most part balanced and matter of fact. However, there are a few things I need to address.

First, too much weight is placed on the opposition and power of Roman Catholic bishops and Evangelical leaders. Fact of the matter is, there are many other faith leaders who have spoken out in support of the inclusion of gay families in any immigration reform effort.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which seeks to eliminate discrimination in immigration laws by allowing lesbian and gay Americans to sponsor their loved ones for legal permanent residency, has been endorsed by numerous faith organizations, including African American Ministers in Action; Call to Action; Catholics for Equality; Church World Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; Clergy United; The Episcopal Church; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Standing on the Side of Love; the United Methodist Church; and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Secondly, there are Roman Catholics who oppose their bishops' stance.

Catholics for Equality was founded by Fr. Joseph Palacios, a sociology professor at Georgetown University, to empower pro-equality Catholics to put their faith into political action on behalf of the LGBT community and their families.

An article in Religion Dispatches quotes Palacios pointing out that “Catholics as a religious body are the most progressive in terms of LGBT issues and we want to be the contrary voice to the official church and to help these Catholics see their social justice tradition and family life as [being] as important as anything coming from the bishops."

In the same piece, Sr. Jeannine Gramick, the national coordinator for the National Coalition of American Nuns, didn't mince words.

I find their arguments specious and I think their stand, personally I find it scandalous ... I am proud to be a Catholic ... I’m a lifelong Catholic. I spend my life hopefully working for justice so that people can look and see there are Catholic people who at least try to be just and try to follow the Gospel. But frankly the US bishops continually embarrass me. They are an embarrassment to the Catholic Church at this point, particularly with the stand they are taking.

Palacios and Gramick appear to have a better sense of the laity's pulse than the bishops. A recent poll the Public Religion Research Institute reveals that a "solid majority of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants (in California) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Moreover, the next generation of Evangelicals are far more welcoming of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people than their elders. According to a recent report, young white evangelicals under the age of 35 are more likely than older evangelicals to be more supportive of legal recognitions for gay and lesbian couples.

Finally, I can not reiterate and stress enough that this issue has nothing to do with religious beliefs and everything to do with equality and civil rights.

In order for any immigration reform effort to be truly comprehensive, no one group, no matter how small, can be left out. In order for this country and its citizens to live up to its core values of freedom, equality and justice, LGBT Americans and their families should not be thrown under the bus. Again.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

A Place for Islam, Muslims & Queer Muslims in America

2010-09-09T16:11:00.003-04:00

Anti-Muslim rhetoric is reaching fever pitch as we mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Irrationality, raw emotion and political opportunism have taken over discourse on the place of Islam and Muslims in American life.

I can understand why many are swayed by those who would purport to take us back to prelapsarian days which never were. As a gay man, I share the discomfort with a religion – any religion – that treats women as inferior to men and LGBT people as pariah scorned and worthy of death. The facts are however that Islam, like its sibling faiths Christianity and Judaism, is not monolithic, that Muslim Americans come in all stripes, and that there are queer Muslims.

Prof. David Rayside of the University of Toronto presented a paper which highlight these themes at last week’s annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Washington, D.C.

He points out that there is a “wide range of Muslim religious practice, including not only a large number of African American Muslims, but also significant numbers of Sufis and Ismailis” that suffuses various Muslim communities in the United States. These groups speak many languages and represent various ethnicities and countries of origin – African Americans, South and South East Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans. Most of these communities do not mix much socially, religiously or culturally.

He argues that Muslim Americans “are comparatively well integrated into the social and political mainstream, and hold to moderate or progressive beliefs on a wide range of policy issues” but does admit that on questions of sexual diversity, “they are significantly more conservative than the average American,” holding views akin to evangelical Protestants.

There are a handful of courageous and forward-looking Muslim Americans though who strive for sexual diversity, respect and equality, and who are educating and advocating within their communities.

Muslims for Progressive Values for example, upholds ten principles “rooted in Islam, including social equality, separation of religion and state, freedom of speech, women's rights, gay rights, and critical analysis and interpretation.”

Prof. Rayside also notes a crucial trend, the intergenerational shift among Muslim Americans. He believes that “a longer history in North America means that more Muslims will recognize that there are family members, work associates, fellow students who are queer Muslims, and over time this will bring their views on homosexuality into closer alignment with other social views.”

He adds that “queer visibility within broader Muslim communities will eventually come from the growing numbers of queer Muslim networks, as well as from increased social and political restiveness among sexual minorities in South Asian, Southeast Asian, North African and Middle Eastern countries of origin.”

Al-Fatiha is one such network. It is a safe space for queer Muslims and their families, friends and allies which began as an internet listserv and now has 14 chapters in the United States and offices in England, Canada, Spain, Turkey and Africa. Al-Fatiha promotes “the progressive Islamic notions of peace, equality and justice” and envisions “a world that is free from prejudice, injustice and discrimination, where all people are fully embraced and accepted into their families, faith and communities.”

I suspect most of us share Al-Fatiha’s dream of a more equitable, tolerant and welcoming society. We can start working towards this vision by challenging our own prejudices and preconceived notions about Islam and Muslim Americans. We can reach out to fellow citizens who practice a different faith. We can support queer Muslims who sacrifice much by choosing to live openly and with integrity.

As we mark a devastating moment in American history, let us remember that e pluribus unum – out of many, one.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Image from Change.org.

Being trans in Europe

2010-09-04T04:14:00.005-04:00

Last Wednesday, the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT Rights and the Greens/European Free Alliance co-hosted a conference on transgender* rights in the European Union. The Greens/European Free Alliance is a European parliamentary group made up of members of the European Green Party and representatives of stateless nations and disadvantaged minorities.

Transgender Europeans are a particularly vulnerable group. Seventy nine percent have reported negative comments, verbal, physical or sexual abuse or threatening behavior in public. Thirty three trans women and men have been murdered in Europe in the last 30 months.

European transgenders face extreme prejudice and disadvantage much like anywhere else. They face direct discrimination through hate crimes and lack of access to goods and services, the labor market, and resources such as vocational training and education.

They also suffer indirect and institutionalized discrimination through the absence of laws in European member states recognizing gender identity. Trans individuals are unable to formally change their name and gender due to unreasonable conditions imposed by most member states such as sterilization, permanent infertility and sex reassignment surgery.

These draconian conditions violate basic human rights of transgender Europeans – the rights to freedom of movement, physical integrity and choice of medical interventions.

Participants of the conference started a much needed conversation about the state of transgender people in Europe. They acknowledged the necessity of mandating the recognition of gender identity and protection of transgender citizens in all member states. This conversation should be had everywhere.

*A transgender or trans person is someone whose gender identity does not correspond to the gender with which he or she was born. This includes transsexual, transgender, gender variant and genderqueer people, transvestites, crossdressers and no gender people.

Can Mehlman ever redeem himself?

2010-08-30T18:38:00.004-04:00

Ken Mehlman’s coming out last week elicited a ho-hum from the mainstream press but from the LGBT community, his long overdue admission resulted in a fierce and bitter backlash.

This is understandable. As campaign manager for President Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign, Mehlman was instrumental in exploiting same-sex marriage as a wedge issue. As head of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007, he advocated the Bush administration’s push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

His actions caused immense suffering for many of us. As Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out wrote:

Mehlman cannot deny that his abhorrent actions negatively affected the paths of so many other people. His odious work led to broken families, gay teenagers commuting suicide, LGBT couples who were not able to marry, broken people joining silly "ex-gay" programs and individuals who lost their jobs or were hate crime victims.

Mehlman is trying to redeem himself by raising funds for American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization responsible for the federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. He boasts that he has helped raise $750,000 to date. But is this enough?

Many lesbian and gay couples will undoubtedly benefit from the legalization of same-sex marriages but what about those among us who are more concerned about finding good jobs and keeping the ones we do have? What about those among us who are immigrants or have partners and spouses who are non-citizens? What about queer individuals our own community marginalizes?

Will Ken Mehlman use the connections and power he amassed in exchange for our rights to raise money and fight for all LGBTs and other groups who are not as privileged?

Now that he himself is a minority, will Mehlman have empathy and compassion for other minorities?

I do not know the man personally and only time will tell. I do hope however now that he has unburdened himself by coming out at nary a cost but much gain and has secured for himself a very comfortable place in society, that he would start thinking about other people.

If he does use his gain for the benefit of those among us who are not as lucky and clever, then there might be redemption yet. Otherwise, it will confirm what some of us are thinking that it has been all about Ken.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

A shared future?

2010-08-20T18:41:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

As a gay man, I no longer worry as much about the place and future of lesbians and gays in American society.

As more people get to know us — their sisters, brothers, parents, neighbors and coworkers — and learn that we are not that different, I am confident that it will be a matter of years, not generations, before we gain rights and protections other citizens take for granted.

As an immigrant and person of color, however, I am not as optimistic. There is such raw animus and unabashed prejudice against newcomers and their American families simply because they don’t look, sound, dress, act or worship like most of us.

Laws and policies that institutionalize racial profiling have become the de facto solution to the complex problem of immigration. Amending the Constitution has also been embraced as a palliative, now palatable to those who would otherwise have held the document as static and sacrosanct.

The idea of a community center a couple of blocks away from the former World Trade Center is causing such a furor. The president’s defense of our fundamental right to practice religion has led a White House spokeperson to say:

“…the president is obviously a — is Christian. He prays every day. He communicates with his religious advisor every single day. There’s a group of pastors that he takes counsel from on a regular basis. And his faith is very important to him.”

The gap between the haves and have-nots continues to widen. The income disparity between the wealthiest people and the rest of us has more than tripled during the last three decades. American women overall earn less than men, but African American women and Latinas make far less. More African Americans and Latinos are unemployed than White Americans. One in every four black Americans is underemployed.

As a queer person of color, I am anxious about the place and future of minority LGBT people. I worry about those of us do not look, sound, dress, act or live like everybody else. These are members of our community who do not have the resources, voice or power some of us enjoy due to the accident of birth and circumstance. These are Americans who remain in the margins.

It will be up to those of us who are joining the mainstream and are looking forward to better days not to forget those who are left behind.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Mr. President, stop spinning, stand firm

2010-08-17T19:35:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

The Republican Party and their Tea Party confederates have seized upon a perfect wedge issue for the upcoming midterm elections: the proposed Islamic Center a couple of blocks away from the former World Trade Center site.

More precisely, though, the issue is Islam and the place of Muslim Americans in our society. Unwittingly, the president provided kindling to the fire and rather than address the issue head-on, he has chosen to “qualify” his stance.

On Friday, President Obama addressed a group of Muslim American leaders to mark the holy month of Ramadan. He was quoted as saying, “I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … [and this] includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

The stance is clear enough. Twenty four hours later, however, after conservatives eagerly pounced on the red meat tossed their way, the president “quickly recalibrated his remarks” as the New York Times put it.

During his family’s visit to the Gulf of Mexico, Obama clarified that he was not in any way endorsing a mosque so close to Ground Zero, but simply pointing out that everybody should be treated equally regardless of religion.

“I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

Politicians “spin” issues all the time and the president is no exception. Our elected officials tell us what they think most of us would like to hear — or at least what those they fear most would like to hear. In this situation, the White House and the Democrats are worried about the growing anger and dissatisfaction of the general public and the seats they will lose in November. Interestingly, they seem unconcerned about their base’s disenchantment.

At some point, though, political doublespeak becomes untenable and our leaders need to take a firm stance — a principled stand.

Earlier last week, the administration was in a similar quandary. When White House spokesman Ben Labolt was asked about the administration’s reaction to Judge Vaughn Walker’s Proposition 8 ruling, he said that the president has always been against the same-sex marriage ban “because it is divisive and discriminatory” and that Obama “will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

An anonymous White House aide then reminded everyone that the president has publicly opposed same-sex marriage and he has not changed his position: “He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop 8 in other states.”

So which is it, Mr. President? Do you believe in equality for LGBT Americans or not? If you do — which you articulated 14 years ago while running for a seat in the Illinois State Senate — then why not come out in full support of same-sex marriage?

If you believe in the right of all Americans to practice their chosen religion, then why disavow your support for a community center which is not in Ground Zero in the first place?

Candidate Obama inspired many of us with his message of hope, which promised equality for all. President Obama repeats the same words, but now they ring hollow. He needs to stand tall again and firmly by his ideals.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Where do we go from here?

2010-08-07T06:36:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

The Proposition 8 ruling is a major victory but the war for equality is far from over.

The ruling has been appealed by proponents of the ballot initiative and everyone expects the case to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Considering the conservative makeup of the country’s highest court and conventional wisdom that it does not move ahead of the general population, it is highly unlikely that the majority of justices will rule in our favor should the case come up anytime soon.

We do have some time, however, to continue the work we have started in coaxing more of our fellow citizens to our side. Gallup reports that close to 60 percent of Americans believe that “gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal.” The percentage of people who support same-sex marriage is steadily rising. Five states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire — and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriages. California and New Jersey have instituted civil unions. A growing number of states and jurisdictions are providing protections for same-sex couples, albeit often in limited forms.

Still, close to half of all Americans do not approve of us and our families.

Immediately after Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, the blame game started and many fingers were pointed at the African American community. In time, social scientists have established that race or ethnicity had little to do with how a person voted that day. Religiosity, fear and misinformation have been identified as the main impetus behind an individual’s decision to support the anti-equality measure. Age, ideology and other characteristics also prompted a person to support Prop 8.

So now what? How can we counter misinformation, fear and other people’s biases? An article about a married gay couple provides a suggestion. For years, Bryn and James were tormented with verbal abuse by their conservative neighbor — so much so that they got a restraining order against him. When the neighbor’s house went up in flames, though, the men did not hesitate to run to their antagonizer’s rescue.

We do not know if this act of heroism and compassion will be reciprocated. But such acts of humanity and kindness can certainly go a long way in swaying those who remain on the fence. We can show folks that while they may disagree with our “chosen lifestyle,” we are actually good neighbors who deserve equal treatment under the law.

There will always be a small fringe who will never be convinced. But I believe that most people can and will change their minds about us.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Are you Filipino?

2010-08-01T09:55:00.007-04:00

Yesterday, while lining up for Thai papaya salad at the Asian Festival in Virginia, a middle-aged Filipino man approached me and posed the same question he had asked each person in the queue. "Are you Filipino?"

My husband and I made the trip to the festival since its organizers were highlighting the Philippines this year. I wanted to see what this gathering was about, to taste some authentic Asian food, and to be around "my people" - Filipinos and other Asians.

Indeed, there was comfort had in being around folks who looked like my mom, lola, titas, titos, cousins and pamangkins. It was fun seeing women in baro't saya and men in barong tagalog. It was heartening to see Filipino-American youth sporting t-shirts emblazoned with the Philippine flag and other symbols of ethnic pride. It was good to be among my kababayans.

But being surrounded by my kind also made me realize how different I am. I hold individualism sacred and personal space dear. I wanted to buy a parasol not to block the sun but to keep people at arm's length. I was grateful not to have to deal with three generations in the swarm that overtook the small patch of park allotted to us.

I also noticed the elitism and sense of privilege from another place and time bubble up. "We are in America now, we are all equal," a voice in my head gently admonished. "No me toques," responded another.

Often have I bristled at people assuming outright that I am Latino. Although I understand why many would think so, since I look more Hispanic than Asian and have a Spanish last name, I want to be seen and acknowledged for who I am: an Asian and a Filipino.

But when it came to answer the odd little man's question - are you Filipino? - I shook my head and said, "No, I'm Mexican." I didn't want him in my space and I didn't want to engage. But my lie did not dissuade him from starting a discourse on the shared history and culture of Mexico and the Philippines, thanks to the Galleon Trade. Or from telling me that I should move to California where there are a lot of Mexicans.

Gratefully, the line inched on and I along with it. In the sweltering heat and humidity, overwhelmed by all the people - my people - I just wanted my papaya salad. The all too familiar accent of the man soon petered out.

"Next time, I'll get my Asian from the Freer-Sackler," I said half-jokingly as we drove back into the city.

Do Asian Americans hate gay marriage?

2010-07-23T23:38:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

Korean Americans Hate Gay Marriage Most, Poll Reveals.The headline reeled me in, but it was the blogger’s assertion that “it’s been known for some time that Asian Americans are the ethnic group most opposed to gay marriage in California” which got me going.

First of all, Asian American is not an ethnic group. Rather, it is a catch-all for Americans who can trace their roots to East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia. Secondly, the Field Poll report that the writer cites only discusses three Asian American subgroups: Chinese Americans, Korean Americans and Vietnamese Americans. Finally, the article that he links to his generalization quotes a couple of experts, a political consultant and an executive director of a Chinese American nonprofit, who were sharing their opinions on what happened in November 2008, when Barack Obama and Proposition 8 prevailed in California.

The results of an exit poll conducted Nov. 4 that year revealed that 64 percent of Asian American voters in Los Angeles voted against Proposition 8. Likewise, a survey by professors Patrick Egan and Kenneth Sherrill showed that 52 percent of Asian Americans in California voted against the ballot initiative. Moreover, their report concluded that a voter’s party identification, ideology, religious affiliation and age had a much bigger impact on the decision to vote for or against Proposition 8. The academics explained much of the difference among racial and ethnic groups to varying levels of religiosity. It has little to do with race and more to do with how often a voter worships.

Cuc Vu, a Vietnamese-American who works closely with immigrant communities, disagrees with the contention that all Asian Americans oppose same-sex marriage. She is not surprised, however, by the Field Poll findings about Korean and Vietnamese Americans.

“Koreans are the most conservative among Asians on marriage equality because of the Baptist tradition that large segments of Koreans follow. For Vietnamese, the Catholic Church is very influential.” She points out, however, that “that younger Koreans and Vietnamese have different views than their more traditional and religious immigrant parents or grandparents.”

Although one cannot say that all Asian Americans hate gay marriage, the reality is many do because of their faith traditions, age and political and social ideologies. They form a sizable bloc of voters we need to convince of our fundamental right to fair and equal treatment under the law. So how can we change the minds and hearts of more conservative Asian Americans?

I think the onus is on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Asian American people and organizations who need to reach out to their communities. Vu points out that “one of the reasons why I think you saw a majority of Asian voters in California voting against Prop 8 is because of Asian Pacific Islander LGBT leaders in California making themselves visible in key spaces — like marching in the annual Chinese New Year Parade. That would be the equivalent of black LGBTs having a strong presence at the annual Black Family Reunion.”

“API LGBT leaders also housed API Equality, which has been working on marriage equality for years, in the offices of Chinese for Affirmative Action, a respected local civil rights organization in the Bay Area. Integrating LGBT issues in a community-based civil rights organization recast LGBT issues as part of the Chinese community’s civil rights issues.”

“Both of these strategies are about engaging straight allies,” Vu emphasizes. “And stepping out of our LGBT bubble and into spaces where we might face rejection. But API LGBT leaders in California have put themselves out there consistently, year after year, and that’s why I think you saw API voters behaving differently than black and Latino voters.”

Filipino-American Hyacinth Alvaran, co-chair of Asian Pacific Islander Queer Sisters, agrees.

“I think being visibly present, supporting API community activities is important. This is where API LGBT groups can come in, to help speak on behalf of API LGBT people and build the trust with other API organizations, especially those that serve the immigrant community. Whether it be helping organize, participating in, or humbly but proudly serving at citizenship workshops, cultural events, events where critical community services are being provided, etc., we can interact with members of the community in a way that shows that we are out and that we are proud to be both LGBT and API. We alone as API LGBT people can’t change the attitudes of our larger API communities, but if we build trust with key community leaders and organizations who can help us do that, it’s a start.”

It is a start, not only for queer Asian Americans, but for all of us.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

A continuing plight

2010-07-19T20:19:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

Last week, U.S. Reps. Luis Gutierrez, Mike Honda, Jerrold Nadler, Jared Polis and Mike Quigley came out in support of an LGBT-inclusive immigration reform at a press event in the Rayburn House Building.

“The underlying part of any comprehensive immigration bill is family unity and I am here today because I think we need to speak more clearly, more articulately, and more frequently that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, and same-sex couples and their binational relationships, are part of families,” Rep. Gutierrez said.

He emphasized the difficulty that thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples face.

“Right now, too many same-sex, bi-national couples face an impossible choice: to live apart or to break the law to be with their partners, families, and children. That’s not good for them and it is not good for the rest of us, either. That’s why I think the provisions of [the Uniting American Families Act] must be part of any comprehensive immigration reform bill.”

I was invited to share my own story as the foreign-born half of a bi-national couple. After the event, John Henrehan, a reporter for Fox 5 WTTG interviewed me. Over the weekend, his segment on immigration reform and same-sex couples was published online and played during local news broadcasts.

A few friends have seen the clip and have been very supportive. Many were unaware of the predicament my husband and I face. Although we have been together 12 years, registered domestic partners in New York City for six years, and now a married couple in the District, he is unable to sponsor me for permanent legal residence simply because we happen to be gay. Immigration is a federal matter and our union is not recognized by current U.S. immigration laws. If we were an opposite-sex couple, getting a green card would not be such a hurdle.

I have lived in the United States for two decades and this is home for me. This is home for both of us. Unfortunately, once I complete my doctorate and my student visa expires sometime during the next couple of years, we may need to leave the country — unless immigration reform which includes LGBT families is passed.

“I thought they did a great job with the story! Hopefully y’all won’t have to move!” posted a friend on my Facebook page.

“Excellent interview. I hope and pray that the laws will change,” wrote another.

Conversations about immigration and the plight of same-sex, bi-national couples are important. I appreciate the concern and well-wishes, but I also challenge my friends and allies to act.

Now that you are aware of this issue, talk to everyone about it: your neighbor, your colleagues, your friends and family, and especially your representatives and senators. Tell them you’d like immigration reform to be LGBT-inclusive and that you’d like immigration reform to happen this year in this Congress.

“You are not going anywhere. We are fighting for our full rights until the end,” vowed a gay friend.

I’m counting on that.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Same-sex binational couples in the news

2010-07-19T08:34:00.005-04:00

Last Thursday, Immigration Equality organized a press event at the Rayburn House Office Building during which Representatives Luis Gutierrez, Mike Honda, Jerrold Nadler and Mike Quigley advocated for the inclusion of same-sex binational couples in immigration reform legislation. I was invited to tell my story as the foreign-born half of a binational couple which led to an interview by a local reporter.

Although the story had been preempted by a power outage at Reagan National Airport then by the very minor earthquake in the D.C. area, the piece was finally aired during local news broadcasts over the weekend. Here's the video clip:

This has started some conversations which I hope will lead to action on behalf of LGBT binational families and immigrants in general.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Gays in 2050

2010-07-12T20:21:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade.

The Smithsonian magazine is marking its 40th anniversary with a special issue that tells us 40 things we need to know about the next 40 years.

The issue covers the environment, population issues, medicine and science, arts and culture, and technology. Scientists, experts and thinkers predict that by 2050, jellyfish will have taken over our oceans, electric cars will be given away for free, World War III will be fought in space, and medical innovations will enable us to regrow severed limbs. President Obama, who penned a short article, remains “full of hope about what the future holds.”

But what about us? Where will we be 40 years from now?

Like the president, I am rather optimistic about the state of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. By mid-century, Americans and citizens of other developed nations will be scratching their heads wondering what the big deal was about granting a minority group the same rights, privileges and standing as anyone else. We will be in the military and our families will be recognized. We will not be anxious about getting fired because we happen to be queer. We will not fear getting raped, beaten or killed because of how we look, speak or act. We will be full citizens.

Part of my hopefulness rests in changing demographics. A couple of decades from now, the generation that is most uncomfortable with non-heterosexuals will be gone, as will their antiquated notions, undue influence (especially in government and policy), and resistance. They will be replaced by people of my generation who tend to be more comfortable with difference and who have lived, worked and loved openly gay and transgender women and men.

By 2050, the United States will be home to at least 400 million people and will be far more diverse. We will have learned to live with plurality. More than 50 percent of the population will be of color: about 29 percent Hispanic, 13 percent Black, 9 percent Asian and 2 percent American Indian/Alaska Native. Immigrants and their U.S.-born descendants will account for most U.S. population growth. Countries like Mexico, China, India, the Philippines and Pakistan will lose citizens migrating to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy.

This flow of people results in a flow of ideas. Those receiving immigrants will be exposed to different cultures just as those sending émigrés will also have their traditions challenged by expatriates remitting much needed dollars and Euros. Women who leave children, husbands and families to find work in another land will become empowered and expect more respect and autonomy. Queer individuals who come out and succeed away from confining and repressive families and societies will refuse to stand in the shadows and remain silent.

Ideas and culture will also spread through technology, particularly through the web and mobile devices. People in less developed and more oppressed nations will learn about equality, freedom and opportunity. The younger generation will realize that their lives are not predetermined by caste and religion. Women will demand parity. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will aspire for the freedom enjoyed by their counterparts in the West.

We are already seeing this happen, slowly but surely. Unless a major catastrophe or total economic meltdown occurs, when fear will again rule rather than reason, I think that life can only get better for all of us. Until then, we continue the struggle. We come out, we reach out, we change hearts and minds. We create the future we deserve.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Image by Sucheta Das/Associated Press.

Familial Choices

2010-06-21T20:39:00.003-04:00

I love my family. I look forward to our big, drama-infused Filipino-American parties and the smaller visits around them. Yet I confess to anticipating stress and feeling a little dread.

As with any other family, we tend to fall back into our places and roles which can be very different from the person we have become. Among many Asian families, lesbian and gay family members who are not outrightly shunned are present but they often remain in the shadows, expected not to talk about their realities and loves.

Growing up during the 1970s and 1980s, I always noticed the unmarried auntie or uncle of other clans who took care of ailing elders, children and the shared household. Needless to say, not all were necessarily gay but as a boy who had yet to understand and embrace his difference, I did get the message that queer family members stay in the margins. I understood that the price for keeping a seat at the very far end of the table is silence and the unquestioned support of those who do not bring shame and produce progeny.

No one present at our matriarch’s 90th birthday celebration over the weekend would think for a second that I have become one of those subservient uncles shuffling in the background. In the obligatory slide montage presented during the formal reception, a picture of me and my husband was flashed along with family photos of other cousins. My better half, an Episcopal priest, was wrangled by my conservative Catholic aunts into saying a blessing before the dinner. We both hammed it up on the dance floor with other grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I am very fortunate to have a family that allows me to be who I am. But I first made the choice to come out and be proud of my difference. Then it took many years for most everyone to come to terms with who I am. Although my husband has been woven into our familial fabric, there are those who still have not mentioned much less congratulated us on our recent marriage. While I do not doubt their affection for us, I know that some would readily vote against equality, thanks to their unquestioned adherence to Catholicism. I am aware that some would rather we don’t flaunt our gay “lifestyle” much as they do their heterosexual one.

The thing is, I refuse to fall into the traditional place and role relegated to queer family members. As I wrote my mom years ago, I knew that she knew I was gay but if she’d rather not talk about it, then I would respect her choice. However, she should realize that while our exchanges would be polite, they would be superficial. She would miss a major part of my life. Thankfully, she chose to take me for who I am. So have my surviving grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Why I go to church

2010-06-17T01:07:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

Among those of us who attend religious services, finding a faith community that is truly welcoming of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and all queer people is crucial.

We’ve been hurt emotionally, psychologically and, at times, physically because of the beliefs of religious leaders and their followers. Religious beliefs that breed fear, ignorance, delusion and hubris. How many of us have been separated from our families and communities — by choice or otherwise — because of man-made dogma?

Some of us decide to sever ties with the faith tradition we grew up with and become followers of another religion, such as Christians who are now Buddhists. Others stay with the same tradition but shift allegiance to a denomination that embraces LGBT people, such as Roman Catholics who become Episcopalians. A few cling to what they know with the hope that they will change the system, even though their tradition deems queer folk abominations and is not likely to abandon its discriminatory practices anytime soon.

I grew up Roman Catholic but am now an Episcopalian. The transition was easy. The worship and trappings are similar — except that the Episcopal Church truly welcomes me and “my kind.” We can actually serve as priests and be elevated as bishops, not just read the lessons or assist male priests. Women can head the entire church. The leader of the Episcopal Church is a mother and a scientist. Best of all, I don’t need to leave my brains at the door. We are encouraged to seek the divine in scripture, tradition and reason.

At the end of the day, though, the main reason I go to my church, the stone building near the National Zoo, is the sense of belonging and community that I and other members feel. It is a diverse community that includes straight, gay, bi and trans people; blacks, Latinos and Asians; birth and adopted families; and pretty much anyone who chooses to become part of the family.

This family was well represented at last weekend’s Capital Pride celebration where straight parishioners proudly marched during the parade and staffed our booth, where parents brought their children, and where twenty-somethings stood by retirees.

I can never know with certainty what God thinks, how she wants the world to be, or even if she exists. But I know firsthand of the love, joy and fellowship of a bunch of diverse and very human believers.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

From the mouths of babes

2010-06-12T04:26:00.005-04:00

At a gathering last night, I somehow found myself eating at the kid's table (kitchen bar actually). One of the neighbor's kids asked my friend's eight year old girl, nodding at my direction, "Who's that?"

Scout grinned and answered, "that's Erwin from church."

"I don't know him," said Alex, feigning indifference.

"Oh, he's married to Father John." Scout's face betrayed how much she relished sharing that bit of information.

Alex's eyes widened and she started giggling.

"Is there anything wrong with that?" I teased.

"No, no," Alex protested, "I have a friend who has two mommies ... but you're boys!"

"So what?" Scout jumped in. "If two girls can get married, why not two boys?"

"But they're boys!" Alex rebutted. She was about to say more when her three year old brother started screaming for chips.

Living in Northwest D.C. and knowing their parents, I was not fazed by this exchange. But I am curious why Alex thinks it is okay for two girls to marry but not for two boys. Perhaps she doesn't know a kid with two daddies? Maybe it's conditioning? Who knows!

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

The Global Fight for Equality

2010-06-12T04:08:00.006-04:00

The Anglican Bishop of West Buganda, Christopher Senyonjo, is currently in the United States telling the stories of LGBT Ugandans. Bishop Senyonjo has been excommunicated by his church for the comfort and succor he provides persecuted countrywomen and men.

Earlier this week, the religious leader was at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank in the District, to discuss what was billed as “the Global Fight for LGBT Rights” with Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson.

Although Bishop Senyonjo spoke mainly about the plight of Ugandan gay and trans people, their experience is shared by queer folk all over the continent where 38 out of 54 countries criminalize homosexuality.

The bishop also discussed the impetus behind Uganda’s anti-LGBT legislation which prompted a global outcry – the interference of American religious conservatives, the battle for African souls by Christianity and Islam, and Africa’s fraught history and relationship with the West.

Bishop Senyonjo suggested some actions which can help alleviate the suffering of LGBT Africans. Aside from continued advocacy, he believes that education is crucial to changing minds and hearts and addressing rampant homophobia and transphobia which plague the region. The bishop spoke mainly about educating future religious leaders – young male seminarians – about queer realities and issues. This makes sense considering the immense sway religion and superstition have on the masses.

In my opinion however, in order for education to be a viable and long-lasting solution, it should not be limited to future clergy men. More importantly, education should not be couched in religious terms. While religious beliefs can provide meaning and comfort for many people, the fact remains that these same belief systems lead to division and way to often lethal acts against one’s neighbor. An educational system which improves literacy, encourages critical thought, and promotes humanistic and universal values for all Africans should be the goal.

But Africa, like the rest of the developing world, is beset with so many challenges: poverty, hunger, inequity, political instability and corruption - the combined legacy of colonialism and imperialism. Any solution, including an answer to LGBT marginalization and persecution, has to be systemic.

Bishops Senyonjo and Robinson’s conversation, while inspiring, did not address larger issues. Moreover, they did not mention the complicity of their own leader, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and titular head of the global Anglican Communion, in the continued witch hunt of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Africans. Williams has long chosen to side with conservative bishops and elements of the church for the sake of organizational unity. He was late and tepid in condemning Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law.

Nonetheless, Bishop Senyonjo has done much, not only for Ugandan and African LGBTs, but for the global fight for human rights and equality. And for that, we are very grateful.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Image from Walking with Integrity

Unity is possible

2010-05-24T17:12:00.004-04:00

Originally posted on Washington Blade

It has always been a challenge getting us together. Our differences — whether sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, socio-economic background, or priorities — often get in the way of working together towards our shared dream of full rights and equality.

But last Saturday, the 11th Annual Pride & Heritage Celebration showed that we can get together in spite of our differences.

The Pride & Heritage Coalition is comprised of local Asian Pacific Islander LGBT organizations. Eleven years ago, the leaders of Asian/Pacific Islander Queer Sisters, Asian/Pacific Islander Queers United for Action, KhushDC and the D.C. chapter of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum gathered and decided that it was in their best interests to collaborate and promote the welfare of LGBT Asians. In time, these women and men realized that beneath the surface, they shared much in common and enjoyed working and socializing with each other.

This commonality and camaraderie was in full display at the Pride & Heritage reception. Crammed into a church hall were lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of South Asian, Central Asian, East Asian and Southeast Asian descent. Sprinkled in the crowd were straight allies, significant others and family members, as well as a few African Americans, Latinos and whites. The main performer was Kit Yan, the reigning Mr. Transman, known for his slam poetry. Honored that evening was Ben de Guzman, co-director of the National Queer API Alliance, an LGBT activist and Filipino American community leader.

What originally brought these people and groups together — and keeps their coalition strong — is their minority status. Brian Wang, a coalition leader, recounted how he was shocked to learn that Asian faces are scarce in Washington. He had moved here from California, where Asian Pacific Americans are the largest minority. Krishnan, a board member of KhushDC, explained that the South Asian group was formed to provide a safe space for queer South Asians. And Iimay Ho emphasized the importance of groups formed specifically for queer Asian women.

LGBT Asian Pacific Islander leaders also work at maintaining their bond. Earlier on Saturday, the association held its first community retreat. Community organizers and activists convened to strengthen personal relationships and strategize next steps for the coalition.

Perhaps the wider LGBT community can learn from Pride & Heritage. Unity is possible. Difficult yes, but not impossible. In spite of all our differences, as queer people we are the minority. We need each other to win the fight for our rightful place in society. Given the chance, we might even discover that we can get along after all.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

UAFA Update

2010-05-19T19:37:00.005-04:00

Originally posted on Washington Blade

The Uniting American Families Act, which seeks to end inequalities in current U.S. immigration laws that leave lesbian and gay Americans unable to sponsor a partner or spouse for residency, is particularly important to bi-national families and their supporters. So when Immigration Equality held a conference call last Friday to share the latest developments on efforts to pass the bill, it drew a crowd.

But Julie Kruse, Immigration Equality’s policy director, confirmed things aren’t looking good for the bill. Due to the current political climate in which incumbents fear retaliation from their constituents, and the fact that Congress’ working days are numbered, no movement on immigration legislation is expected until after November. It’s more likely that financial regulation and climate change will be tackled in the months ahead.

Kruse said in an e-mail, though, she’s not ready to throw in the towel. She noted that recent developments such as Arizona’s anti-immigrant law have been game-changers in recent days on Capitol Hill.

She wrote that “there is a window of opportunity, albeit a short one, to tackle this issue this year. And there are champions in Congress who are pushing for that to happen. The chances of legislation passing before the mid-term elections grow slimmer the longer Congress delays action. But the important thing for our grassroots, and your readers, to know is this: It is imperative that we keep up the pressure on lawmakers until they do act. Now is the time to be outspoken and to urge lawmakers to tackle this issue.”

Another game changer has been the immigration reform framework released by Sens. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez at the end of April. It includes key provisions of the Uniting American Families Act which puts bi-national gay couples and their advocates in a good position.

“We are no longer supplicants,” Kruse said. “We are no longer asking to be included.”

Proponents of UAFA now have the psychological and strategic upper hand. Procedurally, it will be harder to amend or take out pro-LGBT language so long as our allies remain in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Democrats have control of the Senate.

A participant during the teleconference raised a concern many of us share: the undue influence Roman Catholic bishops and other conservative leaders have on our legislators. While the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has expressed its concerns over the inclusion of gay couples in the Reid-Schumer-Menendez framework, it has not come out swinging as it did over abortion funding in the health care bill. Bishop John Wester, head of the Bishops’ committee on migration, has been quoted as saying, “It is way too early to say what is or not a deal breaker. I do feel, however, that this provision represents an emotional and long debated issue that should not be in this bill. We have worked long and hard on immigration reform and this will make the job all the more difficult.”

Moreover, Kruse contends that if the Catholic bishops were to oppose immigration reform, they’d be hard pressed to explain to their millions of followers, many Latino and foreign-born, why they are sacrificing the well-being of these faithful over a measure of equality to far fewer same-sex couples.

Kruse notes that it’s important to remember that “there is a large, diverse coalition of religious leaders — including those from the Methodist, Episcopalian, Jewish and other communities — who continue to champion an inclusive immigration reform measure. The people of faith who support us far out-number those who oppose us. Those faith communities understand, as we hope the bishops and evangelicals will in the end, that an immigration reform bill which helps millions of families can be inclusive of LGBT families, too.”

Immigration reform legislation will happen, and as long as we keep the momentum, it will include our families. We need to be vigilant; to continue putting pressure on senators and representatives; to support groups like Immigration Equality; to work with other leaders and organizations in the immigration reform movement; and to make sure that pro-LGBT and pro-immigrant candidates win in November.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Safe spaces for LGBT youth

2010-05-14T18:19:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on Washington Blade

At the beginning of this week, the Baltimore Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center’s plans for an LGBT youth center were revealed. Scheduled to open this fall, the center will offer mentoring, health education and other services tailored for younger members of our community.

Andrew Ansel, programs manager for Baltimore’s Center, explained the need for a safe space for young LGBT: “Youth are coming out at a lot younger ages. It is becoming less stigmatizing, but there are still a lot of challenges. It is still very difficult to come out in high school.” Moreover, Ansel reports that the city’s youth centers and facilities tend to not be “gay-friendly.”

Indeed, although television shows like “Glee” and “Ugly Betty” depict gay boys who are for the most part embraced by their families and schoolmates, the reality is many young queers are not as fortunate. The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network reports that nine out of 10 LGBT middle school and high school students experience harassment at school, and three out of five feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation. This translates into poor academic performance. The grade point average of students who are more frequently harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender expression is almost half a grade lower than for students who are less often harassed.

LGBT youth centers provide a place for adolescents and teens to congregate after school, where they can be themselves, free from harassment and intimidation. These spaces can also be life savers for teens who have run away or been thrown out by their parents after coming out.

An Urban Institute report estimates the runaway population to be anywhere from 1.6 million to 2.8 million. As the report points out, “running away from home puts youth at risk of violence, crime, drugs, prostitution, HIV and other STDs, and other health problems. … Runaway youth are not only likely to perpetrate crimes and engage in delinquent behaviors, they are also likely to have been victimized at home and to experience additional victimization once they leave home.”

It is safe to assume that a considerable portion of these runaways are queer and homeless. As the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s report on runaway and homeless LGBT youth found, a stunning 20 to 40 percent of all homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That means there are hundreds of thousands of vulnerable LGBT kids.

The CenterLink Community Center Directory lists 192 LGBT community centers in the U.S. and that 85 percent of these centers offer services tailored for LGBT youth. This is welcome information. But is it enough? Do LGBT youth and their advocates know where these oases are?

We need to support and open more centers that welcome and provide safe spaces for our youth. LGBT kids should know that there are places where they can take respite and, when necessary, refuge.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

LGBT Intimate Partner Violence

2010-05-08T19:42:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on Washington Blade

The tragic death this week of a University of Virginia student at the hands of her ex-boyfriend brought to the fore problems of domestic abuse or intimate partner violence, which plagues not only straight couples but queer people.

The abuse and murder of Yeardly Love reminded me of family members and friends who have been and are being tortured by their spouses and partners.

The type of abuses — physical, verbal, emotional, psychological and financial — and degree of violence inflicted on my friends by their partners vary, but the stories are the same. They gradually lose their personality and confidence and eventually cut off all ties.

“We had plenty of good times,” says a friend, now freed from his tormentor, but still rationalizing the situation. “He had an addiction problem … he had his demons.” Another says, “He’s really a sweet guy most of the time … he just refuses to find a job,” which does nothing to help pay the mortgage, daily expenses, student loans and mounting credit card debt. Another person doesn’t think she can do any better than her current partner who flaunts other girlfriends.

Amnesty International USA reports that intimate partner battering occurs at about the same percentage in same- and opposite-sex relationships: about one in three partners experience the problem. And the abuse crosses race, age, class and socio-economic lines.

There are specific tactics batterers use in same-sex relationships to exercise power and control over their victims. They can threaten outing their partners to family members, employers or congregations. For people with undocumented partners, abusers can use the fear of deportation to silence the abused. Perpetrators of intimate partner violence can also reinforce fears that no one will help because of our sexual orientation or identity. Some abusers even insidiously argue that their behavior is a normal part of being queer — or an expression of masculinity.

Victims of LGBT intimate partner abuse unfortunately receive fewer protections and services. Many LGBT people are denied access to emergency shelters, medical treatment, financial assistance, counseling, job training, legal services and many other services that are routinely prescribed to battered women. Six states have laws that preclude victims of same-sex abuse from obtaining domestic violence protective orders.

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a collection of programs that document and advocate for victims, adds that domestic violence services are often “fraught with potentials for re-victimization that pivots on homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism.”

Violence and abuse in same-sex relationships is a serious problem that needs to be discussed and addressed. Individually, we can persist in being present to abused friends and family members. We can say something if we see something. As a community, we can support organizations and programs that provide LGBT-specific domestic abuse services, document incidents of violence and advocate for victims.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Why we should care about Arizona

2010-04-30T07:10:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade

A week ago, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which in essence legalizes racial profiling.

The first section of the bill explains that it is intended to “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” The next section authorizes state and local law enforcement officials who have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is “unlawfully present in the United States” to “determine the immigration status of the person.”

No one will argue that our immigration system needs a major overhaul. But can someone please explain “reasonable suspicion” to me? What does an illegal alien look like? Is it the clothes? The work they take? Let’s be blunt. Will state and local police even suspect a white person?

But why should we care?

Aside from my expectation that people who belong to a discriminated group ought to have some empathy and compassion for another marginalized group, many of us are of color or have partners and spouses who are Latinos, Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners — people who look and sound “different.”

LGBT Arizonans of color — native born and naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents, professionals with work visas, international students, and yes, undocumented people — will be negatively affected by this anachronistic and incomprehensible law. Mixed race couples will shoulder another burden on top of the lack of basic civil rights and protections.

Once the law goes into effect, non-white LGBT Arizonans will need to carry with them documents proving their right to be in the state. They will live with the fear and anxiety that they could be stopped, possibly detained, just because a law enforcement official has “reasonable suspicion.” Just because of how they look. Their partners, spouses and children will wonder if their loved ones will come home at the end of the day.

And there are already copycat bills contemplated in other states: Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. LGBT people and families could also be impacted in these states.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon was right in condemning Arizona’s draconian immigration law and warning that it “opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination.” Some people are likening Arizona to Nazi Germany, where people who looked Jewish were routinely stopped and asked for their papers. While I think the comparison is rather extreme, it effectively makes the point that SB 1070 — and the accompanying racial profiling — is simply wrong. The analogy speaks to the dangers of state-sanctioned racism.

This is the proverbial slippery slope that can lead to the discrimination of other minority groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. The new law makes it okay to single out a group and to treat them horribly and unfairly.

At the national march for immigration reform last month, a gay man told me that he had second thoughts about attending the demonstration. He made it very clear that he was there only to protest the treatment of binational LGBT couples. He did not want anyone to think for a second that he supported all these “illegals.”

Well, buddy, guess what? To many people, we who are immigrants and LGBT all look alike. And they’d be very happy to be rid of us.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

The best way forward?

2010-04-26T19:31:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda. Image from GetEQUAL.

There is a debate occurring within the community about what the best way is to secure our civil rights. With the midterm elections looming and the window of opportunity to pass legislation fast closing, activists, bloggers, advocates, the gay media and armchair strategists have been arguing about how we should, as a community, proceed.

At one end are those who believe that we should present a united front, falling in line behind LGBT establishment leaders and trust that as Washington insiders, they will get things done. At the other end are those who have given up on the establishment and think that it is time again to protest.

Before jumping into the fray and sharing my two cents, I think that we have to accept the fact that nothing will get done by November and that progress in terms of federal legislation will halt after the GOP wins more seats in Congress. The Obama administration has made it pretty clear that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will not be repealed through defense appropriation and that any action taken will be after the Pentagon releases its findings sometime in December. And the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, in spite of having close to the 216 votes needed for passage in the House, does not have many backers in the Senate.

As for the Uniting American Families Act and the repeal of the odious Defense of Marriage Act, well, we might as well forget about these two for now. UAFA as a standalone bill still requires more sponsors in the House and will ultimately be shot down by the Senate, anyway. If it is included in a comprehensive immigration bill, I predict that it will eventually be discarded by immigration reform proponents to appease and secure the support of more conservative backers, namely the Catholic and Evangelical leaders who are pro-immigrant but anti-LGBT.

In order to repeal DOMA, the majority of Americans need to support same-sex marriage. We’re not there yet.

So what is the best way forward? I’d argue that it is not an either-or proposition. The Human Rights Campaign and other inside-the-beltway veterans do know how things work in D.C. and that means connections, access and a whole lot of horse trading and compromise. They have been around long enough to know that things don’t change overnight but through slow and painstaking effort and increments. They realize that patience, tenacity and commitment are necessary to their advocacy. I have worked beside rank-and-file HRC staffers and I do not doubt for a second their passion for our cause.

Protest and civil disobedience, on the other hand, are indispensable to any social movement. We would not be where we are were it not for the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, the Stonewall Riots and subsequent action by queer activists. The disruptive and shocking measures taken by Act Up in the late ’80s and early ’90s spurred much delayed action on the HIV/AIDS crisis. Activists that choose this path know that they need to keep everyone honest and stop movement leaders from getting too cozy with power. They realize that society needs to be challenged out of complacency and empowered. I have marched with Lt. Dan Choi and GetEqual.org’s Robin McGehee and I likewise do not doubt their commitment to winning our civil rights.

Another fact we have to face is that no movement has ever had a united front. There are far too many opinions, egos and agendas. There will always be those who work with the system and those that buck it. The LGBT movement is no different and it has a place for all players. If we are to prevail, we should all be doing what we do best and are most comfortable at.

When our legislative window closes in November, it is crucial that Gay Inc. continues to quietly work the corridors of power while radicals raucously call attention to our second-class status. It is also important that the rest of us continue what we have been doing: coming out, telling our stories, writing checks to pro-LGBT organizations and candidates, calling our elected officials and not giving up until we are all equal under the law. The best way forward? All of the above.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Did you get the memo?

2010-04-16T13:05:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

When I got successive tweets last night about the president’s memo to the Secretary of Health & Human Services instructing her to secure hospital visitation rights for LGBTs, I was floored and about to break out the champagne when I decided to look more closely at the missive. This is no doubt a great gesture on the part of Mr. Obama, but is it enough?

First, the letter mandates that only “hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.” What about those that do not? What about medical institutions run by religious groups? Will they be exempt even if they receive Medicare or Medicaid funding?

Second, it says that designated visitors, “including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.” But what if the patient arrives unconscious and is unable to tell hospital employees who she considers her spouse and family? What if a gay couple has not set up powers of attorney, living wills and health care proxies?

The burden of proof is still on gay couples. A man who is hospitalized can easily say that a female visitor is his wife and chances are no questions will be raised. But if he were to say that another man were his husband or partner, he would have to prove his claim especially in parts of the country that are not welcoming of LGBT people. We still need to carry our marriage and domestic partnership certificates in our wallets.

Finally, the memo ends by making it clear that it “is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.” It does not create any enforceable right. As Richard Socarides, former advisor of President Bill Clinton, acknowledges, the directive does not grant any new LGBT rights.

Nonetheless, Socarides points out that President Obama’s latest action on behalf of the LGBT community does “draw attention to the very real and tragic situations many gays and lesbians face when a partner is hospitalized.” Although all this would be moot if the Defense of Marriage Act were repealed and same-sex marriages federally recognized, this is another step toward full equality and civil rights for LGBT Americans.

Although the President can put more effort in passing civil rights legislations such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” there is no denying that we are better off under his administration. I doubt that Republican Sen. John McCain would have taken this step — or any at all to help us — had he won the presidency.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Standing on the Side of Love

2010-04-14T17:55:00.004-04:00

Earlier today, I shared my story at a rally organized by the Standing on the Side of Love Campaign. The event brought together two issues that may not be clearly related to most, but is all too real for my husband and me and so many other binational gay couples. These issues often intersect: immigration and equality for LGBT people. I am grateful for the opportunity.

Like most immigrants, I came to the United States with my American dream. I was going to take advantage of all the opportunities available, work hard, improve my lot and give back. As a young gay man, I was going to live openly and with integrity. I was also going to fall in love, settle down and have my own family.

I think that for the most part, I have been fortunate and have done well. I have put myself through grad school and I am now pursuing a doctorate degree while working as a researcher. I volunteer and help out when I can. I am doing what I love and believe that in my small way I am making a difference. I have always been myself – out and proud. Best of all, I have fallen in love, settled down and started a family with a man with whom I share the same faith and core values.

John and I have been together for eleven and a half years. We have been committed to one another all this time and though we have lived, for all intents and purposes, like a married couple, we have been denied the legal right to marry, that is until last month. Until then, we did our best to get whatever legal protections we could for same-sex couples. While living in New York, we registered as domestic partners. Upon relocating to Washington two and half years ago, we also signed up as domestic partners. When same-sex marriage was legalized in the District, we didn’t wait long to get a marriage license. Last week, we had our civil wedding ceremony at the Moultrie Courthouse.

Although no one can deny the fact that we are now a married couple and that he is my husband, the hard reality is that our D.C. marriage license isn’t worth much outside the jurisdiction. When we next visit my in-laws in Charlotte, we will still feel the need to have our living wills and health care proxies on hand in case of an emergency. We both dread the thought of not being able to be by the side of the one injured and hospitalized. Worse, not being able to make the life and death decisions only a spouse should make.

We resent the fact that even though we have been paying our taxes and contributing to the social security system, neither of us will be entitled to the other’s benefits. We find it unfair that anything we give or leave to each other – property, money and other material possessions – will be taxed. The list goes on. Married heterosexual couples enjoy over 1,100 benefits, protections and privileges denied couples like us only because we happen to be gay.

When I told my mom that John and I were getting married, she congratulated us and said “Great, so he should be able to sponsor you.” See, thanks to the vagaries of the U.S. immigration system, I still do not have a green card. Even though I consider the United States my home, have lived here legally for several years, and in my heart know that I am as American as my native born cousins, I have no recourse but to wait for my mother’s sponsorship to come through which will take many more years unless the immigration system is reformed. I explained to my mom that because immigration is a federal matter, John will not be able to sponsor me for legal permanent residency. Our D.C. same-sex union is not recognized by the U.S. government. However, if we were a different-sex couple, then I could count on a green card before the year is over. But I cannot.

We are not asking for special rights; we are only asking for equal rights. I ask Congress to please stand on the side of love with my family by passing comprehensive immigration reform and provide equality under the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Thank you.

Photo by Bill Kotsatos

Focus on our families

2010-04-12T17:07:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

On Saturday, the Metro D.C. chapter of Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays held its 13th annual gala at a hotel downtown. The theme was “A Family Celebration” and one of the speakers said that the conservative group Focus on the Family was having its own event at the hotel.

If that were the case, it would have been interesting to juxtapose both gatherings and see what each organization celebrates.

Focus on the Family upholds a narrower definition of family — a married man and woman plus their children. It not only excludes LGBT families, but pretty much a majority of American families since the “traditional family” only accounts for fewer than a quarter of all households. The fact of the matter is that there is now a diversity of family structures in the country, yet the fabric of society has pretty much remained intact.

PFLAG, on the other hand, celebrates a broader view of families. It promotes the equality and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their families and friends. It does so by providing support to cope with a society that diminishes the worth of queer folk; by educating an ill-informed public; and by advocating for an end to discrimination and for equal rights. In 21 years, the Metro D.C. chapter has touched many lives, even saving some.

Personal stories were shared at the gala. Bill Briggs, the local PFLAG chapter’s executive director, told the audience about the call he received while preparing his speech that afternoon. A 70-year-old grandmother asked what she can do to support her teenage granddaughter who had just come out.

A representative from an accounting firm that was being honored for its workplace diversity efforts recounted how she had become a staunch straight ally. Thanks to her collaboration with PFLAG, she realized how her own words and actions toward LGBT people are mirrored by her small daughters. She was delighted when one of the little girls came home and declared that she was going to marry her friend Genevieve. The woman knew that she was doing right by her children and was making a difference in the world.

A father of two gay men shared how he came to ask himself how he could possibly stand idly by as his boys are denied basic rights. He recalled an uncle of his who was an “eternal bachelor,” a World War II vet, and an avid antiques collector. His uncle was a proud and independent man who had to move in with his sister at the end of his life because he had no family of his own. The speaker decided that his gay sons would have a better life. He has made it his mission to fight for equality.

More stories were shared by the banquet guests amongst themselves. A woman at my table volunteered how her mother had expressed outrage at Jesse Helm’s callous treatment of lesbians and gays. She knew then that coming out to her God-fearing Southern mom would turn out okay and it did. A gentleman shared how he never had the chance to come out to his parents even though they had known and loved his partner.

Although most of us have formed our own extended families with other LGBT people and straight friends who wholeheartedly accept us, we have to admit that nothing equals the articulated acceptance, support and love from our biological families, no matter how dysfunctional they may be. It makes a difference to hear, “We love you and are proud of you.” As we raise our own families, having our parents and siblings in our lives makes a difference. We feel whole again, we feel as if we have come full circle.

Moreover, there are no stronger advocates than family members who speak on our behalf. Think of Judy and Dennis Shepard, parents of Matthew Shepard, who was killed for being gay. Thanks in part to their tireless efforts, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act was finally signed into law last year. Think of Brian Burke, the U.S. National Ice Hockey Team’s general manager who took up LGBT advocacy after his gay son died from injuries sustained in a car accident.

There are smaller but no less significant actions, like a man with a gay father who challenges other patrons at a bar for using homophobic slurs. Or the brother who defends his lesbian sister from bullies. Or the aunt who takes in her gay nephew after he’s kicked out from his home by his dad for coming out.

Sadly, not all of us have our families in our lives, but with times changing and with groups like PFLAG working on our behalf, perhaps things will get better for many of us and our families.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

Why we didn’t have a big fat gay wedding

2010-04-06T17:23:00.001-04:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

When my husband and I applied for a marriage license at the D.C. Marriage Bureau last month, we knew that we were not going to have a big party. We had pretty much decided that it was just going to be just the two of us and whoever officiates at our civil ceremony. We didn’t even decide on what we were wearing until the morning of our appointment.

After all, we have been together for more than 11 years — and for all intents and purposes had considered ourselves as committed as the next married couple. Besides, there were costs that we had no interest in incurring. And we knew full well that though we would be protected within Washington, D.C., our married status would not mean much at the federal level.

We would still feel the need to carry our wills and health care proxies when visiting my in-laws in North Carolina. More importantly, as a bi-national couple, we would not gain the immigration privileges automatically bestowed upon opposite-sex couples that get married at church, city hall or Las Vegas. My husband would not be able to sponsor me for a green card even though we have been together for over a decade, pay taxes and do our share for our community.

Yesterday was not going to be a big deal. We were going down to D.C. Superior Court, stand in front of a city employee, go through a script and make our relationship official in the District.

But to our surprise, it was a big deal. My husband didn’t sleep much the night before and walking to the Moultrie Courthouse, I did my best to temper my enthusiasm. During the marriage service, we were giddy as we articulated what until then had been a tacit agreement — that we would be wedded spouses, “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.”

The reaction from our families and friends has been overwhelming. Unlike the awkward silence that followed my announcement seven years ago that John and I had become domestic partners in New York, my mom this time around joyfully congratulated us when I told her about our plans. My brother in law — who had at one time said he didn’t understand “what the big deal is” around marriage equality — called to express how happy he was for us. Messages continue to stream in through Facebook.

Although we both thought that the officiant was being hokey when he warned us that we would be transformed, he was right. Our union might not be recognized by the United States government and it might be frowned upon by some people but guess what? We are married. And no one can ever take that away from us.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Rewind: Compare and contrast

2010-04-02T17:02:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

Today’s story in the Washington Post about a group of gay and trans Iranian refugees reminds me of how far we’ve come in securing our rights.

While we yawn at news of the latest celebrity coming out and are unimpressed by poll results showing that a majority of Americans are fine with having a gay president or Supreme Court justice, the Iranians savor their new found freedom in a conservative Turkish city.

Nonetheless, we still have a long road ahead. Take for example, the unnecessary and messy slog to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which generated some attention this week.

Although Defense Secretary Robert Gates had outlined new measures that would make it harder to discharge enlisted lesbians and gays, and made it very clear that the discriminatory law will be repealed, a few top generals have been running interference, hoping to stop the inevitable and exposing their desperation for the old order to remain intact.

Retired NATO commander and former senior Marine officer John Sheehan was forced to write a letter of apology after recklessly and disingenuously using the horrific Srebrenica genocide as an argument for not allowing openly gay, lesbian and bisexual people to serve in the armed forces. He had testified at a Senate hearing last month that Dutch United Nations troops failed to prevent the massacre because they had homosexuals in their ranks.

Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon of the U.S. Army was slapped on the wrist for submitting an unsolicited letter to Stars and Stripes, a military newspaper. He brazenly advocated for his personal stance, writing, “It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct. Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.”

And the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, threw a dud by proclaiming that he would not force straight Marines to share rooms with gay service members when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed. If the general paused for a minute to think about it, with about 65,000 lesbians, gays and bisexuals serving in our armed forces, it is most likely that straight and gay marines are already sharing quarters with no adverse affect on morale or unit cohesion.

Finally, Army Secretary John McHugh said that he would not discharge any gay personnel who came out to him, only to backtrack a day later, claiming that he misspoke. He now warns soldiers that they can still be dismissed if they do tell.

Aside from “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the other piece of legislation which has been introduced in every Congress, except the 109th, since 1994: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Although Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) expects the bill to come up for a vote on the House floor sometime soon and is confident that it will pass, the Senate will not act on the measure, effectively punting ENDA to the next Congress. Again.

And not even in serious contention is the Uniting American Families Act, which would permit partners and spouses of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to obtain green cards much like spouses of straight citizens and legal permanent residents.

Learning about the dire and often deadly straits of LGBT people in other parts of the world puts things in perspective. We do have it better. But we are hardly full citizens in a nation where all are supposed to be equal.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Why do we march?

2010-03-26T17:04:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda. Photo from Image from Immigration Equality Blog.

During the past week, our collective attention has been on the health care reform bills. Leading into last weekend, most Americans wondered whether the House Democrats would have the 216 votes needed to pass the historic legislation. In the meantime, the forces gathering for the next big battle were mostly ignored.

Last Sunday, tens of thousands of demonstrators — including members of the LGBT community — congregated at the National Mall for the March for America, a rally demanding comprehensive immigration reform. Although not one LGBT organization or leader was included in the roster of speakers, we chose to join and support immigration reform, partly due to our stake in the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow American citizens to sponsor their foreign partner or spouse for legal permanent residency. This piece of legislation is one we would like to be included in any immigration reform effort. I also suspect, though, that many LGBT people who attended the rally realize the importance of minority groups sticking together and advocating for one another.

It was quite a sight to see a gigantic rainbow flag above the crowd and, nearby, a bright spot of red made by the large contingent of Immigration Equality supporters wearing red t-shirts. Close by were teams from Asian/Pacific Islander Queers United for Action, Equality Illinois, Full Equality NOW! DC, GetEqual.org, Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Out4Immigration and others.

Although the crowd was energized, defiant and determined to see the change promised by President Obama, the experience reminded me of a similar gathering five months ago, when tens of thousands of LGBT people and allies demanded change at the National Equality March. This makes me ask whether these marches will take us anywhere?

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is stalled in Congress while “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is undergoing an unnecessary, yearlong review. There’s no point in even dreaming yet of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. The plain and simple fact is that legislators see the mid-term elections on the horizon and are keenly aware of the toll the healh care reform battle will take. They are not about to take up our cause anytime soon.

Even Iin the unlikely event that congressional Democrats decide to pursue immigration reform this year, I’m willing to bet that despite the assurances of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that bi-national same-sex couples will not be left out, they will be. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security & Prosperity Act introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) in December blatantly leaves out LGBT families. Although the Illinois congressman had been supportive of the LGBT community in the past, he has not committed to our inclusion in any immigration reform initiative. This is not altogether surprising, since he needs the support of social conservatives, especially the Catholic and Evangelical Latino churches.

So why do we march? We do so out of solidarity and a strong belief in democracy. Our voices are heard and our numbers seen even though change doesn’t come fast enough. But so long as we keep it up — whether by demonstrating, e-mailing or calling our elected officials, writing letters to the editor or blogging, supporting advocacy groups or proven pro-LGBT politicians, or even chaining ourselves to the White House fence — we will prevail. Until we all are truly equal, we keep on marching.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Rewind: Wolves are stalking us

2010-03-12T18:03:00.004-05:00

Also posted on DC Agenda. Image from the Washington Post.

As the community and its allies celebrate another hard-fought victory this week — same-sex marriage in D.C. — wolves circle nearby, waiting for a chance to pounce.

Tuesday was the first day lesbian and gay couples could pick up their marriage licenses and finally get married. Ceremonies were held all over the city, from the headquarters of Human Rights Campaign to churches, synagogues and judge’s chambers throughout Washington. On the same day, the city commission of conservative Kissimmee, Fla., afforded LGBT employees a measure of equality by approving domestic partnership benefits for these workers.

The U.S. Supreme Court also agreed to hear the case against the Westboro Church for picketing funerals of soldiers. The suit was filed by the family of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq four years ago. Snyder’s funeral service was interrupted by the church’s leader, Fred Phelps, and a handful of followers who brandished signs saying “America is doomed,” “Matt in hell” and “Semper Fi fags,” the very same treatment regularly heaped upon the LGBT community at Pride parades, demonstrations and other major events. The Snyder family is arguing that Phelps intruded on a private event and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, initially winning an award of $5 million. The award was overturned on appeal, where a court ruled that protestors were simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. The high court will resolve the matter.

But disputes need not reach the Supreme Court to make news in Washington.

Last week, the Washington Post featured a photograph of one of the first gay couples to get a marriage license. For the historic day, the editors deemed appropriate for the front page a picture of two men kissing. However, the paper’s ombudsman reported Wednesday that the paper received a number of angry, spiteful and bigoted complaints and that 27 subscribers canceled their subscriptions due to the photo. Nonetheless, the editors stand by their decision.

Over the weekend, a bloodthirsty member of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s pack was exposed by his impatience to get at LGBTs. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a letter to Virginia’s public colleges and universities urging them to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

And on Monday, a Roman Catholic school in Colorado kicked out one of its preschoolers because the child’s parents happen to be two women. The child has also been denied re-enrollment in kindergarten next year.

The reality is that as we continue our march to full equality, these wolves will stalk and hunt us. We must be constantly vigilant lest they detect an opening, disrupt our progress and set us back. Same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C., for instance can easily be overturned by a referendum or interfered with by members of Congress.

Moreover, some of these predators lurk among us. One of them is California State Sen. Roy Ashburn. Ashburn had been in the closet and is the attack dog of religious conservatives and other homophobes and bigots. He lobbied hard against his fellow gays, consistently voting against pro-LGBT measures. It took a DUI arrest last week and the revelation that he had just left a gay bar with another man before the hypocrite was ferreted out.

However, there are ways we can keep the wolves at bay. After outrage and protest over his lackey’s letter mandating LGBT discrimination, McDonnell issued a directive to all Virginia state employees Wednesday saying they should not discriminate for any reason, including on the basis of sexual orientation. However, the religious conservative who famously wrote in his manifesto for good governance that government policy should favor married heterosexual couples over “cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators,” was silent on the matter of discrimination based on gender identity.

Then there are moments when even people we might not ordinarily consider friends come to our defense out of the sheer lunacy of actions taken by some people and organizations.

Conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly came to the defense of the Colorado family whose child was expelled. During his television show, O’Reilly opened a segment saying, “Authorities at the Sacred Heart of Jesus School expelled a preschool and kindergartner because their parents are lesbians. As a Roman Catholic myself, that seems to be a bit harsh, and I don’t know if Jesus would have made the same call. Kids have no power over who their parents are.”

Moments like that are encouraging. And it’s great to see celebrations continue in the District and all over the country as we win our rightful place in society one step at a time. However, we need to be on the lookout for the wolves that are stalking us.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Rewind: love, marriage, hate and immigration

2010-03-05T18:11:00.004-05:00

The legalization of same-sex marriage in the nation’s capital made front page news but the past week also saw a rift in the immigration reform and LGBT coalition, legislation for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell introduced, and raw hatred challenged.

On Wednesday, the District joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Iowa in allowing lesbians and gays to wed. Over 150 couples applied for licenses less than a day after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from Maryland’s Bishop Harry Jackson that D.C.’s same-sex-marriage law be put on hold until he and his anti-equality posse are able to put our civil rights to a popular vote.

Across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the nation’s Equality Bill which lifts the ban on same-sex ceremonies in churches. It was introduced by openly gay Muslim peer Waheed Alli and supported by his fellow Lords, including a number of prominent Anglican bishops. Under current British law, religious venues are forbidden from holding gay nuptials. The amendment now goes to the House of Commons for passage.

Yesterday, a law permitting lesbian and gay couples to marry came into effect in Mexico City a day after Argentina had its second same-sex wedding. The piece of legislation, which gives gay people full marital rights and allows them to adopt, was passed by the local assembly in December. Mexico City has now become ground zero for the culture wars in Latin America.

Back in Washington, D.C., the Roman Catholic Archdiocese continued its losing battle against progress by choosing to deny benefits to all domestic partners of Catholic Charities employees. They would rather take away much needed health coverage from spouses of new employees or spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan than provide for lesbian and gay partners and spouses. Battling its own culture war, the Roman Catholic leadership does not want to be perceived as condoning “aberrant” and “sinful” behavior.

This visceral hate for our families was echoed over the weekend in California, when the University of California Davis campus became a target of homophobia and racism .

Graphic anti-gay words and phrases were found spray-painted on the campus’ LGBT Resource Center on Saturday morning, following the discovery by a Jewish student of a swastika carved into her dorm room door.

Thankfully, many Americans realize that history and right is on the side of LGBT civil rights. In Rhode Island, three major candidates running for governor – General Treasurer Frank Caprio, Attorney General Patrick Lynch, both Democrats, and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an independent – pledged to 200 people present at a rally that they would allow same-sex marriage if elected. Even moderate candidate Ken Block expressed his support for our right to marry.

Internationally, LGBT activists and allies continued to fight institutionalized homophobia. In Uganda, hundreds of campaigners led by Anglican priest Gideon Byamugisha urged lawmakers to reject the proposed “kill the gays” law. The campaigners presented the parliamentarians with an online petition signed by 450,000 people worldwide opposing the bill.

In other news, activist and blogger Prerna Lal reported on the apparent rift between the immigration reform movement and LGBT community which surfaced last weekend during a briefing for LGBT bloggers. It was revealed that Reform Immigration for America, a campaign which touts itself as “a united national effort that brings together individuals and grassroots organizations with the mission to build support for workable comprehensive immigration reform,” does not have a single LGBT organization in its management team so as to appease conservative religious groups. Moreover, a leader of the immigration reform movement pronounced that promoting the Uniting American Families Act, a bill which would allow gay American citizens to petition foreign partners and spouses for green cards, was not a winning strategy for the campaign to adopt even though, as Lal rebuts, the bill has more cosponsors than any other immigration-related initiative.

In spite of this blatant shunting of the LGBT community, the bloggers were still expected to advance immigration reform, angering some of those present. A gay activist who attended the gathering summed up how many felt: “It feels like you are telling us to give a big push to your bus while we have to run behind it trying to get on.”

Finally, on Wednesday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman introduced a bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993 law barring LGBT individuals from open service in the U.S. military and put a non-discrimination policy in its place. The senator did acknowledge that this legislation may not pass anytime soon and that Congress may have to settle with a moratorium this year as opposed to an outright repeal.

The week’s big news was love overcoming hate in Washington, D.C. after decades of hard work and incremental steps taken by the community, its leaders and allies. While the overwhelming joy and relief felt by many of us is priceless, the fact remains that a D.C. marriage license does not mean much in most of the country. Those of us who will wed are still denied the over 1,100 privileges and protections endowed to different-sex couples. Nonetheless, the nation is moving in the right direction at least when it comes to civil rights – after all, nearly half of Americans now live where there is some legal recognition of lesbian and gay couples.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon. Also posted on DC Agenda.

Rewind: Week of Feb.6

2010-02-26T21:03:00.002-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

This week, members of New York’s LGBT community and its leaders lashed out at a pair of politicians for broken promises and perceived duplicity. Is this the next wave of LGBT activism? Are we finally getting angry enough not to take it anymore?

A political action committee, Fight Back New York, which was founded in response to the defeat of same-sex marriage in the state’s senate in December, launched its campaign against the 30 Republican and 8 Democratic senators who caused the loss. The group’s one and only aim is to defeat these politicians and to replace them with pro-equality legislators by November. It has identified its first target. As Bill Smith, an adviser to the committee, explained, “Politicians who deny gays and lesbians basic equality should be thrown out of office, starting with convicted criminal Hiram Monserrate.”

Monserrate was expelled by his colleagues earlier this month following his misdemeanor assault conviction. He had promised his support for the gay marriage bill, but voted against it while jockeying for power in Albany. He is currently running in a special election to regain his seat and the new political action committee is ready to spend generously and campaign tenaciously toward his defeat.

Meanwhile, in his quest to become the next junior U.S. senator from New York, Harold Ford Jr. was aggressively booed and heckled during his visit to the Stonewall Democratic Club on Wednesday. The community has been skeptical of the carpetbagger from Tennessee who had voted to ban gay marriage while serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Ford was interrupted by chants of “No more lies, no more lies” and “snake-oil Harry, go away.”

Although some may find Ford’s reception lacking in civility and Fight Back New York’s focus on defeating rather than supporting political candidates not the best use of resources, the anger and frustration many of us feel should come as no surprise. In spite of all the support and loyalty the community has given to Democrats who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, progress has been painfully slow and opportunities have been squandered.

Take the ongoing debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” for instance. Why is there even a debate?

Poll after poll after poll has shown that a vast majority of Americans have no problem with gay troops serving openly. The rank and file are aware of brave lesbians, gays and bisexuals fighting by their side. Moreover, a comprehensive new study of militaries that allow openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will not be harmful.

Military officials are also coming out in support of Adm. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ call to finally get rid of the discriminatory and harmful law. The top commanding general in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, has said he believes that everyone — gay and straight — should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we are still able to fight our wars.” He told reporters Monday that the policy has been a “non-issue” to him.

Nonetheless, many in Congress are still hemming and hawing, purposely delaying any action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Those arguing to take it slow, however, did get support from top Army, Air Force and Marine Corps officers who testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that they are not keen on overturning the 17-year-old law. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey argued that “we just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.” Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told lawmakers, “I would encourage your work, mine and that of the working group to be focused on a central issue and that is the readiness of the armed forces of the United States to fight this nation’s wars.” One wonders if their recalcitrance is generational rather than rational; both men are in their sixties.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman did announce, though, that he will sponsor legislation to repeal the ban on lesbian and gay service members. He will be joining Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a fellow member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in advocating for the change in the Senate. He was realistic, however, about the prospects of lifting the ban. On Tuesday, he told reporters, “I’m not kidding myself … of course, I’d like to get it done this year, but it’s going to be hard.” Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and ardent opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” shares Lieberman’s doubt, telling reporters that he doesn’t think there are enough votes to end the law this year.

In other news, there has been incremental progress in the fight to enact same-sex marriage. In Minnesota, three bills relating to same-sex unions were heard before the House’s Civil Justice Committee on Monday. One proposal would allow two consenting adults to enter into “civil union contracts,” regardless of their gender. Another would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states as legally valid in Minnesota. And the third — and most far-reaching legislation — would legalize gay marriage by removing gender-based terminology in existing state statute. Although no votes were taken on any of the bills and no additional hearings are scheduled, the conversation has begun.

Also, on Tuesday, Democrats in West Virginia’s House of Delegates shot down Republican attempts to ban same-sex marriage. The following day, Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler declared that effective immediately, the state would recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that Maryland agencies should begin affording out-of-state gay couples all the rights they have been awarded in other places. This is good news for same-sex couples who are barred from marriage in Maryland but could easily go to Washington, D.C., beginning next month to get married.

Perhaps we should all take our cue from our sisters and brothers in New York and vent our anger and frustration by actively opposing anti-LGBT politicians and wholeheartedly endorsing and supporting candidates and officials who have a proven track record of working for equality and justice for all Americans.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Grabbing the tiger's tail

2010-02-22T18:49:00.002-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

We are discriminated against for who we happen to be — gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

For LGBT of color, it is not uncommon to face discrimination for looking and, at times, sounding different. This double dose of societal bigotry is compounded by the homophobia they suffer within their own communities.

It is therefore groundbreaking that during New York City’s Chinatown Lunar New Year Parade yesterday, a 300-strong contingent of queer Asian Pacific Islanders was part of the festivities. Wearing rainbow bandannas, waving versions of the fish and the phoenix (traditional Chinese symbols for prosperity and renewal) and marching a costumed tiger with its own rainbow armbands, the group was not only supported by LGBT organizations but by prominent community and city leaders as well. The group explains why they are marching here:

Homophobia and discrimination continue to divide Asian American families and communities. Lunar New Year is a time when families come together to strengthen ties to our communities. This year, we are joining the Lunar New Year Parade to challenge homophobia and to honor all of the different kinds of families in our community.

They were there to educate the Chinese and wider Asian Pacific Islander communities that we are their daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, mothers and fathers. That there is no losing “face” in acknowledging — and even being proud of — a queer family member. That we can be fully ourselves while fulfilling our responsibilities to the family and the community. Their participation in the parade shows recent immigrants and those who cling to old ideas that we live in a democratic and pluralistic country where all are equal and where there is separation of church and state. Their presence gave hope to closeted and recently arrived Asian newcomers. They empowered and they were empowered.

While the inclusion of an LGBT group didn’t cause much controversy in New York City’s Lunar New Year parade, the same could not be said in the Westminster Vietnamese Tet Parade in California a week earlier. Little Saigon is located in Westminster and is home to the nation’s largest Vietnamese immigrant community. Several LGBT groups had registered to participate in the community’s Lunar New Year parade and several religious groups, including the Vietnamese Interfaith Council of America, which includes Christian and Buddhist religious leaders, immediately protested. Several Roman Catholic organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus and 50 members of the Vietnamese Martyrs Council, withdrew from the parade. However, Greg Johnson, the director of Westminster’s Department of Community Services & Recreation, said that only Catholic groups pulled out of the parade. More importantly, he stressed that the city cannot and should not discriminate against any one group based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

Hats off to the courageous women and men who grabbed the tiger by the tail, came out loud and proud as LGBT and Asian, and challenged conservative Asian Pacific Islander communities to reconsider their antiquated ideas about us and our families. Thank goodness for the freedoms we have in this country. Freedoms that many immigrants did not have in their native countries and now enjoy. Freedoms which are ours as well — a reality which they have to accept and respect.

You can follow Erwin on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Rewind: Week of Feb.19

2010-02-19T18:44:00.003-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

Conservatives have descended upon the nation’s capital for their annual pow-wow and pep rally. They are poised and determined to win back the nation and in the process undermine hard-fought progress won by our community and allies.

The Conservative Political Action Conference, which began yesterday, acknowledges GOProud as one of its sponsors but does not allow any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender voices to be heard in its colorful agenda. The only gay right-wing voices heard this week were those of author and blogger Andrew Sullivan and Britain’s openly-gay Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Nick Herbert. They were both part of a forum at the Cato Institute that asked whether there is a place for gay people in the conservative movement.

Sullivan ended up debating National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher on same-sex marriage while Herbert made solid arguments for welcoming LGBT people into the right-wing fold. The Tory pointed out that equality for all citizens is a basic tenet of conservatism and admitted that his party’s leadership had realized that if they were to remain relevant and win the votes they need, then they had no option but to open the doors to queer folk. His admonishment should be taken seriously by the GOP. The rest of the nation, particularly the next generation, is fast abandoning social conservatism and its demonization of LGBT individuals and families. If the Republican Party and other American conservatives are to live up to our ideals of freedom and equality, as well as secure the votes of gay conservatives and socially progressive independents, then they have to make room for those among us who’d like to be under their tent.

Unfortunately, social conservatism is very much alive and kicking in the United States, reinvigorated by the worsening disenchantment with the Obama administration and ineffectual Democratic “controlled” Congress.

In Virginia, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell applied principles he articulated in his controversial graduate school thesis — that government policy should favor married couples over “cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators” — by quietly and unceremoniously stripping protections for LGBT state employees two weeks ago. On Feb. 5, he signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities,” but not sexual orientation, which McDonnell’s predecessor, Democrat Tim Kaine, had added.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., the Catholic Archdiocese ended its 80-year-old foster care program this week in protest of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the city. The diocese’s social service arm responsible for the service, Catholic Charities, runs more than 20 programs for the District and receives $20 million from the city’s coffers. Although the church will be exempt from marrying same-sex couples, its leaders nonetheless chose to end aid to the needy, an apparent tantrum for not successfully bullying the D.C. City Council into abandoning gay marriage legislation.

The threat posed by LGBT people gaining basic human rights and acceptance in some societies is felt all the way to the top of the Vatican. Italian Cardinal Carlo Caffarra proclaimed that public officials who openly support same-sex marriage cannot consider themselves to be Catholic. It is worse for lawmakers who introduce or vote in favor of gay marriage bills. “It’s impossible to consider oneself a Catholic if that person in one way or another recognizes same-sex marriage as a right,” according to a doctrinal note Caffara released last weekend concerning “Marriage & Homosexual Unions.”

Such fundamentalist zealotry has gone to such extremes in Africa, where the very lives of gay, bisexual and transgender women and men are threatened every day.

In Malawi, the homosexual witch hunt has intensified since the arrest and incarceration of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, who held a public marriage ceremony in December. A 21-year-old man was sentenced to two months of community service for pasting pro-gay rights posters. A senior government minister expelled a woman from her area even after a court acquitted her on charges of having sex with two girls. A 60-year-old man has been arrested and accused of sodomizing a much younger man. Police are hunting for a group of underground gay rights activists who are distributing pro-gay rights leaflets.

In Uganda, it has been reported that David Bahati, chief of the Scout Board of Uganda and author of the pending anti-gay bill, is proposing that all serial homosexual offenders, including scouts and scout leaders, should be hanged. Children are not exempt. And to stoke anti-LGBT hysteria, Christian pastor Martin Ssempa has been showing gay pornography he downloaded from the Internet at his church to “educate” his flock. He also plans on taking his show on the road and to enlighten parliamentarians on the joys of gay sex.

However, while conservatives may feel particularly empowered now and will do all they can to halt our progress toward full equality, we do have allies and fair-minded politicians and leaders who are willing to do right by us and our constitution.

On Monday, the New Hampshire House rejected a bill that sought to repeal the state’s new same-sex marriage law. Opponents of the anti-LGBT bill, which outnumbered proponents two-to-one, felt strongly that it would be wrong to backtrack and to deny same-sex couples the rights afforded to opposite-sex couples.

Our military leaders and the administration continue to learn that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not an issue for the majority of Americans and those in the military. During a recent question and answer session with about two dozen troops, Adm. Michael Mullen once again confirmed that serving with openly gay service members is a non-issue for enlisted young women and men. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney has come around on the issue. In an interview on “This Week,” Cheney said, “Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then.” He articulated his openness to the repeal of the discriminatory law, adding, “When the chiefs come forward and say, ‘We think we can do it,’ then it strikes me that it’s — it’s time to reconsider the policy.”

The GOP and conservatives seem to be finding their way out of the wilderness. This is not altogether a bad thing and can be good for our democracy. However, the Republican Party has to move into the 21st century, loosen the choke hold of religious fundamentalism and reclaim conservatism’s core values of limited government, individual freedom and fiscal responsibility.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

The value of being counted

2010-02-15T18:52:00.005-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

How many gay, bisexual and transgender individuals does it take to create change? That’s hard to tell. How many of us are there?

Estimates of LGBT people range anywhere from 3 to 5 percent of the total population, but no one really knows. Although demographers and other social scientists have tried to approximate our size, the counts they produce are rough estimates at best. It is practically impossible to get a statistically representative and random sample from which anyone can extrapolate the total number of LGBT people in the country. Most researchers default to identifying their samples in metropolitan areas such as San Francisco and New York. That’s understandable as so since many of us flock to these places, but the reality is not all of us do.

It is crucial to know how many we are and where we live as we continue our struggle for equal rights. If we know how many we are, we can go to political candidates and elected officials and discuss with them our needs — as well as how many votes they stand to lose if they ignore us. We can approach government agencies and demand, as tax-paying citizens, the services and programs we require. We can turn to community-based organizations, nonprofits and foundations and let them know about our community’s issues. We can tell our neighbors and fellow Americans that there are millions of us and we can’t be ignored. We can find each other and better mobilize.

Numbers are powerful in our society and being able to tell how many millions strong we are is power. Consider how politicians have been vying for the votes of Latinos, for example, the fastest growing segment of Americans.

So, how do we begin counting? We can start by participating in the 2010 Census, which happens next month. The decennial count is mandated by the Constitution and attempts an accurate count of all Americans and households, which include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and families. Census statistics determine not only congressional seats but the distribution of billions of federal dollars for social services. Philanthropic and nonprofit organizations use the information gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau to plan their programs and services. Researchers and journalists cull the data to make conclusions about certain groups. Politicians monitor who they need to curry favor from within their jurisdictions.

This year’s Census is groundbreaking. Our Families Count, a public education campaign spearheaded by LGBT leaders and community organizers, explains in its website:

What makes this year’s Census even more historic is the unprecedented and welcoming outreach by U.S. Census leaders and managers to include the entire lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) and allied community in these efforts, as a way to achieve the nation’s most accurate count possible.

Dr. Robert Groves, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, endorsed this initiative: “We are charged each 10 years to provide Congress with a Census they trust to be accurate and complete. We are grateful to our LGBT community partners in helping us achieve this significant responsibility, and to help educate, motivate and inspire everyone to take part and above all, to be visible and counted.”

The bureau has nearly two dozen “partnership specialists” across the country who work closely with LGBT community groups and leaders to make sure that we all participate and are duly counted.

It must be acknowledged, however, that this effort is incomplete and just the beginning in the long and difficult process of painting a true picture of our numbers and lives. We will not be asked about our sexual orientation or gender identity. Only same-sex couples will give demographers an indication of our sexual orientation. Those of us who are living with a same-sex spouse or partner can indicate our relationship status by checking either the “husband/wife” or “unmarried partner” box.

Getting the U.S. Census Bureau to count individuals will have to come next. And it will not be easy. As the folks behind Our Families Count admit:

It takes years to successfully advocate for the inclusion of questions on the census, and the advocacy must be funded by congressional legislation. We are just emerging from the hostile and indifferent years of the previous administration, when this advocacy was largely ignored.

Nonetheless, the 2010 Census will provide a reliable count of same-sex couples in America and document how we are dispersed throughout all states, cities and counties. Moreover, many organizers of Our Families Count are leading an independent coalition that seeks to include us and our families in most major federal data collection efforts, such as the longer, annual Census Bureau form called the American Community Survey.

So when you get the Census form in the mail, fill it out. If for some reason you don’t get one, contact the U.S. Census Bureau. Make sure we are counted. Let everyone know that we are queer, that we are here, and that our families count.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Rewind: Week of Feb. 12

2010-02-12T17:38:00.002-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

Snowmageddon may have kept our nation’s lawmakers from work this week — and effectively delayed same-sex marriage in D.C. — but state legislators have been keeping themselves busy.

On Tuesday, Iowa state representatives and senators blocked efforts by their GOP colleagues to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage. Pro-LGBT Democrats, who hold majorities in both chambers, argued that their constituents have far more pressing concerns that indulging conservative homophobia.

Concurrently, in New Hampshire’s House of Representatives, the Judiciary Committee nixed two bills that attempted to reverse the state’s marriage equality law — one through repeal and the other through referendum.

Yesterday, Rhode Island state representatives elected the state’s first openly gay African American House speaker, Gordon Fox. This came in the heels of the announcement by three gubernatorial candidates — former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, State Attorney General Patrick Lynch, and Frank Caprio — that they support marriage equality. This bodes well for expanded civil rights in the only New England state that has not made same-sex marriage legal.

Prominent figures in the marriage debate also have been in the news.

In New York, state senators made history by expelling their colleague Hiram Monserrate who had been convicted of domestic assault. Monserrate was also one of the eight Democrats who voted against marriage equality in the Empire State, disappointing LGBT New Yorkers who had supported him.

In California, Proposition 8 trial judge Vaughn Walker was outed in the mainstream media, prompting some to question whether he could be impartial in ruling on the groundbreaking case. It has been pointed out that, ironically, Walker almost didn’t make it to the federal bench because he was perceived as anti-LGBT. He had helped the U.S. Olympic Committee stop the LGBT community from calling athletic competitions in San Francisco the Gay Olympic Games. He also callously put a lien on the home of a gay games leader who was dying of AIDS. His first appointment in 1987 by President Reagan was thus opposed by House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and stalled out by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Opponents of marriage equality were given some great ammunition this week when the New York Times highlighted a study on gay men and made sweeping conclusions about lesbian and gay couples. Although the research out of San Francisco State University only includes men and does not have a statistically valid and representative sample, the author carelessly pronounces that “monogamy is not a central feature for many” gay relationships. Although only gay and bisexual men in the Bay Area are included in the project, the article leads by recounting the story of one lesbian couple and continues to make hasty generalizations about all LGBT couples.

Meanwhile, there were some uplifting stories this week.

On Tuesday, the San Francisco school board voted to fund a substantial increase in instruction and services related to LGBT issues even though the district is planning major layoffs and program cuts amid the recession. School board members unanimously agreed that it is crucial to support LGBT youth, who are more likely to experience bullying and skip school because they are afraid. About 13 percent of the city’s middle school students and 11 percent of high school students self-identify as LGBT.

The following day, Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Administration on Aging announced a three-year, $900,000 grant to SAGE, the nation’s oldest and largest organization serving LGBT older adults. The award is for the creation of the nation’s only national resource center on LGBT aging, which will assist communities across the country in their efforts to provide services and supports for older LGBT people.

Finally, just to be very clear: Lt. Dan Choi has not been ordered to active duty. As Vet Voice explains:

1LT Choi has NOT been ordered back to active duty. It would be difficult to order him “back” to active duty, being that he serves in the New York National Guard, not on active duty, unless he had been mobilized. What has happened is that, with the support of his command, 1LT Choi drilled with his National Guard unit this past weekend for training on critical infantry tasks with his Soldiers.

While it’s good to see 1LT Choi in uniform and back with his unit, the key take away from this story is that the fight isn’t over. 1LT Choi’s discharge is still pending at DA. At any time, this leader could be removed from his post and his unit’s cohesion and mission readiness severely damaged as a result.

Yes, the key takeaway is that come rain, sleet or snow, the fight is far from over.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Rewind: Week of Feb. 5

2010-02-05T16:45:00.003-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was remarkable not only for paving the way for the despicable law’s demise, but for showcasing the two routes conservatives can take moving forward.

One path is that taken by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It took him a number of years to get to this juncture, but he has chosen to be on the right side of history, be in touch with the majority of Americans, and do what is right by his fellow soldiers. Mullen, who had been nominated to his post by George W. Bush in 2007, told the Senate committee that he believes “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.” He confessed, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” He explained that it’s a matter of integrity — “theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.” He clearly meant his own integrity as well.

Then there is the way taken by Sen. John McCain. The Arizona Republican reneged on an earlier promise to heed the military’s top brass on the matter of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now that both the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are telling us it’s time to repeal the discriminatory law, McCain throws a hissy fit and refuses to budge. Once known for his “maverick” and independent streak, it appears that he has lost his better qualities. Is he pandering to social conservatives to ensure more years in Washington? Or has he yet to accept his defeat to that young upstart, Obama? Or is he simply clinging on to an order that is fast disintegrating — one in which he and other privileged, wealthy and heterosexual white men hold sway?

McCain, joined by a few of his ilk, defiantly displayed how out of synch he is with most of us. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, in particular, uttered inanity that only underscored how divorced these men are from reality. He protested that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would open the flood gates to “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art” in the military. I believe it’s a bit too late for that.

In other news, at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, Obama finally addressed the maniacal and murderous anti-LGBT fervor gripping Uganda and other African Nations. He said, “We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as [Secretary of State] Hillary [Clinton] mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.”

Clinton, who gave the keynote address, had stressed that the administration is “looking to take on religious discrimination and violations of human rights. But we are also standing up for girls and women, who too often in the name of religion are denied basic human rights. And we are standing up for gays and lesbians, who deserve to be treated as full human beings.”

On Monday, newly minted Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell announced that he had decided to shelve his predecessor’s proposal to allow same-sex partners to be covered under the state’s employee health plan. The proposal had been developed by outgoing Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine weeks before the god-fearing McDonnell took over the reins of the Old Dominion State. It would have expanded benefits to qualified adults — straight and gay partners, roommates, caregivers, children and other family members — who live in the same house as an insured state employee.

The following day, in neighboring D.C., Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and eight other GOP senators introduced legislation that would require the District to subject marriage equality to a referendum before issuing marriage licenses to lesbian and gay couples next month. In response, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton said that the Republicans are “disregarding the most basic of American self-government principles.” She argued that “marriage is a fundamental state’s right in the District as elsewhere in America, not a political football to be used or abused to score points back home at the expense of the people of the District, and of democratic principles.”

And while many of us were riveted on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” hearing, the U.S. Tax Court quietly issued a long-awaited decision in a case that has very positive consequences for transgender people. In O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the court ruled that treatment for gender identity disorder qualifies as medical care under the Internal Revenue Code, and that medical treatments for GID, including surgery and hormone therapy, are therefore deductible.

Karen Loewy of Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which represented the plaintiff, celebrated the verdict.

“This decision treats Rhiannon O’Donnabhain the way she deserves to be treated — like any hard-working American taxpayer with medical expenses.” She pointed out that “this has been a no-brainer. Every mainstream medical authority from the American Psychiatric Association to the National Institutes of Health recognizes the legitimacy of providing medical care for transgender people. Dismissing these medical expenses as illegitimate and not deductible was discrimination, pure and simple.”

On Wednesday, Maryland lawmakers rejected an effort by their own to prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. Del. Emmett Burns Jr., a Democrat and minister, had proposed the bill as a pre-emptive strike against an anticipated legal opinion the state’s attorney general has been working on. It has been predicted that the attorney general will allow same-sex marriages to be recognized in Maryland, following the state’s legal tradition of recognizing unions, including common-law marriages, which are illegal in Maryland but lawful elsewhere. Same-sex marriage is still not legal in the state.

Finally this week, thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans activists and straight allies gather in Dallas for Creating Change 2010, the National Conference on LGBT Equality organized by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. In attendance are young and old activists and advocates, organizers and activists of color, public officials and other LGBT leaders. Its primary goal is “to build our movement’s political power from the ground up to secure our overarching goal of full equality, social justice and dignity for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the United States.”

Unlike McCain and his friends, these people are not wealthy, privileged and powerful men cocooned in Washington, shaking their fists against welcome change. These ordinary Americans are acting with more wisdom, courage and integrity than the senators, leading the way to our shared future in which the next generation of conservatives, liberals and independents will wonder what the fuss was all about.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Rewind: Week of Jan. 29

2010-01-29T18:42:00.004-05:00

Also posted on DC Agenda

The only thing new in President Obama’s mention of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during his State of the Union address was the phrase “this year.”

Although it is always helpful when the president uses the word “gay,” especially when stressing the equality of all citizens, it is not as helpful to keep on promising the repeal of a discriminatory law without saying or committing much else. Having surrogates — like Valerie Jarrett — try to assure us without giving any details does not foster much confidence, either.

Considering the ambitious agenda Obama intends to keep, his depleted political capital, the resurgence of GOP confidence, strident opposition from the Pentagon, and the reality that members of Congress have already “run for the hills” in anticipation of the November elections, will “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be repealed this year? Will skittish and self-serving politicians do the right thing and finally permit “gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are”?

And if the antiquated and disproven law were to survive another year, will Obama sign an executive order banning any further discharges of out lesbian and gay soldiers?

In related news, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law released a report Tuesday that increased the estimated number of gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals serving in the military to 66,000. The study also calculates that about 13,000 of these brave Americans are on active duty while the remaining 53,000 gay and bisexual women and men serve in the National Guard and reserves.

Wednesday was quite eventful. In Washington, D.C., U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced an historic piece of legislation, H.R. 4350, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which seeks to protect LGBT students. The bill establishes a comprehensive federal prohibition of discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill debuted with 60 co-sponsors.

While Polis was working for equality, his colleague, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), introduced a disapproval resolution to block the District’s marriage equality law, even though he admits that the motion is almost certain to fail. Chaffetz clearly had nothing better to do than indulge his homophobia and bigotry. In response, House Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) issued a statement saying she had received assurance from Democratic leaders that the House will ignore the conservative congressman’s useless resolution.

Meanwhile, in California, testimony in the federal Proposition 8 trial ended and the presiding judge, Vaughn Walker, could rule as soon as March. Whatever his decision, it will most likely be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Internationally, Moscow’s mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, vowed Monday to once again prevent this year’s gay pride parade, which he considers “satanic.”

“We haven’t permitted such a parade and we won’t permit it in the future,” he said. “It’s high time that we stop propagating nonsense discussions about human rights, and bring to bear on them the full force and justice of the law.”

The LGBT community plans on marching nonetheless, even though they had been harassed and dispersed during previous attempts.

On Wednesday, Mexico City’s lesbians and gays got the bad news that Mexican federal prosecutors will try to overturn the city’s same-sex marriage law. The federal Attorney General’s office issued a statement that says the law “violates the principle of legality, because it strays from the constitutional principle of protecting the family.”

In contrast, the United Kingdom’s LGBT community got props from the nation’s conservative leader, David Cameron. At a recent meeting on education, the Tory head said that schoolchildren should be taught about gay relationships and equality.

“We do need good sex and relationship education. That education should teach people about equality, that we treat people the same whether they are gay or straight. I think that is really important that we embed that in the ethos of our education.” Cameron added, “Should we teach children about relationships? Yes we should. Should we teach them about the importance of equality, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual? Yes we should.”

Perhaps American conservatives should listen and learn from their British counterparts and finally uphold the American ideal of equality for all its citizens. After all, more and more of their ranks — young and old — are starting to see lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as equals worthy of respect and the most basic of rights.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

Importing hate

2010-01-25T18:30:00.002-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

Immigrant congregations are indispensable to the integration of newcomers. However, they can also import prejudice and breed hatred.

While studying community-based organizations founded by and for immigrant groups, I learned how crucial these non-profits are to incorporating newcomers into the American mainstream. Congregations such as churches and mosques are especially helpful for individuals and families that have just arrived. As I wrote in a report for the Urban Institute:

Congregations are often the first and main points of contact for newcomers. They provide a ready-made community with shared religion, language, culture, and norms. Religious community leaders are often keenly aware of newcomers’ needs. They often provide direct services or educate individuals and families about how and where to find help. In this safe environment, immigrants learn from their compatriots about American life and ease into it.

Unfortunately, some of these congregations also import religious beliefs and cultural traditions that clash with the secular and pluralist character of America. This conflict was on display last week during the federal Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco. The plaintiffs presented videotapes of Hak-Shing Tam, a 55-year-old immigrant from Hong Kong and one of the main progenitors of the referendum that ended same-sex marriage in California.

The New York Times reported that Tam is one of the most respected and heeded leaders of the “burgeoning world of evangelical Chinese Christianity in the Bay Area.” The proponents of marriage equality chose Tam to prove their central argument that Proposition 8 came out of hate for a minority. Ironically, the prejudice and bigotry of one minority — fundamentalist Christian Chinese — targeted another minority: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

An example of this prejudice can be drawn from a 2008 Chinese-language essay that Tam distributed online, which includes this passage:

In a macro environment in which homosexuality is gradually accepted as being normal, child molesting by gays is gradually being viewed as normal in academia. Children who were subjected to sexual abuse only know to socialize with other men through sex. When they grow up, they would do the same to other children by molesting children of the same sex. Therefore, gay people grow in numbers even as most of them do not have children of their own.

In a Chinese-language letter that Tam disseminated among Chinese Christian churches in the Bay Area, he warned of a “gay agenda” and some inevitable legalization of prostitution and pedophilia if Prop 8 failed. All of Tam’s assertions are patently false and designed to incite discrimination and action against the LGBT community.

In a follow-up article, the Times reporter muses:

It was fascinating to realize that same-sex marriage, and the successful campaign to ban it was really the first political issue to galvanize this community. It has been rapidly — and quietly — growing for two decades but only recently tried its hand at political action.

The Bay Area’s Chinese Christians are overwhelmingly evangelical, especially in the South Bay, although there is smattering of main-line Protestants and Catholics as well in San Francisco. Evangelical Chinese Christians were one of the region’s most vocal and well-organized groups supporting Proposition 8, the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, which voters approved in 2008.

It is safe to say that most of these Evangelical Chinese agree with Tam’s warped sense of reality because of their religious belief system, cultural traditions and general conservative bent.

This is not to say that all faithful immigrants are like Tam and his coreligionists. Neither am I advocating for newcomers to leave their religions, cultures and traditions at the border. After all, this is a nation of immigrants and they should always be welcome along with the energy, determination, talent, optimism and hope they bring into their adopted country.

However, people who choose to come to the United States also should be willing to live in a society that embraces many different kinds of people who do not necessarily share the same beliefs, customs and traditions. Newcomers need to respect and at the very least tolerate others just as they should be respected and at the very least tolerated. Immigrants have to learn and imbibe the American ideals of freedom and equality.

Ours is a liberal democracy, not a theocracy.

You can follow Erwin on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Rewind: Week of Jan. 22

2010-01-22T17:35:00.002-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

The loss of Edward Kennedy’s U.S. senate seat to a Republican and the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down elements of campaign-finance law have caused much anxiety for the Obama administration, Democrats and progressives in general. But does the LGBT community need to worry?

On Tuesday, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown defeated state Attorney General Martha Coakley to become the 41st GOP member of the U.S. Senate, ending the Democratic “filibuster-proof” majority and putting the brakes on the administration’s agenda, particularly health care reform. And yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions and similar entities can spend as much as they want in advertisements supporting or opposing federal political candidates, giving an outrageous advantage to pols backed by firms with very deep pockets.

For the LGBT movement, these developments may not necessarily be bad. In the first place, the Democratic majority has shown meager enthusiasm for our civil rights and was not likely to act on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act anytime soon. And as for senator-elect Brown, he shares the fierce advocate’s anti-gay-marriage-but-pro-civil-unions stance. The former Cosmo centerfold is also indebted to independent voters who tend not be rabid conservatives when it comes to social issues. Most of all, President Obama, Brown and other elected officials will have bigger things in their mind than fighting for or against our rights: pressing issues such as health care reform, major unemployment, wars, and the elections in November.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s ruling which permits corporations and the like to spend as much as they want on advertising for or against a candidate presents us with an excellent opportunity for our gay dollars to work. A pro-LGBT entity or one owned by an LGBT individual can back politicians committed to equal rights or oppose those who want to perpetuate our second-class status. Going forward, this approach should be folded into a strategy which includes supporting pro-LGBT candidates of all parties, reaching out to communities that do not support us, and aiming for victories at the local and state levels.

These incremental gains can take the form of small steps toward the right direction, such as the one taken by South Miami city commissioners when they voted Tuesday to allow city employees’ domestic partners, both straight and gay, to enjoy the same benefits and rights an employee’s spouse would get, including hospital visitation rights and health care coverage.

Getting pro-LGBT politicians into all levels of government is crucial to furthering the cause and can guarantee victories in legislative initiatives such as those happening this morning in Hawaii’s state Senate. A vote on a bill that would allow same-sex and different-sex couples to enter into civil unions has been scheduled. If the bill is approved, it would move back to the state House, where lawmakers passed a civil-unions bill during their last session. Having elected officials committed to equality will also hinder actions such as the one made by an Indiana state senate committee last Wednesday which endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In other news, the Obama Justice Department finally intervened in a gay rights suit last Friday by filing a motion in support of an openly gay student’s lawsuit against his school district in upstate New York. School officials did not appropriately respond to abuse the 14 year old suffered because of his sexual orientation. In its motion, the Justice Department argued that school district officials also violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Today, Stars and Stripes, a military community news source, reports that Department of Defense schools will now recognize same-sex relationships when transferring overseas teachers to new assignments. This means that lesbian and gay teachers in domestic partnerships with other teachers must be given the same consideration their married heterosexual colleagues receive when requesting to be transferred to new jobs in the same area.

Internationally, the United Nations called on Uganda to abandon its Kill-the-Gays bill. On Friday, Navi Pillay, the high commissioner for human rights, called the proposed legislation “draconian” and “blatantly discriminatory.” Pillay reminded Uganda of its human rights obligations, warning that the bill would “seriously damage the country’s reputation in the international arena.”

On Wednesday, a dozen Democratic U.S. senators also sent a letter to Uganda’s president urging Musseveni to block enactment of the pending bill. The letter says, “This troubling legislation would sanction prejudice toward people in Uganda based solely on sexual orientation, or even HIV status. This is in great contrast to trends toward greater tolerance in the global community. By creating harsh penalties for homosexuality, this bill not only codifies prejudice, but could also foster an increase in violence towards people simply based on sexual orientation … this proposed legislation will be a glaring setback in Uganda’s human rights standing. Unfortunately, even the mere threat of the new and severe penalties for homosexual behavior suggested in this bill, including life imprisonment and the death penalty, could easily add to an already intolerant atmosphere in Uganda based on sexual orientation.“

Meanwhile, Malawian officials express no regret for their continued oppression of LGBT individuals. In a statement released Monday, Malawi’s information minister, Leckford Mwanza Thoto, was unapologetic about laws that criminalize homosexuality. Referring to a gay couple that held a marriage ceremony, Thoto said they were “clearly breaking the laws of Malawi.” He also defiantly added, “We depend on our Western friends, yes, but we are a sovereign country.”

Discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people likewise persist in Russia. On Tuesday, a Moscow court rejected a lesbian couple’s appeal against an earlier ruling upholding a registry office’s refusal to register their marriage. The lawyer for the two women anticipated the ruling but is not giving up.

There were bright spots, however. On Tuesday, the daughter of Cuba’s president said that the communist state has been performing state-sponsored gender reassignment operations since 2008, a year after the government lifted a longtime ban on the procedure. Mariela Castro is a sexologist and gay-rights advocate and runs the Center for Sex Education, which prepares trans people for the procedures.

And finally in the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party will release its election manifesto today which contains a “cast-iron pledge” to give financial benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples who stay together. It says: “We will recognize marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system in the next parliament. We are one of the very few countries in the western world that doesn’t do so and we will put that right. This will send an important signal that we value the commitment that people make when they get married.”

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Helping Haiti

2010-01-18T09:31:00.004-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

The breathtaking tragedy in Haiti put things in perspective.

As images of fallen buildings, dead bodies and wailing wounded streamed in, I found it difficult to write — even about the groundbreaking Proposition 8 trial in California. Seeing such devastation took my focus away from my own worries. Our community’s very real struggle seemed not as important.

Like many others, I teared up, thought about what I could do to help, and did what I can. I was elated to find out that the LGBT community has mobilized to help. The Rainbow World Fund, the world’s only lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender driven international humanitarian aid charity, offered a giving alternative that promised to get the funds to those who need it through groups that do not exclude LGBT individuals or discriminate against anyone. The relief agency has been in Haiti since its founding in 2004 and has improved the lives of thousands in the impoverished nation by supporting projects that improve nutrition and develop safe drinking water access. The organization’s disaster relief partner, CARE, has been on the ground since last week, providing emergency food, safe water, plastic for shelters, blankets and basic medicines.

The owners of LGBT cruise companies Atlantis, Olivia and RSVP also have teamed with community activists in a coordinated effort to raise money which will be channeled through the Red Cross.

Haiti has been a regular destination for gay-themed cruises. Judy Dlugacz, the president of Olivia Companies, a lesbian-oriented vacation company, said that “so many of our passengers have been touched by the destruction and poverty in the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. It is important that as LGBT Americans, we come together to show our community’s solidarity and support for those living through this unimaginable disaster.” Rich Campbell, the CEO of Atlantis Events, agreed, saying “now is the time for us to lend our gay dollars to a compelling human tragedy that knows no gender or sexual orientation.”

Claire Lucas, a community activist and political fundraiser, also is raising awareness within the LGBT community. She said “the symbolism of a unified, community-based financial response is important” and that it “represents a fitting effort to reach beyond our borders with a message of hope and goodwill from LGBT Americans.”

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equity, added that “too often the LGBT community in the United States is portrayed as inwardly focused and unattached to the larger suffering beyond our borders, but we know that to be untrue, and as we watch the devastation in Haiti today, we can also send a message about our community’s larger concern for human suffering.”

In spite of our status as second-class citizens, we do have it much better than others across the world who live on less than $2 a day and are set back all the more after calamities. I’d like to think that our own marginalization and disadvantage — though not as urgent as the dire needs of Port Au Prince survivors — allow us to empathize with the images we see flashed on front pages, cable news and streaming videos.

The humanitarian crisis in Haiti allows us to show the world that we do care and that we do what we can as part of the community. Let’s take this moment to help.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Photo from Mirror.co.uk

Double Jeopardy

2010-01-16T06:04:00.004-05:00

The many layered discrimination suffered by LGBT of color was in full display yesterday at the Prop 8 trial. The New York Times reports on the deposition of Helen Zia, a noted journalist, author, scholar and activist:

...her testimony was striking. There was a noticeable undercurrent of race that coursed through these moments in the proceedings, as a Chinese-American witness, prompted by an Asian-American lawyer, described a tableau of fear and hostility that she she said had faced as a lesbian. The testimony was a not-so-subtle reminder of the letter that Hak-Shing William Tam, a Chinese-American opponent of same-sex marriage, had sent to the Asian-American community in the Bay Area during the Proposition 8 campaign.
The letter was the centerpiece of a riveting moment Wednesday, when Mr. Tam was shown in a video discussing how he found evidence of a “gay agenda” on Google that indicated that gays and lesbians intended to legalize prostitution and sex with children after winning the gay marriage fight. The plaintiffs say the Fremont resident has distributed those views through a letter to the Asian Americans.

Ms. Zia vividly discussed her own experience working as a community organizer, when Asian and black leaders confronted her with the question of her sexual orientation, saying “it would be really terrible to have somebody who was homosexual to be working with us,” she said.

She denied that she was lesbian, and then “stepped into the closet and slammed the door.”

Her experience, sadly, is not unique.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon

Rewind: LGBT News Week of Jan. 15

2010-01-15T17:30:00.004-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

The big LGBT story this week was the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Elsewhere, from Bozeman, Mont., to Beijing, China, our community and allies also fought discrimination, persecution and marginalization, winning some and losing a few.

On Monday, just before the Prop 8 trial was about to commence, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the videotaping and subsequent showing on YouTube of the proceedings. LGBT journalists, bloggers and advocates stepped up and made sure that information flowed through several outlets. Two days later, the high court ruled that the trial could not be broadcast, questioning the propriety and haste of the federal judge’s decision to record the proceedings. The Supreme Court apparently heeded the fear of harassment among those who rabidly promote the continued oppression of a minority.

In other places in the U.S., the community had some gains. The City Commission of Bozeman voted Monday to protect LGBT city employees by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the categories covered by the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

The following day, the California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety passed the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Prisoner Safety Act, which is designed to prevent violence against LGBT people in the state prison system. According to a recent study, 69 percent of trans inmates report sexual victimization while incarcerated.

In Iowa, as the 2010 legislative session began, supporters and opponents of marriage equality rallied their forces. On Sunday, leaders from labor, faith and civil rights groups gathered in Des Moines, calling for all Iowans to speak up in support of same-sex marriage. Two days later, supporters of LGBT rights gathered again at the capital in an effort to thwart opponents’ attempt to co-opt Gov. Chet Culver’s state of the state address and intimidate Iowa legislators into pushing for a constitutional amendment that would revoke the rights of lesbian and gay Iowans to wed.

In Washington, D.C., the countdown to legalized same-sex marriage in the District began. On Monday, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton confirmed that the bill approved by the D.C. Council last month had arrived on Capitol Hill and that Congress will have 30 legislative days to review it. The bill becomes law immediately after that review period has ended. In the meantime, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah announced his scheme to introduce legislation that would subject LGBT rights to mob rule, even though he admits that his chances for success are slim.

Other civil rights opponents were kept at bay. Yesterday, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso upheld the city election board’s decision to keep gay marriage off the ballot, finding that ballot initiatives are indeed subject to the city’s Human Right Act, which prohibits discrimination of LGBT individuals.

The importance of having pro-equality elected officials was highlighted in two national contests. In New York, supporters of Democratic U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand were up in arms over former U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr.’s interest in becoming the state’s junior senator, in part due to his about face on same-sex marriage and abortion. Ford had been against a woman’s right to choose and was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, the constitutional ban on same-sex unions. His carpetbagger status does not engender him to many New Yorkers, either.

In Massachusetts, the race between State Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican state Sen. Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was closely monitored. Brown, who had posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine, does not support equal rights for all Americans. In 2007, he voted for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In Puerto Rico, justice may yet be served for Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado and his family. The teenager’s alleged murderer, Juan Martinez Matos, was found fit to stand trial Wednesday. However, the island’s LGBT community may be dealt more injustice. Last Friday, it was reported that during an address to religious leaders, Gov. Luis Fortuño proposed that the commonwealth’s constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriage.

Internationally, the pressure on Uganda continues. On Tuesday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon called for a review of Uganda’s preferred trade status as a result of the country’s proposed anti-LGBT bill — a bill that would make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment or death. Wyden said in a press release that passage of the bill would be a violation of the African Growth & Opportunity Act, which authorizes duty-free importation of certain goods from preferred status countries. He also sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to request that they “communicate immediately to the Ugandan government, and President Yoweri Museveni directly, that Uganda’s beneficiary status under AGOA will be revoked should the proposed legislation be enacted.”

Protests by American and other foreign leaders may have had some effect on Uganda’s president. On Tuesday, Museveni said that the country must take into consideration its foreign policy interests when debating an anti-homosexuality bill. He was quoted as saying, “The prime minister of Canada came to see me and what was he talking about? Gays. Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to see me and what was he talking about? Gays. Mrs. Clinton rang me. What was she talking about? Gays.”

Meanwhile, in Malawi, the lawyers of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, the couple arrested for holding a wedding ceremony last December challenged
the constitutionality of the nation’s homosexuality ban. Homosexuality is punishable in Malawi by up to 14 years in prison.

The religious venom that fuels much of the hatred such as that in Uganda and Malawi spewed forth from the Vatican this week. Reacting to Portugal’s move to legalize same-sex marriage, Pope Benedict XVI called laws enabling such marriages an “attack” on nature.

In Northern Ireland, a rabid homophobe who likewise fanned anti-LGBT sentiment got her comeuppance. The hypocrisy of Parliament Member Iris Robinson was revealed last week when reports came out that she had an affair with a teenage boy. Moreover, she solicited loans for her young lover to open a business. The May-December romance occurred in the summer of 2008, when Robinson was making a name for herself as a bigot, hurling a string of offensive comments about homosexuality.

In Japan, the transgender community suffered a setback this week. A trans man who had a child with his wife was informed by officials that his child was classified as illegitimate. The 27-year-old man transitioned in 2008 and later that year, his wife gave birth to a son using his brother’s sperm. The decision to class his child as illegitimate was based on the grounds that a couple of the same gender cannot have a child.

But in China, the LGBT community continues to gain visibility and officially sanctioned tolerance. On Wednesday, the state newspaper splashed a front-page photo of the country’s first publicly “married” gay couple. Today, China’s first gay pageant is being held in Beijing to choose a representative for the Mr. Gay World contest in Norway next month. And this weekend, the top state-run radio network plans to launch a new program about AIDS that features an HIV-positive host. It’s not clear, however, whether the host is gay. Still, homosexuality remains a sensitive issue in China. It was only decriminalized in 1997 and it was officially considered a form of mental illness until 2001. Same-sex marriages or civil unions have no legal standing.

In South Africa, there appeared to be some confusion over Olympic athlete Caster Semenya’s future. On Wednesday, her coach told the Associated Press that her lawyers confirmed she could compete internationally despite the ongoing controversy over her gender. However, her lawyers later said that they are still working with international track officials to settle the matter.

Finally, in Italy, plans to open one of the world’s first prisons for transgender inmates surfaced. The prison, which will accommodate about 30 people, is expected to house inmates who mainly have convictions for drug-related offences and prostitution. It is thought that Italy has a total of some 60 transgender prisoners. Until now, transgender prisoners have been located in women’s prisons and are often segregated.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon

Taking Responsibility

2010-01-11T13:22:00.004-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

The landmark civil rights trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenges the constitutional validity of California’s Proposition 8, begins today.

It will not decide once and for all whether same-sex couples can wed; experts are anticipating that the verdict will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the next few weeks will be an opportunity for Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to collect the building blocks — a detailed factual record — upon which the U.S. Supreme Court could ultimately decide whether we have the same right to marriage as opposite-sex couples.

This record will include documents, testimonies and other materials from both sides from which the judge will issue his ruling. A lot of evidence about the Yes on 8 campaign will be presented, among them depositions from key players. But some of these individuals are protesting the process, including an original sponsor of Prop 8, Hak-Shing William Tam.

Tam voluntarily chose to be an official litigant, a defendant-intervenor, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. He was and is an ardent and tireless opponent of same-sex marriage, saying that “I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and November 2008 toward qualifying Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigning for its enactment.” During this period, Tam wrote a letter to his church prophesying the apocalyptic results if lesbians and gays were given the same rights as straight people.

”One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” he wrote. ”Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals.”

On Jan. 8, he said that he wants out, expressing concern for his and his family’s safety. Through his lawyers, Tam argued that “in the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8 … now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.”

But as Box Turtle Bulletin notes:

… his concerns about being recognized didn’t seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign. And the worrisome issues didn’t give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant. And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than “friendly”. He hasn’t even removed from availability the DVD he has called “FAQ: Same-Sex Marriage & Homosexuality” which explains the “Possible Cause of Same Sex Attraction and the Healing” …

He also complained that the case has become more burdensome and intrusive than he had anticipated. This is the probably the more honest reason why he no longer wants to be bothered with it. In his motion to withdraw, he admits:

A second reason that I want to withdraw as a Defendant-Intervenor is that I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs. I do not like people questioning me regarding fourteen year old articles I wrote in the Chinese language to my constituents. I don’t like people focusing on a few articles I posted on my website regarding homosexuality and disregarding the 50 or 60 other articles I posted regarding family values subjects. I do not like the exposure of my history to people who are antagonistic to me. In short, I do not like the burden of discovery and the privacy intrusion associated with being a Defendant-Intervernor.

What did he expect? That those who believe in equity and justice would allow the continued oppression of a minority? That rational and fair-minded people would not stand up against him and his ilk and shed light on their superstitious and unfounded beliefs? That freedom loving Americans would not fight their lack of respect for the constitutional separation of church and state? And while I do not condone any damage to his property, much less physical harm to Tam and his family, why is he surprised by the anger and lashing out? Did he expect us to forever remain acquiescent, take the abuse and be satisfied at the margins?

Tam and others like him, who feel no compunction whatsoever in institutionalizing their bigotry and hatred, seem oblivious to the fact that he generated all the trouble and inconvenience he is whining about. He chose his brand of religion. He chose to exercise his rights. He chose to express his opinion. He chose to perpetuate exclusion and discrimination. Choices have consequences.

While he was supposedly harassed for choices only he made, we are harassed, bullied, mocked, threatened, beaten, raped and murdered simply because we happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. None of us choose to be who we are. If there is any choice to be made, it is to live openly and with integrity, a right and freedom enshrined in this nation’s constitution. And we take responsibility for our choice even if for many it means separation from family, friends and society.

So, Tam, stop bellyaching and take responsibility for your choice.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

Rewind: The week’s LGBT news

2010-01-08T18:14:00.002-05:00

Originally posted on DC Agenda

The first week of 2010 gave us an idea how the year will shape up.

Out lesbian and gay elected officials were sworn in. A lot of attention was paid to Annise Parker, the new mayor of Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city. Her ascendance proved once more that out politicians can win on their own merit even in conservative areas. The same was true for Stan Penfold, who became the first openly gay city council member in the Mormon stronghold of Salt Lake City. In California, the State Assembly officially selected John Perez, a gay Latino, as its next speaker.

The Obama administration also continues to welcome well-qualified LGBT people into its ranks. In a move that delighted trans activists and the community at large, defense industry veteran Amanda Simpson was appointed senior technical advisor to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security. Furthermore, the administration inserted language into the federal jobs web site explicitly barring employment discrimination based on gender identity.

The growing numbers of out individuals in all branches of government can only further the movement. We are becoming more visible and familiar to people in positions of power and influence. We are gaining more advocates in Washington as well as in state and local capitals who can raise awareness about our issues and push for reform in many ways, big and small. This is crucial because progress on key LGBT policy issues will be stalled.

At the marriage equality front, we need to be vigilant and make sure that we do not lose hard fought gains. Well before lesbian and gay New Hampshirites can settle into their new lives as married couples, there are already attempts to put New Hampshire’s newly effected same-sex marriage law to a referendum. In Washington, D.C., two senators and 37 members of the House, all Republicans and anti-LGBT, have taken the side of opponents who are suing to subject equality to mob rule. The gang, which includes Sens. James Inhofe and Roger Wicker, and the usual suspects such as Reps. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann, Jason Chaffetz and Virginia Foxx, filed an amicus brief in support of the anti-gay litigants.

In New Jersey, same-sex marriage proponents got the state’s senate to debate allowing gay couples to wed, a Hail Mary pass which, not altogether surprising, failed. However, Lambda Legal released a statement promising to go back to court and fight for marriage equality.

In Rhode Island, the state legislature defended the single right they had won for domestic partners: the right to make funeral arrangements for each other. Gov. Donald Carcieri had vetoed the legislation, but Rhode Island’s lawmakers overrode the veto.

Moreover, the Democratic Party got some bad news which does not auger well for us and our policy objectives. Longtime Sens. Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan announced they will not seek re-election during the mid-term elections. Democrats are thus likely to lose the super majority they currently enjoy. Legislative efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” along with various other LGBT agenda items, are for all intents and purposes shelved indefinitely.

In other news, pro-equality laws took effect in California. The state now recognizes the legal status of out-of-state same-sex marriages that occurred before Prop 8 went into effect in November 2008, and officially commemorates the birthday of LGBT civil rights martyr Harvey Milk.

This week, the 22-year HIV immigration ban which had stopped anyone living with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States was lifted. The first self-identified HIV-positive individual was welcomed at JFK airport in New York. Clement Rulands, a Dutch national, was quoted as saying “I feel proud to be here without the need to hide my status … this is not about me, but about the thousands of others who were afraid to disclose their HIV status.”

Internationally, as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals become more visible, empowered and politically engaged, there will be progress as well backlash. A whole lot of backlash.

In Portugal, the predominantly Roman Catholic country’s parliament passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. The proposed law now goes to conservative president Anibal Cavaco Silva, who can very well choose to veto it. In another country where the Catholic Church is a major player, the LGBT community continues to fight for its rightful place in society. Ang Ladlad, a Philippine LGBT group that seeks party-list accreditation is asking the nation’s Supreme Court to review the decision of the Commission on Elections to reject Ang Ladlad’s petition for accreditation last year based on religious arguments.

Not surprisingly, Catholic and other fundamentalist leaders are up in arms over civil and human rights won by LGBT people. In Mexico City, Cardinal Norberto Rivera said during a homily, “We respect and love those with different sexual tendencies and we should safeguard their human rights, but they cannot be allowed to raise families or be called a family.” Along with other denominational leaders, Rivera is preparing to mount a crusade to contain the plague of equality within the city, whose legislative assembly had approved gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples.

But the insidious influence of fundamentalist leaders is nowhere more appalling than in Africa. The outrage over Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill grows. This week both The New York Times and The Washington Post issued scathing editorials on the matter. In Malawi, three human rights activists were arrested for helping to defend the gay couple that held a same-sex engagement ceremony last month. The couple had been arrested, denied bail and subjected to humiliating medical examinations.

In other international news, a South Korean court ruled in favor of a gay Pakistani man who had sought refugee status on the basis that he faced persecution back home. While in Iran, the government decided to no longer classify trans people as mentally disturbed, however they can still be classified as “people with hormonal imbalance” or “diabetics.”

Locally and internationally, our march continues but it will not be easy or fast.

Next week, we should watch out for the federal case against Prop 8 in California. The trial begins on Monday and is expected to last for weeks. It will be the first occasion in federal court where a judge must answer the question of whether the Constitution forbids states like from restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The courtroom footage will not be streamed live, but will be available on YouTube daily.

You can follow me on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

All’s Not Fair in Love, Marriage & Immigration

2010-01-07T17:04:00.005-05:00

Originally posted on Spar & Bernstein's Law Link

My friends, Laura and Tom, are getting married, and I couldn’t be happier.

Their courtship began in Oxford, England, and their life as a legally committed and bound couple starts in Washington, D.C.

I am especially happy for Laura, a British national, as her marriage to Tom will allow him to sponsor her for a green card which she should have in a few months. Later on, should she choose, she could naturalize and become an American citizen. This all makes it easier for her to travel in and out of the country as well as find gainful employment in the U.S. Moreover, as a straight couple, they are instantly entitled to over 1,100 benefits and privileges gay couples are denied simply because they happen not to be heterosexuals.

I can not help but contrast Laura and Tom’s situation to John and mine.

Although my partner and I have been together for over 11 years, he is not able to sponsor me, a Philippine national, for permanent residency. And even though we are registered domestic partners in New York City and Washington, D.C. and plan to marry when the District’s same-sex legislation takes into effect, doing so would not offer a path to citizenship for me as immigration is a federal matter. Neither will we have access to the many benefits and privileges straight people take for granted. We will not be able to file combined federal taxes.

In most jurisdictions in the country, we will not have visitation rights if one of us were hospitalized. God forbid something were to happen to either of us while in a state that grants no rights to gay couples, the other will not be able to make life and death decisions a spouse ordinarily makes. Anything we give or leave to each other – property, money and other material possessions – will be taxed. The list goes on.

When we travel, we carry our individual wills and health care proxy documents – what straight couple would feel the need to do so?

Even though I consider the United States my home, have lived here legally for several years, and in my heart know that I am as American as my native born cousins, I have no recourse but to wait for my mother’s sponsorship on my behalf to come through. She married my stepfather a few years ago and like most other foreign nationals who marry a different-sex American, she got her green card.

Now if immigration reform happens and if it includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) families like mine, then there would be no difference, as there shouldn’t be, between different-sex and same-sex couples, at least when it comes to civil rights.

Unfortunately, the bill recently introduced Rep. Luis Gutierrez omits provisions immigration activists have been lobbying for, particularly one that allows LGBT individuals to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency and citizenship. This is not altogether a surprise, as proponents of immigration reform seek the support of conservative forces such as the Catholic and other fundamentalist churches which hold sway over millions of constituents and votes.

The simple fact is that equality for LGBT individuals and families is about civil rights. I hope that as immigration reform legislation is debated and crafted in the future, lawmakers would do what is just and equitable. I hope that the various stakeholders and interest groups realize that it is about the freedom and equality enshrined in the constitution. In the meantime, the LGBT community continues to struggle for civil rights for all Americans. Gratefully, friends, family and other straight allies have come around and joined the fight.

As they celebrate their union, Laura and Tom do so being well aware and saddened that too many other loving and committed couples are not as lucky. In lieu of favors, they have chosen to donate to Immigration Equality, a national organization fighting for equality under U.S. immigration law for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive individuals. If only more folks were as clear-sighted, fair-minded and generous as this young couple.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

Hateful Diversion

2010-01-06T17:03:00.004-05:00

Also posted on DC Agenda.

The mainstream media has finally caught up with the alternative press and blogosphere’s coverage of another kind of terrorism in Africa: the proposed codification of homophobia and legitimization of abuse of LGBT women and men. The story has even merited two articles and an editorial in the New York Times.

Yesterday’s New York Times editorial reads:

The government’s venom is chilling: “Homosexuals can forget about human rights,” James Nsaba Buturo, who holds the cynically titled position of minister of ethics and integrity, said recently.

What makes this even worse is that three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred. Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer gave a series of talks in Uganda last March to thousands of police officers, teachers and politicians in which, according to participants and audio recordings, they claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.

Another development from the continent which has not garnered the same attention is the arrest of Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza, two men who were married in a traditional but symbolic ceremony in Malawi last month. Homosexuality is banned in the conservative country and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. The couple was promptly arrested, denied bail out of “concern” for their safety, and has been subjected to humiliating medical tests to find out whether they have consummated their union or not.

The political and religious leaders of Uganda and Malawi would protest that they have the best interest of their people in mind, as clearly – at least to their superstitious and nonrational thinking – “deviant” lifestyles threaten the stability of society not to mention their promised place in heaven. Their outdated and dangerous ideas have been encouraged and at times funded by American evangelicals and politicians.

I wonder though if crusaders like Lively, Brundidge and Schmierer, along with their powerful African collaborators, have noticed other “immoral” behavior practiced in Uganda and Malawi.

For starters, have the self-righteous fundamentalists noticed the rampant and very legal practice of polygamy in Uganda, a predominantly Christian nation? Although polygamous marriages are not legally recognized under Malawian civil marriage laws, customary laws allow men to have many wives. Last I checked, having multiple wives is not sanctioned by any major Christian denomination or sect, much less evangelical ones. Putting aside culture and biblical imperative, this practice discriminates against women, perpetuates their status as chattel, and denies them basic rights enjoyed by their counterparts in developed nations with liberal democracies.

Rather than dictating who should sleep with whom, why don’t Ugandan and Malawian leaders and their American patrons address the greater problems of poverty and disease, in part caused by the ineptitude and corruption of their governments?

Transparency International, a global network that seeks to end the devastating impact of corruption on men, women and children around the world, ranks Uganda and Malawi among the top 100 corrupt nations in the world. Not surprisingly, both countries are among the poorest. In Uganda, over 75 percent of its population live on less than $2.00 a day while in Malawi, 90 percent of its people survive on such meager resources.

These countries’ health indicators are staggering. In 2007, Uganda had 940,000 people living HIV/AIDS placing it 10^th in the world, followed by Malawi which then counted 930,000 adults and children living with the disease. In the same year, Uganda was the second country with the most AIDS orphans: 1,200,000. Malawi had 560,000. In Uganda, 65 out of 1,000 infants die within the first year of life due to causes such as dehydration and diarrhea. In Malawi, 89 out of a thousand babies don’t survive their first year. In Uganda, 61 out of 1,000 women die while giving birth. In Malawi, 85 out of a thousand. One can go on and on and on.

But African politicians, spurred by American evangelicals, would rather that their people forget hunger, disease and death and be diverted by the private lives of a minority and by some promise of eternal salvation. American fundamentalists in turn, would rather indulge in their inexplicable obsession with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sex than help solve the real problems that beset this country and the world. They would rather spread hate than alleviate suffering.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon

2010: The Year of the Slog

2009-12-31T10:27:00.006-05:00

Also posted on DC Agenda.

We took quite a ride in 2009, setting off with the inauguration of our first minority president who had vowed to be our “fierce advocate.” Many of us allowed our expectations to get the better of us and as the year progressed, marriage equality victories in Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire fueled the fantasy that we would gain our civil rights before too long. But by year’s end, we had no choice but to take off our pink colored glasses and see where we really stand with the White House, Democratic Party and American public.

The Obama administration made it crystal clear that LGBT rights is not on top of its agenda and that it was not even going to toss us bones it can well afford: temporarily halting the dismissals of LGBT Americans due to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and not defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In California, the State Supreme Court upheld mob rule. In Maine, representative democracy was again usurped by the masses. Fact is, President Obama has not and will not be the champion we dreamed of, the Democratic Party only wants our money and votes, and while many of our friends, family and neighbors have come around and rallied for our rights, there are still millions who need to be convinced that our struggle for equality is theirs as well.

Now what about 2010? Our president, honorable representatives and august senators will very much remain preoccupied with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the threat posed by instability in Iran, Pakistan, Yemen and North Korea; the moribund economy and high unemployment rate; the unfinished health care reform battle; and whatever else might surface during the year. But most important of all, these politicians will be worrying about November’s mid-term elections. Therefore, abandon all hope you might have of action from the White House and the Hill. Their occupants will be more concerned about keeping their power than doing what is right by their constituents and the nation’s constitution.

In spite and because of the fact that most pols would sooner not touch LGBT civil rights, we and our allies have much to do this year.

In Congress, we need to watch closely and see whether the final health care reform bill includes LGBT-positive provisions. Currently, while the House version does, the Senate version does not. The legislation that comes out of conference should include language that eliminates the tax penalty to people who provide coverage for their same-sex spouses or partners; mandates the Department of Health and Human Services to address health disparities suffered by LGBT citizens; makes low-income persons living with HIV/AIDs eligible for federal assistance; and prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity in the delivery of health care. But as revealed in recent months, power rests in the hands of a few senators who may not necessarily feel any sympathy for us.

If our elected officials actually decide to pile on to their overflowing plate immigration reform, then we have to make sure that our families are not left out in the cold. Unfortunately, the bill recently introduced by the otherwise LGBT-friendly Rep. Luis Gutierrez omits stipulations immigration activists have been lobbying for, particularly one that allows LGBT individuals to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency and citizenship. Proponents of immigration reform will seek the support of conservative forces such as the Catholic and other fundamentalist churches which care more about establishing their god’s reign on the United States than an equitable and just society.

Another thing we need to keep on top of is the repeal of DADT. Barney Frank has indicated that it will be included as an amendment to the Department of Defense spending bill which will most likely pass both chambers of Congress much like the hate crimes amendment did in 2009. However, with the November elections looming, many of Frank’s colleagues will not have the courage to back this maneuver.

Finally, although we have been assured by many in the know that Congress will leave the District’s new marriage equality law well enough alone, the tenacity and influence of fundamentalists and their minions in the Hill should not be underestimated. They have vowed to fight the bill throughout the 30-day congressional review period and beyond. While Republicans and conservative Democrats may let this one pass for now, council member Catania wisely cautions that progress could be undone through mere budget maneuvers in the future.

Indeed, there will be enough for us to look out for, but not much will pass in our favor. Because of the challenging times we are in, the attention of our leaders will be focused on arguably more important things. Because of politicians’ natural instinct to take care of their interests and ensure their survival, it is up to us and our allies to make our interests crucial to their political survival.

2010 will be a slog. We will have to continue our struggle without expecting any major pay-offs. Nonetheless, we must persist in our efforts to change minds and hearts one person at a time and create change at the local and state level. But so long as we patiently and stubbornly chip away, equality will take form slowly and surely.

You can follow me on Twitter @ErwindeLeon

Hers & His: It Need Not Be Like This

2009-12-06T08:11:00.021-05:00

In time, most of us will get invitations to both same-sex and different-sex marriages and it will be interesting to see if nuptials will differ much in terms of rituals. I do not mean religious rituals necessarily, but "traditions" that have accrued over time, such as bachelorette and bachelor parties, bridesmaids and groomsmen, wedding and groom's cakes, etc. In other words, gender-based practices.

I thought of this as I watched a slide show at a recent wedding rehearsal dinner. Like most others shown at these gathering of tribes, it first flashed pictures of the bride from cradle to young adulthood, then of the groom, followed by their fateful meeting ... all lovely and we know where it ends. Or as many would tritely declare, begins. What stood out for me though were images of the bride and her girlfriends being and doing, well, girly stuff; of the groom and his posse acting like manly men; and of all of them together playing their respective and expected roles at sporting events, parties and other weddings. The odd thing is, while a union is being celebrated, separation is also exalted. Girls wear pink and play with dolls while boys wear blue and play with guns.

What would a same-sex rehearsal or wedding reception Power Point presentation or video look like? I expect the same story line but not many images that glorify gender-based roles and expectations. The beauty of being gay is that we are not held to such constructs, though there are those of us who choose to propagate these social norms and ways of being. There are lesbian and gay pairings in which one plays the masculine role and the other, the feminine. But most same-sex couples defy these categories.

The great thing about this day and age, at least in the West, is that straight people need not buy into these prescribed positions in society. None of this is preordained or "natural" (think male sea horses). It's all a matter of personal choice. It can be rather liberating for straight folks who rebel against how they have been socialized. I suspect that being a bit more fluid and open about our place in a partnership can only help.

Progress stalled but not stopped

2009-11-30T17:23:00.006-05:00

Tomorrow, Washington, D.C.'s City Council is expected to pass legislation that will legalize same-sex marriage. The mayor has promised to sign the bill and it looks like Congress will leave it be. By the new year, lesbians and gays will be able to marry in the nation's capital.

Unfortunately, it will be some time before other jurisdictions will - either through legislatures much less referenda - grant marriage equality to its citizens. The defeat in Maine; the weakening of the Democratic Party; the push back from conservative forces; the gnawing anxiety among the masses; and the fear of loss in the approaching midterm elections among politicians has vanquished any resolve they may have had. I can not see how anyone can remain optimistic about prospects in New Jersey and New York. Corzine's loss put the brakes on equality's progress in the Garden State while ossified political dysfunction hinders any movement in the neighboring Empire State.

This means that those of us who support and fight for equality have to accept the fact that it will take longer than many of us had hoped for and that it will be an uphill battle. A rather steep hill at that. But, so is it a fact that history and progress are on our side. So tomorrow, let us celebrate cautiously. Then more confidently when the 30 days have passed during which Congress may intervene.

We will celebrate one state at a time, one court case after another. This will be how it is until we have finally prevailed.

Dogma trumps charity

2009-11-12T17:29:00.003-05:00

Catholic Charities, the social services agency of the Catholic Church, has threatened to stop providing services on behalf of the District if the D.C. City Council approves legislation to legalize same-sex marriage next month. The organization is concerned that if equal treatment of gay people is codified, they will have to provide benefits to same-sex couples just as they have been doing for different-sex couples (that is the reality of taking money from Caesar – one has to abide by Caesar’s laws). More importantly, the nonprofit’s representatives argue that to see LGBT individuals and families as no different from others goes against Catholic dogma.

The City Council, on the other hand, reacted appropriately by not giving in to blackmail. They are the people’s representatives, and their mandate is to uphold man’s laws, not some perceived divine injunction. Thankfully, they are more concerned about justice and equity and are determined to do what is right by D.C.’s citizens. Fact is, they and the District have nothing to lose if Catholic Charities refuses to take government money. There are a lot of outstanding social services providers in the market that will welcome much-needed funding and have no issue with treating everyone fairly.

What troubles me though is how the Catholic Church puts principle before people. How an idea - in this case, that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals are abominations and their families abhorrent - far outweighs the needs of those that benefit from the services they provide. How it outweighs the fact that their tradition, holy scriptures and God mandate them to serve the poor, the hungry, the dispossessed and the needy. They would rather lose funds crucial to providing succor to their constituents – homeless people and families; at risk children; people living with disabilities; immigrants and refugees; and adults and families in crisis – than provide benefits to the few employees who happen to have been born LGBT.

This is nothing new, however. The church hierarchy is so obsessed with the gay menace that they put so much time, money and energy into stalling equality rather than focusing on people who desperately require aid. They focus on a minority that only wants equal treatment rather than on their struggling parishes. In Maine, the diocese spent well over half a million dollars to defeat the state’s same-sex law while parishes continue to close and church membership drops. Nationwide, seven Catholic dioceses have sought bankruptcy protection since the church abuse scandal erupted seven years ago.

Unfortunately, this disconnect between the real needs of real people and Catholic dogma extends to other issues and other parts of the world. In the predominantly Catholic country of the Philippines for example, powerful, well-fed and lavishly housed bishops have been opposing government-sponsored family planning initiatives, even though such a policy would alleviate poverty and address overpopulation. With a total land area roughly the size of Italy divvied up into 7,107 islands, the Philippines is a pretty crowded place, and six years from now, its population will hit 100 million. Currently, a third of Filipinos live below the poverty line. Fifteen percent – over 13 million people - live on less than $1 per day. Yet the Catholic Church would rather allow millions of children to be born into lives of destitution and despair than permit the faithful to use contraception.

So let Catholic Charities sever its ties with the government of Washington, D.C. Let us give our taxpayer dollars to agencies that do not discriminate.

This post is also available on Washington Blade.

You can follow me on Twitter: @ErwindeLeon

Marriage Mine Field

2009-10-24T10:04:00.005-04:00

Comments on my latest Washington Blade post highlight how fraught marriage - the word, the act and the institution - is to LGBT individuals. For some, marriage has come to symbolize the cause of our marginalization and oppression. It embodies heteronormativity, how being straight is the right and "normal" way, as well as heterosexual hegemony, how everything is dictated by the lives, mores and norms of the straight majority. It also stands for a patriarchal system that vastly favors heterosexual men and disadvantages women and sexual minorities.

MRD: It's funny how much the gay marriage movement people sound like the conservative marriage movement people.

veeblefetzer: This marginalizing of anything other than a hetero nuclear family is ridiculous. Traditional families are multigenerational, with child-rearing responsibilities shared by grandparents, older siblings, and perhaps a gay uncle and a bisexual aunt or two. The nuclear family is a recent invention, and its glorification as the ideal arrangement for raising children is pure mythology.

stephenclark: Interesting topic, but the conclusion was trite and flippant. Are heterosexual norms so superior in every respect that the wholesale adoption of them by gay couples is unquestionably good? Funny, heterosexual marriages hardly seem like the ideals of love and stability that you romanticize them to be. Can't we have equality yet preserve some of our own norms if we think they're superior? I personally find lots of straight relationship norms dysfunctional, starting with the gendered division of labor.

Marriage is loaded. But it can mean what we'd like it to mean. It could simply be a legal arrangement that ensures privileges and protections the straight majority already enjoy. It could signify a relationship based on love, commitment and mutual respect where no one dominates.

And it could also be a choice not made. But a choice that should be available to all.

Redux: Gay immigrants

2009-10-21T20:00:00.003-04:00

Originally posted on Washington Blade, October 16, 2009.

Images from last week’s National Equality March shared and posted on the Internet feature the energized and bright faces of the next generation of activists - the Proposition 8 generation. Not as prominent, if visible at all, are the faces of immigrant members of the LGBT community. As a participant in an Asian Pacific Islander Welcome Event and Summit pointed out, “Many of us are barely out of the closet – getting political is the last thing in our minds.”

I do recall my own experience as an FOB (“fresh off the boat”), trying to survive in New York City while fast-forwarding my emotional, psychological and social development as a young gay man. However, I was luckier than most, as I spoke English and had resources, friends and a decent education which, to some degree, put me on par with most Americans. I also acquired some chutzpah early on, and was soon on my way.

Most LGBT immigrants are not as lucky. Most arrive in the United States armed with dreams, resolve and not much else. Many barely speak English and do not have the education or social capital required to achieve middle class status. Not only do they have to struggle for economic stability and jump through hoops to secure residency or citizenship, they also have to wrestle with coming out to their families and ethnic communities and figure out how they fit into the LGBT community. Often, these women and men are alienated from their own because they choose to live openly. Others feel insurmountable familial, cultural and religious pressures to remain in the closet and thus lead double lives. All this can last for years, even decades. Understandably, marching in Washington is something of which many LGBT immigrants cannot afford the risks.

However, like generations before them, LGBT individuals from all over the world come to America to pursue the promise of freedom, equality and opportunity. Some are escaping political turmoil or personal persecution. Others come to seek their fortune to take care of family back home while building their own future here. Most are drawn to the ideals upon which this nation was founded. We come so that we might live and love freely. In time, with hard work and some luck, many of us integrate into American society and the LGBT community.

We can help gay newcomers by welcoming them and by continuing our efforts to pass legislation that benefit us all. The Uniting American Families Act and the Respect for Marriage Act will allow binational couples and families to stay together in the United States. The repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" will keep gay immigrant soldiers fighting for their adopted country and eventually allow them to be proud and loyal citizens.

Moreover, reforming our health care and education systems; creating jobs; addressing the widening economic gap; and promoting gender and racial equity will also benefit foreign-born LGBT people who tend to lack access to health care, earn less than most Americans and are at the margins and lower rungs of society.

Those of us who are native born or have integrated can reach out to LGBT co-ethnics who are still trying to find firm footing. Within the Filipino American community, for instance, a friend points to the wall that stands between Fil-Ams (Filipino Americans) and Fil-Fils (Filipino newcomers), which has to be taken down. We can also educate our respective racial and ethnic communities about us, their LGBT sisters and brothers. Sadly, homophobia and transphobia are prevalent in African, Asian Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino and other immigrant communities.

Our strength comes in part from our diversity as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; it also comes from our varied and multiple stories, origins and heritages.

You can follow Erwin on Twitter @ErwindeLeon.

Redux: Now what?

2009-10-16T07:58:00.002-04:00

Originally posted on the Washington Blade, October 12, 2009.

It was a beautiful sight - over 100,000 lesbian, gay, straight, bisexual and transgender individuals marching by the White House and toward the Capitol demanding full equality and civil rights for all Americans. Yesterday was a perfect fall day, complete with a rainbow that formed in the sunny sky as we were about to start.

It is undeniable that this was a successful grassroots effort organized mainly by people under thirty through Facebook, Twitter and the Internet. I could not help but be buoyed by the energy, passion and determination of the college students walking next to our church group. Like the tens of thousands of young people that descended upon Washington, there was no doubt in their minds and hearts that all people are created equal and that all citizens should enjoy the same privileges and protections.

But in the throng were also women and men from earlier marches. A few were present during the Stonewall Riots forty years ago. The National Equality March was called by activist Cleve Jones and encouraged by civil rights activist David Mixner. Those of us sandwiched between the Stonewall and the Prop 8 generations came together in full force.

Yesterday’s event created an amazing image of power, diversity and unity which we need to take with us to inspire our struggle for equality.

There are those who pit one generation against another as well as argue that one form of political action is better, even more righteous, than the next one. The march was a waste of time – we should focus our energy and resources on state and local fights. HRC is in cahoots with the administration and its fancy black tie dinner is a venue for rich white gay men to dress up and feel political – we should not cooperate with the establishment. Incrementalism is no longer acceptable – we should have all or nothing now. For some, it is either you’re with Cleve or with Joe. There is only one right way.

I believe that there is no one way. Last Saturday, I attended a gathering of small and fledgling Asian Pacific Islander organizations trying to have their faces seen and voices heard in the largely white cacophony which is the LGBT movement. That evening I attended HRC’s annual dinner, as did a number of women and people of color. Yesterday, I proudly marched under the banner of my Episcopal parish in Woodley Park.

There is a lot of work to be done and we need as many people on all fronts - energized youth knocking on doors and stopping folks on the sidewalk; bloggers agitating and needling; talking heads arguing with opponents; insiders working the system; LGBT of color showing up; religious leaders challenging their congregations and denominations; elected LGBT and fair-minded officials aggressively pushing legislation; African American, Latino and Asian leaders fighting homophobia in their respective communities.

In the meantime, the rest of us can help and give as much as we can in crucial civil rights battles, like those going on in Maine, Washington State and soon, Washington, D.C., New Jersey and New York. We can support and vote for pro-LGBT candidates in local and state races. We can donate time and money to LGBT organizations. We can and should come out and tell our stories to our families, neighbors and colleagues.

The reality is, in spite of our showing this weekend, not much has changed. Yet. But the tide is turning and this country is definitely going in the right direction. But we need to keep working and stop harping at one another. We have to realize that this is how democracy, politics and social movements work. We have to accept the fact that there are many voices and valid ways of working for change.

So let us celebrate this success, support each other and keep fighting the good fight. The finish line is up ahead. Look.