Rewind: LGBT News Week of Jan. 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.