DADT and The Dream Act

Am I the only one who can't work up a ton of joy over repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Obviously, it's a great thing.  But I am so deeply frustrated that it took two years of a large Democratic majority to overturn such an incredibly stupid law. It's an important step in the history of American civil rights. Given how rarely these benchmarks happen, I should celebrate.

But my joy is severely tempered by the failure of the Dream Act to get 60 votes in the Senate. Although under any sane system, it passed by a decent majority, it couldn't achieve the supermajority numbers to pass under the laws that only exist when Democrats control the Senate. This was a basic piece of civil rights legislation that would assist millions of young Latinos. It may be that this kind of legislation motivates Latinos to the polls in 2012 to support politicians who will help them, but given the disappointments after they did so in 2008, I don't know. Moreover, the fact that Democrats would vote against the Dream Act is disgusting. Kos lays into Jon Tester for doing so; frankly, Tester has been incredibly disappointing given the role the Netroots played in getting him elected. I guess he feels he can't get reelected in Montana in 2012 if he supports brown people, but as so many have pointed out, Democrats pretending to be Republicans don't get reelected anyway.

Anyway, under any decent system, with a Majority Leader who knew how to rally his votes and a president who understood how partisanship worked, DADT would have been gone around February 2009 and immigration legislation far surpassing the Dream Act would have passed as well. Some claim that given the supermajority requirements, Republican intransigence, and the fear of Blue Dogs to support their own party, there's really nothing Reid and Obama could do. Me, I tend to believe in the power of strong leadership with some serious sticks and carrots to get senators to do what they need to do. After all, it's not as if that hadn't worked throughout the nation's history until the very recent past or anything.

So while I'm glad DADT is dead, my thoughts are that it's about damn time and a massive disappointment that it took this long to make it happen. Meanwhile, white America continues to support the white supremacist policies of the current Republican party, dooming equal rights for the children of migrant workers.

Historical Image of the Day

Stonewall Riot, the opening battle of the gay rights movement, New York City, 1969

Disgusting

The Senate fails to repeat Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Actually, I could have just shortened a post titled "Disgusting" by just listing the word "Senate."

Not exactly "fuckwits", Sir John

Here is an interesting quote from Sir Elton John delivered on-stage at a show in Arizona:

"I have read that some of the artists won't come here. They are fuckwits! Let's face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what the fuck is with these people?"

There is a debate to be had about the efficacy of the boycott; ultimately, such a boycott hurts local promoters, venues, and vendors, and by turn, the music industry and local economy in Arizona, which is obviously not responsible for the law in question (there is a similar debate about the BP boycott hurting individual gas station owners who have no agency in the safety schema the corporation chooses to employ). However, name-calling artists who, out of moral conscience, choose not to play in Arizona is hardly useful to this debate.

Further, Elton John's rhetoric is a little intense here; true, Proposition 8 was a huge disappointment to progressives in California and beyond, but the statement that gays have no legal rights in California is a bit over the top. Unlike many states, we do have domestic partnerships and protections for LGBT people in the workplace; while California is not an equality utopia in any sense, this hardly constitutes having "no legal rights whatsoever".

The comparative logic is also flawed. While marriage equality is an important cornerstone of civil rights for all people, not being detained, questioned, and hassled because of the color of one's skin is absolutely necessary in a free society. As far as I know, the Redlands Police can't legally detain me if I'm walking down the street holding hands with another dude.

As I said, there is a debate to be had about who the boycott actually hurts, but slinging mud and name-calling is a pretty juvenile response, especially when one is working with a fairly flawed premise. Even if one doesn't agree with the boycott, or won't participate in it, it is good to remember that in most cases, the impetus to boycott Arizona in light of this stupendously misguided legislation comes from a morally reasoned and responsible place.

The struggle for civil rights for all segments of society would be much easier if we all started playing team ball a little more.

Around Latin America - Cuban Dissidents, Cross-Dressing, Scams, and Baseball

-Imprisoned Cuban dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo has died after an 80-day hunger strike. Tamayo, who was sentenced in 2003 to 3 years in prison for criticizing the government and whose sentence was later extended to 36 years, went on the strike to protest the conditions of and his treatment in prison.

-Pinochet may have been dead for over three years, but the legacies of his regime continue. This week, thirteen bodies of individuals killed during the Pinochet dictatorship and that had been buried in a abandoned mine were identified. The army under Pinochet executed the men, who included "a farmer and his four sons, day workers, and even a teenager caught smoking a joint."

-A group in Guyana is seeking to make cross-dressing in public legal. Currently, the act remains illegal, thanks to a colonial-era act outlawing it. argues that it is discriminatory against a social minority, and thus is unconstitutional. The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination is representing gay and lesbian groups in the small country, and has filed its affidavit in the courts.

-Costa Rica likes to promote itself as a peaceful environmental paradise in Central America, an image that is central to its success as a tourist spot and an alluring site for ex-pats. However, as Peter reminds us, what's left out of that image is the presence of scammers who use that image to fleece ex-pats and foreigners.

-Finally, as the most wonderful time of the year (baseball season) approaches, The Latin Americanist points us towards this trailer for a documentary on Dominicans who hope to become professional ball-players in the MLB.

Is Jamaica the Most Homophobic Country in the Americas?

You can definitely make a strong case for it:

Today has been proclaimed 'Gay Eradication Day' by residents of the McGregor Gully community in East Kingston. Residents say that they will be taking action as a two-week notice given to all gays and lesbians to flee the community has now expired.

THE STAR learnt that about two weeks ago angry residents who declared that they were fed up with seeing the activities of several gay persons in their community, ordered that they leave by today or suffer the consequences.

Some residents who admitted to THE STAR that they are a part of the "gay clearing out" scheme said that it is being done to protect their families and the community on a whole.

Most Americans (in a different kind of base stereotyping) think of Jamaica as an island of happiness, home to marijuana and Bob Marley. Few realize that Jamaica is actually home to rampant homophobia that isn't even remotely veiled. Attacks on homosexuals on the island are not limited to verbal assault; Jamaican homosexuals often face very real violence if they come out of the closet, with nowhere to turn. Even the police get in on the act, committing abuses based on sexual orientation. It would be nice if this despicable (and that's being charitable) act of this community in Kingston was abnormal. Unfortunately, it's not - it's symptomatic of broader attitudes towards homosexual men and women in Jamaica, and there's just no sign of any aid coming to those who are threatened anytime soon.

Maine Same-Sex Marriage Vote

Possibly this fall's most momentous election will take place in Maine, where homophobes are placing a ballot measure before voters to overturn the state's same-sex marriage law. This is going to be huge. If the measure fails and the law is upheld, it will be a gigantic loss for those who oppose same-sex marriage and will be another sign that the country is moving toward equality on this issue. If the measure passes and that law is overturned, it'll be a blow on the level of Prop 8 in California. Eventually, I believe these setbacks will be overcome, but it could be a decade or more.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I wonder why Obama is backpedaling on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Now seems like the perfect time to do it. Obama is extremely popular. Gays are making incredibly rapid progress toward equal rights. By most accounts, the military does not have the fight in it to mobilize against this. It's the right thing to do.

I don't even think it would cost him that much political capital--the people really opposed to this hate him anyway and while this might annoy some older voters, everyone recognizes that gay rights are not just a thing of the future, but of the present too.

Speaking of the Culture Wars

Amazon.com apparently hasn't gotten the memo that the culture wars are dead.

They've stripped the sales rankings--and therefore, the search ratings--of books that deal with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, as well as feminist books like Full Frontal Feminism.

It affects the search rankings for books. For small authors who depend on Amazon reviews and sales rankings, this is disastrous. Of course, it's also terrible for freedom of expression. When I searched BY TITLE for Full Frontal Feminism it didn't even come up on the first page of the search, which means that many people may erroneously assume that Amazon doesn't have the book. (Interestingly, Jessica Valenti's other book, "He's a Stud, She's a Slut" DOES come up first on a search for Full Frontal Feminism.) Julia Serano's Whipping Girl does appear, but only the Kindle edition, pointing out the randomness of this move.

Author Nicola Griffeth, whose books lost their rankings, said:

I am tired of being the low-hanging fruit that cretins pluck when they need to pander to Moral America. This time, I hope some people choke on their soft fruit.

Amazon probably didn't count on the intense blowback, though. Twitter has been buzzing with #amazonfail, noting books that have been affected, and offering other options for bookbuying for those interested in boycotting, as well as contact information for various executives to contact and harass. The technogeek in me loves watching Twitter do what it's best at--spread information fast and far. #amazonfail is a top trending topic on Twitter right now.

Neil Gaiman, with his 200,000+ Twitter followers, has commented on the subject, and Jezebel is tracking the books with sales rank removed--as well as noting the hypocrisy of the ones that remain. There's also a Facebook group.

I suggest IndieBound as a good alternative to buying from Amazon, and apparently Powells is contemplating a sale on GLBT-themed books in response.

Also, Smart Bitches Trashy Books has a page to link to to Google-bomb the term "Amazon Rank."

This is exactly the problem with large corporations. They force smaller companies out of business, and then when there's no competition left, they are free to enforce their ideologies on you.

Reading between the lines of the gay marriage victories

Two groundbreaking decisions in favor of gay marriage in two weeks - and several in the works across the country have got to be a good thing.

The Iowa decision, of course, is important because it has finally infiltrated the debate to the so-called "hinterland," and might also provide an impetus for other states in the region. In fact, a lot of thought seems to have gone into picking Iowa as the state that would effectively press this case, and it seems to have paid off, at least for now.

Vermont is significant because it is the first legislature to pass the law, as opposed to court rulings that are less democratic.

Hopefully these decisions will open up debate in other states; Chris Sanders of the Tennessee Equality Project reasons that when married gay couples from such states move to other parts of the country, they would take up the fight there. New York, for instance, is already reviewing cases to allow recognition of out-of-state gay marriages.

More significantly, DC’s city council voted in favor of recognizing marriages from other states. This would lead the debate directly to the Congress since it has the final word on DC’s legislation.

The Iowa decision may also help in California where a ruling on Prop 8 is expected in the coming weeks.

However, as always in such issues, there is a valid concern that these decisions may lead to a backlash. Since the recent results themselves are considered by many to be repercussions of the California Prop 8 ruling, this is indeed a real worry.

In fact, some gay activists have suggested that part of the reason for Prop 8 was moving too hard and too fast to strike down the marriage ban. As this Time article elegantly explains, the California ruling last year was quite categorical in declaring that any discrimination against gays was presumptively unconstitutional, and hence subject to “strict scrutiny” - a condition so far reserved to discrimination based on race and religion. Iowa took a softer stance, deciding instead that the gay marriage ban did not hold up to a lower level of constitutional analysis – “intermediate scrutiny” (usually accorded to gender discrimination cases) - and hence qualified for strict scrutiny, thus ultimately fulfilling the same objective.

The important question is, as more and more states begin to allow same-sex marriages, will it continue to be a significant political issue? Top Republican leaders like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have already decried these decisions, but as Chris Cillizza points out, GOP strategists seem to vary on what the political implications could be.

It’s hard to imagine that Republicans can ruffle enough feathers again with this issue in order to win elections - one, because there are more important things to worry about, two, because more and more Americans are beginning to accept the idea of gay marriage, and three, it remains a dicey issue to run a presidential campaign on because reconciling positions between a candidate’s base in the primaries and then packaging it for general election voters is extremely hard for both parties.

However, the matter is complicated by the fact that Iowans have started lobbying legislators for an amendment to the ruling, which, if placed, would be ripe and ready for the 2012 election season. Since Iowa law requires amendments to get approval in two legislative sessions followed by ballot voting, the process takes two years. And, considering the hawkeye state’s strategic importance in the presidential elections, this decision might throw the next race in the country directly into the moral-values, social-issues quagmire.

That might be a good thing in sort of a convoluted way because candidates will finally be forced to take a real stand – no more getting away with half-baked, civil-union, cat-on-the-wall positions.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has an optimistic prediction, however, saying it may not get that far: based on a model measuring the religiosity of states, and hence their likeness to vote for or against it, he envisions that about half the states would have voted against the gay marriage ban within the next four years (though Iowa itself doesn’t seem to come around until 2013 in his model).

It’s tempting to believe it considering the general trend seems to be towards allowing for same-sex marriages, and seriously, it’s about time!

If nothing else, this economy argument should work...

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

God, I hate using such a cliche for a post title, but it's pretty apt for a couple of issues. It's worth reminding ourselves from time to time that things are getting better.

Dustin Lance Black's Oscar acceptance speech for his screenplay of Milk is a good example. He said:

When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas, to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life; it gave me the hope that one day I could live my life openly as who I am and that maybe even I could fall in love and one day get married. […] Most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than by their churches, or by the government, or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value. And that no matter what everyone tells you, God does love you, and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours.

This is really important to remember. Milk was killed 30 years ago. Look at far gay rights has come since then. In another 30 years, I have every faith that we will see, at the minimum, federally protected domestic partner benefits, many openly gay politicians, and 15-20 states with gay marriage. This is really incredible and a wonderful thing.

On a related issue, recent polls suggest a dramatic shift toward the legalization of marijuana. The stupidity of the drug war is mind-numbing. Given that a huge number of Americans under the age of 40 have and do smoke pot, I have been wondering when we would see a strong movement toward legalization. I think that NORML has possibly retarded this effort somewhat by stigmatizing the use of the drug as something a bunch of hippies do, when of course it is much larger than that. Medical marijuana is a great issue and obviously should be legal, but that it is serving as a clear front for people who just want to get high on the streets doesn't help. Nonetheless, two recent polls have shows that around 1/2 of Americans believe marijuana should be legal. Both polls show at least a plurality. This is an important step in ending the stupidity of marijuana criminality.

So like with gay rights, I think that in another 20 to 30 years, you are going to see real positive changes, including decriminalization of marijuana, at least in many states. No doubt the DEA will fight like hell to stop this, and they probably will have success at first. At present, there are no major politicians willing to openly support legalization. But these numbers don't lie and there is absolutely no reason that pro-legalization numbers won't grow. Young people are strong believers in social libertarianism and whether it is gay rights, drugs, tattoos, or any number of other issues, they want the government to let people do what they want if it is not hurting anybody.

Action: UAFA to be reintroduced

From Immigration Equality:

Great News!
Rep. Jerrold Nadler plans to reintroduce the Uniting American Families Act on Feb. 13!

You can make the bill a success by convincing your Representative to support the bill from Day One. Reintroducing the bill with as many cosponsors as possible will show powerful momentum for the rights of gay and lesbian binational couples!

Please call your Representative and ask them to be an original cosponsor of the “Uniting American Families Act of 2009”

Film Review: Milk (2008)

Milk is a solid enough bio-pic/political film. Gus Van Sant does a solid job presenting the story. Sean Penn is great as always, all the supporting actors are quite strong. I don't know if I necessarily buy the closeted Dan White angle, but you have to give him some motivation for his crazy, murderous, hate-filled ways. This was the most unsatisfying part of the film, but not a major problem. It's really not a great film, but it is very good. In fact, I don't know how possible it is for a Hollywood bio-pic to reach real standards of greatness. Van Sant works in the conventions of a genre I don't really like, but in pretty satisfying ways. I could do without the Sean Penn voiceover narration to structure the story. I don't think it's necessary but this is a relatively minor complaint.

My real reason for reviewing the film is not for the review so much (everyone should go see it but it's not going to blow your mind), but to again remind people just how far the gay rights movement has come. The release of Milk is timely because of the passage of Proposition 8. Again though, how far have we come since the time of Harvey Milk! Milk and his supporters were fighting to simply be recognized as people who deserved basic human rights--to not be fired for being gay, to not be killed by thugs or beaten by cops. Today, the gay rights movement is fighting for legally recognized marriage. I doubt Milk would have thought that could be achieved in the next 30 years and the fact that I fully believe it will happen in the next 20 years might amaze him. The gay haters are getting old and dying and their children and grandchildren find that hate antiquated and disgusting.

I again want to emphasize that I am not downplaying the rightful anger over Proposition 8. Rather, I am just taking the long-term perspective to point out that gay rights is on the rise and that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are moving closer to mainstream acceptance each and every day. Certainly transgender people have greater challenges on this road, but certainly their future is pointing in the right direction as well. In fact, the idea of seeing an openly gay president before I die seems not unlikely.

Proposition 8

So it really sucks that Proposition 8 passed in California, eliminating gay marriage.

A lot of people are really upset about this and rightfully so of course. Cara at Feministe expresses her anger and disgust as well as anyone on the matter.

While I am disgusted as well, I want to be positive. Think about how far the gay rights movement has come. 10 years ago the idea of gay marriage having any chance to exist at all was crazy. Even 4 years ago, when Massachusetts starting allowing it, it was seen as out of left field. 15 years ago when I was in college it was difficult to be gay, even in Eugene.

A lot has changed.

A lot of work needs to be done.

Josh Marshall suggests that Prop 8 passed because African-American voters who came out for Obama also voted yes. There's no question that there are huge problems with homophobia within the black community. I hope Obama makes this a priority. It's sad that what leads to a great historic victory can also lead to a devastating defeat that takes rights away.

And certainly people in states less liberal than California and Massachusetts are banning gay marriage.

But the times are changing. Huge progress has been made in 15 years. Young people, even many young evangelicals, support equal rights for the LGBT community. This is going to happen. It might take another 20 years, but damn it will happen and in our lifetimes too.

UPDATE: To add a little evidence to this argument, note that in 1993 44% of Americans thought gays should be able to serve openly in the military. A recent poll shows that number rising to 75%. This is real progress.

So I'm upset about this too (and it is one of the biggest bummers of the night) but history is on our side.

This also serves as another excuse to mention how much I hate ballot measures, which almost invariably appeal to the worst American tendencies.

A letter of which the Unabomber could be proud

The battle over California's Prop 8, already ugly, has gotten a little bit uglier this week. The Prop 8 initiative, funded by the likes of James Dobson and the Mormon Church, would establish a constitutional amendment in California defining marriage as only between a human with a penis and a human with a vagina. The Prop 8 proponents are still lagging in the polls, but have closed the gap significantly due to their deep pockets and significant advertising expenditures.

The Prop 8 zealots have a new tactic-- threatening businesses that have donated to groups that oppose Prop 8, like Equality California. Here is an excerpt from the linked letter, received by San Diego firm Abbott & Associates:

Were you not to donate [to ProtectMarriage.com] comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair that Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.

I'm surprised that the asshats who sent this letter didn't paste it together from letters clipped from magazines and newspapers. This is certainly a new low in this campaign, which features a highly motivated group of people with nothing better to do than be professional assholes. With all of the problems this state faces, one would think groups like the California Catholic Conference would be focusing on issues like foreclosures, poverty, education, child care, etc. I guess those issues just don't give one the same self-righteous jolt of disgusting, ugly piety that these bigots are getting from this campaign.

Prop 8 and the bullshit machine

Here in California, we are readying ourselves to vote on a whole host of propositions, but Prop 8 is certainly garnering the most attention. Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment that would effectively trump the California State Supreme Court's May decision to allow same-sex couples marriage rights.

Happily, Prop 8 is behind in the polls. The most recent poll shows the measure failing by 17%. The opponents of Prop 8 have a very effective television ad running; I've not seen a single ad for the measure.

The loose coalition of self-righteous homophobes, self-loathing "ex-gays", and fundamentalist Goddies is in full spin mode. They point to the fact that polling may be wrong, because people may be reluctant to admit they are for Prop 8 (gee, out of shame maybe?), and that election day will bring more support. To an extent, this is probably somewhat true, though fairy negligible, according to NYU's Professor Patrick Egan:

Reanalyzing the data shows that the number of voters who are reluctant to share their true feelings about same-sex marriage is small -- and is certainly not on the rise. Since 1998, the gap between polled support for marriage bans among decided voters and Election Day results has averaged only 2.2 percentage points. In 2006, the gap declined to less than a point in the seven states holding initiatives for which data are available.

The other bit of spin from the Prop 8 proponents is this mantra about the margin of victory for 2000's Prop 22. Prop 22, which passed 61% - 38%, defined marriage in California as only between a man and woman. The Prop 8 machine keeps pointing to the above margin as if it means something. It doesn't, for a few reasons.

(1) That was 2000; 2008 is happily a different landscape for the visibility of LGBT issues and rights, if only for eight years of younger voters coming into the system. Many polls show overwhelming support for same sex marriage among younger voters.

(2) Prop 22 was a change to California State Law. Prop 8 in a constitutional amendment. Big difference; some opponents of gay marriage who gladly voted for changing (a now unconstitutional, thankfully) state law may be less willing to change the state constitution.

(3) This is perhaps the biggest reason-- in 2000, the election that Prop 22 was offered was the presidential primary, on Super Tuesday. Al Gore was already the presumptive nominee at this point; the Republican primary had not been settled, however. There were far more Republicans that voted in the primary than Democrats, so naturally Prop 22 was at an extreme advantage.

I'm thrilled to hear the recent polling on Prop 8., and I hope for not just a squeaker of a victory, but an overwhelming landslide (I'm thinking 15% or so) to shut these asshats up once and for all.

Historical Image of the Day

Gays protesting their exclusion from the military, San Francisco, CA, May 21, 1966

Homosexuals and Civil Unions in Brazil

Monday was a rather busy day in the area of improving the rights of homosexuals in Brazil. First, the Rio de Janeiro government under Sérgio Cabral moved to have the health care and socail programs offered to public functionaries' spouses apply to homosexual unions as well as heterosexual unions. Cabral argues that discrimination against marriages based on sexuality violates the basic constitutional freedoms guaranteed in Brazil's 1988 Constitution. The request went to Brazil's Supreme Court, asking that the court validate the state government's decision to offer such services to all spouses, heterosexual and homosexual, for public functionaries.

The same day, the federal government also made it clear that it is opposed to discrimination against homosexual unions. Lula's special Minister of Human Rights, Paulo Vanucchi, declared that the government openly supports a law that allows civil unions for homosexuals in Brazil. Like Cabral, Vanucchi relied on the 1988 Constition's provisions against any and all forms of discrimination to suggest that that also applied to civil unions. Additionally, Vanucchi declared that such a law should not only allow such unions, but that it should make homosexual unions have the same rights as heterosexual unions in terms of social programs (health care, retirement, etc.) and inheritance. I don't really know what the inheritance laws in Brazil are (not exactly my area of expertise), but given these comments, I suspect they don't apply to lifelong homosexual partners.

I don't know how these two cases will play out. The case of Rio's request strikes me as closer to completion, simply because it's a state-level issue, and not a federal one, and thus does not have to go through all of the steps a federal law allowing civil unions for gays would. Additionally, the courts have proven themselves open to gay rights in the past, particularly in the case of Cássia Eller, a Brazilian singer who died a few years ago. Eller had had a child from a previous (heterosexual) marriage, but she had divorced and had settled down with her lesbian partner and her son. Her husband had already died, when she died suddenly from heart troubles. Legally, Eller's son should have gone to the grandparents of the father, but Eller's parents and her partner entered a (civil, non-contentious) court case in which the courts ruled that Eller's partner could continue raising Eller's son,a major case that showed the Brazilian courts' willingness to ignore sexuality as a determining factor and move beyond archaic laws that would have sent the child to distant relatives, in turn establishing the precedent of gay partners' rights to assume parental responsibilities of the children of their dead partners. So while I'm not sure the Supreme Court will rule in Cabral's favor, the opening of gay rights in the courts is not without precedent.

In terms of the federal government's declarations, I think it's good that Vanucchi is bringing this up, but it's still a long way from gaining popular support in Brazil. While homosexuals here have more opportunities for claiming space in the public sphere in major urban centers (Rio, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte), I'm not so sure how this would play out in smaller areas (although I know of openly gay couples in rural areas of Minas Gerais). Unquestionably the Catholic hierarchy would rally against this cause, and many people, politicians and laypersons alike, would at least be resistant to it on religious or social grounds. Still, I haven't seen any major resistance to Vanucchi's declarations from politicians or from the media; indeed, the story has hardly made a splash, it seems. And it is certainly excellent that the government is so open in its rhetoric addressing the issue. Civil unions will still take awhile, and this is just one baby step in the process, yet in terms of equality for all regardless of sexuality, Brazil is still years ahead of the U.S. on this front.

Suppression of Homosexuality in Jamaica

There is a lot of material in this report on the suppression of homesexuality in Jamaica that is extremely distressing, from the use of "homo" in the media to the blaming of homosexuals for shortages in women's underwear; from the blatant physical attacks and the need to be in hiding to the protests at funerals. There is clearly not much good in the way Jamaica treats homosexuality. I hope it isn't as bad as the article suggests, but if the attitudes truly are as pervasive as they seem to be (the closing paragraph is extremely damning, given not just the fact that homosexual men are seeking ministers to be "cured," but that ministers themselves have to stay in hiding because they even associate with homosexuals puts their life at risk), then I'm not sure exactly what can be done - more international pressure? Travel boycotts? Other options? No matter what, things are definitely far more dire in Jamaica than people realize, and this kind of report is really important in shattering (generally racist) notions of the "happy Caribbean".

Historical Image of the Day

1965 meeting of the East Coast Homophile Organizations conference, a meeting of early of gay rights groups.