When it comes to our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, just how bad do things have to get before they change?

It's tough being a teenager anywhere, but being a student in Minnesota's Anoka-Hennepin School District is especially hard. Why? Because there's actually a "gag policy" that prevents school staff from talking about LGBT issues.

The bottom line is that this gag policy has created an environment where LGBT kids are relentlessly and cruelly bullied.

Even after seven teenagers in the district, including at least four who were known or perceived to be LGBT, took their own lives, school-district administrators and elected officials refuse to help.

NCLR has filed a lawsuit against the school district demanding that it immediately repeal the gag policy, and to take action to address the bullying and harassment that LGBT students are regularly facing. The lawsuit is underway, and now it's time to take action.

Signing the letter is just the first step. After you sign, we'll give you a chance to help us get the letter (with your name) printed as a full-page ad in the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Thanks for standing up for Anoka-Hennepin's young people--especially when the elected leaders who are supposed to protect them only turn their backs. Sign onto the letter now, and then please share it with your family and friends on Facebook and Twitter.

Judge Ware's ruling today was a well-deserved vindication for Judge Walker, who presided over the Prop 8 trial with integrity, balance and poise. He was scrupulously fair to both sides throughout the trial, permitting the defenders of Prop 8 to cross-examine witnesses at length and offer all the evidence they could muster in defense of the initiative--which turned out to be essentially nothing.

Echoing the arguments made by civil rights groups who had filed friend-of-the-court briefs on this issue, Judge Ware incisively stated the central problem with the Prop 8 supporters' challenge to Judge Walker. "In our society," Judge Ware explained, "a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right."

One of the legal tests that applied to the motion asks whether a "reasonable person" would question whether a judge was impartial. Here again, Judge Ware knocked it out of the park:

"A well-informed, thoughtful observer would recognize that the mere fact that a judge is in a relationship with another person-whether of the same or the opposite sex-does not ipso facto imply that the judge must be so interested in marrying that person that he would be unable to exhibit the impartiality which, it is presumed, all federal judges maintain. To assume otherwise is to engage in speculation about a judge's motives and desires on the basis of an unsubstantiated suspicion that the judge is personally biased or prejudiced."

This is a victory for common sense. It is gratifying to see such a strong reaffirmation, from yet another Republican-appointed judge, that sexual orientation has no bearing on anyone's ability to do their job, including a federal judge.

(imgsrc)

Every year, I, like most other Americans, have dutifully filed my taxes by April 15. I've signed my tax return without giving it much thought, until this year.

This year, Sandy and I signed our tax return together. And we filed our federal return as married. Why? Well, because we are married. After 15 years together, in July of 2008 we were legally married in California. And it was a blast of a day. We loved it. Our kids, who were 11 and 6 at the time, loved it. And our small gathering of friends and family loved it.

But because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, our marriage is not acknowledged, recognized, or respected by the federal government. It meant a lot to have the opportunity to marry, and after two years of still filing our returns as "single," thus pretending that our marriage had never happened, I was done lying.

But Sandy and I felt it was right for us. Filing as married means we will pay a lot more in taxes - resulting in a big withdrawal from our very precious savings. Some have said we are wasting our time, and only hurting ourselves. But I don't see it that way. I feel lucky to have Sandy in my life and privileged to have been able to marry her.

Standing up for our relationship and against the government's enforced invisibility of who we are to each other seems, for me, not only right, but essential.

(img src)

The two, Ted Olson and David Boies, are an unlikely pairing on many levels.

They are political adversaries, and famously opposed each other in Bush v. Gore.

They are each high-powered and highly paid inside-the-beltway lawyers.

Ted is a long-time darling of the conservative movement, a former U.S. Solicitor General and a founder of the Federalist Society. David is a Democratic Party insider and an advisor to a number of key Democratic leaders.

And, finally, both are straight, and had no apparent prior interest or experience in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.

Their eloquent statements in support of full equality for same-sex couples quickly convinced even the most dubious that their commitment was sincere. Their stunning trial presentation and utter evisceration of the arguments and witnesses of those supporting Prop 8 paved the way for the recent ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker, which methodically dismantled every tired and baseless trope ever trotted out for why same-sex couples alone should be excluded from the right to marry.

The trial was a masterwork, the ruling a tour de force. As a result, the LGBT civil rights movement has jumped into hyper-drive.

This is a moment that happens in almost every major social justice movement.

The community most affected, along with its closest allies, toils for years to secure key wins-measured in terms of formal equality, changing attitudes, and cultural shifts. In the past five decades the modern LGBT civil rights movement has made breathtaking advances in both law and popular culture. We have made these gains because we fought for them, and we have been joined by key allies: family members, neighbors, religious leaders, politicians, Hollywood, and business types.

All together, we have come very far. But every movement also needs a game changer -- the key figure, or figures, who come, seemingly from nowhere -- and step up to make our fight their fight.

When that moment happens, it is something to behold. In the wake of the Prop 8 ruling, we heard the familiar hysterics from the same over-the-top folks who always show up to foam about the end of civilization.

But for the first time in the wake of a major legal victory for LGBT rights, we are neither hearing nor seeing any of that from those in real political leadership positions, who have mainstream credibility. In fact, it seems eerily quiet -- the noises we have heard from those quarters in the past are now muted and few.

So it may be that Ted and David not only led the legal team that took down Prop 8, but may, just by being who they are, have muzzled some of the most powerful voices against us.

It remains to be seen how long this apparent détente will last. But for the moment, it seems cooler heads are prevailing.

And just this week CNN released poll results showing, for the first time ever, majority support for the right of same-sex couples to marry.

So maybe, just maybe, some of those who have been so quick to vilify us are being forced to think twice, simply because a man they respect, a colleague they admire, a long-time friend they look to for advice, has said, "That's enough."

We aren't the first and won't be the last civil rights movement to benefit enormously from the involvement of unlikely allies, but as we savor the victory of truth over lies and reason over caricature, it is very nice to have Ted and David by our side.

The court held that Prop 8 violates the fundamental right to marry and discriminates on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause. The court held that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation must be subject to the highest level of constitutional review, but that Prop 8 would fail even the lowest test, because it is based solely on moral disapproval of gay people. The court made detailed findings of fact about all of the evidence presented and the credibility of the witnesses.

This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling. Today's decision is the most comprehensive, detailed decision addressing the constitutional rights of same-sex couples to affirmative recognition and support ever to be issued by a federal court. There are many "money quotes" in the decision but among them:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Given the roller coaster we have all been through with marriage and Prop 8 in California, it is hard to put in words what this victory means. It is surely among the most personal and profound wins for our community.

Judge Walker's ruling eviscerates the baseless and empty arguments of our opponents. Walker found that there was simply no credible, rational, believable, or persuasive reason to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples. Our opponents, (which did not include the State of California after Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8), had a team of very fine lawyers. And yet at the end of the day, the evidence they presented in support of Prop 8 made abundantly clear that other than discomfort or hostility, there is no justifiable basis for excluding us from the same right to marry enjoyed by every other couple in this country.

This groundbreaking decision upholds the rights of liberty and equality that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and affirms that the law cannot treat people differently based on who they love and that a majority cannot strip a minority group of its fundamental freedoms at the ballot box. But more than that, the ruling elevates the central reason many same-sex couples wish to marry-because we are in love with a person special to us and with whom we want to share our lives, just like everyone else. So at its most basic, today's victory is about humanity, dignity, and love. It is hard to accept that there is such fierce opposition to that.

But there clearly is, and Judge Walker likely will be blasted as an "activist judge" hundreds of times over. And in that intended smear is perhaps the most disconcerting and hypocritical tactic of our extremist opponents. In striking down Prop 8, Judge Walker aligns himself with the most bedrock principles in our democracy.

First, it is the job of courts to reign in majorities when they trample on minority rights. Second, bias, prejudice, hostility, or even squeamishness, is never a legitimate basis for denying rights to a disfavored minority. And three, when there is no credible evidence presented by one side in a lawsuit, the other side wins. But when it comes to LGBT rights and our hysterical opposition, there is no playing by the usual rules.

So today we savor this victory. It is a key step in our journey to full justice and dignity for our lives and our entitlement to the same constitutionally protected choices about whether and whom to marry that others enjoy. But the forces that fight us are not going anywhere, so we must continue to reach out and have conversations about our families and our lives with our friends, our loved ones, our allies. By sharing our stories, we win the hearts and minds of others who may not share our views, and create a world where all families are valued and respected as fully equal.

As this case moves up on appeal we need to make clear to everyone watching that America is ready for LGBT people to be treated as fully equal citizens, including the freedom to make the same deeply personal decisions about marriage that heterosexual couples take for granted. Everyone has a part to play in making that happen. Get involved in your own community. Engage your friends, co-workers, and family in conversations about what full equality means to you and your family. Contact your statewide LGBT groups to find out what you can do to advance marriage equality where you live. This is a victory we must preserve and keep. But you can wait until tomorrow to do that. For today, just be grateful, proud, and happy.

Their tragic story captured hearts and headlines across the country, and generated an outpouring of support unlike anything we have seen before, along with intense, justifiable outrage that an elderly gay couple could experience such cruel mistreatment and abuse.

Sonoma County has agreed to pay Clay and Harold's estate $600,000, and defendant Agua Caliente Villa has agreed to pay $53,000. These payments are partial vindication for the nightmare Clay and Harold endured at the hands of county workers, who disregarded their 20-year relationship and failed to respect legal documents in which Clay and Harold named each other as agents for medical and financial decisions.

No amount of money can ever ease the trauma, pain, humiliation, and fear Clay suffered in the months after Harold's fall. And nothing can ever make it possible for Clay to be at Harold's side when he died three months after they were separated.

We are awed by Clay's courage in standing up for himself and other vulnerable LGBT elders. We are grateful to Clay's court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis, and elder abuse specialists Stephen O'Neill and Maggie Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barack & Chong, because their hard work and dedication led to this terrific result. We trust that this experience will go a very long way in ensuring that LGBT elders in Sonoma County are not similarly mistreated in the future.

But this victory is tempered by the harsh, sad facts of this case. Nothing can salve the heartache of being cruelly deprived of the opportunity to be with a dying partner. Nothing can make up for the unbearable reality that Harold died alone, without Clay by his side, after spending the final months of his life making a photo album for Clay of their life together.

This story truly haunts me, and underscores the need for everyone to be more educated about elder abuse within the LGBT community, and what each one of us can do to prevent a sequel to this tragedy. This case highlights the urgency needed for true and full LGBT equality across the country, rather than a patchwork of hit and miss state rights or protections. This settlement cannot undo what Clay and Harold endured, but it ensures that what happened to them will never happen in Sonoma County again. Someday, I hope I will be able to say the same for the rest of the country.

This trial has been a truly historic moment for our community. It was the first time a federal court heard, first hand, from real live witnesses, about the harm that the denial of marriage equality causes same-sex couples and their families every day. It is also the first time a federal court has heard the arguments in favor of marriage equality presented live in court by an array of internationally renowned scholars who are truly experts in their respective fields.

Check out my vlog on yesterday's closing arguments, which were as powerful as the testimony heard at the trial. It's after the jump with more thoughts.

Judge Walker will announce his ruling soon. As we wait, we must remember that our work is far from over. One of the last questions Judge Walker asked yesterday was, "Do we have a political tide running in favor of equality?" The brilliant Ted Olson replied, "I believe, Your Honor, that there is a political tide running. And I think that people's eyes are being opened. People are becoming more understanding and tolerant."

It is up to us, the LGBT community, to open eyes. We must continue to reach out and have conversations about our families and our lives. By sharing our stories, we win hearts and minds and create a world where all families are valued and respected as fully equal.

And now we wait.

While a lot has changed in the thirty-three years since NCLR was founded, there's still much to be done. As a legal organization in this constantly changing legal landscape for our community, we often hear from clients and supporters who've had difficulty finding the legal resources needed to protect their rights and sometimes, knowing exactly what legal protections they have and the incredible network of attorneys and advocates willing to fight for their rights.

That's why I want to make sure that members of our community know that they don't have to navigate this landscape alone. I want them to know that there are tools to empower our community, like NCLR's Legal Information Helpline.

• a mother who may be denied visitation with her child because her ex-husband disapproves of her same-sex relationship
• a transgender woman who fled violent persecution in her country of origin because of her gender identity and who is afraid now of being deported from the U.S.
• a retail store employee whose supervisor just told him to "act less gay" in a staff meeting in front of all his colleagues
• a same-sex couple who are about to buy a house together and are not sure what they need to be considering because their marriage isn't recognized in their state
• and a student who was told by their school that they can't put up posters advertising Gay/Straight Alliance events. The calls we receive represent the full range of legal issues concerning our community.

Take a second to learn more about our Legal Information Helpline and what we do at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. And know that if you have legal questions related to your sexual orientation or gender identity, you can always give us a call at 1.800.528.6257.

We also have been disappointed by Sonoma County's attacks on Clay--a deflection of the true issue in this case, which is the County's appalling and unlawful conduct toward Harold and Clay. Clay Greene is not on trial. The County of Sonoma is, and they have yet to address the actual charges raised in this case.

In attempting to defend the indefensible, Sonoma County has accused Clay of domestic violence and claimed that he and Harold - despite their 25 years together - were just "roommates." We believe the accusations are untrue, as does Jannette Biggerstaff, a long-time friend of Harold and Clay and the executor of Harold's estate. She is joining Clay in suing Sonoma County on Harold's behalf.

Because Harold is dead, Jannette is the only one who can speak for him. In a letter to the editor that just ran in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Jannette spoke out about the county's allegations:

"I am outraged at Sonoma County's false accusations that Greene abused Scull. Since he is unable to correct these claims, I feel that I must speak out about the county's accusations.

In the decades I knew this couple, I never witnessed abuse, and I am firmly convinced that no such abuse took place. What I have witnessed is the diabolical behavior of the county, which treated this couple shamefully and robbed them of their home, lifetime of treasures, freedom and what should have been their loving last days together.
I am confident that Greene will be vindicated, despite the county's efforts to malign his reputation in the press. The full story will come out at trial."

Both Mother Jones and the Bay Area Reporter have in-depth coverage.

The accusation of abuse arose out of the initial circumstances surrounding Harold's fall. By the day of that fateful injury, Harold, then 88 years old, had endured open heart surgery, was on a number of medications that made him unsteady and uncomfortable, had suffered an earlier fall from which he was still bruised and recovering, and was in seriously declining physical and mental health.

In 2004, my own father had been in and out of the hospital and told me that he never wanted to go back "no matter what." My dad had, in his own words, "had a gutful." We honored his wishes and he died at home three weeks later.

Like my dad, when Harold fell on the front porch steps of their home, he did not want Clay to call an ambulance. But Clay knew that the fall was serious and that medical attention was required. He did what any of us would do - he called the paramedics. When Harold, in a fury, told the paramedics that Clay had pushed him, they reported the allegations and the County responded. We do not take issue with their initial response.

It is what happened in the weeks and months following Harold's fall that is so disturbing and for which the County has no viable defense or response. By the time the County was done, Harold had died in a nursing home without Clay by his side, and Clay had been removed from his home and placed in a facility against his will and without legal authorization.

Virtually all of the couple's belongings, including numerous pieces of art, Hollywood memorabilia and collectibles, had been sold at auction or had disappeared. In an early visit by County employees to review the contents of the home, workers remarked on the couple's treasures, with one noting how much his "wife would love" a piece and a second commenting how "great that would look in my house" on another.

When Clay objected he was told to "shut up."

The vulnerabilities faced by the elderly in our society know no gender, race, class, or sexual orientation. But when our relationships and lives are not fully understood, embraced and protected by the larger culture and by common experience, those universal vulnerabilities grow exponentially.

The Center for American Progress just released a comprehensive report, Out of the Shadows: Improving the Lives of LGBT Older Adults [pdf], which outlines the unique circumstances that make successful aging more difficult for LGBT elders than for their heterosexual counterparts.

NCLR joined this case because we want to make sure that what happened to Clay doesn't happen to others. In 1999, NCLR launched our groundbreaking Elder Law Project, which advocates for policies and legislation to protect the medical and financial rights of LGBT elders, and educates the professionals (health care providers, lawyers, case workers) who are charged with assisting them. Last summer, we released Planning with Purpose: Legal Basics for LGBT Elders, which we strongly urge every member of our community to read. What happened to Harold and Clay is a sobering reminder that we must take extra steps to protect our interests and rights.

The fact that what happened to Harold and Clay occurred in Sonoma County is perhaps the larger lesson in this cautionary tale. Sonoma County was one of a handful of counties in California to vote against Proposition 8.

We do not believe that the people of Sonoma County are anti-gay. We do ask that people take a hard look at how and why Harold died alone and Clay is left without any closure or chance to say goodbye to his partner of 25 years, and why Clay has also lost his lifetime of belongings, his beloved cats, and the home he shared with Harold.

Many people have been moved by Harold and Clay's tragedy and the outpouring of support has been incredible to witness. I've received emails and messages from residents of Sonoma County who are dismayed that this happened where they live. But I have also seen calls to boycott Sonoma tourism and businesses. I strongly urge against any boycott of Sonoma.

I spent this past weekend in Sonoma County with family and friends, celebrating my 50th birthday. I rode my bike, we went wine tasting, ate in great restaurants, shopped in wonderful shops and markets and brought back some of the fruits of our adventures to enjoy later. I did all this in the midst of the drama and intensity of the terrible saga involving Harold and Clay.

What happened to this couple was an injustice. They were mistreated by a number of officials in a county system that must be held accountable. But the people and businesses of Sonoma County are not the wrongdoers here.

Those who made decisions regarding the disposal and sale of Harold and Clay's lifetime of possessions and who placed Clay, against his will, in an assisted care facility must be called to account. That is why they are defendants in a lawsuit brought by Clay and the executor of Harold's estate, and why we at NCLR are assisting local counsel in bringing attention to this nightmare.

Lastly, many of you have asked how you can make a direct donation to Clay. A trust has been set up in his name and checks can be made out to "The Clay Greene Trust Fund" and sent to the following address:

Also, you can visit any of the Exchange Bank offices and make a deposit. The trust is researching options for those interested in making online gifts.

Thank you for your support and questions. This is a case that has touched many hearts. While we can never give Harold and Clay the peace they yearned for in their final days, we will continue to work for justice--not just for Harold and Clay, but for all LGBT elders.

Harold and Clay were in a committed relationship for twenty-five years, and they lived together for twenty years. Both Harold and Clay had worked in Hollywood and were passionate collectors of film memorabilia. Harold had worked for MGM studios in the 1950s and was a favorite of Louis B. Mayer in the studio's heyday. At the same time, Clay worked in television with many popular stars of that period. In addition to his film industry career, Harold was an accomplished artist and avid collector, especially of Mexican and Central American Santos religious art and artifacts. Art, heirlooms, and memorabilia graced the walls of their leased home, in which they planned to live together until their deaths.

Several folks have commented about the legal status of Clay and Harold's relationship. These tragic events began in April 2008, one month before the California Supreme Court's historic marriage ruling. By the time the California Supreme Court ruled and marriages began for that brief six months, Harold was already hospitalized and Clay imprisoned in a nursing home.

In every case our clients are human beings, and they are not perfect, which is why we all identify so fiercely with those we represent. At the time of Harold's fall he had already been experiencing some degree of mental impairment, and had been drinking. He fell down the stairs and became angry when Clay wanted to call an ambulance because he was afraid of what the result might be. (And as it turned out, he had good reason to be.) The paramedics who arrived on the scene suspected the possibility of abuse. But that suspicion was false. What happened over the next two months is when the nightmare truly began. Once Harold was released from the hospital to a nursing home, the county refused to tell Clay where Harold had been placed, forced Clay into a nursing home where he did not need to be, auctioned all of his possessions, including treasured and valuable works of art and family memorabilia, and took away his two beloved cats. The level of inhumanity is staggering.

After 25 years of a rich and shared life of devoted commitment, a couple at least deserves being able to be at each other's bedside at the last moments of life. Not only was Harold denied that comfort, and Clay denied the ability to be there to say goodbye to his life partner, but Clay was stripped of everything that mattered and gave him stability in his life.

We can't change what happened to Harold and Clay, but we can do what we try to do every day: to create a world where what happened to Harold and Clay never happens again.

Greene v. County of Sonoma et al.: Download a copy of the complaint

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place--wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold's care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay's significant role in Harold's life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold's "roommate." The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold's bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county's actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.

Read more about NCLR's Elder Law Project.

Are you disturbed by the story of how Clay Greene was treated by the County? Please blog about this, pass it on over Facebook or Twitter, just do whatever you can to help raise the visibility of what happened to Clay. Send a letter to the local paper, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat at letters@pressdemocrat.com. Send them this link to NCLR's page.

Want to stay up to date on this case? Follow NCLR and Bilerico Project on Twitter.

4-20-10 Editor's Note: After hundreds of comments seeking more details, Kate has written a profile of the two men that published today: "Meet Harold and Clay"

There is so much strength in our differences, and yet those differences also present critical opportunities and challenges. While at Creating Change it feels like our power and unity are unstoppable. But then we all go back home and, I fear too often, back into our familiar, silo-centered approaches to our work in this movement. I can't help but think what a force we would be if we truly saw the strength in our difference, and built the kind of coalitions and cross-cultural political movement that to date we have only dreamed of.

Along these lines, one of the best things I did at Creating Change was interview some of the other conference attendees. Bilerico set me up in a corner and rolled the camera and this is what we got. Great little conversations with some really inspiring folks, now that's what I'm talkin' about! Let's hit the ground running this year and commit to making sure that creating change isn't relegated to simply a catchy conference name.

My home boy William represented our tribe very well. More interviews and thoughts after the jump.

By this standard, it should be obvious that many communities, and certainly the LGBT community, lack political power. The plain fact is to get anything done we always need allies, and as we have recently seen, the reliability of those allies waxes and wanes with political winds. This fact makes it all the more urgent that we develop new tactics and strategies with other groups who have been stigmatized by the law and culture and that we join forces to consolidate our power and ability to win full equality for all.

I, like so many others, am tired of waiting and tired of being used as a political tool. Damn, enough already!

Jeff Sheng

It was just serendipity that right after Cathy, I spoke with Jeff Sheng. Both Cathy and Jeff understand the power of not only alliances, but of stories and Jeff's photographic work tells, yes, 1,000 words.

Roxanne Anderson

The work that Roxanne Anderson does is at once about elevating the voices and visibility of queer artists of color and of telling the story of oppression unbounded by sexual orientation or race.

Sara Beth Brooks

Newer and emerging activists are a true key to our future victories and to a model of cross-cultural collaboration. Many on these activists were never in the closet or spent very little time there, that path of always being out is profoundly different than the lived experience of many of us, there's a lot there to pay attention to and learn from.

Jaan Williams

My Phil Donohue/Oprah Winfrey/Jimmy Kimmel moment ends with an interview with Jaan Williams about action on the federal level and a certain organization which shall remain nameless, for now.

So that's it. And no, I won't quit my day job. But it was fun and see what I mean about inspiring?? Now, let's all go be, make, create change.

Whatever the origin of the phrase, trust me, today all of us here at NCLR are feeling the truth of it. Yesterday, after an excruciating month-long trial and after deliberating for almost three days, a jury in San Diego found that NCLR client Lorri Sulpizio had been the victim of retaliation in violation of Title IX and was entitled to damages. Title IX is a federal statute that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance in the United States.

This is a huge victory--and boy is it sweet. We have been representing Lorri, who was the basketball coach at San Diego Mesa College--in the second largest community college district in California--since the summer of 2007. Lorri called NCLR soon after she was fired. Through the months of worry and, at times, despair, neither we, nor Lorri, ever gave up.

This victory is of course a vindication for Lorri and her family. They have had to endure so much pain, humiliation, and fear. But they stood strong and their courage has been rewarded with a victory not just for them, but for every future player or coach fired for speaking up and for being out. Wins like this force other potential violators of the law to think twice and empower other coaches and players to stand up and be strong.

We are so proud of Lorri, of our co-counsel, of this brave jury and of our terrific team at NCLR--particularly Amy and Helen Carroll, our Sports Project Director. We won one for our side. And we will win again.

Go Team Go!

While Puerto Rico does not have any history of prosecuting hate crimes, it is clear to many that there is no other explanation for the savagery of Jorge's murder. The response of the police agent investigating the crime betrayed an appalling level of homophobia and bigotry. In a televised statement, the investigator noted that "people who lead this type of lifestyle need to be aware that this will happen." This so-called "investigator" should be fired and never allowed to wear a uniform which implies he protects anyone, ever.

It is impossible to imagine the pain of Jorge's family and friends. The shock of his murder has stunned the LGBT community in Puerto Rico. Jorge's murder is the direct result of prejudice, ignorance, and bigotry that still dominate life for so many LGBT people around the globe. For many, daily insults, fear, and brutality are a way of life. Compounding this untenable situation is the fact that the very officials empowered to protect our LGBT brothers and sisters either turn a blind eye, are complicit in the terror, or actually perpetrate the attacks. Hearing these stories is almost more than a heart can bear.

On the day I heard about Jorge's horrific killing, I also read the story of Will Phillips.

After asking his parents if it was illegal to not stand for the pledge (because of course Will is a good kid), he made the decision not to stand with the rest of his class as they started off the day by reciting the pledge. After a few days of this, the substitute teacher lost it and began yelling at Will. He quietly told her that, "With all due respect," she could "go jump off a bridge." Well, that got him sent to the principal's office, followed by a call to his mother. Once Laura Phillips heard the whole story she asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher and was told that would not happen.

After Laura posted on Twitter about the incident, the whole thing blew up. So now the entire nation knows about Will's sitting for justice and while some folks are supportive, there are many--including his fellow schoolmates--who are heckling and hassling Will, with, of course, anti-gay taunts and barbs. But Will isn't backing down. And his parents support him--they've printed off the blog posts and websites calling him out for his courage and integrity.

I can't help but think that if more kids had parents like Will's--who are raising their three children in an environment that celebrates inclusion, equality, and our shared humanity--and if more kids were like Will--who understands that standing up for the rights of others is part of being a good citizen--then maybe, just maybe, Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado would be making plans to hang with his friends for the weekend rather than his parents making plans for his funeral.

Last night I had the privilege of talking to Will and his mom, Laura. I told Will that I knew some were attacking him, calling him names and making his life generally miserable. I emphasized to him that for every insult he had to bear, there was a kid whose life he was saving, who would hear his story and know that someone had his or her back. I told him he was saving lives. He said, "Well, that's all I need to hear, to know I am doing the right thing."

With bravery like this, may there be no more stories like Jorge's.

In Kalamazoo voters strongly backed an ordinance which protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation.

In Washington state, which votes by mail, it now appears very clear that the comprehensive Domestic Partner law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor will now become law. Our opponents had placed on the ballot a measure to repeal the law. Voters, by a too-close-for-comfort margin, seem to have voted to approve the legislation.

And so it goes. The familiar trajectory of every movement for civil and human rights. Days of crushing disappointment, days of cautious optimism at incremental progress, days when a historic victory changes the landscape forever. Our movement has had all such days. Too many of the first and not enough of the latter, that is for damn sure however. So, you want more historic victories? I agree. Let's get to work.

Today déjà vu is not so pleasant. The loss of marriage rights in Maine is a traumatic reminder of our Prop 8 fight in California. On election night one year ago, I spent a sleepless night tormented by every thought of what might have made a difference.

My colleagues in Maine spent just such a night. Same-sex couples in Maine have been dealt a dehumanizing setback. And we are all diminished by this loss. But after 12 months to ruminate and recover from what happened in California, I have some insight for them.

If those great strides, in Women's rights, in the rights of religious minorities or of African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans or American Indians had been put up to popular vote we all know how those votes would have turned out. The shame would have endured. And the taint on our Democracy would have continued.

Third: And there is no polite way to say this--one cannot claim to be fair-minded and still support measures which deny full equality. You either support full justice and civil rights and equality or you don't. Period. End of side-stepping and excuses.

For my friends and family who support civil unions or domestic partnerships but do not support the full equality of my 16-year relationship and the security of my two children which rests on that full equality--and yes, that means marriage, right now, in this country--you have to get off that fence.

We are past the moment when you can claim support of me and other LGBT folks you know and love and yet still stand with those who deny us marriage. To not support marriage equality, right here and right now, means you believe that same-sex couples are less valid, less equal, and less deserving. Such a position is untenable with any claim that one is "fair-minded."

We are in a difficult moment. This is a hard day.

But we can't lose hope or stop believing in the rightness of our cause. We have the privilege of living in the midst of our own civil rights movement. The cost of that privilege is the same cost it has been in every movement--our humanity and dignity is attacked and undermined and we stand tall, never give up, and never lose faith.

Today is a test, and we must be the measure of it.

Yes, Del lived a full and amazing life. Yes, she accomplished more than most people ever dream. Yes, she had 54 years of love and laughter and conversation with her partner - and then legal spouse - Phyllis Lyon. But still, to have Del gone at a time when it feels like we need her most just isn't fair.

In the year since Del died it feels like events to fill a decade have passed. Barack Obama was elected President, Prop 8 passed, our community rose up and caught fire, debate swirls about next steps and best strategy, the administration fights to win health care overhaul in the face of ridiculous and vicious attacks, we are still in two wars, the economy sputters and lurches, our community struggles to find a way forward. In times like this in the past, you could always count on Del to give perspective and context. In her no-bullshit, clear-eyed style, she would tell you what was what. She would dismiss self-pity and excuses. Her mantra could have been "just do it," long before Nike ever owned the phrase.

While the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy is an enormous blow to all of us, I like to think that before he'd even had a chance to take in the view from wherever he may be now, Del sidled up to him to enlist his help in doing all they could, from their new vantage point, to influence the right outcome on the health care overhaul. It was a passion Del and the Senator had in common.

Fortunately, they both lived long enough to see a different world--a world of powerful and effective organizations, a breadth of activism and leadership, greater tolerance and inclusion and safety, and the public celebration and recognition of their relationship and marriage on June 16, 2008. One of my sweetest memories came at the end of the whirlwind of events the day of their marriage. As the reception of friends and family celebrating this milestone was winding down, I bent down and asked Del if the day was everything she had hoped. She looked me straight in the eye and quietly said, "It was perfect."

Since Del's death, I've had the pleasure of spending many hours with Phyllis. I know she misses Del far more than any of the rest of us ever could. One of my favorite memories is just sitting in their living room, listening to the two of them discuss--and at times debate (just like an old married couple)--the latest current political event or recount some long-past movement controversy. Sitting there, listening to them dissect this or that event or bit of history always helped me understand the issue better or appreciate the moment in our past more. I always left their house feeling better up to whatever challenge faced me back at work.

Del was the personification of fearless and fierce. We all suffer her loss to our work and community--to say nothing of her wicked wit and sparkling blue eyes, even to the end alive with fiery intensity. Over the past months--and no doubt, in the coming months, there will be many future challenges. I may not always come up with exactly the correct action or response, but I will come close if I remember to ask myself first: "What would Del do?"

No one could do better than that.