When my brother and sister-in-law came down to visit the other weekend, we discussed how my little biracial nephew Mr. E (seen with me at left) will view the world when he's old enough to understand the bizarre notion of race. Many questions ran through my mind, such as how he will identify? Nearly everyone who sees Mr. E and I together see the strong family resemblance, even down to our complexions. My brother, who is a bit darker than I am, had straighter, darker hair; he and I are not biracial, but the products of two light-skinned black parents who themselves were born of lighter-skinned blacks and black/Native American and West Indian heritage. Neither of us can pass for white, but obviously we have white relatives somewhere in there, but they are generations back in the family tree.

But it's also interesting to think about those who deal in the politics of race when it comes to mixing black and white. For instance, our biracial President has chosen on the census to select "black."

He may be the world's foremost mixed-race leader, but when it came to the official government head count, President Barack Obama gave only one answer to the question about his ethnic background: African-American.

The White House confirmed on Friday that Obama did not check multiple boxes on his U.S. Census form, or choose the option that allows him to elaborate on his racial heritage. He ticked the box that says "Black, African Am., or Negro."

And that's his prerogative. Biracial could have been a write-in option, or more than one race could be selected.

Mr. Obama could have checked white, checked both black and white, or checked the last category on the form, "some other race," which he would then have been asked to identify in writing.

There is no category specifically for mixed race or biracial.

Instructions for the census's American Community Survey, which poses the question in the same way as the 2010 form, say that "people may choose to provide two or more races either by marking two or more race response boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of marking boxes and writing in responses."

That the President selected ""Black, African Am., or Negro," suggests he politically and culturally identifies as black AND because he cannot pass for white. Some who are biracial or multiracial can pass, or come across as some vague ethnicity -- in those cases my guess you'll likely see a boost in mixed identifications written in on census forms. When it comes to Latinos, as you see there is a separate question there. And there will be many more minority babies likely to be born in United States during 2010 than white babies, according to a recent study.

There may be more minority babies born this year in the U.S. than white babies for first time ever.

It could be a "tipping point" that propels our population toward minorities becoming the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In 1990, 37% of children born in the U.S. were minorities, but by 2008 it was 48%. This means the country is on track to become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century, according to Kenneth Johnson, of the University of New Hampshire. He researched many of the racial trends in a paper being released Wednesday, the week before the 2010 population count, which begins in earnest next week when more than 120 million U.S. households receive census forms in the mail.

The baby trend doesn't hold true everywhere, however. In New York City, Manhattan and Brooklyn kids are more likely to be white, he said.

Who's biracial in this series of photos?* The answer is below.

Another oddity of the census, something that my wife Kate, who is Lebanese and white has noticed, is why those of Arab descent are officially counted as "white," unless the self-identify otherwise. This clearly this seems bizarre, given many Lebanese-Americans are darker than I am, and certainly the KKK wouldn't classify them as white either, but when it comes to race, so much doesn't make sense. The history behind it.:

Among the great ironies of Arab life in the US is that Arabs and other Middle Easterners are legally white in the eyes of government categorization. The reasons for this are complicated; basically, first wave Syrian/Lebanese Christian immigrants who arrived as part of the great wave of Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century successfully lobbied to be considered white under naturalization law, which only allowed for free white persons to become US citizens. (This was during the period of the Asian Exclusion Act; not a good time to be ambivalently white.) Because the folks in question were Christian, phenotypically no darker than other European immigrants of the time, and generally working their way into the middle class, their petition to become white folks was accepted. Fast forward seventy years to the 1990s. Arabs and Muslims are highly stigmatized in pop culture and politics: they're the terrorist bad guys in every movie, their campaign contributions get returned, their political opinions go unheard. Classifying Arab Americans as white, and leaving them ineligible for protection and benefits under federal guidelines, seems vaguely insulting in this context. Worse, for scholars of the community, this means that information on Arab ancestry was only collected on the long form, which structurally undercounts small groups like Arab Americans. (This year, in fact, the long form has been eliminated entirely.) This is when the campaign to add an 'Arab' or 'Middle Eastern' origin question, parallel to the Hispanic origin question, began.

It's also noted that many people read: Arab = Muslim, which is of course, ludicrous. Many Arabs are Christian, and many Muslims are white. Kate's family happens to be Maronite Catholic. It seems a huge detriment that the census doesn't break some of these numbers down so that we get a more accurate picture of the browning and seasoning of our country over time -- and how they perceive themselves racially.

When I compare my heritage to that of Obama's, I often wonder how being officially identified as biracial is perceived in this country today in comparison to someone who is a fair-skinned black who is not biracial. When you start breaking it down like this it all begins to sound absurd, but the political reality is that claiming your racial identity, one way or the other, has social consequences, a fork in the road, as it were, because other people want to be able to put you in a box they can easily identify.

I guess for two-year-old Mr. E., seen here doing his first Easter Egg hunt, he can enjoy a blissful existence for while longer, innocent of the insanity we color-aroused adults have created and continue to foster.

I joke with Tim and my sister-in-law that Mr. E has the same blondish hair that I had as well at his age, so there's a good chance those little curls are going to nap up into a 'fro around 5 or 6 years old, and maybe darken as mine did.

Related:
* Here we go - now I'm a 'half-breed' for criticizing the admin
* CNN does Black in America 101
* The browning of Top 10 surnames
* Bigoted Louisiana Justice of the Peace: 'I'm not racist, I let blacks use my bathroom'

* The answer to the biracial question above the fold? Only the baby (Mr. E, the top row, second from right).

***

In other news related to the census...

Census Bureau To Unveil 2010 Census Lgbt PSAs With Actor George Takei And Honorable Christine Quinn

Historic ceremony to mark new chapter in Census Bureau outreach to LGBT community

New York, NY - On Monday, April 5th, the U.S. Census Bureau will officially present a series of six public service announcement (PSA) videos, which will comprise the first-ever round of Census video communications specifically focused on encouraging the LGBT community to fill out and mail back their census forms. Each of the six videos features a different well-respected community leader appealing to the LGBT community. The videos can be found on the Census Bureau's YouTube page: www.youtube.com/user/uscensusbureau# and at www.2010Census.gov in the Multimedia section.

Special guests include actor George Takei (Star Trek, Heroes) and husband Brad Altman, who will deliver special remarks, and screen their own 2010 Census PSA, "Be Counted," which was made by the Equal Roots Coalition in Los Angeles. NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn and the Executive Director of the LGBT Center, Glennda Testone will also speak. Timothy P. Olson, Assistant Division Chief, Field Division of the U.S. Census Bureau will speak on behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Logo will begin airing the six Census PSAs on their network on Monday evening, April 5th in partnership with the Census Bureau. Lisa Sherman, Executive Vice President & General Manager of Logo says "Logo is honored to assist with this historic initiative. The Federal Government is reaching out to the LGBT community in a way we've never seen. The Census Bureau's progressive message of inclusion is something we support whole-heartedly. We are proud to be able to do our part as LGBT Americans."

The press conference will be streamed live on the web at http://glaadbackup.com/LIVEFEED/index.html
Journalists and members of the public also may submit questions to the speakers during the Q&A portion of the conference by emailing LGBTCensusPSA@gmail.com.

LGBT Census FAQ's:

How does the 2010 Census count lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people?
The 2010 Census does not ask about sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT people living with a spouse or partner can identify their relationship by checking either the "husband or wife" or "unmarried partner" box.

How do same-sex couples answer the relationship question?
The 2010 Census will be the first to report counts of both same-sex partners and same-sex spouses. The person filling out the form (Person 1) is asked to identify how all other individuals in the household are related to him or her. Census data are based on how individuals self identify and how couples think of themselves. Same-sex couples who are married, or consider themselves to be spouses, can identify one other adult as a "husband or wife," Other same-sex couples may instead decide to use the term "unmarried partner." In general, people who identify as unmarried partners are in a close personal relationship but are not married or do not think of themselves as spouses. Census data are based on how individuals self identify. This includes same-sex couples who live somewhere their relationship is not recognized.

What about transgender individuals?
The 2010 Census asks a question about each person's sex. Transgender respondents should select the sex with which they identify. Mark only one box.

A note to bi-racial/ethnic couples:
Census reports some statistics on the race/ethnicity of the "household." Bi-racial/ethnic couples should note that this is determined using the race/ethnicity of Person 1, the person who fills out the Census form for the household.

How many of our professional gays have put themselves on the line for equality like this? Not to take away from the work orgs do, but it's acts like Constance's that show how one individual can expose and challenge ignorance and fear. The average gay person living in flyover country is bolstered by courageous efforts to simply be treated equally in a hostile environment. It's a sobering thought that she stood up to fight against an ENTIRE TOWN. No one stepped in to tell her about the fake prom, not even any of her peers. That's immense peer pressure to avoid any support of TEH GAY at any cost in Fulton, Mississippi.

She lost, but she actually won - respect and support from around the country, as well as legal help from the ACLU. She didn't back down or hide.

Given Constance's sacrifice, one has to ask an obvious question -- when it comes time to go to college, it's pretty clear she will need to leave the state to be able to experience social acceptance and support. Do you think she should return to her hometown one day, after she's been away for a good long time, to effect change, or leave it as the bigoted sh*thole, stuck back in time? Yes or no and explain why.

I can see some of the same dresses in these pictures posted by different students.

Just a reminder to the non-white kids who went to this event: Forty-five years ago, in Birmingham, Alabama the same stunt got pulled on a black girl. Think about civil rights for moment.

And if that's not fucked up enough, now there's a FB group called Constance, Quit Yer Cryin

Okay. My work here is done.

these pics from two different FB pages. Hmmmm....guess there was a prom after all. Constance and seven others were not invited.

Yet despite the military's move to relax and soon do away with "don't ask, don't tell," repeal in Congress is in grave peril. This is so even though the much-vaunted super-majority in the senate is not necessary to repeal the current policy. As Sen. Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee explained to his colleague, Sen. Joe Lieberman, an amendment to repeal the policy can be added to the must-pass Defense Authorization bill, which would turn the tables on the "no-to-everything" Republicans: the amendment would require a supermajority not to pass, but to remove, meaning that in order to keep the ban in place, the GOP would have to block the entire Pentagon spending bill, publicly undercutting the military.

And it's not just a misguided fantasy of a few radical gay and ally bloggers that HRC needs to use its influence and access to push the administration and Congress to act.

It's also not helping that the gay community has too often given the President a pass on leading on this issue. Yes, Congress has to pass repeal to get this law off the books, but that process should begin with Obama telling the Pentagon to put repeal in the Authorization bill. And for that to happen, gay groups will need to let the White House know that the status quo is not acceptable. Bloggers this week called for the President to take the lead, but also focused their attention on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the most powerful gay rights group in the world, which has been accused of championing repeal publicly, while privately assuring the White House that it can continue to go slow. Some feel that HRC would rather fundraise for several years on the illusion of momentum than actually help to achieve repeal. If HRC wants to disabuse the community of that suspicion, it will need to ensure that its prized access to Washington power is used to have a real impact, rather than to enjoy that access for its own sake. One reasonable option would be to publicly tell the President that it will not endorse him for re-election if he does not secure repeal in his first term, a promise that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he believed the President would keep.

The problem is that professed proponents of repeal keep muttering that we will get repeal this year, without saying how. "There is a clear path to repeal," said an HRC spokesman this week, "and that's the one we're on." Many of us would like to know what that path is if it does not include demanding the President put it in the base bill. Because legislative repeal will only become harder after the 2010 midterm elections.

And as I said above, SLDN must know repeal is in peril. Kevin Nix at the organization's blog, Frontlines, noting that Congress can repeal while the DOD conducts its implementation study.

We join the blog swarm's call for DADT repeal this year. The best way to erase the law from the books in 2010 is for the Obama Administration to include repeal in the defense authorization bill and then for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to also include repeal of the law in the defense bill he reports out of his committee. Find out what you can do here.

As we have noted before, Congress must repeal DADT this year while the Department of Defense conducts its study. Both can and should happen concurrently. DoD's study Working Group should not hold up legislative repeal this year, since the study Working Group is not looking at if the law should be repealed but how.

We agree with Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) when he said earlier this month, "A study should not unduly delay taking our last steps toward final action." Congress must go ahead and do its part to dismantle the law now through the defense authorization bill, and the White House must be pushing that too.

Related:
* DADT blog swarm: contact HRC to publicly demand the President to take the lead on repeal in 2010
* Coverage of today's HRC/DADT blog swarm
* Center for American Progress poll: a stable majority supports ending DADT

I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.

I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

...I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

Go read the rest. As I said in my post on Charles Johnson's departure from the movement, I really don't see an easy way back to the party of limited government with the disturbing stranglehold of the theocrats on the GOP and its fealty to the likes of Rush and his dittoheads. Not that I have any advice that the GOP would care to take, but where are all the country club Republicans and moderates? Why aren't noted conservatives in a race to publicly call out the jackbooted thugs and bible beaters who are holding them hostage?

Part of the reason, of course, is that the movement's political strategy that is now so beholden to a voter base that is rife with under-educated, easily massaged-by-messaging populace that spends way too much time believing and spreading conspiracy theories, irrationally fearing brown and black people, and trying to control private behavior they abhor, yet they often commit themselves because of their own tortured, hypocritical madness. The small-government traditional conservatives are far outnumbered by these know-nothings, but as long as the fundies and crazies just behaved like sheep, everything was fine. Naturally, when the fringe wing finally noticed that, aside from getting their SCOTUS picks, they weren't receiving anything but lip service to its social agenda, there was going to be a move for a coup when the Republicans went down hard in defeat in 2006 and 2008.

Now the beast is awake, caterwauling and calling for hard-right "purity" in the movement; nothing will make it cease at this point, and thus it's time to abandon ship -- the beast has stepped on the auto-destruct sequence button. Other sane conservatives need to come to their senses, swallow their pride, and save their own movement.

And as I've said before, with an opposition party in such distress, why are our Dem leaders so obsessed with not offending the know-nothings, bigots and bible beaters? They will never get their votes, and the folks in the middle of the road are tired of the slacker-*ss behavior on the Hill -- for instance, many of them want not just a public option, but single-payer health care (they live in the real world as opposed to Beltway world), and yet they see both sides caving to interests other than those who put them in office. I don't know how much more weakened the GOP could be before some spines were grown by these Dems.

Related:
* Don't pass out - Little Green Footballs post: Why I Parted Ways With the Right

Warren is not hesitant to interfere in international religious divisions or schisms. Though not Anglican, he has been a major player in providing American support to African Anglicans who are seeking to oust any affiliates from the Anglican Communion that make any accommodation for gay Christians.

...[He]'s no stranger to activism on behalf of legislation. Though he was not highly visible in supporting Proposition 8, he did not hesitate to instruct his flock - which does not stop at the walls of his church - to vote to take away the civil rights of their gay neighbors.

But Warren has now found the one exception to his political involvement. And that exception is the proposed Ugandan "Kill Gays" bill. Unlike virtually anything else that flickers across his attention, this piece of legislation just doesn't rise to the level of requiring his involvement. That would be "interfering in the political process of other nations."

Or maybe Rick Warren just doesn't find it unethical on the part of leadership in Uganda to execute HIV positive gay people, incarcerate the rest for life, ban any form of activism that might object, and jail those family, friends, or acquaintances who fail to report their gay loved ones to the government.

Warren's moral judgment here only points out that hypocrisy knows no bounds -- and this is the man who Barack Obama invited to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Pillar of loving Christianity, Rick Warren. Does the White House have any comment about this? Will someone ask Robert "I know nothing" Gibbs at the daily presser?

Oh wait -- the Obama administration has taken a position -- it agrees with Rick Warren!

And is it a coincidence that the Obama administration -- in which Warren has a fan at the very top -- has not spoken out loudly enough against what's happening in Uganda and that the man who doles out the AIDS dollars (our taxpayer dollars, need I remind) on behalf of the president to Uganda, PEPFAR chief Eric Goosby, says pretty much what Warren says? According to Newsweek.com, Goosby says his job is "not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation."

***

Truth Wins Out calls for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to hold a hearing on PEPFAR funding to demand strict human rights, patient confidentiality and free speech controls are tied to PEPFAR aid, particularly since Goosby is not concerned.

Goosby appears to be both ignorant of HIV/AIDS in Uganda, and determined to use taxpayer dollars to undermine the very same education programs that PEPFAR was created to support:

1. HIV/AIDS in Uganda is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon; Goosby falsely contends that it is a homosexual phenomenon that threatens the "general population."
2. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill would criminalize key aspects of comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention education and imprison health-care workers who refuse to report sexually active gay patients to the police.

Goosby's use of federal funds to subsidize the punishment of HIV/AIDS education and health-care workers, and to push LGBT Ugandans deep underground, is inexcusable. And the silence of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, regarding her subordinates' support for violence in Uganda, is unacceptable.

Melody Barnes, Obama's senior domestic policy aide, recently gave a talk at Boston College; she indicated not only her personal opinion on marriage equality (she's for it), and provided insight on WH policy. Apparently her answer was not from the script and the White House freaked and denied Barnes said anything about her views.

Reached late Monday evening, a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Barnes was not discussing "her personal views on marriage equality or other issues."

Paul Sousa, Founder of Equal Rep was at the talk and told Sam Stein of Huff Post that Barnes indeed shared her viewpoint on marriage equality. So that meant someone wasn't telling the truth.

But the Barnes talk had been taped. What happened next was extremely bizarre -- persons unidentified in Obama White House, home of our "fierce advocate" -- told Boston College that it had final say on whether this tape would be released at all. ]]>

by 3:40PM Tuesday, November 10, the White House was given a copy of the video by BC, and was informed that the school's policy was to give the speaker the choice to release or suppress video of their talks at the school. The White House, rather than refusing to be the ultimate censor of the publication of the video that had already caused quite a stir, and rather than simply giving BC the permission to publish the video on the spot, accepted the video, and its role as censor, and didn't get back to the school for two whole days. It was only this morning that Kenyon says the White House told Boston College that it could release the Barnes video.

Why did it take the White House two days to decide whether it would permit a private university to release a video of a public event involving a senior White House official, a video that we now know the White House had in its possession the entire time?

...The appropriate response from the White House, when a private university asks for permission to release a video of a White House employee speaking on the record at a public meeting, is not "send us the video, so we can see it, and decide if we're going to censor its release. And in the meantime, do censor it for at least a few days." (Which leads to some fascinating First Amendment issues, at the very least.)

The Obama White House was trapped in yet another public "gaffe" over its preposterous dealings re: LGBT rights because of Melody Barnes's statement. Since it couldn't give a rational explanation for withholding the tape's release, the anonymous paranoid Obama officials decided they would hold on to it until the news "dead drop" on Friday, when the MSM goes to sleep for the weekend. Unfortunately, the Internet never sleeps, peeps.

The Advocate obtained the tape from the college's communications department and transcribed it, so there wasn't any question about what Barnes told the students at Boston College.

Boston College law student Paul Sousa posed the question to her in the context of Obama's current view that "separate but equal" is A-OK.

"What I would like to know is whether or not you support equal civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and if so, are you speaking or will you speak with President Obama on this civil rights matter?"

A clear question, no? And Barnes, in turn, is clear as well in her response:

"I appreciate your question, and I also belong to United Church of Christ. And I guess I would respond in a couple of different ways. One, I appreciate, I really appreciate your frustration and your disappointment with the president's position on this issue. He has taken a position, and at the same time, he has also articulated the number of ways that he wants to try and move the ball forward for gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, including signing the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and a whole host of other things that we've started to do to model as a leader in terms of what the federal government is doing, as well as to encourage changes both in the military, in the workplace, and certainly with regard to hate crimes. I accept that that is very different than what you are talking about. And what you're talking about is something that is quite fundamental.

"With regard to my own views, those are my own views. And I come to my experience based on what I've learned, based on the relationships that I've had with friends and their relationships that I respect, the children that they are raising, and that is something that I support. But at the same time, when I walk into the White House, though I work to put all arguments in front of the president, as you say, I also work for the president. And we have very robust policy conversations, very robust constitutional conversations with the White House counsel, and others about these issues, and we'll see what happens from there. At this point, all I can say to you is that his plans right now are to move the ball forward in the ways that I've described. He hasn't articulated a shift in his position there, and that is something that at this moment I accept as it being, it is what it is, even as we continue to have a national, or we continue to have a conversation with him about it."

So reading the above, she supports and sympathizes with lesbian and gay families and the quandry they are in; and indicates that she, along with other marriage equality supporters want to continue the dialog to move the President back to the unequivocal position he used to hold back in 1996: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

The whole thing would be laughable if it didn't convey how paranoid this White house is about LGBT civil rights; taking days to review a tape as if there were some top-secret national security matter divulged in it. The statement Melody Barnes made could have been reviewed in a couple of minutes and cleared for OK. You've read the transcript; what on earth were they so worked up over? She stated that she will support the President's views in her professional role; she simply her personal views in that context.

People do this all the time; you can disagree with your boss on a matter and still enforce/support the company's policies, while personally making efforts to convince your boss that another path may be more beneficial.

Whoever you are in the White House -- engineering this fracas has only strengthened the reasons for shutting down the gAyTM. Paul Sousa:

It's disappointing and angering that the White House felt the need to lie about one of their top officials supporting marriage equality -- that just reinforces the beliefs that members of our community have regarding the attitudes of this White House towards the LGBT community. There is no shame in supporting full equality for gay and lesbian Americans and the White House should be proud of the courage that Melody Barnes has displayed.

NYC AVP Courage Awards Blogger Acceptance Speech
Award presented by Michelangelo Signorile.

As prepared, November 9, 2009 (Andy Towle); delivered by Pam Spaulding.

Because crimes against LGBT people are seldom reported on a national basis, and covered mostly in local papers, if at all, we have a valuable opportunity to raise awareness about how severe and widespread these crimes are, and the frequency at which they occur. As one of the few forums, and perhaps the most effective, that exist right now to communicate these crimes to other gay people and our heterosexual allies, we can inspire them to take action.

We will never stop standing up for my fellow LGBT citizens when they are struck down by hate, and never ease the pressure on those who would choose to strike us down, whether by words or by fists. Whether it be a young trans woman in Colorado referred to as "it" by a lover she thought she trusted and struck down in a rage, or a bar goer who beats a gay man with his fist to the surface of a parking lot late at night after a night of drinking in South Carolina, or a man who decides he doesn't like the look of a lesbian couple in Provincetown so he decides to push them through a plate glass window, or two deadbeats in Laramie, Wyoming who decide to mete justice on a young gay man by beating him and leaving him to die on a frigid fence, we will continue to report each and every story.

We are humbled and challenged by the ability to communicate the amount of information we have regarding hate crimes to such a wide audience, and we will continue to be vigilant in my continuing coverage of violence against the LGBT community. It's a vigilance that would not be possible without my fellow bloggers Andy, Joe, and Bil. We cast a wide net and I am proud to be honored alongside them.

Also honored this evening was Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, who delivered a humorous, engaging speech (I'll have the transcript soon).

BTW, Tony Kushner also delivers wonderful spontaneous bear hugs, since I was almost tackled by him while I was videotaping actor B.D. Wong as he was finishing up his intro just before presenting the award to Kushner. (reason: he was enthusiastic after the acceptance speech (mostly written by Andy Towle, btw) I delivered. You can catch the amusing POV bowl-over on the right as my camera tilts wildly; on the left is B.D. Wong's introduction.

One of the highlights of the evening for me was to have my pic taken with B.D. Wong since Kate and I are addicts of L&O: SVU. I managed to get two shots with him, one before and one after I delivered the acceptance speech for the group.

But of course I wasn't the only fan...(Joe and Bil joined in the fun as well):

It's rare to see the whole diversity/class/power dynamic that vexes the LGBT movement opened up since it's a third rail topic that tends to give some with privilege a case of defensive agita. It's likely this unintentional level of candor won't be seen again any time soon.

Transcript and more after the jump.

LEMON: Joe, I got to ask you this. We had a panel last night, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Dan Choi, Hilary Rosen on. And some of the folks who are on that panel said that the HRC doesn't represent the masses of gay people in the country, that it is, you know, one certain group.

Do you think that the group -- how do I put this -- that there is a lack of diversity within the HRC, and if it were more diverse, that that might help the cause?

SOLMONESE: Well, I think that -- you know, I know that -- I think it was Michelangelo who was making some sweeping comments about the number of people in the room and who was in the room, although he did start by saying he couldn't get into the room. So, you know, I sort of take that with a grain of salt. But we're the largest LBGT organization in the country with nearly a million members. Most of them are small donors and supporters all over the country. And so, I think we absolutely represent the LBGT community.

But I think that -- as Hilary mentioned last night on the show -- perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done. Because at the end of the day, what all these fights come down to -- and this is where we are in this movement...

A couple of things are quite notable. Lemon asks about the diversity issue within HRC. Solmonese can't answer that question without either fibbing or going down a really uncomfortable path, so Joe chooses to answer the question in terms of paid membership, so he can reference the multitude of small dollar donors. Those donors weren't at the dinner, nor are they in leadership positions or on the board of the advocacy org.

The real boo-boo, however, is the claim that the crowd attending the annual dinner is more politically engaged, more boned-up on the issues, and even more incredibly, know more than you folks out there -- living in places where you have no rights whatsoever -- about what is at stake. Well, those who opened their wallets to see the fabulous Lady Gaga and the cast of Glee (after all, the dinner sold out before the President's appearance was billed), surely are in touch with the issues more than you are. Joe said so.

But seriously, there obviously were committed activists in that room, people who deeply care about those without the access and power to effect change in the same way they can. It's too bad that they get scooped up in the criticism of HRC's poor handling of the diversity issue. By raising the value of the attendees as "the players" who know better, he's essentially confirming all of the worst stereotypes. Those skeptics outside of the LGBT sphere who saw that non-diverse audience that night are even less likely to support LGBT issues.

Adele Stan, in a piece worth the click, "LGBT Activists Criticize Obama's Speech for What Wasn't There, But Miss a Very Big Thing That Was", she points out that the real landmark comment the President made that went unnoticed - he made the connection between the black civil rights movement and LGBT rights.

[E]ven more importantly, completely overlooked by activists as they battle for marriage rights was a critical turning point: In anticipation of the criticism he clearly expected to receive, Obama compared the movement for LGBT rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more.

This is not a statement without some risk for Obama. It's a comparison often met with resentment in the African-American community -- a comparison few have the moral authority to make. The nation's first African-American president is one of them.

On one level, that's correct - that needed to be said. On another level, it's not enough. If you want to see how much impact that statement really had in the aftermath of that speech, surf over to a blog I respect a great deal, Jack & Jill Politics ("A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics"), where there is a plethora of politically informed, educated black netizens who are tapped into the progressive blogosphere. The President's comparison went in one ear and out of the other for way too many of the commenters.

It's fair to say that The President needs to repeat that link in equality movements in front of other, non-LGBT audiences over and over to make it stick. In those comments at J&JP you'll see:

* Criticism of the complexion of leadership of too many of our orgs with this dinner a nationwide televised display of the gap in race and class alienating commenters in the thread, feeding the stereotypes quite nicely;

* black gays called house negroes/having house negro syndrome;
-- it matters not if you have a long record of challenging the lack of diversity in LGBT leadership and political inclusion and representing the community on-air; you've revoked your black card.

* the claim that gays have all the rights that they need and deserve, because they see the snowstorm at the public events, and it follows that all gays are white and have money and don't show up for social justice issues affecting POC. And that means homos need to "get to the back of the line" for rights.

I feel sorry for the poor gay brother in the comments there who can't get a break.

As I told a much more diverse audience at NC Pride:

For blacks and other minorities who have to learn how to integrate in the dominant culture out of necessity, they are often feel frustrated and defensive hearing the lack of knowledge exposed when whites make the tentative steps to engage. The honest truth is that, outside of working alongside people of color, there's a lot of social self-segregation going on (on both sides).

What this lack of cross-community dialogue means for out LGBTs of color is that one has to be willing to put yourself out there to be attacked, over and over for addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, white LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back.

I see it time and again, with the excuses ranging from "I'll be called a racist" or "it doesn't feel safe to do this" or "it isn't my place to do it. " Well if you're waiting for it to be safe, it isn't going to happen.

So it is in this environment that black LGBTs have a difficult choice about whether to come out, though more and more are. Fearful of losing social connections, friendships and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church are intimidated.

They fear the judgment of those in the pews and the pastors spewing anti-gay bile from the pulpit. Some of these minority LGBTs simply cannot envision stepping out of the closet because they don't see a welcoming largely white LGBT community on the other side of the door.

So it's in that context that Solmonese's comments are a tragic, confirmed truth that just slipped out in the interview. Our movement needs to address how our largest LGBT organization can represent the reality of LGBT America, because its representative just let everyone know that in HRC's reality, the right mix - the most effective mix - of people in the LGBT equality movement attended that annual dinner. I'm not sure how the rest of us rate other than as a small dollar GAyTM. Maybe Joe will tell us the next time he's on the air.

At the Blend we have inboxes overflowing with emails asking us to cover this story or that event -- from advocacy organizations, tips from readers, PR firms, and the news media. It's pretty clear that the equality rights movement is highly dependent on blogs and citizen journalism to analyze, report and advocate in the unique way that we do.

Many of these LGBT-based blogs are done as a labor of love because there's certainly not enough money out there to quit our day jobs. Bloggers like myself, who subsidize the site with an unrelated day job are about to get a big F-You from Chuck Schumer if the roof isn't raised. Ad revenue is irrelevant here, btw; you have to be employed by an entity to be covered.

A recent amendment to the federal shield bill being considered in the Senate will exclude non-"salaried" journalists and bloggers from the proposed law's protections.

The law, called the Free Flow of Information Act, is intended to prevent journalists from being forced to divulge confidential sources, except in cases such as witnessing crimes or acts of terrorism.

Well, read the fine print to see how citizen journalists are left legally hanging out to dry. Schumer's amendment draws a distinct line between bloggers and "real journalists" that:

limits the definition of a journalist to one who "obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity-

a. that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and

b. that--
1. publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
2. operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
3. operates a programming service; or
4. operates a news agency or wire service."

So there's no doubt that independent bloggers are the target here. At once we're considered irrelevant and so dangerous they have to legislatively set up a slippery slope that can land us in the clink or left penniless just for trying to participate in citizen journalism. Wow. The real issue here, however, is less the shield law than placing a definition of what is a journalist on the books. That will alllow pols, news outlets, state governments, etc. to deny citizen journalists press access because they are not "journalists" as defined by federal law.

It's a huge slippery slope and a loss for independent reporting by bloggers if this definition clears.

Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake confirms that we're screwed:

To to be a journalist in Chuck Schumer's eyes, you have to both have a boss (at this point, you generous readers and Jane would count as my boss, but Jane doesn't have a boss, for example) and that boss' company must disseminate news on some other medium, in addition to the Toobz. Even free-lance writers or people like IF Stone (in the period when he ran his own newsletter) would be excluded from this definition of journalist.

Now, I'm on the record as a skeptic that this new law is going to work out the way the media thinks. I fear that the national security exemption will mean the law will protect people like Judy Miller mobilizing smears or the Rent-a-Generals spreading propaganda, but not protect Dana Priest or James Risen and their sources.

Still, this move pisses me off because it's a transparent bid to grant a powerful industry special privileges.

This is about ensuring that there is a wall between real journalists and the perceived unwashed masses of ignorant, unqualified bloggers who are mucking up the system. This is a serious issue, because I believe that reliable citizen journalists do have the respect of traditional media in some circles, but this legislative bid to create a firm wall is declaring war on us.

Nieman Journalism Lab's Zachary M. Seward, who previously noted the House's different definition of journalist, also expressed concern. "The shield law obviously needs a definition that limits its scope, but the professional definition, which now seems inevitable, would exclude student journalists as well as bloggers with a day job," he wrote.

It's ironic that this development surfaces right after I discussed the fairly accurate perception that blogging/advocacy journalism sits in a position that is ill-defined. (Huffington Post, "A Tech-Powered Gay Rights Movement"):

It's a headless monster in many ways -- digital activists in this world are frequently not Big Gay insiders. They are often part-time activists -- people who feel strongly about issues and use the Internet daily. They never intended to lead or even follow movement leaders; they are just handy with the Internet tools of the trade, and have something to say about equality that resonates with readers.

Feeling the same financial pain the traditional print publications are experiencing with the economic downturn and drop in ad revenue, there is no pleasure in seeing LGBT publications shutter. Bloggers and activists are highly dependent on the strength of news media with an LGBT focus that has a budget to send reporters to do stories the online activists simply don't have the funds to do. It's a symbiotic relationship as well -- many LGBT reporters want their stories linked on high-traffic or influential gay blogs because it expands their reader reach, and builds support to continue doing the work critical for both journalism and the equality movement overall.

Honestly, I have problems with this shield law for other reasons -- why is the federal government getting into the business of regulating journalism to begin with? Surely there are Constitutional issues at play here. But that's a different topic worthy of debate...

So simultaneously as traditional news media is under financial fire, citizen journalists are about to take a hit of epic proportions with the aid of a Democratic Congress. Imagine that. Thanks, Chuck. You can give him a ring at (202) 224-3027.

This is significant in a day when there is a clear dearth of support in the religious black community; Lewis has the moral standing that a homophobe in the pulpit like Bishop Harry Jackson can never touch. John Lewis took batons to the head, was beaten to unconsciousness multiple times for equality -- courage and moral conviction that Jackson and his fellow charlatans of bigotry are bereft of.

Rep. Lewis spoke eloquently about the simplicity of the government staying out of the lives of gay and lesbian couples -- there is no need to "save" marriage from two people who simply want to love one another and be legally affirmed in the same way that heterosexual couples are when they marry.

But perhaps the most powerful message was to those in the LGBT community who are waiting for equality to come to them -- Lewis charged us to seize the moment, do not accept being told to wait your turn, to demand your rights through your representative, and most of all take personal responsibility -- the message we all heard was loud and clear. Too many LGBTs are in the closet waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting and LEAD. We are all capable of leading by kicking that closet door open. The main meat of the speech begins around 5:00 -- and you will want to hear it all. The man had the audience spellbound.

More below the fold.

John Lewis could have let someone else take the baton to the head for his rights. He didn't; his rights were too important to him to NOT lead by example. I asked State Rep. Patricia Todd thought of his wake up call to our community. She agreed that there is no excuse for our so-called leaders, our elected representatives who say they are our allies but lack the political spine to do the right thing should watch this speech as required education. But we also noted to one another that even more critical was Lewis's call to you - those of us who rail about what someone else can do to lead or move the ball forward and don't step up, or take even small steps to be interested in determining the fate of your civil rights. Where is the fire in the belly of our movement? It's not in DC, it's all of you, if you choose to do a tenth, hell, one-hundredth of what John Lewis showed in terms of personal courage to fight for his rights against hostility day and night.

Kate and I spoke briefly to the Congressman to thank him for the inspiring words that energized the room.

I asked Rep. Lewis what, as an LGBT person of color can do to encourage more of "us" to come out, to address the issues of faith and reconciliation with one's sexual orientation when there is both hostility toward faith in many slices of the out gay community and denial of the impact of the closet in the black community. As I'm about to deliver the keynote address at NC Pride next Saturday, I sought his wisdom about the painful conundrum for out POC who trying to make a difference and are getting blasted on all sides. He said that as he travels to conferences he sees more and more out black and gay representation, steady, but still very slowly. He said that the walls are slowly breaking down among pastors who are seeing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" social policy within the community can not hold sway forever. As more than one person mentioned to me today, the same DADT about homosexuality exists not just in the religious black community, but in the Deep South at large.

Blogger, ally and Equality Alabama board member Kathy McMullen of Birmingham Blues and others are just as frustrated as I am over the lack of LGBT community engagement on the political issues that profoundly affect them.

She says when she asks socially out, but professionally closeted people about getting active in the most politically benign way -- showing up at events like the educational sessions at Saturday's conference -- they show interest then balk and bail -- they are not interested in being "political" or an "activist."

I have to tell you -- what is our problem, people? John Lewis wanted his rights badly enough to take personal responsibility to act on it. There are many in the LGBT community -- take the folks in Washington State and Maine right now -- who have their shoulders to the wheel because so much is at stake.

It's pretty clear, however, that if there's not a galvanizing issue of that magnitude, in most places people would rather show up to a rally, party or Pride event than write a letter to a state legislator, knock on a few doors to speak to neighbors about the fact that there are no protections for state employees, or heaven forbid, personally meet with their elected officials (if they even know who they are).

What's wrong with this picture? I am asking this in all seriousness because I truly do not understand the inertia and disinterest in playing a more active role (at any level) for their rights. Is there the fire in the belly? Will the people who attend the National Equality March really go home and participate in the more mundane but equally important ways to move equality forward with the same level of enthusiasm that motivates and energizes them to go to DC in the first place? I'm just tossing it out there for discussion. And do watch the Lewis video to help put your answers into context with what he has to say.

But as the campaign wore on, we saw display after sad display of outright racism and bigotry (documented in dozens of Blend posts) emerge, stoked by the McCain/Palin campaign and the noisemakers on the right. But the vile behavior seemed to come from a demographic we all knew was below the surface -- people who would never vote for a black man under any circumstance. It all died down for a millisecond -- a period of calm after the inauguration, but the full-out attack was cooking as the anger at the reality that Barack Obama is President sunk in when he started affecting policy and approach to governing.

The racially tinged debates over Obama's appointing the first Latina to the Supreme Court and his politically unwise foray into the Henry Louis Gates flap, combined with organized GOP opposition, seem to have done what Obama's political foes could never manage in 2008: They've blackened Obama, in both senses of the word -- simultaneously diminishing his support and emphasizing his ethnicity. Simply by raising consciousness about the president's race and associating him with radical identity politics, they've diminishing his standing among a large swath of the public. (Gabe Winant has more of the statistical detail here.)

I started thinking opponents were blackening Obama back in July, after the racial drama of the Sotomayor hearings, when poor oppressed Caucasians like Sens. Jeff Sessions, Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham made it sound like it was open season on white guys. Then came the racial morality play of the Gates arrest -- Did race or class matter most? Should Obama have stayed out of it? -- which gave way to the screaming of the Birthers, the angry gun-toting town-hall haters, the shrieking of Palinites over "death panels."

I wrote about the role race played in these ginned-up controversies at the time: Birthers and Deathers (who tended to be the same people) were focused on marginalizing Obama as scary, "the other." Race was central to their fears, from the Birthers' obsession with Obama's literal origins as the product of miscegenation; to the Deathers and the Town Hellers' insistence that healthcare reform was, in Glenn Beck's idiotic formulation, Obama's idea of "reparations" for slavery. The cries of "socialism" were just another way to mark him as "other," scary and foreign. Watching scenes of shrieking, sobbing people pleading to "take our country back," it was hard not to ask, From who? The president who got a larger share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980 or George Bush in 2000? What exactly is it that makes this particular commander in chief an interloper?

Finally, when Republicans began objecting to Obama's speaking to schoolkids last week, you couldn't ignore the racism: Listening to some parents' expressing actual fear of having Obama beamed into their kids' classrooms, it was hard to imagine such hysteria being inspired by a white president. It would never happen.

Seriously, one woman was interviewed on NPR and said that the President was going to have subliminal messages in his speech to indoctrinate children. Can you imagine her saying that if Joe Biden was reading the exact same speech? Speaking of subliminal...

There may still be some subliminal racial discomfort in that growing white voter doubt, because all of the extreme right-wing questions about Obama -- Is he an outsider? Does he care about people like us? Is he competent to run the country? Can he be trusted? ("You lie!") Is he dangerous (we can't trust him with our children!)? -- echo the most crippling stereotypes that afflict black men in America. (As I write I'm listening to a woman at the Washington tea party on Saturday screaming, "We will not let Obama ram socialism down our throats!" Where to start?) It's a cruel irony that this conciliatory, courteous, accommodating black man still faces claims that he's a scary menace to America.

Joan Walsh notes that while Bill Clinton had to endure the constant blasts from the right, the anti-Clinton hysteria didn't generate marches on Washington or outlandish, chaotic town halls with people packing heat as intimidation props. She also wants him to get back into the battling campaign mode of 2008. I'm wary of this advice, as Barack Obama is in an odd, uncomfortable position -- he's the best person to call out the lies and incredible conspiracy theories, but he can never truly show anger lest he display the "angry Negro" to the masses. He has to walk a delicate line that hampers him from drop-kicking the foolishness out of the door. His overly concilatory behavior is maddening because so many of us feel there isn't any genuine desire for compromise on the other side of the aisle. Those Republicans are sore losers of epic proportions and they want another crack at leadership, even as they have FAIL written all over recent history when they had their turn at the wheel.

Robert F. McDonnell submitted a master's thesis to the evangelical school he was attending in Virginia Beach in which he described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

The 93-page document, which is publicly available at the Regent University library, culminates with a 15-point action plan that McDonnell said the Republican Party should follow to protect American families -- a vision that he started to put into action soon after he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates.

...McDonnell's opponent, state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (Bath), and other Democrats have sought to highlight McDonnell's conservative record, saying he is obscuring a large part of his background to get elected. Deeds recently spoke to women's groups about McDonnell's record on abortion, saying that voters needed to know about his stances.

"There is a just a massive effort underway to rebrand Bob McDonnell, and his whole legislative career speaks otherwise," said former delegate Barnie K. Day (D-Patrick), who supports Deeds. "The voters have a right to know who these candidates really are."

Beliefs as far to the right as the ones expressed in this thesis is something McDonnell will have to explain. Some positions stated in his paper:

• Church state separation isn't real. "Leaders must correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state. Historically, the religious liberty guarantees of the First Amendment were intended to prevent government encroachment upon the free church, not eliminate the impact of religion on society."
• Thumbs up to convenant marriage. He wants to make it more difficult to obtain a divorce.
• Religion in schools A-OK (well, not all). "Traditional Judeo-Christian values" should be mandatory "character education."
• Parenting, Bob's way. Child abuse should be redefined to "exclude parental spanking." I guess it depends on what the meaning of "spanking" is to Bob.
• Women, back to the kitchen and bedroom. "Further expenditures would be used to subsidize a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family by entrenching status-quo of nonparental primary nurture of children. Feminism is among the "real enemies of the traditional family."

If he wants to publicly chalk these "family values" up to youthful exuberance and he no longer holds these extremist beliefs, then he should say so. If he still holds the beliefs, then he should proudly claim he supports this agenda. Well, he has already confirmed that he's still anti-gay on his campaign site:

Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004). As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia's marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.

My question is does Sheila Johnson (who is also president and managing partner of the WNBA's Washington Mystics) still think Bob's right for Virginia? Her endorsement skirts any concern about his social agenda:

"Make no mistake, these are tough economic times for all Virginians. Unemployment is on the rise and families are struggling to stay in their homes. We need bold and innovative leadership to move our state forward and that's why I've chosen to support Bob McDonnell for Governor. He has shown me that he has the right vision and the executive leadership skills that will guide Virginia through these challenging times. He understands that we have to help businesses in our state - both big and small - thrive so that we put Virginians back to work. I'm proud to endorse Bob McDonnell to be our next governor."

Blue Virginia on Bob:

For once, I agree with Bob "sometimes incest is voluntary" Marshall: "Barefoot and Pregnant Bob" should come clean, admit that he has a plan to remake Virginia into a Pat Robertson-inspired theocracy, and generally come out of "the closet," as his political soulmate "Sideshow Bob" puts it. Of course, as "Barefoot and Pregnant Bob" knows, that will make him utterly unelectable, but given that his "moderate" makeover has completely melted down now, he's probably unelectable anyway.

Related:
* BET co-founder, billionaire Sheila Johnson supports homophobe running for governor of VA

So now The Peter is dropping a federal discrimination lawsuit on Holiday Inn -- based on bias against AFATH's religious beliefs against homosexuality. OK. Look at how weak this is:

LaBarbera did not have a written contract, and no money was exchanged, but he said organizers verbally worked out details of the 100-person event, including the menu, during two meetings.

..."It's always easy to come up with excuses," said LaBarbera, AFTAH's executive director, "but the real truth is they didn't like our message. If you allow this sort of hecklers' veto, you're sanctioning discrimination."

And when The Peter opened his trap and announced there was a potential for demonstrations outside the venue, he basically handed Holiday Inn an out -- they aren't obligated to sign a contract with any organization if the hotelier doesn't want bad publicity, potential for violence or to need extra security (after all, who knows what kind of overblown expectations The Peter relayed).

More below the fold, including reaction to the article.

In this case, the Holiday Inn Select was also going to host a wedding event on the same night as Peter's shindig and didn't want blowback from that paying customer that surely already had a contract in place. When something like this happens, it may suck for your organization, but you can always speak with your feet and take your business elsewhere. And AFATH did.

I'm having difficulty seeing any religious discrimination angle that would get this past the first review of the case. Commenters at the Daily Herald were blunt:

Peter LaBarbera's all-consuming obsession with All Things Homosexual strikes me as both incredibly un-Christian and more than a little, um, perverse. Help him, Jesus.
Lunchbox :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:41 AM+29

Is it fair to all the other guests - including an entire wedding party - to allow a controversial group gather when protesters are expected? The Holiday Inn is not a public place. You do not have freedom of speech everywhere you go. Read the constitution, in detail. This was not a case of discrimination. Hotel management simply made a sound business decision, period.
hester1 :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:52 AM-5

Nothing in writing.....no contract.....what is Mr. LaBarbera talking about? Without proof of an agreement, this case should go right into the circular file. I am also completely heterosexual, and the only time that anyone who is homosexual would bother me, would be if they tried to push their beliefs onto me. Well, that is what Mr. LaBarbera's group sounds like they do, just the opposite. Its too bad that this man scheduled this conference without booking it properly through the hotel, as evident by lack of a contract. No contract.....no case!
pn :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:34 AM+6

We still have a long way to go in treating people equally, and civil rights for gays/lesbians is a big part of this. It's too bad that Mr. LaBarbera and people like him don't realize that. Bravo to the hotel management for considering their other guests when deciding how to handle this situation.
Haereticum pro Orthodoxy :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:38 AM+15

Sounds like someone was 'fishing for media attentions', free publicity, drumming up false outrage to me, and perhaps making a fat handful of cash from a settlement.
WilsonP :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:41 AM-6

For those who support the hotel in this, imagine that the tables were turned. Suppose it was a homosexual group that had been turned down by the hotel because of "negative publicity.
Would you still support the hotel's right to discriminate in this fashion?
Sauce for the goose...
zabes :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:12 AM+9

I hear that the Klan has a hard time booking places as well.
motorcyklmikl :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:36 AM+6

Unspecified damages and attorney's fees? Get over it and move on.
used to be jimbo1958 :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:47 AM+10

Peter Laberbera
Disrupting someones wedding is more important to you, You are a shortsighted person, I know if I owned a hotel and a blissful thing like a weding reception was at my hotel and a hete filled banquet was scheduled the same night with no CONTRACTS signed you would be on the street, also I hope the judge tosses out your suit, because you didn't have a SIGNED contract. How many times have people told you, "Do you have it on paper?"
yahoos67 :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:55 AM+10

simple as this - no signed contract, no lawsuit. next.
Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:58 AM

Anyone who is that obsessed with the "gay agenda" is definitely hiding some issues of his own. As for having no written agreement, I have a bridge I'd LOVE to sell this guy. What an idiot! This has inspired me to rent a room in this hotel.
yahoos67 :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:15 AM-7

The Holiday Inn Select should have the absolute right to consider the impact an event will have on their property when deciding whether to book an event. If goofus tells them that the little soiree he has planned is going to bring down 300 protesters making the front of the hotel look the the pride parade, then he should expect to be told... "Umm, thanks for thinking of us, but we just don't think that event is in the best interests of our business." Period. There should be no guarantee that just because a group has enough money, they can go anywhere they want and do anything they want. Homo/straight, pro-life/pro-choice, pro-2nd amendment/pro-gun control - matters not the cause. Mr. LaBarbarella: it's called PRIVATE PROPERTY for a reason. Get over it dude, and go cry to someone else. I'm sure that there's a hotel somewhere in the chicago area that will gladly take your group in with open arms. Maybe even give you a big group hug while their at it...
Nancyspartan :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:50 AM+10

This group is not a Christian group - it is a hate group. Do some research. I believe that Holiday Inn has the right to say who does and does not use their site. As far as this group goes, there are forest preserves, open air park or maybe a garbage dump where they can promote their hate doctrine.
NoBS :: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:52 AM+3

The Peter must be hard up for cash and attention; I guess the purses of the seasoned citizens he scams into thinking the Homosexual Agenda is going to destroy society have slammed shut. I wonder if his BFF Bam Bam is helping him out on this legal plea for attention.

H/t, JMG.

DOBBS: Let's turn to first what the administration said in its brief in defending the act this week. It reads, "The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," that according to the Justice Department.

Maggie, you say you were shocked by this brief. Why so?

GALLAGHER: Well, there's two issues of trust. One is, yes, it's true the Obama -- the candidate had a position paper that he's against the Defense of Marriage Act. But he also went in a big publicized interview, and he promised the American people in an interview with Rick Warren that although he's for equal rights for gay people, he doesn't include marriage among them. And now his administration is filing a brief saying the one federal law that defends marriage as one man and one woman is discriminatory.

But there's a second level of trust here. I mean, both gay marriage advocates and gay marriage opponents are concerned because this is a brief in which the administration says it's against DOMA and then pretends that it's trying to defend it.

DOBBS: Right. OK.

...DOBBS: Tobias, your reaction? Do you agree with what Maggie said?

WOLFF: Well, I don't. And let's be clear about what this statute is about. There are six states right now and a bunch of folks in California as well -- six states that allow gay and lesbian couples to get married. This is about whether those couples are going to be discriminated against by the federal government. This has nothing to do with the federal government telling states what they have to do in their marriage policies.

Lou then challenges Gallagher to answer how same sex couples marrying will destroy heterosexual marriage.

DOBBS: Well, here's the Justice Department saying it's discriminatory.

WOLFF: Absolutely.

DOBBS: And at the same time defending it.

WOLFF: Well, I'll tell you the Justice Department is...

DOBBS: Work us through -- work through that one.

WOLFF: They are in a rotten situation here. And here is why. They want this statute repealed, as does the president and his administration. There is a longstanding tradition that the Justice Department...

DOBBS: Then why not do it?

WOLFF: Well, there's a difference between repealing a statute, which the president is working with Congress to do right now...

DOBBS: Yes.

WOLFF: And by the way, it's part of the Democratic party platform to get rid of this statute. It's time for Congress to step up to the plate and start working on it. There's a difference between that and what the Justice Department's obligation is when there's a constitutional challenge brought to a statute.

...DOBBS: This is where the economists describe President Obama. Barack Obama tends to become incoherent when discussing gay rights. During the campaign he said he supported equal rights for gays, but also that marriage should be between a man and a woman. How do you -- you know, I mean, what you say is fine. But wouldn't marriage be a fundamental right? And why would there be any equivocation?

WOLFF: Well, let me tell you, Lou. I agree with you about that. And I spent a lot of time working for the campaign and having respectful (ph)...

DOBBS: Well, I'm not taking a position. I'm just asking...

WOLFF: Well, I hear you. But what the Defense of Marriage Act is about is not telling states who's allowed to get married and who's not. What it's about is whether the federal government is going to discriminate against couples who are legally married in their states.

DOBBS: Well, it says here...

WOLFF: It's about...

DOBBS: ... the Justice Department says it's discriminatory.

WOLFF: Absolutely.

DOBBS: But they're going to defend it.

That's a bizarre position, Maggie, for them to be in and for the government to be in. Isn't it?

GALLAGHER: Well, even worse is they're pretending to defend it. But in response to pressure from political groups, they've changed their argument. The federal government is now saying the Obama administration is telling the courts in your behalf and mine that the government has no interest at all in bringing together biological parents to raise their children together.

It is repudiating the idea that marriage has anything to do with mothers and fathers raising children together, which is the one great argument that all the liberal courts who have upheld marriage: New York, Maryland, Washington. They've always done it on that reason.

Ms. NOM's arguments fall flat over and over in this debate. Dobbs gives her plenty of leeway to make a case and she just hangs herself and her ideas on international TV. Wolff eloquently turns her argument on its head and asks her why she isn't supporting federal benefits for gay and lesbian couples outside of the institution of marriage. Hahaha...

DOBBS: Of all of the things that I have seen over the course of my career, you know, listening as an assault on heterosexual marriage, I have never seen -- and you correct me. I mean, where does gay marriage stand? Where is it in the queue for threat against heterosexual marriage?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think...

DOBBS: And what is the causal relationship?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think that when the government changes the definition of marriage, it changes for everyone. And when the government says the idea that marriage...

DOBBS: No, I'm not (inaudible) about -- no, no, no. Excuse me, please.

GALLAGHER: Yes.

DOBBS: I'm not asking -- I'm not asking anybody to change the definition of anything. I'm just asking you how is a heterosexual couple in marriage in any way assaulted by a homosexual couple in marriage.

GALLAGHER: Well, because the government has changed what marriage is. For a lot of us, Lou, a marriage is a husband and wife. And the government is proposing to change that.

DOBBS: Right.

GALLAGHER: The Obama administration is saying that idea is discriminatory. Our children are going to be taught that by public schools, that our ideas of marriage are discriminatory.

DOBBS: OK.

GALLAGHER: It's hard enough to raise, you know, people...

DOBBS: All right.

WOLFF: Let's bring this down.

GALLAGHER: It's hard enough to get men and women together to do this thing without our government saying and the Obama administration saying the idea itself is discriminatory.

DOBBS: Well, my God. I'm sorry.

WOLFF: Let's bring this down to some real specifics. This is about couples who have been together for 30 years being denied their full Social Security benefits. This is about couples being denied access to health care. This is about couples who are being denied equal treatment in the tax laws after they've spent their entire lives...

DOBBS: But you would have that if you had civil union.

WOLFF: ... paying federal taxes.

DOBBS: You would have that if you had civil unions.

WOLFF: What you have...

DOBBS: See, those arguments are not particularly persuasive.

WOLFF: Not true. Let me make sure you understand.

DOBBS: Please do.

WOLFF: This is about the federal government taking couples who are legally married and saying we are not going to give you equal access to the Social Security benefits that every married couple in this country is entitled to.

GALLAGHER: Listen, if...

WOLFF: That's what this is about.

GALLAGHER: ... the only trouble.

WOLFF: That's what this is about.

GALLAGHER: If you have a trouble with Social Security, you could amend that act. You don't need to go into court...

DOBBS: All right.

WOLFF: Well, Ms. Gallagher, are you out there?

GALLAGHER: ... and say that marriage itself is discriminatory.

WOLFF: Are you out there trying to fight for equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples in Social Security?

GALLAGHER: What I'm trying to fight for -- it's funny that you talk about the tradition...

WOLFF: Are you the one who's going to take away Social Security benefits from gay and lesbian couples?

GALLAGHER: ... of the Justice Department.

WOLFF: Are you the one who's going to take health care benefits away from people who need them?

GALLAGHER: I am the one who is standing for the right of American taxpayers not to have a union, same-sex union treated as marriage without their consent.

DOBBS: OK, I...

WOLFF: And there are six states that have said that they want gay and lesbian couples to be treated equally in our marriage laws.

GALLAGHER: And the federal government overwhelmingly...

WOLFF: And the federal government should step out of the way.

GALLAGHER: The federal government overwhelmingly, bipartisanly said the federal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. And I support that. And I think the Obama administration should live up to its campaign promise to support marriage and change its mind.

WOLFF: They should absolutely live up to their promise to repeal this statute, yes.

DOBBS: Well, apparently there are two promises here implicit that would satisfy one of you or the other, but not both. Let me again go to this thing because the Defense of Marriage is sort of a peculiar construction. When the primary, as everything I've been able to study -- the primary reason for divorce is financial. One in two marriages in this country, heterosexual marriages, ends in divorce.

We are watching two-thirds in some cases of children born out of wedlock. We have a disaster in this country. And, I mean, it could be argued, it seems to me, at least -- and forgive me for saying it this way -- that you're blaming homosexuals for an institution that's under assault from just about everyone but gays.

GALLAGHER: I'm not blaming homosexuals for anything. It's four judges in Massachusetts, not homosexuals, who brought us gay marriage.

DOBBS: OK.

GALLAGHER: And it's a bunch of Democratic legislatures in blue states who are not, as far as I know, gay. Some of them may be -- who brought us gay marriage in those states. This is a political movement to change the law. It's going to have a lot of consequences.

I do not understand how we can possibly rebuild a marriage culture with the president of the United States and the government saying the idea that marriage means a husband and wife, because you need a mother and father, is discriminatory. That's the problem. These aren't separate battles. They're related.

DOBBS: You get the last word, very quickly.

WOLFF: Look, at the end of the day, this is about treating people fairly and equally and with dignity. And getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act is going to allow us to get the federal government out of the way of states who have made that decision.

How's that for a juxtaposition, lol. I'm about to hit the sack, but I wanted to give you an update on Netroots Nation tidbits...

Former President Bill Clinton spoke tonight (Autumn, Kate and I skipped it to grab a bite to eat with Joe Sudbay of Americablog and Jed Lewison of Daily Kos) and there was some news made and a bit of chaos. We went to the Warhol Museum; it is a must-see if you come to Pittsburgh. There were a ton of people there. Mike Rogers helped organize the event. I managed to touch base with fellow North Carolinian, friend of the Netroots and recent town hall teabagger "victim" Rep. Brad Miller to see how well he faired the crazies who made it hard for people who really care about health care without being distracted by these concerned plants citizens.

But the real news occurred back at the convention center; Autumn, Kate and I were dog tired after a long day with little sleep, so we were leaving the Warhol just as Mike Signorile, Lane Hudson and Donald Hitchcock were arriving. Apparently Lane caused a scene at the Clinton speech by standing up and asking him whether he supported repeal of DADT and DOMA. Surprisingly he was frank and said he did, only after he mistakenly thought Lane was a rabble rousing teabagger type (WTF -- they aren't on our side, lol). Ah, Lane just sent me the link, so you can take a look (he's still waiting to see if the part about DOMA will turn up on video).

Video and transcript below the fold.

Transcript:

Lane Hudson (screaming from the audience): Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell right now? Please.

Bill Clinton: ... You want to talk about Don't Ask Don't Tell, I'll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn't deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military, and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting me some support in the Congress. Now that's the truth.

Secondly -- it's true! You know, you may have noticed that presidents aren't dictators. They voted -- they were about to vote for the old policy by margins exceeding 80 percent in the House and exceeding 70 percent in the Senate. The gave test votes out there to send me a message that they were going to reverse any attempt I made by executive order to force them to accept gays in the military. And let me remind you that the public opinion now is more strongly in our favor than it was 16 years ago, and I have continued supporting it. That John Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under me, was against Don't Ask -- was against letting gays serve -- is now in favor of it. This is a different world. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Let me also say something that never got sufficient publicity at the time: When General Colin Powell came up with this Don't Ask Don't Tell, it was defined while he was chairman much differently than it was implemented. He said: 'If you will accept this, here's what we'll do. We will not pursue anyone. Any military members out of uniform will be free to march in gay rights parades, go to gay bars, go to political meetings. Whatever mailings they get, whatever they do in their private lives, none of this will be a basis for dismissal.' It all turned out to be a fraud because of the enormous reaction against it among the middle-level officers and down after it was promulgated and Colin was gone. So nobody regrets how this was implemented any more than I do. But the Congress also put that into law by a veto-proof majority, and many of your friends voted for that, believing the explanation about how it would be eliminated. So, I hated what happened. I regret it. But I didn't have, I didn't think at the time, any choice if I wanted any progress to be made at all. Look, I think it's ridiculous. Can you believe they spent -- whatever they spent -- $150,000 to get rid of a valued Arabic speaker recently?

And, you know, the thing that changed me forever on Don't Ask Don't Tell was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the first Gulf War, and all their commanders knew they were gay; they let them go out there and risk their lives because they needed them, and then as soon as the first Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That's all I needed to know, that's all anybody needs to know, to know that this policy should be changed.

Now, while we're at it, let me just say one thing about DOMA, since you -- the reason I signed DOMA was -- and I said when I signed it -- that I thought the question of whether gays should marry should be left up to states and to religious organizations, and if any church or other religious body wanted to recognize gay marriage, they ought to. We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the 11 referenda much later -- in 2004, in the election -- which the Republicans put on the ballot to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it's obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican Congress from presenting that. The President doesn't even get to veto that. The Congress can refer constitutional amendments to the states. I didn't like signing DOMA and I certainly didn't like the constraints that were put on benefits, and I've done everything I could -- and I am proud to say that the State Department was the first federal department to restore benefits to gay partners in the Obama administration, and I think we are going forward in the right direction now for federal employees. ...

But, actually, all these things illustrate the point I'm trying to make. America has rapidly moved to a different place on a lot of these issues, and so what we have to decide is what we are going to do about it. Right now, the Republicans are sitting around rooting for the president to fail, as nearly as I can see.

Here's how the NYT saw it:

At times fiery with his familiar finger-pointing repeatedly jabbing the air, former President Bill Clinton implored an audience of bloggers and activists tonight not to lose out on a moment that he said he had worked all his life for.

It was as though this was his time, too, not just that of President Obama. The former president revisited several pieces of his legacy, drawing comparisons between his battle for health care overhaul to the fight occurring now and even angrily defending the compromise that became "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the military when a protester in the audience shouted at him. He even drew on Americorps and student loans to bridge the time between his administration and that of Mr. Obama.

The Miami Herald's Steve Rothaus reports on the discrimination lawsuit and subsequent firing of WPLG-ABC's Charles Perez, who alleges that the station demoted him to weekend anchor/reporter "because of their discomfort over the increasingly high profile of my sexual orientation." The station's POV:

Station executives recently told Miami Herald columnist Joan Fleischman their decision was driven by economics.

WPLG Vice President and News Director Bill Pohovey denied Perez's claims: ``This is an outrageous accusation," Pohovey said Monday in a statement to The Herald. ``As a gay man myself, I can safely say the Station does not discriminate against gay people. Charles' claim that the Station discriminates against gay people is untrue and offensive."

The red flag in this story is the appearance of station's discomfort with Perez's increasingly messy private life. The MIami-Dade anchor's name has been in the local news because of abuse charges against his former partner Dennis Ricardo Peña, whom Perez filed a injunction against for protection against domestic violence for being ''stalked, harassed and threatened'' by Peña. There are also charges and counter charges about whether Perez's email was hacked and confidential information disclosed that the anchor felt could damage his professional rep.

You won't believe what else was released. It's below the fold.

Peña filed a 12-page motion to dismiss Perez's petition. The motion mentions Perez's co-anchor Laurie Jennings and her contract negotiations; details of the Perez-Peña sexual relationship; and Perez's relationship with a new partner, accountant Keith Rinehard. In the motion, Peña claims that Perez reached out to the therapist 'for counsel with his `gender identity issues.' ''

Perez issued this statement: "Integrity, professionalism, and privacy are three principles that I have lived by. This is a situation that is overblown, misunderstood, taken out of context, and misused. The real issue surrounds the interpretation of language in an e-mail. I have never questioned my identity as a male. There is nothing else to say about the attempt by a former partner to malign me and my reputation by spewing out baseless statements and allegations.''

Peña says in his domestic violence petition that Perez would ``throw household items, punch[ed] walls and use demeaning and vulgar language.''

Once you toss chum like that into the water for media sharks as Peña did, it's no surprise that Perez was cut loose. Not because Perez is gay, straight, or questioning, but local stations are so paranoid; they depend on anchors (for right or wrong) to be the wholesome face of the station. The world of on-air news talent is still incredibly closeted. For a look at how the bias and discrimination promotes the closet, read Perez's self-flagellating in a piece in The Daily Beast, "Why I Committed Career Suicide."

My ex-employer will never admit this, but if the past decades have taught us anything, it is to be much more subtle about our prejudices. Getting rid of "the black guy" or "the woman" or "the gay guy" or "the Jew"-not to mention many other select groups-has given way to "we really should go in a different direction." Or "we've really got to consider what's the least objectionable choice."

I'll probably never work in the news business again. Honestly, who's going to hire a newsman, as good as he may be, who litigates against his employer? It's not exactly a career builder. The good news, as my dentist told me August 6, the day I was fired, is: "They can only take your job. They can't take your talent."

...In fact, over the previous five months, I'd been told, "Don't get married, Charles. We don't need that." I'd also been told not to have children. In essence: "You're the main anchor and you're gay, but let's not push it."

...I understand there are those who believe that my actions will actually make it harder for gay men and women to rise up, for fear they'll start trouble. But that is no reason not to do the right thing. In the words of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." Barack Obama, in his acceptance speech on November 4, 2008, added that we play a part in that history and must put our hands on that arc and "bend it once more toward the hope of a better day."

Lord have mercy, this is what I'm talking about -- this pandering to bigotry and paranoia by the station only encourages the closet doors to remain shut. But in some ways Perez is right -- this is a bigger issue about industry blackballing merged with a discrimination case. Lyndon Evans has written a response, "One small step for Charles Perez, one giant leap for lgbts in media", to Perez's piece, taking the tack that this is not necessarily career suicide, and it's a boost to the movement and ENDA.

How many "straight" men or women in the media would have put up with such suggestions? [Over the "You're the main anchor and you're gay, but let's not push it" remark.]

The very idea that it would even be said harkens back to the old Studio System in Hollywood where the heads of MGM, 20th Century Fox, Paramount and others kept their stable of stars on a tight leash.

It is just unbelievable that this can and does go on in today's media.

Yes media outlets, if written into contracts or employee policies do have the right to protect their organization from "undue embarrassment", however when that is being extended into one's lifestyle, NO, that is totally unacceptable.

There's a lot we cannot know since personnel matters are involved. But I think a lot depends on what kind of clauses there are regarding "image" in on-air talent's contracts that the station could use to skirt the issue.

Anyway...

1. Do you think that Perez has a winnable case?
2. Is part of the bias problem the closet itself and the gay and lesbian anchors affirming the biases of the stations to rise professionally?

Sen. David Vitter disagreed Wednesday with criticism that Southern Republicans are ruining the party and said a return to conservative values is the best way to restore political power. "I'm on the side of conservatives getting back to core conservative values," said Mr. Vitter, Louisiana Republican and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

>"There are a lot of us from the South who hold those value, which I think the party is supposed to be about. We strayed from them in the past few years, and that's why we performed so badly in the national elections."

As Kyle from Right Wing Watch said:

If "getting back to core conservative values" includes "violating the sanctity of your marriage" (and recently, it sure seems as if it does) then Vitter is the perfect man to be leading this effort.