Florida Agenda

JACKSONVILLE – Three months after a proposed gay rights ordinance was considered by the Jacksonville City Council, the members remain divided about the measure, which would add “sexual orientation” to the city’s anti-discrimination rules in housing, employment, and public accommodations. The original measure would have added “gender identity” and “expression” to those recognized protected categories, including race, color, disability, and age.

Although two committees approved a substitute measure that leaves “sexual orientation” in the code, and provides exemptions for churches and religious institutions, a third voted down the amended bill, which also limits monetary damages for victims. LGBT advocates especially oppose this last part.

Conservatives also condemned the measure as an attack on Florida’s marriage laws. “Jacksonville residents will not be fooled about the real intent and purpose of this ordinance,” said John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy Council. “Full legalized gay marriage is the goal of its proponents.”

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopen

CLIFF DUNN – Editor

I have always been an admirer of the struggle for African- American civil rights. I remember watching “Roots” with my mom in 1977, cramped in front of our small TV set, in our apartment in Sunrise. The experience of Alex Haley’s ancestors—and all of those who suffered the harrowing trip of the Middle Passage from Africa to slavery in America—made me emotional then, and it does now.

I can only imagine the sense of injustice that many modern African-Americans (both those alive today, and those who preceded them in recent generations) experienced to be doubly-done-dirty: For the fate of their ancestors, brought here in shackles in large measure because of the color of their skin (there wasn’t a widescale slave trade for white Scandinavians in the mid-1600s, for example), and for the subsequent discrimination and relegation to second-class status they lived through after earning their national freedom.

The indignities of Jim Crow America (which was as alive and well in the liberal northeast of my birth as it was in the deep south of Old Dixie) were incalculable, and had many fathers.

I also can understand the discomfort for many African-Americans when a comparison is made between the centuries-long fight for civil rights and the modern struggle for LGBT rights. I don’t want to rehash the arguments— that you can’t choose the color of your skin (no smarmy remarks about Michael Jackson are necessary), while the nature/ nurture causes of sexual identity remain subject to interpretation—because that smacks of moral relativism: Human rights isn’t a zero-sum game, where one group’s comforts and security are enjoyed at the expense of another’s.

It is an American trait to feel outrage at injustice (often colored by one’s innerpolitical- voice, which regulates your sympathy level for the plight of say, Cuban refugees over Haitian ones, or your choice to support a boycott of South Africa, but not Cuba), and to help someone who is down. (This was the “John Wayne”- dynamic which shaped America’s post- WWII foreign policy, under which we would rebuild and help prosper those nations that had taken a righteous “lickin’” at our hands, once they had admitted their wrong actions, and recognized our official Bad Assedness, much like the “Duke” did after a bar fight in a western saloon.)

I think that Mitt Romney has trouble finding that sense of outrage toward injustice. Don’t misread me: I think he cares about right and wrong, and I think he was on the side of right last week when he reaffirmed a position he first stated in 1994: “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,”

Romney said during his failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy. At the time, he added that he supports “the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue” (which is also an Americanized spin on liberty). Gov. Romney can take pride in beating President Obama to the punch on this one. Gay kids need all the allies and support they can get.

But I think that his laudatory sympathy and sense of fair play for the plight of children and teenagers doesn’t translate into “big picture” empathy for those gay Americans who want ALL their civil rights NOW, thank you. After President Obama endorsed marriage equality in May, Romney reiterated “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not.” Oh really?

My own sense of outrage—to say nothing of my gorge—begins to rise when I ask myself “Who the hell does Romney think he is, telling me what he thinks is good for the future of my—or your—loving relationships?” I get it, Mitt: The descendant of polygamists must toe a special line when it comes to the “M” word. But it seems like that should be his problem, not mine.

A little-recalled footnote in the history of African-American civil rights is the so-called “Atlanta Compromise,” an 1895 agreement struck between African- American leaders and Southern white politicians. It called for Southern blacks to work for substandard weekly wages, and to submit to white political rule. Although Southern whites would guarantee that blacks would receive basic education and due process under the law, blacks would not be allowed to “agitate” for equality, integration, or justice, they would not ask for the right to vote, they would tolerate segregation and discrimination, and they would not retaliate against racist behavior and violence.

The primary architect of the compromise (on behalf of African- Americans) was Booker T. Washington, President of the Tuskegee Institute and a national black leader. Later, other prominent African-Americans, including W. E. B. Du Bois and William Monroe Trotter, saw the compromise for what it was, and believed that American blacks must take their own futures in hand (the fruit of their vision was the NAACP). It wasn’t until after Booker T. Washington’s death in 1915, that black support for his accommodational second-class citizenship shifted to an allegiance for activism. But what might modern civil rights look like today if Washington’s compromise had prevailed? How will LGBT rights look four years from now if we accommodate Romney and his “vision?”

Cliff Dunn - Editor Florida Agenda

ORLANDO – Just days after President Barack Obama announced his support for marriage equality, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization reiterated its own support for gay marriage and other LGBT rights as civil rights.

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said that “It’s the responsibility and history of the NAACP to speak up on the civil rights issues of our times. The NAACP now firmly opposes all efforts to restrict marriage equality.” Jealous’ words echo similar sentiments to those of Julian Bond, a past NAACP board chairman, who also spoke strongly in favor of the resolution of the NAACP board of directors to endorse same sex unions.

The resolution read in part, “We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

But both Bond and Jealous know that the strongly evangelical nature of most African American churches— which interpret the Bible as the true word of God—have previously stood in the way of alliances between LGBT rights activists and black pastors, whose Bibles describe homosexual behavior as an “abomination.”

Surveys show that 62 percent of American blacks oppose marriage equality, while more than half of all Americans support it.

By Cliff Dunn

Photo: Cardinal Francis George (Courtesy: CNS/Nancy Wiechec)

Gay rights groups in and around Chicago are condemning the city’s Roman Catholic leader for what they say is comparing the LGBT rights movement to the Ku Klux Klan.

The offending remarks from Cardinal Francis George were said during an interview on December 21 with Fox Chicago. Asked for his opinion about a local pastor’s complaints that the annual gay pride parade was forcing his parish to cancel its morning mass, George said he supported the priest’s position.

Said George: “You don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism,” an apparent reference to attempts by members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of America to march in nearby Skokie, Illinois in the late 1970s.

When pressed by the reporter, George admitted that his words were provocative, but repeated the acknowledged that it was a strong analogy, but stood by his reasoning. “The rhetoric of the KKK and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people — Who is the enemy? The Catholic Church,” George reiterated.

Organizers of Chicago’s annual pride parade agreed on December 21 to begin the event at a later start time after officials with Our Lady of Mt.

Carmel Catholic Church said that to the proposed route blocked access to their parish’s Sunday Masses.

Equally Blessed, a coalition of Catholic groups that advocate LGBT rights, said that Cardinal George’s remarks were “crude” and “demagogic.” In a statement, the group wrote: “Cardinal George’s offensive comments are further evidence of just how insensitive and out of touch the hierarchy is, and why opposition to its views is necessary.”

The embattled cardinal seemed to backtrack from his comments during a subsequent interview on Christmas Day, telling ABC in Chicago that “obviously, it’s absurd to say the gay and lesbian community are the Ku Klux Klan. But if you organize a parade that looks like parades that we’ve had in our past because it stops us from worshiping God, well then that’s the comparison. But it’s not with people and people – it’s parade-parade.”

Meanwhile, LGBT rights group Truth Wins Out called for George to step down from his pastoral duties in a full page ad that ran in The Chicago Tribune on New Year’s Day.

ORLANDO, FL – Opponents of Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer came out swinging against his reelection to his post last week.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, mayoral candidate Mike Cantone called on Dyer to adopt gay-friendly legislation that would apply to companies doing business with the City of Orlando. Further, Cantone blamed Dyer for not moving quickly enough on a proposed domestic partnership registry. Dyer is pushing a measure which would make it easier for gays to make decisions affecting their partners. The city already offers domestic partner benefits to its own employees, a measure approved since Dyer was elected mayor, but Cantone said the city must do more.

The Conservative Marketeer Changes Name and Fights Back

By Alex Vaughn

A small group of gay rights activists have put many of the country’s largest retailers on notice over their indirect and, until recently, unnoticed roles in funneling money to Christian groups that are vocal in opposing homosexuality.

As reported in the Florida Agenda earlier this year, more than 600 companies were listed at www.cvn.org, the Christian Value Network’s domain that hosts links to various corporate online stores. Among the groups using the Christian Values Network to raise money were Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Summit Ministries, Abiding Truth Ministries and the Liberty Counsel.

Each organization has been identified as an anti-gay “hate group,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Dozens of major companies like Netflix, Target, Best Buy, REI, Delta Air Lines, Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Walmart and even Sesame Street participated in CVN’s service. When customers made purchases through CVN, a donation was made to the charity of the customer’s choice.

In recent months, thanks to a remarkably successful online boycott campaign including change.org, major companies, such as Microsoft and Apple, rushed to disassociate themselves from CVN. Since then, CVN has changed their name to Charity Giveback Group or CGBG.

Once again, advocates are demanding that the retailers end their association with the Internet marketeer that gets a commission from the retailers for each online customer it gives them. It is a routine arrangement on hundreds of e-commerce sites, but again, a share of the commission that retailers pay is donated to a Christian charity of the buyer’s choice. They are asked to select from a list that includes prominent conservative evangelical groups.

Now, the marketeer, CGBG and the Christian groups are fighting back, saying that the hundred or so companies that have dropped the marketeer were misled and that the charities are being slandered for their religious beliefs.

The national battle was ignited in July by Stuart Wilber, a 73-year-old gay man in Seattle. He was astonished, he said, when he learned that people who bought Microsoft products through a Christian-oriented Internet marketer could channel a donation to evangelical organizations that call homosexual behavior a threat to the moral and social fabric of the nation.

“I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding, Microsoft?’” Wilber notied that the software giant — like many other corporations accessible through the commerce site, including Apple and Netflix — was known as friendly to gay causes.

In July, Mr. Wilber went to a web site that helps groups and individuals circulate petitions, called Change.org, and started one, asking Microsoft to end its association with what he called “hate groups.” By that night, 520 people had signed, with their ire copied to Microsoft officials — and Microsoft quietly dropped out of the donation plan. Much to Mr. Wilber’s surprise, this would be the start of an electronic conflict that has put hundreds of well-known companies in an unwelcome glare.

Caught in the middle between angry gay-rights advocates and bloggers wielding the strength of the gay community’s purchasing power on one side and the conservative Christian groups that say they are being attacked for their legitimate biblical views of sex and marriage on the other side are the retailers.

Companies, including such giants as Macy’s, Expedia and Delta Air Lines, have the dual aims of avoiding politics but not offending any consumers. They are now being pressured to make a choice that may involve little money either way, but that could offend large blocks of consumers.

“This is economic terrorism,” said former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate and pastor Mike Huckabee who is a paid CGBG consultant. “To try to destroy a business because you don’t like some of the customers is, to me, unbelievably un-American,” he said in an interview.

As word of Mr. Wilber’s victory spread virally, Ben Crowther, a college student in Bellingham, Washington, started a similar Internet appeal to Apple, which soon succeeded after drawing 22,700 signers.

AllOut.org, a gay-rights group in New York with hundreds of thousands of e-mail-ready members, focused on the travel industry, helped to push Avis, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Expedia and many other hotels and travel agencies to disassociate themselves from CGBG.

Close to 100 companies have left the charity arrangement, though most refuse to discuss the matter. These have become the objects, in turn, of a counter-campaign from the Christian groups — “Please Don’t Discriminate Against My Faith” is the heading of a sample letter — and of high-level entreaties from Mr. Huckabee and other Christian leaders.

A few companies that briefly left the network have been persuaded to rejoin, including Delta, PetSmart, Sam’s Club, Target and Wal-Mart.

Beyond condemning the advocates’ efforts as an infringement on consumer freedom, Mr. Huckabee said it was offensive to apply the “hate group” label to organizations that are legal, peaceful and promote biblical values.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a hate group for “regularly pumping out known falsehoods that demonize the gay community,” said Mark Potok, a project director at the law center — and not, he said, because the council calls homosexuality a sin or opposes gay marriage. The falsehoods, he said, include the discredited claim that gay men are especially prone to pedophilia.

The Family Research Council has accused the law center of “slanderous attacks.”

Advocates insist that their push is not anti-Christian. “It has nothing to do with biblical positions,” said Mr. Steele, the blogger.

“It has to do with the fact that these groups spread lies and misinformation about millions of Americans.”

The discomfort of retailers has been evident in their varied responses. Expedia, in an e-mail to AllOut.org in August, confirmed that it had withdrawn from the network. “Expedia values diversity in its employee base and customer base and does not support discrimination of any kind based on sexual orientation,” the message said.

Barneys New York said it had left CGBG because of the site’s support for groups that promote discrimination.

But Microsoft, though it led the way with its swift response, has never said a public word about it, nor has Apple been willing to do more than confirm that it no longer is associated with CGBG.

This summer, Macy’s told Change.org that it had left the network because “Macy’s serves a diverse society” and is “deeply committed to a philosophy of inclusion.”

In a statement explaining why it had returned to the network, Wal-Mart and its sister company Sam’s Club said their marketing affiliates included “more than 43,000 diverse organizations” that “serve a wide range of interests with diverse viewpoints.”

Delta changed course “because of the letters we received from several faith-based leaders,” including Mr. Huckabee, said Chris Kelly Singley, manager of corporate communications. “This was important to them, and we were willing to reconsider,” she said, adding that Delta had a history of supporting gay and lesbian causes.

“We don’t want to engage in a political debate,” Ms. Singley said. “And we just thought we were flying airplanes.”

Alex Vaughn

Whenever anyone moves to a new place, there is a period of settling in, learning the law of the land, understanding how people conduct themselves. It doesn’t take long to see major differences between one place and another. Some positive; some not.

I recently moved from London to South Florida. Here, you smile at people on the street, you say good morning to fellow runners you pass, you engage in chit-chat in the elevator, you tip more than 10% and so on. Quality of life in terms of material possessions is not only celebrated but also encouraged. These all serve to put the USA and South Florida ahead in my view.

Yet here, in the land of the free, home of the brave, and a former AAA credit rating, the one thing that sticks out as flawed and as glaringly different from Europe is gay rights in relation to the government.

A few weeks ago, our cover story was about America weighing in on gay policies of a foreign country, throwing its weight around per se. As recently as two weeks ago, America announced it would be “forcibly campaigning” for gay rights in Africa. These both sound positive, and they are. But I would love to know how the U.S. government can get involved abroad whilst rights in America’s own backyard are somewhat of a joke.

In Europe, the hot button issues affecting the LGBT community (i.e., marriage, adoption and healthcare) have all been taken care of long ago. By taken care of I mean acknowledged and major steps have been taken. For instance, the UK is now considering calling “civil partnerships” (which have been in place since Dec. 2005) “marriage.” Ludicrous that it has already been working for six years at a government level, whereas here the best we have is a handful of states that allow something — be it marriage, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships. Seriously, as a leading free country of the western world, why is America so far behind?

The illogical government policies are a major factor. I have recently been informed that gay laws like any laws passed during one president’s term can be overturned by the next. Or state laws overturned by the next governor. Am I the  only person who finds that absurd? Furthermore, why is gay marriage taking so long to hit a federal law? Repeatedly, polls have indicated that a majority of voters are in favor of marriage rights for all. Please – someone take it, sign it and move on.

In a democracy, the majority leads. Why are we still talking about it? Move on to policies that genuinely have the country in turmoil – war, terrorism, and the economy. America was once a leading economic power. It has been downgraded. That’s right. The country built on the American dream, the land of opportunity, has been downgraded.

When you look at the big picture, you can’t help but be bemused by the way the government works. Laws are written with so many loopholes and smoke and mirrors to ensure their passage that they ultimately become limited, blocked, or in some way not 100%. For example, though DADT has been repealed finally, there have not been steps to implement equal benefits  for same-sex spouses of those serving.

No healthcare, nor death benefits. Furthermore, what is going to happen to those who now come out, serving openly and proudly. What happens to them if certain Republicans win the national election with a stated mandate to repeal the repeal of DADT?

On paper, Wilton Manors, Key West, Miami, Tampa and other cities in Florida seem like the perfect places for gay people to move. And in many ways, they are. However, we still live under the control of the U.S. government, which means, equal rights don’t exist quite yet. You can hold hands in the street, but you can’t get married. You can go to a bar openly and kiss, but you can’t receive the same health benefits from your partner that a husband and wife can expect. The list goes on.

From an outsider’s point of view, it seems like gay issues are great for the tug of war on a presidency. They seem to offer the right balance of glamour and disgust in equal measure. You have people in government like Sally Kern and her hate speech warning of how gays are worse than terrorism. I mean really? How does someone in a position of power say these things? A free country it may be, but I can’t imagine anyone getting away with that kind of bile in Europe. On the other hand, you have the gloss of support from Anne Hathaway and Brad Pitt. The gay issues in government are like a really poor production of a comedy of errors. The stars are there, but the storyline is dire.

It is 2011 and America is stuck some 20 years ago. People in power STILL place the blame of HIV at the doors of the gays. Wake up! Activists aren’t fighting for unique or unusual laws to protect gay people. They are basic.

How can a country run when no one really understands how the government works? It is supposed to be for the people. Yet, youoften hear about closed-door meetings to decide the rights of, let’s face it, a powerful part of American society.

As the country embraces gay people, when will the government catch up? Neil Patrick Harris, Jane Lynch, Ellen DeGeneres, Mary Cheney, Chaz Bono are people making changes, moving forward, being who they are. And I join the applause for them. Yet, in a place where there are more gay people in the public eye than anywhere else in the world, how can a government still play silly buggers with people’s rights. STILL be arguing over laws that, if passed, would undoubtedly bolster the U.S. in terms of respect from a global perspective and economic growth.

Do they not realize the bottom line? Marriage for gays will have a tremendous effect on the economy; and not just from a domestic dollar standpoint either. How have they not caught onto the fact that courting the pink pound, euro or yen is a great theory and, for many, San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale, NYC, and D.C. are great tourist draws because of it. Think how much further that foreign currency would go if rights were afforded to all of America’s LGBT community.

Ask yourself, would you visit a country with anti-gay laws? No of course not. It’s wrong, unfair and immoral. Well, amusingly, the former AAA country of America is one of them and, scarily, this upcoming presidential election could enlist a host of new anti-gay laws. That alone is a reason to consider your vote. What is the difference between

the anti-gay laws at home vs. those America wants to fight abroad? Not a lot when they both entail imprisonment for being who you are.

Alex Vaughn is the Editor-in-Chief of the Florida Agenda. He can be reached at editor@FloridaAgenda.com

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND – The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution which condemned discrimination against gays and lesbians. The resolution was sponsored by South Africa in opposition of treatment of gays and lesbians in African and Muslim countries.

The votes on the resolution passed by 23 to 19, with 3 abstentions. The United States voted in favor of the resolution.

HAVANA, CUBA – A parade was held in Havana last week marking the International Day Against Homophobia. This was the first such parade of support held in the Communist county. Dozens of people participated marching down the street waving rainbow flags and banging on drums.

The march was organized by the niece of Fidel Castro, Mariela Castro, who has been campaigning for gay rights and heads the government’s National Sexual Education Center.

KAMPALA, UGANDA – Despite passing the Uganda parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, the entire Ugandan parliament failed to act upon the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which provided for the death penalty for homosexual activities.

The parliament adjourned without a specific date set for the members of parliament to return.

The Ugandan bill has been widely condemned by government human rights groups throughout the world and has been nicknamed the “Kill the Gays Bill”.