Re: Bud vs. Kyle on Gay Rights

[Drew McDougal]

I think I've kinda been avoiding this subject on Jsmog, though I've posted about it on a few news sites. Avoiding, I think, because I have a good number of friends who are gay and lesbian, and wouldn't argue that they should "wait their turn" when it comes to ending the discrimination they face. Obviously, I'd love for both DADT and DOMA to be stricken tomorrow, and for gay marriage and universal recognition of equal rights for gays/lesbians to be the law of the land. But, since you asked, I find I'm with more with Kyle in his support for Obama's current strategy than I am with those on the left who think Obama has some hidden magic power to bend reality to his will.

I understand GLBT impatience and frustration at the slow pace of change. But I believe both DADT and DOMA will be better, permanently, repealed through acts of congress rather than short-lived executive fiat. I also believe national recognition of gay marriage will come to pass as more states (6 already) approve it through their legislatures and/or courts. I fear that any executive attempt to negate those laws through executive order, and/or push gay marriage at the federal level, will only end in a case before a US Supreme Court which currently leans conservative - potentially halting the progress we can achieve in the next few years on these issues. Many leaders in the GLBT community share that fear, especially where gay marriage is concerned. (Read discussions on the Ted Olson and David Boies decision to take Prop 8 to court.)

Why? Our nation is built on the system of law - and the law is a strange beast.

Case in point - A good deal of the anti-Obama GLBT community outrage is coming as a result of the DOJs recent defense of DOMA. Many people argue that Obama (though, really it was an AAG appointed by Bush who did the work) was comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. That interpretation of the brief is (admittedly understandable) the harshest reading available, and disregards the fact that DOMA applies to more than just homosexual marriages.

The legal defense inherent in those citations was that states shouldn't be forced to recognize marriages from other states they deem unacceptable. The examples listed - marriage of uncle to niece, marriage of first cousins, marriage of 16-year-old female to an adult male - were actually legal marriages in the states in which they were performed. If they were legal in those states, they were, by legal definition, neither pedophilia, nor incest. The couples in those marriages tried to have their marriages recognized in other states in which they were considered, by legal definition, pedophilia and incest.

Some gay rights advocates would have the Obama administration disregard the foundations of legal precedent and, through inaction, force states to accept incest/pedophilia marriages (which the gay advocates obviously abhor themselves, given their reaction to their mention in the brief) just to serve their efforts to force states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Lawyers know that legal precedent is supreme in a court of law, and must be used to bend the law to their side, lest it break against them.

I also believe the legislative process is similarly arcane.  As with the current blame-Obama disappointment in the environmental community over the less-than-perfect Climate/Energy bill that passed the house, I recognize the president does not have the power to force members of congress to pass bills, and/or pass them with all the stipulations he, or we, might wish for. The legislative process, like the law, is guided by procedure, and subject to traps. Procedural hurdles make it possible for minority legislators to stall legislation or pile it up with so much extra garbage it becomes un-passable. Also, as the Clinton health care initiative taught us, legislators don't take kindly to having a president, even one of their own party, dictate legislation to them from on high. Obama and Rahm Emmanuel recognize this above all else, and so have largely let the Dems in congress draft major legislation, working quietly behind the scenes to push for desired provisions and shepherd votes.

Additionally, Democrats may have majorities, but many of the recent gains were in rural, conservative districts. Moderate/Conservative Dems/Independents in those areas of the country give Obama high popularity ratings precisely because he has taken a moderate approach so far - not despite it. Failure to understand the broad coalition behind his approval numbers, a coalition that made current Dem majorites possible, is a dangerous path for progressives. I believe attempts and threats to purify the party of moderate/conservative Dems will leave it in the same condition republicans are today.

No president, no matter how popular with the public, can force the House, or especially the Senate, to enact whatever legislation he/she deems fit. Moderate Dems can't be cowed by progressive threats to take away funding or support - because they know if they abandon their moderate/conservative principals for money, their moderate/conservative constituents back home will vote them out of office anyways.

Moderate Democratic legislators will be won over by a deliberate, and successful approach to enacting long stalled energy, health care, and other Democratic favored legislation. Democratic legislative success, as well as a hopeful turn around in the economy early next year, will give them something to show the people back home and the president something to use to further push them farther to the left. Success speaks for itself. Success of the left-of-center agenda will push the post mid-term agenda further left-ward. Failure will lead to failure. The current make-up of congress, pushing hard for a "far-left" agenda will end in gridlock - and their wwe'll be stuck with DADT and DOMA for another generation.

I believe the Obama team knows all this, and is taking a long approach to their task at hand. As a progressive, would I be happier if Obama could wave a magic wand and fullfill all his campaign promises? You bet. But we're only 6 months into one of the most challenging presidencies in history. I realize that patience is hard, but I believe it is required. (Or maybe I'm just a ZObamaie) And if I'm wrong about his intentions, and none of this comes to pass in the next four years, you can tell me "I told you so." I'll say, "You were right, and I was wrong," and then we'll get back to the business of trying to change the world.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Bud Curtis <bud...@gmail.com> wrote:

So Kyle and I had it out the other night in chat. If one could say Kyle belonged to certain religion it would be the religion of Obama. He a true believing follower of Obamanism. Obama can do no wrong by Kyle. Don't get me wrong, I really like Obama, and I am happy about a lot of things he is doing, but in the end I can't forget that Obama is just a politician and not a God. There are some issues that I take objection to that I believe Obama is really taking the wrong direction on. One of those issues, beside the cluster fuck that is the bank bailouts, is the gay rights issues. Like Gibbs Kyle was trying to explain to me that Obama's current stance is all strategery and there is a time and place to focus on those issues because right now there are more important issues to be focusing on. I call that absolute bullshit. When you run a campaign on equal rights, bad economy or good economy, you don't elected into office and put equal rights on the back burner. Especially when it's well know that gay marriage for one would provide a huge boon on the economy. Anyway, here's how our chat went. I would like to bring this subject up on jsmog and challenge Kyle on the public forum but because we already ripped each others heads off, maybe one of you guys would be interested in taking him on?

11:27 PM Kyle: yo should read what I just posted

11:29 PM me: nice

11:30 PM Kyle: if I had a clue, that should effectively end that thread

 me: future scenario:

11:31 PM Man1: "Hey, now that the fighting has begun, what are we fighting about again?"

  Man2: "The crappy Public Health Care Option!!"

11:32 PM Man1: "But we're totaly healthy now and so is my family! And we've actually saved the government a bunch of money in emergency room costs!"

  Man2: Bang! "You're Dead because I'm a whacko conservative douchebag."

11:35 PM Kyle: you should post that

  or send to Tom Tomorrow

  so, who bugs you more?

  right-wingers who criticize Obama

  or far-leftists who are pissed that he hasn't overthrown capitalism yet?

11:38 PM now I'm in an email flame war with David Sirota of all people

11:39 PM me: seriously?

  right-wingers of course

 Kyle: oh yeah

  but you expect they're stupid bullshit

  "he's a Marxist muslim! socialist! will ake your guns and omney away!"

  its left-wingers that drive me up the wall

11:40 PM you point out what Obama's doing

  "yeah, but its not enough. he should be pushing for a single-payer health care."

  jesus fucking christ, you don't have a clue how D.C. works

 me: i hear ya

 Kyle: but don't let that interfere with feeling holier than thou

 me: although I haven't been happy with how he's been dealing with the banks for awhile

11:41 PM I'm with Krugman and Hartmann on that one

  but yeah, Iran, the stimulus I'm with him

  although the gay issues have been bugging me lately

  Obama seems to missing the boat on that one as well

11:44 PM Kyle: he's only trying to save our economy and fix health care

  I think those issues are more important

  I got married in Oregon the summer after Measure 36 passed, which ensured discrimination into our state's constitution.

I was a little worried at first, but then after this Measure passed, I breathed a sigh of relief. Luckily, my fellow Oregonians stood up to protect me. I mean, if gays had been allowed to have gotten married, that would have meant I wouldn't be bale to. Or something. Right?

When are these states going to have referendums banning divorce in their constitutions? After all, we need to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' or some BS like that.

Oh, and let's not forget the children!

11:45 PM me: how hard is it to introduce legislation "Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell so we can stop sending skilled and trained service men home, some of which are arabic translators"

  k, done.

  next

 Kyle: totally!

  no bullshit poltiical argument!

  sucking all the air

 me: instead, "Obama defends gay marriage ban..." WTF!?

 Kyle: making it impossible to deal with important issues

  its a bck burner

11:46 PM me: yeah, see I think that's bullshit

 Kyle: he's trying to make sure he doesn't cut out his feet under him

  like Clinton did in his first term

 me: and then he tries to placate the gays with his pseudo federal benefits

 Kyle: first two years actually

 me: whatever. He better not start taking advantage of the gay vote

 Kyle: and had to regroup after 94

11:47 PM do you want the GOP to take back COngress in 2010?

  why give them anything to rally behind?

  why not be jsut slightly a little politically smart about this?

 me: they won't considering like 70+% of the country wants DODT repealed

 

 Kyle: hm

  anywyas, Obama will move on gay rights after the mid-terms

  if not, I'll be pissed as well

  but it seems like everyone wants him to change a generation's worth of ingrained poor thinking yesterday

11:51 PM he has to figure it out

  Lincoln wasn't a supporter of civil rights, you know

  and found slavery to be an affront to god, yet gave all these speeches that justified state's rights to own slaves, etc.

11:52 PM yet he's considered our greatest President

11:53 PM me: there's nothing to figure out and that's just centrist bs

  he's going to be back for a 2nd term

  he won by a landslide and has a huge mandate

 Kyle: of course he will

 me: the only reason his polls have slipped a little is because now it looks like he's waffling on some campaign promises

11:54 PM Kyle: jfc

 me: and not the hard complex stuff like health care reform

 Kyle: yeah

 me: we're talking the simplest easy no brainers

 Kyle: b/c people wanted a lifetime's worht of change yesterday

 me: repleasing DADT doesn't take the parting of the red sea

 Kyle: that's what my flame war with avid Sirota is about

 me: jfc

 Kyle: well, opening the doors to Cuba doen't either

  or repealing NAFTA

  why hasn't he done those eitehr?

11:55 PM asshole!

 me: it's didn't even take the parting of the red seas when clinton enacted it

 Kyle: b/c CLinton was backed into a corner when he passed it

 me: comparing DADT to NAFTA is like saying gay marriage will lead to people marrying goats

  c'mon

 Kyle: he was asked, a week after being elected- not even President yet- "are you going to have gays serve openly?"

  and he said "of course"

  well, three motnhs later, how did that turn out?

11:56 PM um, why?

 me: yeah, that's quite a corner Obama is backed into right now

  what with a majority in each house, a electoral mandate

 Kyle: two poorly planned out pieces of legislation that need to be scrapped?

 me: and a campaign promise to do so

 Kyle: and he will, for fuck's sake

 me: yeah, i don't buy "we need to get people work" bullshit

11:57 PM 13k solders have been let go since clinton enacted DADT

  it's the right thing to do and people want him to do it

 Kyle: let's see how many campaign promises are either stalled/ in the works/ in action

  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

 me: and he said he would when he ran

 Kyle: oh yes, over 460

11:58 PM but let's al lget pissy because the one we want him to take care of yesterday he hasn't ogtten to yet

  that's 460 campaign promises that he said he would do when he ran

  460

 me: I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the gay issues?

 Kyle: wow

  thats a lot

 me: I think I said I've been happy with him on lots of other things

  quit playing your Brent games with me

 Kyle: oh, is that the only thing we were talking about?

11:59 PM yes, you're pissed that he hasn't overturned DADT yet

  jsut like he hasn't acted on many, mnay, mnay other promises he said he'd do

  but I guess this one trumps them all

  or something

12:00 AM me: and this is probably the easiest one to fullfuill since we are fighting on two fronts and skilled and trained solders are being sent home

 Kyle: so....

  hm...

 me: so to counter it, he tries to placate them with half ass federal benefits. embarassing

 Kyle: I wonder why it hasn't?

  I mean, its so easy

  like, jsut do it, right?

  no problem

 me: exactly

 Kyle: stroke of the pen?

  and every body wil lcheer?

12:01 AM how about the fact that 40 men stand in the way of public health care that 72% of the country wants

  I mean

  so easy

 me: fuck, bush would walk in with both majorities and say "I want to invade Iraq" and in a couple months we were.

 Kyle: 72% of hte country

 me: grow some balls

 Kyle: what's the problem?

  yeah

 me: Obama has way more clout than Bush ever did

 Kyle: he said that in September of an election year

12:02 AM why was the vote to give Bush war pwoers rushed?

  Democrats said, "what we can't discuss this?"

  and Republicans laughed in their face

  who kicked ass in 2002?

  remind me

 me: Oh. I'm sorry Kyle, you're right, that was a bad example

12:03 AM I meant to say, Bush walks in with majorities in both houses and says "I want to slash taxes for the rich" and in a couple months they were

 Kyle: comapring DADT to Iraq is like comparing gay marriage to a man raping his daughter

  yes

 me: well, for one I'm not comparing DADT to Iraq

12:04 AM Kyle: Obama is trying to prevent a 2nd Depression with no supprot from the minority party

 me: I'm comparing Bush walking in with both majorities and getting shit done with barely a 1% electoral win, and Obama "waiting until after the mid-terms"

12:05 AM Kyle: and he says, "by the way, I know you guys who are agaisnt me for saving the economy and reforming health care are all homophobes, but gay people can now totally serve openly in the military."

 me: on shit as simple as repealing DADT

 Kyle: gosh, how would the process in D.C. go for fixing the economy and health care

 me: somehow he seemed to find the time to close down Gitmo, which is way less complicated than repealing a simple one sentence policy

 Kyle: health care's all ready tenuous as it is, with Dems showing divisions

12:06 AM then we need a bunch of homophobe- lets not forget the homophobe "Blue Dogs" saying "fuck you"

  so, maybe DADT should be put on the back burner?

  yeah

 me: well, whatever, hope he gets around to it. It's good to see you're keeping up the good fight to put equal rights on the back burner. I mean afterall, there's probably nothing more insulting than playing partisan politics with someone's equal rights. There's way more important things than equal rights. But hey, you were able to get married so cool, move on to more important things....

 Kyle: that's what I thought

  closing Gitmo is easy

  ?

  thats news to me

 me: Yeah, that was sarcasm. Sorry, you didn't pick that up. Yes, closing Gitmo is far from easy. My point exactly. He found time for that somehow. What a clusterfuck that turned out to be. He should have just repealed DADT. Way easier. I hope the gay vote doesn't turn against him in the mid-terms. But they won't go to the Republicans so once again, I guess they just get taken advantage of.

12:07 AM Kyle: yeah

  me too

 Kyle: b/c its toally a post mid-term issue

 me: right, i forgot, it's an odd year year. Gay issues are only important on even years.

12:08 AM Kyle: actually

  if the election is 2010

  and then the new COngress starts

  it would be 2011

  so

  that would be an odd year

 me: but obama will be bringing the issues up during the even year campaign will he not?

  y'know, because of the mid-terms?

 Kyle: I'm sure he will be

12:09 AM me: okay, so 2010 is an even year

 Kyle: wow

  you have a point there!

 me: great

 Kyle: I guess it will be 'important' during an even year, as its a campaign year

12:10 AM but probably more 'important' during an odd year, when legislation can be passed

  with expanded Dem margins

 me: and less important now, when it could be useful in Afghanistan and Iraq

 Kyle: due to the lack of red meat given to the Republican die hards

 me: that is a good point

  thank you

 Kyle: or, maybe

  expanded progressieve Dems

12:11 AM who beat cosnervative Blue Dogs in primaries

 me: blah blah blah, politcal strategy my ass, it's still bs. Kyle you are so better than this. We voted for a president who will do the right thing, not play partisan games. People get elected back into office by a landslide because they do the right thing, which is all everyone wants, not because they are doing some partisan strategy to try ensure they get back into office. People can see through that and that's when the election is super close. And if they do manage to get back in it's by the skin of their teeth and some push polling that actually worked to their favor. That's why we've seen Obama's polls slip 5 points or so just in the last week or so.

 Kyle: yeah, because of this one issue

12:12 AM me: so maybe he'll get around to it when it's politically expediant for him, i dunno

 Kyle: no, its this one issue that's truly the most important

  I understand

 me: i would have let it slide if he didn't try to insult the gays with his half ass federal benefit bs either

12:13 AM Kyle: so gay federal employees shouldn't get any benefits?

 me: i would have been find if waited until the mid-terms and focussed on real gay marriage protection as well

  instead of this

  gay federal employees should get full benefitsbut the DODT is an issue that concerns us right now considering we are fighting right now. 

12:14 AM Kyle: okay

  here's the thing

  20 years from now

  gays will be able to marry and have full benefits, etc.

  20 years from now

  we'll have a public health care option

  right now it kind of sucks b/c we don't have those things

  Obama will lay the groundwork for that eventual result

12:15 AM and people will be upset that the result isn't more instaneous

12:16 AM me: no, here's the deal, obama is going to be president for fact, for another 3.5 years, and he'll be elected a 2nd term because there are several things he's kicking ass at

  and Congress can choose to ride with him or not

  but that's really up to them

12:17 AM Kyle: yep

  so-

 me: and they loose in 2010 it won't be because OBAMA wasn't doing the right thing when the right thing needed to be done

 Kyle: who's the Congress person who's introduced legislation to repeal DADT?

 me: it's because Congress wasn't there to back him up

  no, Obama introduces the bill

  JFC

 Kyle: the President can't introduce legislation

12:18 AM me: he's the one with the popularity

  OMG

 Kyle: he can't sponser a bill

 me: i don't me he physically introduces the bill himself

 Kyle: someone needs to do it on his behalf

  or can just go ahead and do it

 me: no, it doesn't need to be a particular person at all

12:19 AM it can go to a committee

  committee's can sponsor bills too

  in fact most of the president's bills either go to the finance or the rules committees first

12:20 AM but the bill will say "sponsored by the Finance committe by request of the president of the united states"

  done, final vote, alright good, next!

12:21 AM look, you can get all testy with me and whatever

 Kyle: oh, right

 me: i like obama and I like a lot of the stuff he's done/doing

 Kyle: "executive communication"

 me: and obama said himself that we aren't going to agree with him on everything

  and this is one of those issues

 Kyle: I just don't think a vote to repeal DADT will break down so easy

  what about EFCHA

12:22 AM me: so why don't you rip my head off about it?

 Kyle: isnt that no brainer

  don't we have a union-friednly President wit ha mandate & majorities?

  than whats the problem?

 me: what is EFCHA?

 Kyle: Employee Free Chocie Act

 me: oh right

  don't know much about it

12:23 AM only been following what you guys have written on jsmog

 Kyle: hm

 me: what is the deal with that?

 Kyle: its a highly contentious piece of legislation

  that will make elections to join a union easier

  so, of course, big business and chamber of commerce are ramping up agains t it

  and not all Dems are on board

  and thats how I think DADT will be a s well

 me: something about making how a person votes in a union public to the employer? or the union boss?

12:24 AM Kyle: yeah

  its a vote to join a union, not by secret ballot

  but in open election

  I think

  and if 51% of a workplace votes yes, you're unionized

  so, if you can, check this guy out:

  http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=548606298

  h'es a buddy of mine

12:25 AM me: well, clearly what we need to do is kick all the blue dogs out of the party and say "good riddance!"

  lol

12:26 AM 

Kyle: oh, okay

  well, I should go

  up too late

 me: k, ttyl

 Kyle: up early

  bye

 me: cya soon

--
Buaidh no bas

[Juneau Smog]

Drew, first of all, I don't know if Kyle minds that his private personal chat conversation was posted on a public forum, one that is also searchable by search engines, but I do particularly mind that it was also my private personal chat conservation that was posted.

 

Second, thank you for addressing the subject from a sane rational perspective making it easier for me to examine your point of view and question that with mine, instead of purposefully trying to make me feel like an idiot, which only results in me being more stand-offish, defensive, and resistant to whatever point you are trying to get across.

 

Third, I believe I am in agreement with you now on whether we have to protect gay marriage right at this very instant or wait until the time is apprpriate. I remember thinking the same thing when those two lawyers who faught against each other during Gore v Bush in 2000 decided to join forces and fight gay marriage rights all the way to supreme court. That's all well and good, but the states are just now coming around. 5 years ago we were far from five states legalizing gay marriage, much less Iowa of all places. Even though there are 45 states to go, the momentum is building. If this goes to the Supreme Court, which it eventually will, a decision to nationally approve gay marriage will have much more broader public appeal once half the states or more have already leaglized it, and vice versa if they vote against it. At this current point, with only 5 days doing the right thing, a vote against nationally legalizing gay marriage from the Supreme Court would appear in line with the current state of public opinion, and dampen any further attempts to get more states onboard. I can see holding off or waiting for another governmental body to handle this quite partisan issue for the an appriate time in order to ensure it gets its proper due in courts, while essential problems such as jobs, housing, war, economy are dealt with in the immediacy. However, this is still an equal rights issue and needs to be addressed as soon as it is prudent IMO.

 

Fourth, I don't believe I am in agreement with you yet on DADT. We are currently at war in Afganistan, and we're sending home valueable trained soldiers, commanders, translators, etc, because of this stupid policy. The soliders want them to stay, their comrades want them to stay, the commanders want them to stay, and the American people want them to stay. The only people who seem to be out of touch with this reality are those inside the beltway. This is not something that needs to wait a year and a half until the mid-term elections. In fact I'm not even sure who's side it's going to help by waiting. Will it help the Democrats? Well, the people want the Democrats who are in power now to repeal DADT today. How will waiting around look in a year and a half? Will it help the Republicans? Not sure if it will or won't, but I can say repealing it now sure doesn't help them much, since it's what people and the military have been asking for. And the Republicans of course, are against that. Besides we are at war now, and soldiers who want to fight are being taken off the battlefield now. It took an executive decision to enact this policy, (by a Democrat "backed into a corner" apprently), but to repeal it, (by a Democrat with more clout than any president in the last 30 years, and Majorites in Congress to back him up) he can't make an executive decision on this? Instead it's got to get a vote from the national federation of solar systems or something?

--
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.

[Drew McDougal]

Obama: Gays Will Be Pleased By End Of My Administration

President Obama celebrated the anniversary of the Stonewall riots to at the White House Monday, and he used the opportunity to address some grumblings in the gay community.

"We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love, and I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said. "It's not for me to tell you to be patient anymore than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago. But I say this: We have made progress, and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises that I made, but by promises that my administration keeps ... We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Obama added that he was working with the Pentagon, as well as Congress, to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He called this period a "transition" toward that end but said it had to be done pragmatically, so the new policy works in the long-term.

Many gay donors dropped out of a recent Democratic National Committee fundraiser in protest of the Obama administration's legal brief defending the anti-gay Defense Of Marriage Act. Gay rights advocates are also dismayed that the president has yet to take action on the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

In an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd following Obama's remarks, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president's promise to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" would be fulfilled.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Juneau Smog <junea...@gmail.com> wrote:

Drew, ---- thank you for addressing the subject from a sane rational perspective making it easier for me to examine your point of view and question that with mine, instead of purposefully trying to make me feel like an idiot, which only results in me being more stand-offish, defensive, and resistant to whatever point you are trying to get across.

[doug f]

You folks have way to much faith in the American political process assisting humankind :) Stonewall gave me new gay role models'

A protest in San Francisco, California, against the Catholic Church's policies The Stonewall uprisings 40 years ago brought the gay rights movement to the forefront of American culture. Writer and historian David Carter assesses what progress has been made since that pivotal moment and how far the quest for equal rights has to go. The end of this month marks the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, an anniversary that has been duly marked by a number of events, including a White House reception on Monday. VILLAGE RAID The Stonewall Riots began late on 27 June 1969 when New York City police officers raided the popular gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, in Greenwich Village The raid set off a six-day series of protests, demonstrations and confrontations between the city's gay community and the police Police said the raid was staged because unlicensed liquor was being sold on the premises The Gay Liberation Front formed just a month after the riots and soon became an international force Stonewall veteran recalls gay riot But because the history of the gay civil rights movement has generally not been taken seriously by educators nor by the media, people are often uncertain about what exactly Stonewall was: why did the Stonewall Riots occur and what do they mean? There had been a homosexual rights movement in Germany since the 19th century, a movement that regained some momentum after the setback caused by World War I. The movement spread in Europe, including Russia, during the 20th century and suffered further setbacks under Nazi and Communist dictatorships. After World War II homosexual rights movements made progress in Western democracies. The homosexual rights movement began in an organized way in the United States after World War II during the Cold War when the Mattachine Society was founded. While there was progress toward decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada and Europe, progress in the US was much slower. But in Europe, severe prejudice against homosexuality remained even in those societies where homosexual sex acts were not illegal. It was the massive and sustained uprising against the police that erupted at the end of June 1969 when the New York City police raided a popular gay bar named the Stonewall that eventually changed the situation worldwide. Because the riots broke out in the late 1960s after the successes of the US anti-Vietnam War movement and the black civil rights movement, the organizations that emerged immediately after Stonewall were cast in a New Left mould, which also meant a militant consciousness. Suddenly I had a new model: gay men as brave and creative and effective, not as sex perverts who were creeps and mentally ill The most successful of these organizations, the Gay Activists Alliance, modelled its actions on guerrilla theatre and added camp humour to create "zaps", demonstrations that were highly creative, highly subversive, and designed to get media attention. The result was that gay people were seen over and over in the media acting from positions of power: challenging power and unafraid. That changed the consciousness of gay people everywhere, including even someone like myself who was a high-school student who was trying very hard to deny his homosexuality. Suddenly I had a new model: gay men as brave and creative and effective, not as sex perverts who were creeps and mentally ill. And this is why the movement at this historical juncture grew like mushrooms: this was just what gay men and lesbians, who had been so suppressed for so long needed. And because we had witnessed the revolt of all the other oppressed groups, we knew just what to do: all the other militant movements that had changed the consciousness of the masses in the 1960s -even when they had often failed to change particular government policies or pass specific laws - offered a template for ending discrimination and prejudiced thinking. Ellen DeGeneres was one of the first celebrities to come out The Stonewall Riots, in the way that they were immediately commemorated with annual marches, also offered a way to spread the gospel of freedom, equality, and liberation. They were extremely effective because one of the main obstacles against homosexual equality was invisibility. As long as most people thought they knew no homosexuals what basis did they have for doubting the media image of lesbians and gay men as strange, lonely, sad and probably pathological beings? But when real homosexuals had the courage to march in the sunlight, they did not look so different from anyone else: the normalcy was apparent. Members of the public might see their co-worker or fellow student or neighbour in the march, and this made it easier for more and more homosexuals to "come out": to quit hiding. This in turn made it possible for people to approach politicians and demand not only that oppressive laws be overturned, but that laws to protect the civil rights of lesbians and gay men be enacted. Fighting back And so more and more laws outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were passed, first on a local basis and then by states. Films and novels began to portray gay men and lesbians more fairly and more accurately. Ground was lost as a terrifying disease with no cure that was connected in the public's mind with homosexuality spread rapidly. Hysteria was caused in part because it was unclear how the disease was spread. Would mosquitoes or a cough spread it from an infected person to an "innocent" (ie, heterosexual) person? Again, the gay community fought back as it had during the gay liberation phase by both organizing and by a new creative media campaign. As medical knowledge progressed and the disease spread more and more, it became clear that Aids was not, after all, a "homosexual disease," and hence not a divine judgment on homosexuality. Equality, promised by the advent of the gay liberation movement in Stonewall's wake, is on the horizon By the time of the Clinton administration, the gay civil rights movement was ready to spring ahead after 12 years of hostile Republican rule. And spring it did. Gay people were energized by the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots and more and more positive and stronger media portrayals from television to Hollywood. Now with the Obama administration in Washington after eight more years of Republican government, there had been much optimism among gay people in America. This was fuelled in part by Barack Obama's proclamation of support for gay equality except in the area of marriage. Now the 40th anniversary of Stonewall has simultaneously heightened the gay public's historical awareness, making gay people impatient for action from this administration. Many are wondering whether President Obama will unveil a new policy initiative today. But whether the Obama administration does so or not, it seems clear that the time of equality is getting close at hand: young Americans don't even understand the idea of discrimination based on sexual orientation any more than young people in the 1990s could understand racial discrimination. Equality, promised by the advent of the gay liberation movement in Stonewall's wake, is on the horizon. When it finally does arrive, it will be thanks to young gay people who found the courage to stand up for themselves on the streets of Greenwich Village 40 years ago. David Carter is the author of Stonewall: the riots that sparked the gay revolution. He is a consultant for the BBC Radio 2 programme Stonewall: The Riots That Triggered The Gay Revolution, which will be broadcast on Tuesday 30 June 2009 at 2230BST.

--
Elephants feel the fatal footfalls of poachers a hundred miles off. Cats exit the room when oysters are opened. On and on, and on and on. The unseen exists and has properties." - Richard Ford-"The Lay of the Land"

[Juneau Smog]

Right on. I'm cool with that. Just not Doug's response.