Political and Social Thought

Gay Beating in Charlottesville, Virginia

"We believe this to be a bias-motivated crime" - U.Va Dean of Students Allen Groves

“The event was prompted by the April 4 attack on an unidentified male student and a friend by five young men. Police allege the pair was jumped walking home from a friend's house around 3:30AM outside the university's Scott Stadium by five white males between the ages of 16 and 20. The men snatched a cell phone being used by one of the men to call for help and smashed it as they yelled anti-gay slurs. The two attempted to escape but the pack chased down the UVa student and hit him in the back of the head. The eighteen-year-old student was treated at the university's medical center for minor injuries. University leaders called the attack an instance of gay bashing. “Based upon the facts as we currently know them, we believe this to be a bias-motivated crime, in that the perceived sexual orientation of the two victims appears to have motivated the assault,” wrote UVa Associate Vice President and Dean of Students Allen W. Groves in a statement.” [On Top Mag]

"Several hundred people gathered at UVA’s amphitheater last night for the Stand Against Hatred. The vigil and public forum was in response to the April 4 attack on a UVA student that was apparently motivated by anti-gay bias.   Addressing the crowd, Associate Vice President and Dean of Student Allen Groves said he’d received e-mails asking why an attack motivated by perceived sexual orientation should be considered differently than other assaults. “Any assault on a UVA student is one too many,” he began. Crimes of hate, however, “strike at the most cherished values of society. If I am assaulted solely because of who I am, then I come to fear I will never be safe, for how can I change who I am?”[Cville]

In 2007, violence based on sexual orientation bias was the third most commonly cited type of hate crime committed in the United States, behind race and religion. [1] Sexual Orientation is not included in Virginia's hate crimes laws. [1] Virginia needs to do more to protect gay Virginians and send a clear message that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not right! Click on the image below for ways that Virginia could improve its laws for gay Virginians!

Smithsonian Selects Design for African American Museum

At first, I wasn't so impressed with the design, but you have to watch the video to get how spectacular this building will be once it's completed in about three years. Check our the National Museum of African American History and Culture at http://nmaahc.si.edu/

The Iowa Supreme Court on Gay Marriage

Inspiring and Compassionate Passages from the April 4th Decision of the Iowa Supreme Court Allowing Gay Marriage.

Thus, equal protection before the law demands more than the equal application of the classifications made by the law. The law itself must be equal.

"This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities.They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto.".....

"This record included an explanation by some of the plaintiffs of the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa. These disadvantages and problems include the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care, burial arrangements, autopsy, and disposition of remains following death. Various plaintiffs told of the inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections. They also explained how several tax benefits are denied.

Adoption proceedings are also more cumbersome and expensive for unmarried partners. Other obstacles presented by the inability to enter into a civil marriage include numerous nongovernmental benefits of marriage that are so common in daily life they often go unnoticed, such as something so simple as spousal health club memberships. Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage....

“Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National

Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.

For example, the official policy of the American Psychological Association declares, “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.”3 Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. In Iowa, agencies that license foster parents have found same-sex couples to be good and acceptable parents. It is estimated that more than 5800 same-sex couples live throughout Iowa, and over one-third of these couples are raising children”…

Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality….

“The process of defining equal protection, as shown by our history as captured and told in court decisions, begins by classifying people into groups. A classification persists until a new understanding of equal protection is achieved. The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”….

“The foundational principle of equal protection is expressed in article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which provides: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”…. The equal protection clause does not merely ensure the challenged statute applies equally to all people in the legislative classification. “ ‘[S]imilarly situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’ All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect and consequently, any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Tussman & tenBroek, 37 Cal. L. Rev. at 345. In the same way, the similarly situated requirement cannot possibly be interpreted to require plaintiffs to be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another. Such a threshold analysis would hollow out the constitution’s promise of equal protection. Thus, equal protection before the law demands more than the equal application of the classifications made by the law. The law itself must be equal…. In other words, to truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike.  This requirement makes it “impossible to pass judgment on the reasonableness of a [legislative] classification without taking into consideration, or identifying, the purpose of the law.”…

Nevertheless, we have said our marriage laws “are rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.” These laws also serve to recognize the status of the parties’ committed relationship. See Madison v. Colby) (stating “ ‘the marriage state is not one entered into for the purpose of labor and support alone,’ ” but also includes “ ‘the comfort and happiness of the parties to the marriage contract’ Hamilton v. McNeill (“The marriage to be dissolved is not a mere contract, but is a status.”); Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples. In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation….

 

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 441. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class….

 

“Instead of adopting a rigid formula to determine whether certain legislative classifications warrant more demanding constitutional analysis, the Supreme Court has looked to four factors… Instead, we analyze each of the four factors and assess how each bears on the question of whether the Iowa Constitution requires a more searching scrutiny be applied to the specific classification at issue. We note the first two factors—history of intentional discrimination and relationship of classifying characteristic to a person’s ability to contribute—have always been present when heightened scrutiny has been applied. They have been critical to the analysis and could be considered as prerequisites to concluding a group is a suspect or quasisuspect class…. Sexual orientation influences the formation of personal relationships between all people—heterosexual, gay, or lesbian—to fulfill each person’s fundamental needs for love and attachment. Accordingly, because sexual orientation is central to personal identity and “ ‘may be altered [if at all] only at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self,’ ” classifications based on sexual orientation “are no less entitled to consideration as a suspect or quasi-suspect class than any other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable characteristic… We are convinced gay and lesbian people are not so politically powerful as to overcome the unfair and severe prejudice that history suggests produces discrimination based on sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians certainly possess no more political power than women enjoyed four decades ago when the Supreme Court began subjecting gender-based legislation to closer scrutiny. Additionally, gay and lesbian people are, as a class, currently no more powerful than women or members of some racial minorities. These facts demonstrate, at the least, the political-power factor does not weigh against heightened judicial scrutiny of sexual-orientation based legislation….

This argument is straightforward and has superficial appeal. A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a “ ‘barren form of words’ ” when “ ‘discrimination . . . is made an end in itself.’…

While heterosexual marriage does lead to procreation, the argument by the County fails to address the real issue in our required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation? If procreation is the true objective, then the proffered classification must work to achieve that objective. Conceptually, the promotion of procreation as an objective of marriage is compatible with the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the definition of marriage. Gay and lesbian persons are capable of procreation. Thus, the sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome. Even if possibly true, the link between exclusion of gay and lesbian people from marriage and increased procreation is far too tenuous to withstand heightened scrutiny. Specifically, the statute is significantly under-inclusive with respect to the objective of increasing procreation because it does not include a variety of groups that do not procreate for reasons such as age, physical disability, or choice. In other words, the classification is not substantially related to the asserted legislative purpose….

Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained— even fundamental—religious belief. Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.  This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage….

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination. We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.

 

 

 

When a Drunk Straight Guy Calls His Gay Friend a Fag

"This is the stuff that hate crimes are made of!"

The night was like any other. My straight friend Matt G. and I enjoyed an evening of watching college sports in Charlottesville, Virginia. We were good friends despite having few things in common. I am staunch Democrat who is also a self-conscious and proud gay racial minority, while he is a unapologetic straight male Republican. He is a rental car salesperson. I am a health care professional. We attended rival universities and almost never agree on politics. For the most part, all of that had little effect on our relationship, which had been well-maintained over the years. When issues surfaced, such as his use of "that's gay" for everything and everyone he found repulsive, we were able to discuss it and came to a common understanding. Though his increasing referral to me as "my nig" or nigger was less forgiving especially since he, as a white male, did not in the least care about the history, meaning, or insult of the word. Had it not been for fag, his use of nigger would have most certainly ended the relationship eventually.

Everything changed last night. We were engaged in a silly conversation about what he took for lunch in high school, where we both attended. I told him that he frequently brought a cheese bread pepperoni sandwich, which he adamantly denied. Now, like many of these silly conversations that we have had before, I assumed that cool heads would prevail and never one of us would really get upset. What's the big fuss about, right? It's just a sandwich.

To my shock and horror, he took such offense that he began accusing me of being racist because of the pepperonis. He's only half Italian, though you really wouldn't know it save for the name. Unfortunately, I couldn't say that he was only in a half state of sobriety. By this time, he'd downed eight beers. I conveyed my surprise that he'd really think that I would engage in this type of culturally insensitive banter. Then, as I am trying to reel him back in and maintain some decorum, he hits below the belt (twice). He attempts to connect my cheese bread by stereotypical overtures about Black people eating chitlins.

Then, he begins yelling, "You fag! You fag!" I was in such a state of shock that I avoided eye contact and couldn't quite communicate how deeply I was offended. I maintained my compusure, but it all shook me to the core. Why would a "friend" insult me on so many levels without any regard for my feelings?

I realized that the relationship needn't go any further.

The Diverse Future We Are Fated To Have

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program [1]

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time and deal with the other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.

We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. And though the world in which we now live is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race. And so I would suggest that we use February of every year to not only commemorate black history but also to foster a period of dialogue among the races. This is admittedly an artificial device to generate discussion that should come more naturally, but our history is such that we must find ways to force ourselves to confront that which we have become expert at avoiding.

As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace. We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by "American instinct" and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.

As a nation we should use Black History month as a means to deal with this continuing problem. By creating what will admittedly be, at first, artificial opportunities to engage one another we can hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized. To respect one another we must have a basic understanding of one another. And so we should use events such as this to not only learn more about the facts of black history but also to learn more about each other. This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful but the rewards are potentially great. The alternative is to allow to continue the polite, restrained mixing that now passes as meaningful interaction but that accomplishes little. Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear. The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly diverse, would be greatly enhanced. I fear however, that we are taking steps that, rather than advancing us as a nation are actually dividing us even further. We still speak too much of "them" and not "us". There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted- and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years- the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization. We cannot allow this to happen and one way to prevent such an unwelcome outcome is to engage one another more routinely- and to do so now.

As I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.

It is also clear that if we are to better understand one another the study of black history is essential because the history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other. It is for this reason that the study of black history is important to everyone- black or white. For example, the history of the United States in the nineteenth century revolves around a resolution of the question of how America was going to deal with its black inhabitants. The great debates of that era and the war that was ultimately fought are all centered around the issue of, initially, slavery and then the reconstruction of the vanquished region. A dominant domestic issue throughout the twentieth century was, again, America's treatment of its black citizens. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's changed America in truly fundamental ways. Americans of all colors were forced to examine basic beliefs and long held views. Even so, most people, who are not conversant with history, still do not really comprehend the way in which that movement transformed America. In racial terms the country that existed before the civil rights struggle is almost unrecognizable to us today. Separate public facilities, separate entrances, poll taxes, legal discrimination, forced labor, in essence an American apartheid, all were part of an America that the movement destroyed. To attend her state’s taxpayer supported college in 1963 my late sister in law had to be escorted to class by United States Marshals and past the state’s governor, George Wallace. That frightening reality seems almost unthinkable to us now. The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, better.

In addition, the other major social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century- feminism, the nation's treatment of other minority groups, even the anti-war effort- were all tied in some way to the spirit that was set free by the quest for African American equality. Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. Further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement.

And today the link between the black experience and this country is still evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, present and future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.

Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.

I, like many in my generation, have been fortunate in my life and have had a great number of wonderful opportunities. Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation. I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. Admittedly, the identities of some of these people, through the passage of time, have become lost to us- the men, and women, who labored long in fields, who were later legally and systemically discriminated against, who were lynched by the hundreds in the century just past and those others who have been too long denied the fruits of our great American culture. The names of too many of these people, these heroes and heroines, are lost to us. But the names of others of these people should strike a resonant chord in the historical ear of all in our nation: Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till. These are just some of the people who should be generally recognized and are just some of the people to whom all of us, black and white, owe such a debt of gratitude. It is on their broad shoulders that I stand as I hope that others will some day stand on my more narrow ones.

Black history is a subject worthy of study by all our nation's people. Blacks have played a unique, productive role in the development of America. Perhaps the greatest strength of the United States is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have knowledge of its constituent parts. But an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force. An appreciation of the unique black past, acquired through the study of black history, will help lead to understanding and true compassion in the present, where it is still so sorely needed, and to a future where all of our people are truly valued.

The Naked Truth and Your Body

The Advocate, the US's number one gay magazine, teamed up with photographer Eric Schwabel to ask 22 people to bear their souls and bodies for this feature on physical insecurities. It's tempting to dismiss these folks as emotionally immature for feeling insecure about everything ranging from Amanda Grumman's self-loathing her "full Jewish nose" to Jeff Lukomski's shocking revelation that he dislikes his penis size. Apparently, it's too big. Then again, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. There are very few people who don't have something that they dislike about their body. Perhaps, this is the problem. For all of our cultural and ethnic diversity and economic success (maybe not of late), we surely are a people with very little confidence in ourselves. We buy thousands and thousands of dollars in stuff we don't need, so we can appear to be better off than we are; big suburban homes that we can't afford. Our economy is largely based on making us feel bad about ourselves or never feeling satisfied. Yeah, yeah,...that's the meaning of capitalism, but you have to wonder to what lengths will we go? I've heard five-year old girls talking about not wanting to be fat! We have 60-something year-old grandmothers who are afraid of their wrinkles. We have teenage boys who want the body of a 300-pound bodybuilder. Seriously, what kind of world have we made for ourselves?

The Naked Truth: Jeff Lukomski, 44
Detroit
Likes: smile, eyes
Dislikes: penis -- too big

The Naked Truth: Rodrigo Toledo, 32
Rio de Janeiro
Likes: hands, chest
Dislikes: that he breaks out

The Naked Truth: JT Chestnut, 19
Rock Ridge–Wilson, N.C.
Likes: legs
Dislikes: belly button, nose

Smith's Confession Reveals Sexual Abuse and Homosexuality

On November 28, 2008, Sharron Diane Crawford Smith was arrested for the 1967 double murder of Connie Hevener and Carolyn Perry. Before dying this January, Smith confessed to the murders. While there is never a moral justification for these senseless acts of murder, Smith's story, who was 19 years-old at the time, reminds us of the importance of opening dialogue with our teenagers about sexual abuse, sexuality, and society.

It was the 1960s. The so-called "gilded age" of conversion therapy from the 1940's to the 1960's "assumed that homosexuality was a mental illness" and sought to eradicate it through electrical shock treatments, lobotomies, and psychiatric conversion therapy. In fact, during this period, "gays entered (conversion) therapy in droves." It was before the Stonewall Riots of 1969 and the start of the modern gay movement. It was a time in which the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as "psychopathology" in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders. Many gays like gay historian Martin Duberman at the time had difficulty rejecting "the dominant psychiatric view that homosexuals were a homogeneous group, bound together by dysfunction and neurosis." No doubt, Smith would have been affected by all of this.

Here are excerpts from Smith's interview confession.

Q: WELL, TAKE ME BACK TO THAT NIGHT.

A: I WENT DOWN TO THE STORE TO TELL THEM THAT I COULDN'T WORK.

Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT? DO YOU REMEMBER? WERE THEY

CLOSING?

A: 9:30.

Q: ABOUT 9:30? NOW WERE YOU SUPPOSE TO COVER THE SECOND HALF

OF -THE SHIFT OR CAUSE ABOUT 9:30 OR 10:00 THEY'RE STARTING TO

GET READY TO CLOSE WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO WORK THAT NIGHT?

A: IT WASN'T THAT NIGHT, THE NEXT NIGHT.

Q: OH THE NEXT NIGHT. THE SUNDAY NIGHT. OKAY.

A: UH HUH.

Q: THE NIGHT PRIOR TO. OH OKAY. SO ABOUT 9:30 ON SUNDAY

NIGHT.

A: UH HUH.

Q: WHO DID YOU TALK TO?

A: I TALKED TO HER.

Q: WHO?

A: I TALKED TO CONNIE.

Q: CONNIE. OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED?

A: I JUST SAID THAT I COULDN'T WORK AND SHE GOT A LITTLE

UPSET. I GOT UPSET. I WAS THINKING SHE HAD TOLD SOME THINGS I'D

RATHER NOT GO IN AND THAT'S ABOUT IT.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I WAS JUST PUSHED SO FAR SO I SHOT HER AND THAT WAS IT.

Q: HOW DID THEY PUSH YOU? WHAT DID THEY DO TO PUSH YOU?

A: TALKING, TEASING.

Q: COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE. SO THIS HAD BUILT UP FOR AWHILE.

A: UN HUH.

Q: OKAY, DID YOU SHOOT THEM WITH THAT .25 THAT YOU SAID YOU

BOUGHT AT MONTGOMERY WARD'S ?

A: UN HUH.

Q: DID YOU BUY THAT TO SHOOT THEM?

A: NO.

Q: YOU BOUGHT IT JUST BECAUSE YOU ENJOYED SHOOTING.

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHO DID YOU SHOOT FIRST?

A: UM, CONNIE.

Q: YOU SHOT CONNIE.

A: UN HUH.

Q: YOU SHOT CONNIE OR DID YOU SHOOT CAROLYN FIRST? TRY TO

THINK BACK. TRY TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED JUST THAT

NIGHT.

A: I THINK IT WAS CONNIE.

Q: YOU THINK IT WAS CONNIE? AND WHERE DID YOU SHOOT HER?

A: BEHIND THE EAR.

Q: HUH?

A: BEHIND THE EAR.

Q: BEHIND THE EAR?

A: RIGHT ABOUT HERE.

Q2: DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE IN THE STORE YOU WERE?

A: HUH?

Q2: DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE IN THE STORE YOU WERE WHEN THIS

HAPPENED? THE FIRST SHOT?
..................

M: SHARRON, DID YOU GO BACK IN THE BACK IN THE ROOM WHERE THE

MOPS AND THINGS WERE?

A: OH YEAH.

M: WERE YOU BACK THERE WITH ONE OF THEM?

A: I WAS AT THE COUNTER WITH ONE. AND I THINK THE OTHER ONE

WAS IN THE BACKROOM.

M: SO WHEN YOU SHOT CONNIE, DID YOU GO BACK THEN IN THE ROOM

AFTER CAROLYN?

A: WHEN SHE STARTED YELLING.

M: WHO DID?

A : CAROLYN.

M: CAROLYN DID?

Q2 : WHAT WAS SHE YELLING?

A: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, YOU BITCH.

M: WHEN YOU SHOT CONNIE, DID SHE GO BACK TO THE ROOM? WAS SHE

ABLE TO GO BACK TO THE ROOM WHERE YOU WERE WITH CAROLYN?

A : YEAH.

M: SO SHE WENT BACK THERE AFTER YOU SHOT HER? DID YOU HAVE TO

SAY ANYTHING TO CONNIE AGAIN? OR DID CONNIE JUST FALL TO THE

FLOOR?

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SHOOT EACH ONE OF THEM?

A : ONE.

Q: ONE TIME? WERE BOTH OF THEM IN THE HEAD?

A: UN HUH.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THAT?

A: I LEFT.

Q: YOU LEFT. OKAY. DID ANYBODY SEE YOU?

A: NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
................................

C: I JUST WONDER WHAT THEY WERE TAUNTING YOU WITH. LIKE I SAID

I WORKED UP TO JUST A WEEK BEFOREHAND AND...

M: IT'S OKAY. YOU CAN SAY IT.

A: ABOUT MY LIFESTYLE

C: HOW DID THEY KNOW ABOUT YOUR LIFESTYLE?

A: HOW DO KIDS FIND OUT ABOUT ANYTHING? I MEAN IT WAS REALLY

UNUSUAL BACK THEN. HOW DO KIDS FIND ANYTHING? THEY LISTEN TO

THEIR PARENTS.

C: CAROLYN DIDN'T HAVE BUT ONE PARENT THAT I (INAUDIBLE). I

KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

A: I'M SURE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. IT WAS SOMETHING NEW.

AND SOMETHING DEFINITELY UNUSUAL.

S: DID YOU ACT ON BEING GAY BACK THEN?

A: NO.

Q: THEY BASICALLY STEREOTYPED YOU.

A : YEA.

Q: YEA. AND THAT'S UNFAIR. THAT'S UNFAIR.

Q2: NOWADAYS NOBODY I COULDN'T IMAGINE THAT. IT'S JUST NOT LIKE

THAT. I WAS BORN IN SEVENTY AND I COULDN'T IMAGINE SIXTY

SEVENTY.

C: DO THINK DIANE THE WAY YOUR STEPFATHER TREATED YOU, THAT

YOU HAD TAKEN SO MUCH ABUSE FROM HIM THAT THIS THING WAS AN

INCIDENT THAT CAME UP THAT JUST PUSHED YOU OVER THE EDGE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT TRYING TO PSYCHOANALYZE IT.

C: BUT YOU WILL AGREE THAT YOUR STEPFATHER REALLY... WELL, YOU

SAID YOU MIGHT HAVE BOUGHT THE GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM HIM

AND THAT WAS YEARS OF ABUSE.

A: YEA

Q2: I HOPE YOU FEEL THE BURDEN LIFTED OFF YOU. IT'S GOT TO. I

KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME BUT IT'S GOT TO MAKE YOU FEEL YOUR

CONSCIENCE OR IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOT TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER.

IT'S GOT TO.

C: DO YOU THINK THAT BACK THEN IT WAS SO MANY FAMILY MEMBERS

WORKING THERE, IT WAS WHOLE FAMILIES, YOUR AUNT WORKED THERE, IT

WAS KINDA OF ONE BIG FAMILY. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT AT

THE TIME. I'M JUST WONDERING IF SOMETHING JUST KINDA PUSHED YOU

OVER THE EDGE. IT DIDN'T TAKE MUCH, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TO

PUSH YOU OVER THE EDGE. YOU WEREN'T BUT WHAT, NINTEEN?

.......

Q2: DID YOU EVER TALK ABOUT IT WITH HIM OR ANYBODY?

A: NO.

Q2: SAYING, MAN I'M CATCHING A ROUGH TIME?

A: YOU COULDN'T DO THAT BACK THEN.

Q: YOU COULDN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THE ABUSE YOU HAD BEEN

GETTING?

A: NO

S: WHY DON'T YOU TELL THEM ABOUT THE ABUSE?

A: THEY KNOW ABOUT THE ABUSE

S: WHAT TYPE OF ABUSE?

M: IT WASN'T JUST PHYSICAL WAS IT?

A: NO.

S: AND YOU KNEW YOUR MOTHER WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT. AND YOU WENT

TO THE COUNSELOR TEN YEARS AGO SHE STILL DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.

Q: SO YOU SOUGHT SOME HELP FOR ALL THAT.

A: ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO.

S : TEN YEARS AGO.

Q2: SO NOBODY HAD ANY IDEA THIS WAS GOING ON. NONE OF THE

GIRLS AT THE PARLOR KNEW?

A: NO.

Q2: THAT HAD TO HAVE BEEN PRETTY TOUGH TO CARRY AROUND TOO. A

SECRET TOO.

S: THIS ALL STARTED, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, THIS ALL STARTED

WHEN YOU WERE THIRTEEN, WHEN YOUR MOM TOOK YOU BACK FROM NELLIE

(INAUDIBLE). THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ALL FOR SIX YEARS.

A: SIX YEARS.

S: RIGHT? AM I RIGHT?

A: UH HUH.

S: THIS IS WHAT YOU TOLD ME AND I'M SORRY BUT I FEEL THAT THIS

IS THE PERTINENT TIME, EVEN THOUGHT YOU TOLD ME YEARS AGO, I

FEEL LIKE IT'S A PERTINENT TIME TO (INAUDIBLE)

M: CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING?

A: UN HUH.

M: DID MR. BOCOCK KNOW ABOUT THE SEXUAL ABUSE?

A: I DIDN'T TELL HIM.

M: YOU DIDN'T? DO YOU THINK HE KNEW? DO YOU HAVE REASON TO

BELIEVE THAT HE MIGHT HAVE KNOWN? ANYTHING HE MIGHT HAVE SAID

TO YOU?

A: NO.

Read Entire Confession

Get To Know Us First

Marriage promotes families.

Support marriage equality

Get to know us first.

Curious as to how the campaign against Prop 8 played out in California, here's how Get To Know Us First.org campaigned against the defining of marriage between a man and a woman. Recently, the organization, sponsored by POWER UP, a 501(c)3 non-profit GLBTQ women’s film production  and education organization, received much publicity because the NFL rejected its ads on the grounds that it did not permit "advocacy" ads.

In other words, the gay community must continue to mobilize. We must fight for justice. We must fight for our voices to be heard. We must fight until our rights are no longer subjected to the bias of the majority, until our last breath.

Confessions of an University Professor

In "What Caused the Civil War", a book part autobiography, part history, part sociology, University of Richmond professor Edward Ayers gives us a personal account of his upbringing in Kingsport, Tennessee in the 1960's. At the time of publication in 2005, Ayers was a professor at the University of Virginia.

"In the second grade I had a beautiful young teacher who led us in singing every morning. One song had acting that went along with it: "Stoop down, bend down, pick a bale of cotton." No cotton grew in East Tennessee, and I had never cotton plants, but the song and this teacher made it sound like fun. This teacher liked me, for we shared a high-energy level and a certain dramatic inclination. She chose me to appear with the sixth graders' glee club, putting on a big show for parents. For this show, she covered my face in burnt cork, gave me a tambourine, and made me a tall hat of white cardboard. My job,...was to beat our tambourine along with the songs of the South performed by the bigger kids. At one point, under the hot lights and between songs, I took off my hat for a moment and was surprised - but pleased, I discovered - by a wave of good-natured laughter from the audience. The burnt cork stopped in a straight line across the middle of my forehead, where the hat had covered.

That would have been about 1960. So far as I know, no one at Andrew Johnson Elementary, segregated as it was, had any problems with a minstrel show. The civil rights movement must have seemed pretty far away from the white people of Kingsport at that point. The little city was about 5 percent black, the population carefully segregated. I saw black kids only rarely.

Though we lived in a Republican district in Appalachia and in a quite modern young city, the culture of white supremacy thoroughly saturated us. People I knew did not hesitate to identify bright colors as "nigger colors" and big sedans as "nigger cars." It was not uncommon to see signs that caricatured black men enjoying watermelon. Downtown, signs identified the colored entrances to the Strand and the State theaters around to the side, leading to the balcony. When we white boys fought, we charged that two on one was nigger fun; when we had to decided the last one chosen for ball, eenie meenie minie mo ended with a nigger's toe. When we want to frighten our younger siblings, we told them a big nigger was coming to get them. We thought nothing of it.

Once I read these passages while browsing the history section in Barnes and Noble, I knew that I had to buy it. Ayers' openness is comforting, to say the least, because most historians that I have encountered in academia don't often relate to the reader on such a human and emotional level. In fact, the premise of Ayers' book appears to be less about rehashing arguments over what may have caused the Civil War and whether Reconstruction was a failure, though he certainly outlines various schools of thought. This book really concerns how any historical narrative must capture the human element. It's what Ayers calls "deep contingency".

"(D)eep contingency reverberates throughout the recesses of the social order. To understand deep contingency we must try to comprehend a society as a whole, its soft structures of ideology, culture, and faith as well as its hard structures of economies and politics."

As a deep contingency, Ayers could have delved into the role of racism in American society as way to explain both the Civil War and most certainly the return of slavery in form, sharecropping. Instead, he chose to look at how "Reconstruction may be more useful as a guide to what to expect elsewhere in the world than any other reconstruction in which the United States has engaged." In other words, Reconstruction in the South has its own deep contingencies given the U.S. intervention in the Philippines and the Dominican Republic at the turn of the century, Europe in World War I and II, Japan in World War I, etc. More interestingly, Ayers emphasizes not so much the contingencies themselves, but the lessons we should take from them. In the case of reconstructions, which obviously could include U.S. involvement in Iraq, Ayers offers the following lessons.

• Lesson One: Because they tend to follow wars, reconstructions often becomes a heavy burden to carry. To borrow a phrase from Eckhart Tolle, reconstructions create collective pain bodies.
• Lesson Two: Reconstructions have the effect of creating "cohesion, identity, and solidarity" among the reconstructed people
• Lesson Three: Reconstructions "foster steadfast and violent defenders of the old order"
• Lesson Four: Reconstructions rely on the most powerful of the old order for economic recovery and renewal.
• Lesson Six: "Sixth, in order to be reconstructed, people need to be perceived as needing to be reconstructed. Accordingly, they are often attributed with pathologies, ingrained limitations, and flawed heritages."
• Lesson Seven: "Reconstructions..cannot last long before they seem another form of oppression"
• Lesson Eight: Reconstructions can unleash a Pandora's box, in which different actors and their irreconcilable goals threaten to upend progress.
• Lesson Nine: The end goal of any reconstruction usually involves "freedom," but the meaning of freedom can vary by groups and over time.
• Lesson Ten: Reconstruction can ultimately be its own enemy, especially if the terms of peace and freedom are absolute.

Now, Ayers does answer the question he poses in the title. Ayers calls this inclusive approach, "open narrative".

"What caused the Civil War?" misleads us because it seems such a straightforward question....
Slavery was a profound economic, political, religious, and moral problem, the most profound the nation has ever faced. But that problem did not lead to war in a rational, predictable way. The war came through misunderstanding, confusion, miscalculation. Both sides underestimated the location of fundamental loyalty in the other. Both received incorrect images of the other in the partisan press. Political belief distorted each side's view of the other's economy and class relations. Both sides believed the other was bluffing, both believed that the other's internal differences and conflict would lead it to buckle, and both believed that had latent but powerful allies in the other region would prevent war. By the time people made up their minds to fight, slavery itself had become obscured. Southern white men did not fight for slavery; they fought for a new nation built on slavery. White Northerners did not fight to end slavery; they fought to defend the integrity of their nation. Yet slavery, as Abraham Lincoln later put it, "somehow" drove everything.

Poor Sam Adams

Portland's openly gay mayor has got himself into a whole lot of trouble. Let's just say that it's a good thing the teenager just turned 18 when the intercourse took place. Though, I must ask, "What does a 42 year-old man have in common with a 17 year-old?"