Like many ACLU members and activists no doubt, I’m very excited about the opening of Gus Van Sant’s new film Milk this week. It follows the final years in the life of a pioneer in the gay rights movement, Harvey Bernard Milk. When Harvey was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 (on his fourth try for public office no less), he became the first openly gay man elected to a major public office in America. Today, it’s hard to believe that such an important milestone for gay and lesbian people happened a mere three decades ago.
On the board, Harvey was a powerful and committed champion for social justice. He helped lead the charge in pushing passage of a citywide ordinance that protected people from losing their jobs because of their sexual orientation. Harvey recognized how important it was to create an environment where people could come out of the closet and begin to breakdown the stereotypes and fears that were a pervasive presence in our society at that time in America.
One of the most impressive victories Harvey was ever involved with came in 1978 against a statewide referendum known as the Briggs Initiative (so named for the state senator who sponsored it) or Proposition 6, which sought to mandate the firing of openly gay and lesbian teachers, as well as any public school employee who voiced support for the cause of equality for gay and lesbian people. Harvey challenged State Senator Briggs on the merits of this nakedly discriminatory effort in a series of debates (and in my humble opinion totally smoked him!). On election night, the referendum was defeated by more than a million votes! This was a landmark victory for the gay rights movement.
In the context of the recent passage of Proposition 8 in California, this can seem like a bittersweet victory of yesterday.
An assassin’s bullet would take Harvey’s life (and that of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone) weeks after the defeat of the Briggs Initiative. This tragic event captured headlines around the country, but is not what I want to focus on today, for while Harvey’s life was ended far too soon, his inspiration and the path for equality he helped to forge have had a lasting impact. Rob Epstein, the director of the 1985 Academy Award-winning documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk wrote the other day:
In light of the passage of Proposition 8, Harvey’s message of thirty years ago remains as vital today as it was then. It is our responsibility to let our loved ones, co-workers, friends, and neighbors know who we are, so that those who vote in favor of discrimination have our names and faces in their minds eye when doing so.
As someone who was not even born until 1982, I have no direct experiences related to Harvey or what it was like to be gay or lesbian and pushing the movement for equality forward in the late 1970s. I first became aware of Harvey and his remarkable story when I was in college. Coming to terms with and embracing my own sexual orientation, Harvey quite simply made me feel proud in the history of those who came before me and made it just that much easier to come out without having to live in fear.
Make no mistake, while the passage of Proposition 8 is something that gay and lesbian people as well as all who care about civil rights from across the country should speak out against, we as a community have made remarkable progress and the tide of history is overwhelming on our side. Don’t despair. The struggle continues. As ACLU members and activists, I’m sure I don’t need to tell you to get off the sidelines and get involved.
It is that spirit of pride in our community and a connection to our history as LGBT citizens that I hope this new film will leave viewers with. All who value equality and justice and fight for it every day owe Harvey Milk a debt of thanks. Thanks Harvey for still being a source of inspiration to me and all who fight today.
When people toss out the accusation that the ACLU is anti-religious or, specifically, anti-Christian, I react somewhere between being bemused and annoyed, depending on the day’s stress level. Bemused because they’d flunk Constitutional Law 101; and annoyed because it’s so not true. If it were, why do we regularly help Christians when the government intrudes on their activities? You can read more about some of these cases at http://www.aclu.org/defendingreligion.
As the ACLU’s Legal Director for Pennsylvania, I’ve been responsible for many cases helping religious believers exercise their constitutional rights. Last week the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on behalf of the "Just for Jesus Challenge Homeless Outreach," a ministry of the First Apostles’ Doctrine Church in Brookville, Pennsylvania, which was founded a few years ago to bring shelter and Jesus Christ to homeless people in this rural area, about 80 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. The ministry aids pretty much anyone in need. When I last visited, the group included disabled military veterans, teenagers forced from their homes, senior citizens who couldn’t afford their personal care homes, recently released low-level offenders, people referred by county mental health agencies, and people evicted from their homes and apartments.
 |
|
|
This past summer Brookville shut down the ministry, falsely charging that the ministry had violated local zoning codes. Then on September 4, Brookville zoning officials and police officers, thinking they would catch people sleeping in the church, forced their way inside by climbing through a window, without a warrant or consent. The minister sought help from "Christian" public-interest groups, but was turned down. As so often happens in these situations, when rights are violated and no one else will help, the ACLU rides to the rescue.
Read more…
We won the Florida adoption case yesterday. A Miami judge ruled that the ban on adoption by gay people was unconstitutional. And I got two new heroes out of the case.
The first hero is Cindy Lederman. She’s the judge who finally had the guts to hear the evidence on gay people as parents. I wrote earlier this week about the evidence we gave her, and how it showed that sexual orientation has no connection to parenting ability. Judge Lederman also had the insight to understand what that expert evidence meant, and its legal significance. Here’s how she put it:
As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.
And then she did what followed inevitably from that finding: She declared the law unconstitutional and allowed our client to adopt his sons. (You can read her opinion here.)
Read more…
Last week, Barack Obama was interviewed by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and the following exchange occurred:
Kroft: There are a number of different things that you could do early pertaining to executive orders. One of them is to shutdown Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?
Obama: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.
Obama’s statement was widely celebrated as evidence that he intends to act swiftly and decisively to end the Bush administration’s most controversial detention and interrogation policies. But that reaction overstates the meaning and importance of what Obama actually said.
Obama’s response to the question that was asked was perfectly satisfactory as far as it went. He was asked whether he intends to close Guantanamo and “change interrogation methods” and he answered “yes” to both. It would have been rather shocking if he had answered any other way. Could one even imagine Obama proclaiming that he intends to leave Guantanamo open or that he intends to leave unchanged Bush’s interrogation programs?
Read more…
This Thanksgiving we are reflecting on what family means to us. For those of us at the ACLU and many people across the country, that will bring to mind what happened to families in California as a result of Prop 8.
So — in what is becoming an ACLU tradition — I’m writing to share some pointers for talking turkey this Thanksgiving about issues that really matter.
Here’s my biggest piece of advice for when Prop 8 and gay marriage come up over the Thanksgiving dinner table: Don’t shy away from the conversation. Do what I’m hoping thousands of ACLU supporters will do over the holidays. Talk to someone you’ve never talked to about same sex marriage and explain that it’s just not right to deny someone their freedom because of who they are or who they love.
Read more…
Mandatory minimum sentencing relies on an inflexible formula to determine the required minimum sentencing, regardless of the individual circumstances of the case. At a time when our prisons are practically bursting at the seams, mandatory sentencing laws continue to funnel more and more low-level, nonviolent drug offenders into prison.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that, even though the majority of cocaine users are white, 87 percent of people prosecuted for cocaine offenses in 2000 were Latinos and African-Americans. Mandatory minimums force judges to give long prison sentences to nonviolent low-level offenders.
On November 24, the Associated Press reported that President George W. Bush granted pardons or reduced sentences to 14 individuals; four of whom were convicted of drug-related offenses with lengthy mandatory minimums. Although the ACLU commends this exercise of presidential power remedy to injustice, we urge President Bush to provide relief to the many other individuals serving excessive penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Additionally, the ACLU, along with our coalition partners urge the 111th Congress to pass legislation (S.1711) eliminating the current 100-to-1 disparity in the amount of powdered and crack cocaine that triggers mandatory minimum prison sentences.
As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said we should, “accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.”
In the midst of the transition hubbub, I want the world to remember that George W. is still very much in office - holding a pen and the power to obliterate civil liberties through the use of twilight provisions.
I realize why Americans are all too eager to awake from the strange nightmare that has been the Bush administration – it has seemed interminable. How far away does 2004 seem right now? Or 2003 for that matter? When I started working at the ACLU, John Ashcroft was still the Attorney General. Had someone told me then that Ashcroft would be redeemed as a defender of (certain) liberties in a melodramatic near-deathbed showdown with nefarious minions of Cheney, I would have laughed. The man who insisted the "Spirit of Justice" wear a robe? Surely you jest.
And yet this nightmare has been more brief than it seems. Only eight years ago the idea of the U.S. employing torture, spying on citizens, and issuing "national security letters" to librarians seemed like the realm of Orwell. Fitting then, that our current Attorney General keeps a portrait of the author of "1984" above his desk.
Dahlia Lithwick, in this week’s issue of Newsweek, chronicles some of the challenges ahead for the upcoming Attorney General. In addition to releasing the DOJ memos that authorized illegal conduct, Lithwick weighs in on whether the DOJ should be the agency in charge of investigating itself. For guidance, she points to former Attorney General and Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor Robert Jackson. Jackson said the AG should be a person who "tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes."
Strangely enough, the other portrait currently hanging in Mukasey’s office is the very same Robert Jackson. Irony, it seems, is far from dead.
"Challenge, identifying mark."
"Challenge, voter intent unclear."
Those words have been said over and over again throughout the three days I have observed the Minnesota Senate election recount thus far. I’ve learned quite a lot about how the parties play the game, and I have not always been pleased with what I saw. Pettiness, unnecessary challenges and new requests abound. By the end of my third day I was getting tired of it, and I’ll bet the election judges were too.
In much of Minnesota, we use paper ballots where you fill in a circle next to a candidate’s name. A challenge, if made, is supposed to be based on a campaign observer’s belief that the election judge is counting the ballot for the wrong person. Let’s say the voter made a mark in between the two candidates’ circles and you couldn’t really tell which candidate a vote was for — the voter’s intent is unclear. And occasionally, someone puts their name or other information on a ballot that would identify who the voter is, and since we have anonymous voting in Minnesota, that identifying mark could disqualify their ballot. These are circumstances where you might legitimately expect a challenge.
Read more…
Our federal government recently announced that it would review abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that receive federal funds under the Community-Based Abstinence Education (“CBAE”) program. CBAE is one of three dedicated federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding streams. Over the last several years, the federal government has spent more than $1.5 billion on these programs, even though we’ve known for awhile that they simply don’t work.
Yesterday, we sent comments, expressing our frustration, to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), the federal agency proposing to evaluate CBAE programs. Our basic concerns: researchers have already concluded that these programs do not have any measurable effect; moreover, by definition, these programs exclude and stigmatize a large number of students.
The federal statutory definition of abstinence requires these programs to teach that a “mutually faithful monogamous relationship in [the] context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.” Similarly, these programs must teach that there will be “harmful consequences” for children, families, and society if a child has parents who are not in a heterosexual marriage. In a society that generally prohibits gays and lesbians from marrying, such a message rejects the idea of sexual intimacy and healthy families for lesbians and gays, and ignores their need for critical information about protecting themselves from STDs in same-sex relationships. Recognizing this, a federal court in Florida recently found that federally funded abstinence-only-until marriage programs provide no information that is useful for lesbian and gay students. Moreover, the messages about heterosexual marriage and the harmful consequences of “out-of-wedlock” children stigmatize those families that aren’t headed by married heterosexual parents, including those in single-parent homes.
Our comments also highlight other problems with abstinence-only programs, for example, some programs continue to promote medically inaccurate information, and some teach harmful gender stereotypes. Ultimately, these programs are so flawed, they should be eliminated. We should instead focus on giving teens the tools they need to make healthy and responsible decisions. In these difficult economic times, it sure would be nice to get that $1.5 billion back, but since that isn’t possible at least we can do the next best thing – stop the funding going forward.
Today a Florida circuit court today struck down a state law that bars lesbians and gay men from adopting (see yesterday’s blog post for more about the case). The court granted adoptions to our client Martin Gill, a North Miami resident who, along with his partner, has been raising two foster children since 2004.
The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it singles out gay people and children raised by gay people for different treatment for no rational reason. The court also found that the ban denies children the right to permanency provided by federal and state law under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
The court’s decision comes after a four-day trial in October where the court heard from experts on children’s health and development and the justifications offered by the state for the ban. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the false assumptions and stereotypes about gay people that the state offered to justify the ban, holding that many “reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”
Read more…
| 
