Cindy McCain Joins California’s No H8 Gay-Rights Campaign

One of the planks of the conservative platform upon which presidential candidate John McCain ran in 2008 was his opposition to gay marriage. So imagine the surprise of the organizers of the "No H8 Campaign," which is a photo project devoted to collecting images in protest of the passage of Proposition 8, when McCain's wife Cindy volunteered to be included.

“In the year since we’ve started the NOH8 Campaign, we’ve been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support. Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain — the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain. The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot."

Currently, Proposition 8, which took away the rights of gay couples to marry in California last year, is being debated in federal court. The trial is not being broadcast, but live-acted reenactments are expected to be streamed here after each session, starting today.



Read more: Cindy McCain Joins California’s No H8 Gay-Rights Campaign -- Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/cindy_mccain_joins_californias.html#ixzz0dIdoXufK

Observations about President Obama and Latinos

Obama has already demonstrated that he is the first US President to appoint more Latinos in his administration than any other President before him. His crowning achievement was to get Sonia Sotomayor on the US Supreme Court. It involved a first Latino appointment and a woman at the same time. Senate confirmation appointments of Latinos last counted was right under 50. These means Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, Cabinet members Hilda Solis (Labor) and Ken Salazar (Interior), several Under Secretaries like Maria Otero at State, about a score of assistant secretaries; included also are ambassadors and federal judges. The non-confirmable slots reflect even higher numbers of Latinos have been given employment by the administration. Plainly, Obama and his team are betting that the Latino vote will continue to grow and thrive while the GOP tacks to the wrong side of a looming immigration reform legislative battle which many pundits suggest will turn ‘dirty’: anti-immigrant, then anti-Mexican and possibly racist anti-Latino. Yet it is difficult at times to understand the slowness of the recognition of Latinos by both parties.

One can readily surmise that for years in the affrimative action wars and the hard fought battles for equality significant Federal Court orders have been issued in favor of women and African-Americans, but judicial remedy for Latinos has been scarce or absent. The rap in Washington is that Latinos (now the largest ethnic minority in the country) do not sue in general, therefore the government or the private sector has not detected a real ‘penalty’ for not recruiting or retaining or promoting Hispanics. This has further exacerbated the insufficient numbers of Latinos in appointed positions and career status in the federal bureaucracies.

Nearly fifty years ago John Kennedy appointed the first two Hispanic US Ambassadors (both political appointees: Raymond Telles and Teodoro Moscoso) and the first Hispanic Federal Judge Reynaldo de la Garza (if one does not consider Sephardic Jew Ben Cardozo by FDR). Subsequently, we saw Lyndon Johnson name the first career Hispanic US diplomat as an ambassador (John Jova to Honduras). Later, in the seventies President Gerald Ford named the first Hispanic to be an Assistant Secretary (Al Zapanta to Interior). Earlier in the sixties, the first Latino with the rank of a four star officer Admiral Horacio Rivero of Puerto Rico was named. Richard Cavazos of Texas followed him as the first Latino four-star General in the US Army. Cavazos’ brother, Lauro Cavazos was named by President Reagan as the first Latino Cabinet (Education) member in the history of the US. Two civilian military heads of service named were Ed Hidalgo as Navy Secretary under President Carter and Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army under Clinton. The first Hispanic National Security Council official (under Clinton) with the rank of Special Assistant to the President was Arturo Valenzuela (now being named by Pres. Obama as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere). To be certain, we have seen numerous Latinos appointed to key jobs and many other positions of influence not just token or symbolic positions. Yet Latinos continue to be under-represented in the federal bureaucracy.

A studied glance at the Pentagon will reveal the roster for general officers. One can readily notice that of the several hundred active duty general/flag rank officers in the US military, there are a handful with Hispanic last names, but only three of these general rank officers are Latino. The fact is that Latinos are not sufficiently represented in the career senior ranks of the federal bureaucracy and in the US military establishment. Clearly, the problem lies in recruitment, retention, job assignment and speed of promotion. Two underlining factors contribute to this less than satisfactory situation. First, the lack of any effective judicial or legal order court ordering or manifesting any vested interest in remedying Latino under-representation. Added to this is the discernible lack of understanding or knowledge by too many Latinos on how the federal bureaucracy (the corporate culture) works. Nor do they seem to possess an adequate appreciation of mastering the organization’s unwritten rules. Meaningful mentorship and Godfathers (padrinos) in the bureaucracy remain a scarce resource for Latinos. Some observers note that most university trained Latinos do not consider or go into public service. They tend to prefer the private sector or the non-profit type of organizations. It should be noted here that the numbers or proportion of Latinos in the private sector doing well or being better representative of the larger Hispanic population remains truly a more difficult challenge to rectify. Again, Obama has not short-changed the Latinos. Nonetheless, the Latino community must now ensure that the next generation of Latino appointees or career types are better equipped to understand and navigate the troubled waters of the tangled bureaucracy. The Latino community will need to brace itself for the on-going acrimonious health-care reform efforts, the looming immigration reform and the economic and tax adjustments. All Latinos will be stakeholders in these action items at one point or another…

Where doth lie that rarest of breeds they call "The Gay Latino"?

Here is the thing: I have no doubt Gay.com truly, sincerely and authentically wants to get to know me a little bit better. Heck! I'm sure they are patting themselves in the back for showing some inclusivity. But why am I still laughing about their recent attempt at knowing LGBT Latinos?

On Wednesday, the web portal posted a column on their site (as well as on PlanetOut) asking Latinos to tell them "What’s Your Gay Latino/Hispanic Life Like?" Never mind that while I might identify as a Latino man, I'm not sure that my "gay life" is too Latino or Hispanic. I mean, should I tell them I dance salsa every morning and eat nacho chips with guacamole every night?

Digging deeper, let's take a look at how they frame Latino/Hispanic gay life:

Judging by their questions they seem to think that gay Latinos are in the closet ("As a Latino/Hispanic, do you have a 'coming out' story specific to your culture? Or do you have any stories describing why you feel you cannot 'come out' as an LGBT Latino?"), prone to being victims of homophobic attacks ("Could you provide an experience where you were a victim of gay bashing/abuse from fellow Latinos vs. non-Hispanic people, whether you were 'out' or not?"), have no access to books, television, films or computers ("How did you learn about sex and sexual orientation? Was it from family, friends, religion, etc?" or "How did you learn about STDs and safe sex? Was it culturally specific through organizations or just through personal experiences?"), and might not get what 'gayness' entails ("What are your perceptions of what makes a gay man - top/bottom or other roles? - and a lesbian in Latino/Hispanic culture?").

That's not necessarily wanting to know more about LGBT Latinos. It's requesting that LGBT Latinos respond according to a number of stereotypical assumptions about being Latino and LGBT (you know, that there are few if any out LGBT Latinos, that Latinos are more homophobic, and that we might define sexuality by the sexual positions we assume when having sex).

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but here is the kicker: What was the impetus behind Gay.com's new-found interest on finding out more about LGBT Latinos? Why none other that Mexican-American singer Linda Ronstadt!

In an interview that also was posted on Gay.com on Wednesday, Ms. Ronstadt, who to her credit has always been a strong ally to LGBT Latinos, speaks about lesbian ranchera singer Lucha Reyes, the passage of Prop. 8 in California last year, homophobia in the Latino community, and her role coordinating the upcoming San Jose Mariachi Festival (Ms. Rondstadt, once known more for her pop hits, has embraced Mex-Tex and Mariachi big band culture and enjoyed great acclaim and success in this stage of her prolific career).

"Ronstadt's involvement" Gay.comwrites, "made us want to know more about the cultural experiences of being LGBT in the Latino/Hispanic community."

Anyway, who knows? Perhaps Gay.com will get some good feedback and profile a number of groovy gay Latinos. But, just as Gay.com tells Ms. Ronstadt that "something needs to be done to bridge the gay gap in the Hispanic community", perhaps Gay.com also needs to do something about the fact that, in this day and age, they seem to have no clue about LGBT Latinos nor seem to know any out LGBT Latinos they could have interviewed on these topics.

Are Californians ready to try again on marriage equality?

Is it too soon to try for marriage equality again in California? Some major funders of last year’s failed “No on 8″ campaign, which opposed changing the state’s constitution to roll back marriage equality, say they aren’t convinced 2010 is the right time to once again put the issue to voters, according to an article in the New York Times.

David Bohnett, a philanthropist who invested heavily in “No on 8″ last year, said major funders are prepared to help a new campaign, as long as its the right campaign. ”In conversations with a number of my fellow major No on 8 donors, I find that they share my sentiment: namely, that we will step up to the plate — with resources and talent — when the time is right. The only thing worse than losing in 2008 would be to lose again in 2010,” Bohnett said.

One key player in the next battle will likely be Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California. In gauging whether or not the organization should put its muscle behind a 2010 statewide ballot initiative or wait for more favorable conditions in 2012, Solomon said political experts and the public polling suggest 2010 may be too early. ”I expected having watched the protests and the real pain that the L.G.B.T. community had experienced that there would be some real measurable remorse in the electorate. But if you look at the poll numbers since November, they really haven’t moved at all,” Solomon said.

But not everyone agrees with the funders and political experts. Younger activists, energized by the loss last year, want to move ahead quickly, according to some LGBT rights advocates.

What is it about Sarah?

Ten months ago, no one could have anticipated the contempt and loathing Sarah Palin has faced, particularly from high profile members of the left. She has experienced, or been victim of, the worst our political system can dish out. Leaving this ugly spectacle behind for the sake of her family is perfectly understandable and probably the right thing to do
but Is Sarah Palin more a victim of her own success?

Did KRXQ go too far with Transgender comments?

Morning drive show ”Rob, Arnie and Dawn” has ceased broadcasting until June 11th following advertiser and listener backlash due to a controversial segment bashing transgender and cross-dressing teens.

Chipotle, Snapple and Sonic are among nine advertisers withdrawing crucial business from the show in protest of the May 28th broadcast. During the show, co-host Arnie States said:

“If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him.”

Host Rob Williams concurred.

“A boy who wears a dress is a freak. He’s a nut.”

The pair went on to admonish transgender people and their supporters to “stop hiding behind research and laws.” It bears repeating that some studies indicate gay, lesbian and transgender teens are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.

In a headache-inducing, all-caps statement made on their website, the hosts had this to say for themselves:

WE PRESENTED OUR OPINIONS ON A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT IN A HATEFUL, CHILDISH AND CRUDE FASHION; AND THEN, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETRACT THOSE REMARKS, WE DEFENDED THEM.

SINCE THEN, YOU, OUR LOYAL LISTENERS, HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO US THAT WE WENT TOO FAR. THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN OVERWHELMING. NONE OF YOU SAID THAT WE COULDN’T HAVE OPINIONS, YET SO MANY OF YOU SAID THAT THE WAY WE GAVE THEM CROSSED THE LINE. FURTHER, YOU SAID THAT OUR ATTEMPT TO MASK OUR COMMENTS AS “JOKES THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY OUR AUDIENCE,” WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I WOULD SAY NOW THAT IT WAS WORSE THAN THAT, IT WAS COWARDLY. YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.

LB news paper makes....

This cartoon was published in the Long Beach
Gazette. I think it's objectionable, but I welcome your thoughts.