jasmine beach-ferrara | arsenal & grand

LA Times & Barney Frank Weigh In

Today, the LA Times weighs in on the Obama administration's stance toward LGBT rights, concluding an op-ed with this paragraph:

The gap between Obama and gay rights activists appears to be growing. True, the current federal lawsuits against the marriage act and Proposition 8 fail to recognize that a hasty march can be damaging to gay rights. The current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court makes it highly unlikely that such lawsuits will succeed, and adverse decisions could set the same-sex marriage movement back by years. From an ideological viewpoint, gays and lesbians are entitled to their rights now. But well-planned timing gives them the best chance of securing those rights soon. Obama, though, has shown a dishearteningly pragmatic willingness to allow the issue of gay rights to languish. The many Americans who support these rights expect better of him.

Out Reps. Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis have also issued statements critiquing the manner in which the DOJ dismissed the DOMA challenge, while, in Frank's case, urging LGBT folk to stay engaged with the DNC. In this interview with the Boston Herald, Frank had this to say:

“I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate,” Frank (D-Newton) said of a brief filed by Obama’s Department of Justice that supported the Defense of Marriage Act.The DOJ brief, which has touched off a firestorm of anger in the gay community, argued that states should not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, just as states don’t have to recognize incestuous marriages or unions involving underage girls.“I’ve been in touch with the White House and I’m hoping the president will make clear these were not his views,” Frank said.

What Gives: Why Is the White House Dropping the Ball on LGBT Rights?

Why is the Obama administration dropping the ball on LGBT rights? Over at Pam's House Blend, you can check out a post that includes a full run down of the administration's recent missteps around LGBT rights, including the jaw-dropping (but sadly familiar) language of the DOJ's brief dismissing a DOMA challenge; the lack of teeth in the White House's new announcement that benefits will be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees (no health insurance, though); and the brewing snafu of a planned DNC fundraiser that many LGBT donors are now boycotting.

What gives? How do you explain the profound disconnect between Obama's language and promises on the campaign trail and the clear message that his administration is sending by refusing to act or comment substantively upon LGBT rights issues currently at play, and then releasing the DOJ brief.

It's one thing for the White House to let this issue play out in the states, in Congress and in the federal courts; but it's another thing entirely to be citing the incest argument in a brief issued by the DOJ.  I understand why the administration would choose the former path and focus efforts in its first term on issues like health care and economic recovery. In fact, I think those are the big issues they ought to be devoting their efforts -- and political capital -- to. In this pragmatic realm, it is the task of of civil rights groups to move the ball forward, by lobbying effectively, exerting continual and savvy political pressure, and building grassroots support for LGBT rights.

But the language of the DOJ brief? One understands that the DOJ would dismiss the claim for lack of standing and that its role, typically, is to uphold federal statutes. But the language of the brief takes an aggressive anti-gay stance; they could have easily dismissed the claim without trotting out the bigoted rhetoric.

So why do this? The usual explanations -- pandering to conservative elements; Obama doing an about-face on the positions he held as a State Senator, a U.S. Senator and a candidate for President -- don't seem to hold a lot of water. What do you think?

One of the better responses to the DOJ brief came from the HRC's Joe Solomonese, who addressed a letter to Obama that's excerpted below.

Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours.  I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

I've written a number of posts critiquing the HRC and I'm glad to highlight their good work on this issue.

Nate Silver Says Go Negative, Kind Of

Good framing is often the pathway to political victory. Nate Silver of 538.com has some interesting advice for the LGBT movement: we should frame our argument for gay marriage in terms of negative versus positive rights. He argues that this approach is more resonant with the American public's sense of privacy and fairness, basing this analysis on his reading of a recent USA Today poll. Toward the end of the article, he walks the reader through what this new approach to framing would sound like, using a case study of Equality California's messaging on Prop 8:

"But even though gay marriage had already become -- however briefly -- the law of the land in California, that wasn't how the debate unfolded on Proposition 8. Instead, look at what Equality California said on its website at the time:

Every Californian should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.

Emphasis mine. True, Equality California mentioned that gay marriage had already been established under the state's constitution. The problem is that Proposition 8 wasn't an argument over how to interpret the state constitution -- it was an argument about whether or not to amend the constitution to render interpretation unnecessary.

What if Equality California had instead said this:

California's government should not have the right to interfere with the decision of two loving adults to get married. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom protected by the California Constitution.

You see the distinction? Equality California was still stuck in the positive rights paradigm. Gay marriage was something given to California by the state Supreme Court in its benevolent wisdom, not an intrinsic (negative) right for which the government had a duty of noninterference."

All Eyes on Iran

Extraordinary things are afoot in Iran, as hundreds of thousands of people gather in Tehran to show support for reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in his race against incumbent Ahmadinejad. The national election will take place in two days. What's at stake here is quite remarkable in terms of the future of Iranian politics. This short article and slideshow from CNN offer a glimpse of the streets of Tehran. The NYT has a lengthier piece here, and a slideshow that includes this photo of two Mousavi supporters.

The debate over a LGBT march in DC pales in comparison, but this is just one more example of the difference between protests and gatherings that capture the world's imagination and those which are likely to be duds.

March Madness: Arguing Over a LGBT March in DC

There's a debate brewing about whether or not to organize a national march on Washington demanding full equality for LGBT people. Activist Cleve Jones has called for a march to be held on October 11 and has outlined plans for a simple gathering in the nation's capital. He argues that a march is the best way to launch a national movement, and thinks it can put into motion a ground game on the local level that includes lobbying and canvassing. There'll be no bells and whistles at the march, he says, just bodies, a direct message, a short program, and port-a-potties. What we might call Frugalista Organizing.

This back-to-basics part, I like a lot. But I agree with Matt Comer of Interstate Q on this one: the funds and energy necessary for even a simple march could be better spent through funding targeted efforts on the local and state level. Check out Comer's "Five Effective Alternatives to a March on Washington" here.

Marches and rallies can be one effective component of a broader well-organized campaign. But so too can they be a relatively empty form of political theater: they may inspire participants on the day of, but they also have a short half-life.

Timed as it is to coincide with a Congressional recess and absent the infrastructure to support a national ground game to follow the march, Jones' proposal falls into this latter category. We also have to bear in mind that Obama's inauguration, pictured here, set a new standard in the national imagination for what a political gathering in DC can look like: epic in scope, highly diverse and hopeful in tone. Marches which aim to be rousing national calls for change now have a high bar to meet.

But in Jones' vision, I also see three characteristics that I like:

1) Frugalista Organizing: the best kept secret of community organizing is that it doesn't actually take a lot of money. It takes people + time;

2) A 50-state and 435-precinct Scope: this national scope is critical, but to implement it we need resources directed in a targeted manner and flowing into those areas that are the most under-resourced; and

3) Grassroots Rather Than Top-Down Leadership: the LGBT movement will be more effective if its course is determined by leaders on the grassroots level -- particuarly in those areas where persecution is most acute -- rather than based on the directives of organizations based in DC, NYC, SF and LA.  But when we call for action on the grassroots level, we need to ensure that it's strategic. The march isn't, but other things -- lobbying efforts, relationship building with unlikely allies on the local level -- are.

Silent Films. Live Music. Homemade Pie. A Brick Wall.

Here in Jamaica Plain, we live in a rambling old house that is adjacent to The Brewery Complex. Which means that one side of our backyard faces a huge brick wall. The kind of wall that makes you want to either climb it or project images onto it.

We've chosen the latter and will be screening films here on three nights this summer, by way of The Backyard Band/with Film Series. Imagine: lanterns in the trees; hot slices of homemade pies; crisp summer cocktails; silent films on the brick wall; live improvised music as a soundtrack. Need a few more sensory details? Check out one of the films that will be screened, Power Surge by Ryan Murdock, and the music of Nick Yulman and the Bone Conductors Mechanical Orchestra.

The first screening in on Friday, June 19th at 8 PM and all the details are on our website.

At Long Last, Offense

Part of why I support Olson and Boies' federal challenge to Prop 8 is because it's a bold offensive play. It's about time. For too many years now, the LGBT movement has been locked in a posture of defense  or tepid offensive gestures. We've converted a few first downs, but we act as if the end zone is on another planet.

Check out this quote from "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," a document that a coalition of leading LGBT groups (i.e. the big ones) released last spring and updated last week:

"The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that people support it). We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning, and then ask Congress and the Executive Branch to end the federal government’s discrimination against same-sex couples. When we’ve won in a critical mass of states and have basic support in federal law and policy, we can turn to the federal courts and ask that the U.S. government end any remaining discrimination against LGBT people."

There are a few fundamental problems here.

First of all, anti-marriage amendments have already passed in 30 states, meaning that no matter the gains we make in the coming years, the other side will always have a majority of states on their side and thus a larger critical mass. Is there really a significant difference between going before the federal court when marriage is legal in five states, versus, say eight. I don't think so. Nor should we overlook the fact that the very organizations that took leadership roles on those 30 losing campaigns are now the ones calling for extreme caution in approaching the federal bench. They are not experts in campaign strategy and they are certainly not experts in Supreme Court behavior.

Second, this line of thinking is fine if you happen to live in one of those "winnable states." But what if you're a resident of one of the 30 states in which an anti-marriage amendment has passed. Like Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, or Oklahoma. These are the places where our movement's attention and resources need to be focused.

The big ones call for incrementalism but they don't bear its burdens. The problem with incrementalism is that it prolongs injustice and thus suffering. Unnecessarily. Typically, those who favor this approach are at the head of the pack; those at the rear feel more urgency and are often willing to take more risks to create change. Incrementalism is code for trickle-down civil rights, as my friend April Barton puts it.

And this is where the LGBT movement may actually have a lot to learn from the global health sector's response to TB and AIDS. A bit of a leap, at first glance. But the connections are there to be made, especially if one believes that all of our fates are entangled, that all suffering and all liberation efforts are connected. 

Until quite recently, the prevailing philosophy in global health policy was guided by a concept called "appropriate technology," which involved scaling back services and treatment protocols in the world's poorest regions. This too was a form of incremantalism. Experts from the World Health Organization determined, for example, that it was impossible to effectively treat TB and HIV in these communities and therefore, treatment should be withheld in order to preserve scarce resources. This "appropriate technologies" approach represented a type of triage; but it also perpetuated the worst kinds of disparity: People suffered and died unnecessarily.

It took a group of young physicians, led by Paul Farmer and Jim Kim of Partners in Health, to convince global health policy makers that they were wrong. Farmer and Kim, who have since been recognized as pioneers in their field, were at first greeted as heretics for suggesting that it was not only possible but also morally right to treat the world's poorest people with the same quality of care that the world's richest receive. They grounded their argument in clinical data which proved they could treat these conditions effectively in poor communities; and in moral terms, drawing upon liberation theology to argue for "a preferential option for the poor." It took them years to convince the powers that be to change policy, and called upon a blend of risk-taking, political acumen, good science and medicine, and willfulness.

That they did so changed the course of history and -- more importantly -- the lives and health outcomes of millions of people in the world's poorest communities. (This is a simplified version of a story told brilliantly by Tracy Kidder in the book Mountains Beyond Mountains.) Farmer and Kim were lucky to be working within a profession that values data and responds to it. Their peers might have at first argued with the premise of their work, but they could not argue with mounting clinical data. The data held a new version of the truth: that which had been thought impossible was in fact possible. 

The LGBT movement does not -- currently -- give much credence to data. How else can we explain the rallying cry to try to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot in 2010 when our record at the ballot box is 1-30? Nor does the movement give much credence to innovation. How else can we explain running the "No on 8" campaign as if it was still 1996? These things are frustrating and they explain trends and inefficiencies on the organizational and strategic levels.

But what I cannot abide is a movement that does not prioritize, above all else, the reduction of suffering, especially for those who experience the most acute persecution. A preferential option for the poor also means a preferential option for the persecuted. Because at the end of the day that's what we're talking about when we talk about marriage and employment discrimination and hate crimes and UAFA and DADT. We're talking about real people's lives in every state in the nation. People who should not have to wait for incrementalism's slow crawl across the map.

Surely, Olson and Boies are motivated by factors beyond sheer altruism. It would be naive to think otherwise. And it would be naive to assume a federal victory is imminent or even highly likely. But risk in the name of reducing suffering and in the hands of highly skilled litigators is risk I can live with.

It's time for offense.

Judge for Yourself: Boies and Olson Interviews

You can get a good sense of the flavor of Boies and Olson's arguments for gay marriage in these interviews with Chris Matthews and Larry King respectively:

Game-changer: Olson and Boies Shake Things Up in the LGBT Movement

Earlier this week, Ted Olson and David Boies, two of the nation's most talented and experienced litigators, filed a federal challenge to Prop 8 in a case called Perry v. Schwarzenegger. In response, they have been critiqued by a coalition of the nation's largest LGBT organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce.

I can understand if you needed to read that twice.

One might think this development would be good news, and I argue that it is. But the national leadership of the LGBT movement, a coalition of organizations which I'll call the big ones, has sent a clear message: this challenge is doomed to fail and to set the LGBT movement back by years.

They are making a mistake. Whatever its outcome, this federal challenge is a game-changer and it has the potential to accelerate the movement's progress. It's a bold move and it brings to the table the talent and experience of two litigators who have logged ample hours arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The big ones' primary objection is that this challenge flies in the face of their strategy, which involves incrementally winning equality on a state-by-state basis and, once we've reached a critical mass, taking a case to the Supreme Court. They say it's far too early for a federal case.

There's just one problem with this argument: there is no evidence that their strategy is working. To the contrary, it's going quite poorly.

The LGBT movement has relied on this incremental strategy since 2004. In that time, anti-marriage amendments have passed in 30 states and we have won marriage equality in just five states. The big ones played a leadership role in many of these 30 losses and they steered the "No on 8 campaign" to defeat in what has aptly been called campaign malpractice. I wouldn't trust these odds in any other part of my life -- medicine, law, aviation safety, or the NCAA bracket -- so why should we trust them with our civil rights?

Having a strategy is not the same as having the right strategy. Talented, passionate people choose the wrong strategy all the time, especially in politics. In these situations, group think often conspires against one of the fundamentals of good strategy and tactics: making adjustments as new data emerges. Look at Hilary Clinton's approach to the primaries. Look at the No on 8 campaign.

For years, I've tempered my critiques of the big ones. They do much good after all*, and at the end of the day they always seemed like our best shot at winning equality. But they have gone too far this time. Increasingly, these organizations seem like the American Auto industry: insulated, bloated, and weirdly resistant to innovation and new data.

The big ones may not fly private jets to DC, but there's plenty of fat even in the non-profit sector. Last year, for instance, the HRC spent 31% - or $13.8 million -- of its annual budget on fundraising and administrative costs. In 2007, the NGLTF spent 46% -- or $3.8 million -- on the same budget lines**. How is it possible to do that while still spending $45 million on a losing campaign? Enough Winter Parties. Enough t-shirts and boxer briefs with organizational logos on them. Enough celebrity endorsements. Enough.

What we need are nimble thinkers; lean organizing models that can be replicated in every community; a commitment to investing resources in those areas of the country where persecution is most acute; an aggressive, innovative, 50-state strategy; and an informed, open-arms approach when people like Olson and Boies are ready to bring more resources to the table. 

The big ones should be joining forces with Olson and Boies. Instead, they are trying to weaken grassroots support for this groundbreaking federal challenge. They are wagering that Olson and Boies will lose; the movement's progress will be crippled; and their incremental strategy will be vindicated. What a cynical view of the future before us.

The truth is that no one can accurately predict whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case, much less how it will decide. Like so much else in politics, even informed predictions are just guesses.

I may have to eat my words on this one. But I hope not. After all, if this challenge succeeds, it means marriage equality will be recognized at the federal level years earlier than was thought possible. Those odds are good enough for me.

* Some notable examples: GLAD and MassEquality are teaming up with equality organizations across New England to win marriage equality in the region at a breathtaking pace; and Lambda Legal and One Iowa showed boldness and acumen in winning marriage equality in Iowa.

**Sources: Annual Reports of the HRC and NGLTF, respectively. Available online.

Ellington & Lawson: Outbound from Carolina

Sports Illustrated reports that both Ty Lawson and Wayne Ellington are bound for the NBA draft, opting out of their senior seasons at Carolina. For those wondering how these glaring gaps in the line up will be filled, you can check out frenetic recruiting coverage at Inside Carolina.