Asterisk

Two years after Congress approved the policy change, President Obama announced this afternoon that in January 2010 the United States will end the policy of forbidding international travel and immigration based on HIV status. The statement came at the signing of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, which authorizes a 5% annual increase in the program’s funding for the next four years.

At the signing ceremony today, President Obama had this to say (excerpted) about the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act:

Over the past 19 years this legislation has evolved from an emergency response into a comprehensive national program for the care and support of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. It helps communities that are most severely affected by this epidemic and often least served by our health care system, including minority communities, the LGBT community, rural communities, and the homeless. It’s often the only option for the uninsured and the underinsured. And it provides life-saving medical services to more than half a million Americans every year, in every corner of the country.

It’s helped us to open a critical front on the ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS. But let me be clear: This is a battle that’s far from over, and it’s a battle that all of us need to do our part to join. AIDS may no longer be the leading killer of Americans ages 25 to 44, as it once was. But there are still 1.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, and more than 56,000 new infections occur every single year.

Some communities still experience unacceptably high rates of infection. Gay men make up 2 or 3 percent of the population, but more than half of all new cases. African Americans make up roughly half of all new cases. Nearly half of all new cases now occur in the South. And a staggering 7 percent of Washington, D.C.’s residents between the ages of 40 and 49 live with HIV/AIDS — and the epidemic here isn’t as severe as it is in several other U.S. cities.

So tackling this epidemic will take far more aggressive approaches than we’ve seen in the past — not only from our federal government, but also state and local governments, from local community organizations, and from places of worship.

But it will also take an effort to end the stigma that has stopped people from getting tested; that has stopped people from facing their own illness; and that has sped the spread of this disease for far too long. A couple of years ago Michelle and I were in Africa and we tried to combat the stigma when we were in Kenya by taking a public HIV/AIDS test. And I’m proud to announce today we’re about to take another step towards ending that stigma.

The President then moved on to the Travel and Immigration ban:

Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS. Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease — yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat. We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic — yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country.

If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it. And that’s why, on Monday my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year. Congress and President Bush began this process last year, and they ought to be commended for it. We are finishing the job. It’s a step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment, it’s a step that will keep families together, and it’s a step that will save lives.

Between the two measures today and signing the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Law on Wednesday, this has been an historic week for the LGBT community. I am so grateful to Congress and President Obama for their action.

Because of this week’s actions, people living with HIV/AIDS virus can enter the United States without lying about their status, and without smuggling their life-preserving medications. People who have not had access to HIV testing and treatment will have resources to better care for the disease and to get information to slow its spread. People who are victims of of the twin human viruses of hate and fear will have access to tools previously withheld because of the victim’s orientation or gender preference.

So thank you President Obama, and thank you members of Congress.

The next battle awaits. We’re hoping we don’t have to bring 200,000 people back to Washington, DC before you take action on these other threats to human liberty.

At 2:51pm today, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. After eleven years of public battle to add sexuality and gender identity to existing hate crimes laws, we finally have in place a federal law that ensures that violence against LGBT people will not be swept under the carpet like it has so often.

Judy Shepard, mother of one of the slaughtered men this law is named for, released the following statement (excerpted) through the Matthew Shepard Foundation:

“When Dennis and I started calling 10 years ago for federal action to prevent and properly prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, we never imagined it would take this long,” said Judy Shepard, Matthew’s mother and the president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board of Directors.

“The legislation went through so many versions and so many votes that we had to constantly keep our hopes in check to keep from getting discouraged,” she continued. “But with President Obama’s support and the continually growing bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate lining up behind the bill this year, it became clear that 2009 was the year it would finally happen.”

The legislation allows federal authorities to pursue charges in violent crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability, in cases where local authorities cannot or will not secure appropriate convictions. It also opens up federal aid to local law enforcement for training, prevention and investigation.

“We are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly,” Shepard added. “But each of us can and must do much more to ensure true equality for all Americans.”

Matthew Shepard
1976 - 1998

Obama is to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill, on Wednesday. Kennedy and her husband were driving Tuesday night from their home in Greenville to the nation’s capital, where they were planning to witness the ceremony.

“We are going there representing so many people,” she said. “People who have been murdered and are dealing with the harassment and bullying and violence on a daily basis.”

But Kennedy said her work does not end with the president’s signature.

“This is a huge milestone, but it is not the end of the fight,” she said. “We have to change the hearts and minds.”

Toward that end, she has spoken at 34 colleges and universities “to educate these kids about what hate and violence and bullying can do and give them options and teach them non-violent conflict resolution.”

But she expressed frustration that elementary schools have not allowed her to address their students, to send them the message that ends each of her talks: “No mother should ever have to bury her child, no mother should ever have to lose her child to hate or violence and no mother should ever have to fight for justice for her child.”

Sean Kennedy
1987 - 2007

As Dan Savage said last week on Anderson Cooper 360, this new law doesn’t put a force field around us. It doesn’t protect us before a crime is committed and I won’t be retiring my Hate Crimes category any time soon. What it does do, though, is offer federal aid if local authorities are unwilling to vigorously prosecute killers, (like in Sean Kennedy’s and more recently Tony Hunter’s cases) and provide local police with resources (like in Matthew Shepard’s case).

This is a major victory, one that we fought long and hard for (even when our so-called leaders didn’t like it) (not that I’m bitter). A reception will be held in celebration at the White House around 6:00 tonight, and I’m glad they’ll be there to celebrate.

But even better, we can celebrate each time a criminal serves a just sentence for their crimes.

That’s right. On October 27, 1992 the Canadian Federal Court ruled that barring lesbians and gay men from serving in the military was a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. From Sunshine Coast, BC’s Coast Reporter:

In the last 17 years, many have risen to the top in their respective fields – an otherwise impossible feat under rules that once barred the promotion of enlisted individuals who’d been outed.

Luc Cassivi is one of them.

He certainly didn’t talk about his sexual orientation when he joined the Canadian Navy in 1983. He’s now the highest-ranking sailor aboard HMCS Ville de Quebec, a commander in the Navy, and he’s no longer shy about who he is.

“I’ve been openly gay for a number of years. My friends and my co-workers know it and it surely has not been an impediment for me progressing,” Cassivi said in an interview aboard his Halifax-based frigate. “I’m not saying that things have always been rosy. There were periods when things were difficult for a lot of people… But I think we’re well past that at this point.”

Cassivi spent 15 years in tight quarters as a submariner. He said he’s experienced his share of awkward moments and uncomfortable jokes. There were even times he considered leaving the military.

But once the rules changed, he says, so did the culture. Opportunities began to surface. These days, Cassivi says, success is dictated by performance.

“It’s not colour, cultural background, gender or the like. It’s (whether) you are competent at what you do,” he said. “If you’re competent at what you do, then the team will take you in and fully integrate you.”

Cassivi said coming out with his colleagues merely simplified his life. He doesn’t see himself as a champion for gay rights and says this is the first time he’s ever spoken in the media about his sexuality. What he’s most concerned about, he says, is getting the best out of his crew.

Happy anniversary, Canada! Hopefully we’ll soon join you in treating people fairly.

Army Secretary John McHugh said yesterday that repeal of DADT would not lead to “major turmoil” in the Army. This statement from an extraordinarily high ranking official within the Pentagon flies in the face of claims by Elaine Donnelly and other DADT champions who chaos and revolt would ensue if gays were permitted to serve openly.

The statement came during a wide-ranging interview with Rick Maze of Army Times. Here’s the relevant section of the interview:

Army Secretary John McHugh

McHugh finds himself at the center of debate over Obama’s pledge to repeal the law banning open service by homosexuals.

In the interview, McHugh carefully avoided offering his personal views on the issue, saying his job now is to provide input to Obama on how to make the change and to talk with members of Congress about the issue. Selling the idea to Congress, which has the final say, could depend on exactly what the administration tries to do in terms of the timing of repeal and how it is applied, McHugh said.

It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.

“I don’t want to prejudge the situation,” he said. “I am saying if he did that, it would be my job to explain it when the appropriate time comes.”

When asked specifically if lifting the gay ban would seriously disrupt the military, as predicted by those who oppose repeal, McHugh said there is no reason to think major turmoil would ensue.

“Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that,” he said. “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues, [with] predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out,” he said.

This isn’t coming from a lefty loon, or whatever O’Reilly is calling people these days. Before taking the role of Army Secretary last month, McHugh served for many years as a Republican congressman from a conservative district in New York.

In reporting the story today, Reuters sought out the opinions of two officials from the Palm Center:

“What we’re seeing is a tipping point in the opinions of both military and civilian leaders on this issue,” said Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center. “The Army is the largest of the services and the most heavily involved in our wars abroad, and for Secretary McHugh to state clearly that it can handle repeal sends a strong signal to the other service secretaries that they can do the same.”

Dr. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, said Secretary McHugh’s comments were enormously significant. But he pointed out that there is no research to support the idea of letting gay soldiers serve in some units but not others. “The rationale for the ban applies equally across all job categories,” he said. “So if it’s okay to be an openly gay Arabic interpreter, it’s also okay to be openly gay in the infantry or on a submarine. Since conduct rules apply across the board, there’s just no basis for applying different standards to different specialties.”

The fight to repeal DADT seems to be picking up steam lately. Senators Joe Lieberman (CT) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) have both been rumored to be taking point in the Senate, and Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA) has been fighting for repeal in the House. President Obama is theoretically on board.

Could this be a signal that the end is near?

We’re in the home stretch in Maine’s battle for marriage equality, with eight days to go. I don’t usually make this kind of post, but a mountain of information on Stand for Marriage Maine (SFMM) and National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been shared in the last several days from multiple sources.

As usual, following the money has produced some insight into the campaign. Here’s a list of what you need to know for the vote in Maine and the in next battleground state.

• Jeremy Hooper of Good-As-You ran a 13-part examination series on NOM.
  Volume 1: Unhinged billboard campaign
  Volume 2: Oversimplified reduction of pro-gay comments
  Volume 3: Ridiculous Vaclav Havel/Soviet empire comparisons
  Volume 4: NOM board member wants to overthrow pro-gay governments
  Volume 5: NOM’s general counsel = quite extremist
  Volume 6: Heated attack from NOM”s founder, Robert George
  Volume 7: Mid-90s version of Maggie found DOMA too timid
  Volume 8: Brian Brown’s words: Why doesn’t the “yes” campaign say truth-bearing stuff like this?
  Volume 9: Maggie’s highly Catholic take on your “sinful” lives
  Volume 10: Marriage equality = Vietnam?
  Volume 11: Maggie’s unfair reduction of Iowa ruling vs. the actual Iowa ruling
  Volume 12: Maggie unfair take on Maine (detecting a theme here?)
  Volume 13: Gay unions = “grassfire,” per NOM guest star Rick Santorum
• Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight further analyzes donation data, finding that an alarming 83% of SFMM’s funding is from organized and out-of-state funding.
• Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin discovers a(nother) false claim from SFMM’s website that “vast network of wealthy homosexuals” from out-of-state are spending millions in Maine.
• This after BTB’s report NOM, based in New Jersey and Washington, DC, is SFMM’s biggest donor with 58% of total funding.
• In the same post, we find that NOM is refusing to release their financial records, instead challenging Maine campaign finance laws, just as they have in other states.
• Did I mention that NOM is being investigated by the Maine Ethics Commission? Louise at Pam’s House Blend has the story.
• Louise also examines the closing of Catholic churches in Maine, a direct repercussion from the Catholic Church’s $529,666 (so far) investment in SFMM this year.
• Over at The New Republic, Seyward Darby tells us that SFMM has employed the chief strategist of last year’s Prop 8 Campaign in California. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, as they’ve followed the California playbook to the letter.
• Finally, Sara Whitman of Bilerico talks about SFMM’s favorite tactic, Protect the Children fearmongering.