How news outlets covered the State Department’s visa policy change

Posted on October 3, 2018 by Patrick Garvin

Under a new State Department policy that went into effect October 1, the United States will issue a G-4 visa to a partner of a staff member of US-based international organizations only if the couple is legally married. Among other organizations, this includes the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

Per the State Department’s website: “Effective immediately, U.S. Embassies and Consulates will adjudicate visa applications that are based on a same-sex marriage in the same way that we adjudicate applications for opposite gender spouses.”

This has ramifications for anyone who worked for a US-based international organization and wanted to obtain a G-4 vis for a partner. But this has noticeable consequences for same-sex couples. In many countries, same-sex marriage is not permitted. Furthermore, there are some countries where same-sex relations are still illegal, and in some countries, punishable by death.

From an NBC News article:

For all new G-4 applications filed at the State Department after Monday, the same-sex partner must be a legally married spouse. For U.N. workers who are in relationships currently recognized by a G-4 visa but are not legally marriage, their partners will have 30 days after the new year to either get married or exit the United States.

David Pressman, who was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Security Council for special political affairs in the Obama administration, said the G-4 action is harmful in part because the United Nations is “composed of probably one of the most diverse workforces of any organization in the world.”

“If that’s how you advance equality between same-sex and opposite sex partners, then we have an enormous problem on our hands,” Pressman said. He described the policy as a “creative and cynical way to use the expansion of equality at home to vindictively target same-sex couples abroad.”

Here’s a look at how a handful of news outlets framed the issue. I’ve included screenshots of the headlines, as well as links to the articles.

First, the aforementioned piece from NBC News: U.S. to partners of U.N. LGBTQ staff: Get married, or get out

CBS News: U.S. says same-sex partners of UN staff will have to marry or leave

ABC News: Trump administration halts visas for unmarried same-sex partners of foreign diplomats

Washington Post: State Department changes visa rules for same-sex partners of foreign diplomats

New York Times: U.S. Bans Diplomatic Visas for Foreign Same-Sex Domestic Partners

Wall Street Journal: Trump Administration Halts Some Same-Sex Visas for Foreign Officials in U.S.

Los Angeles Times: U.S. stops issuing visas to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats unless they are married

CNN: US halting visas for same-sex partners of diplomats

New York Magazine: The U.S. Just Made Life Harder on LGBT Diplomats and U.N. Staff

And here are some headlines from LGBTQ-themed publications:

INTO: The Trump Administration Is Denying Visas to Unmarried Same-Sex Partners of U.N. Diplomats

them: The State Department Says Gay Diplomats Have To Marry Their Partners Or Leave

LGBTQ Nation: Trump administration will deny visas to same-sex partners of diplomats

The Advocate: Trump Reverses Clinton Policy, Strips Visas From Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats

Headlines have the challenge of distilling the essence of a story down to a few words while not giving away too much of the story. This story is a hard story to sum up in a short headline, because there are so many ways to frame the situation:

The State Department has a new policy affecting people who want G-4 visas
People who work for US-based international organizations who want visas for their partners will have to get married to get those visas
People who work for US-based international organizations who want visas for their partners will have to get married to get those visas, but there will be complications for some people
People who work for US-based international organizations who want visas for their partners will have to get married to get those visas, but same-sex couples face potential dilemmas that opposite-sex couples won’t face
UN workers who want to get G-4 visas for their partners will now have to marry their partners to get the visa
UN workers who want to get G-4 visas for their partners will now have to marry their partners to get the visa, even if they are in a same-sex couple and they live in a country where same-sex marriage is not legally allowed
UN workers who want to get G-4 visas for their partners will now have to marry their partners to get the visa, even if they are in a same-sex couple and they live in a country where same-sex relations are agains the law

Each of those statements is true, though some of them are descriptive and precise, and some are broader. Ultimately, the least clunky of them is that first one: “The State Department has a new policy affecting people who want G-4 visas.” But that fails to capture the totality of what’s happening, and what’s at stake.

Part of what makes it difficult to convey the news in brief, compelling and accurate language is that it’s difficult to refer to the people affected without being at least somewhat clunky. News organizations and the journalist who write for them have struggled on how to refer to couples in same-sex relationships. For years, “gay marriage” has been treated as interchangeable with “same-sex marriage,” and “gay couples” has been seen as acceptable to mean “same-sex couples.” This colloquial way of referring to same-sex couples is limited, though, as it implies something that we can’t know for certain: the orientations of the people in same-sex couples. In the US and other countries that permit same-sex couples to marry, the orientation of the couple is not a factor. The couples can comprise gay people, bisexual people, pansexual people, queer people, and so on. Even straight people.

Similarly, this policy change affects anyone in a same-sex couple wanting a G-4 visa, whether they are gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, etc. This might seem like hairsplitting and nitpicking, but there’s a good reason to pay attention to the language. From a traditional copy editor’s perspective, it’s more precise and accurate to say “same-sex couple” and “opposite-sex couple” than to say “gay couple” or “straight couple.” I can’t imagine too many people have written corrections for incorrectly identifying the sexual orientation of a couple who got married, but anyone who aims to be accurate — and correction-free! — should keep this in mind.

But beyond that, it’s more inclusive to say “same-sex couple,” because “gay couple” only speaks to gay couples. “Same-sex couples” includes so many more people. Bisexual people and others who identify as neither straight nor gay can feel erased or ignored if the default blanket description of “not straight” is just “gay.”

For similar reasons, the term “straight marriage” is also limited and inaccurate. There can be — and are — opposite-sex couples comprising people who don’t consider themselves straight.

Sign up for the LGBTQ+ Experiment newsletter here.

Beyond the rainbow: Other LGBTQ flags (and communities)

Posted on July 6, 2015 by Patrick Garvin

The rainbow is no stranger to gay pride celebrations. It is as natural to the LGBTQ rights movement as the pink triangle, as inevitable a symbol to be seen at parades, festivals and rallies as red T-shirts and black armbands.

But when the rainbow came in social media form, it was previously associated with self-identified LGBTQ individuals and organizations, more likely to be seen in the gay districts and liberal enclaves of big cities or universities.

The rainbow has come to the mainstream, to corporations, to LGBTQ allies, and, well, everywhere.

Within hours of the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide, Facebook unveiled a previously internal-only tool that allowed users to apply a rainbow filter over their profile picture. The filter, inspired by the pride flag hanging over Facebook’s campus to mark Pride Month, had been developed by two Facebook interns over a 72-hour hackathon. In the following weekend, more than 26 million Facebook users applied the filter to their profile picture.

I’ve not seen any data on whether those users were LGBTQ or were allies, whether they were showing pride in the Supreme Court decision or showing support for the myriad couples now able to get married, or all of the above. I know that personally, in my Facebook feed, most of the users with a rainbow profile picture were indeed straight, cisgender allies, making the phenomenon that much more noteworthy and that much more overwhelming.

Much has already been written about the rainbow-fied profile pictures. Some have speculated that the tool was another experiment to gather information on its users. Others have lamented that changing one’s profile picture has zero effect on anything and amounts to nothing more than self-righteous attaboy backslapping. And gay reporter/writer Peter Moskowitz said the use of rainbow profile pictures was an appropriation that cheapened the struggles of the gay rights movement. As Moskowitz wrote:

I’ve earned the right to claim pride through years of internal strife over my sexuality. Others have died in the name of gay pride. More still have been jailed, have been disowned by their families, and have sued their state governments for it. Gay pride is not something you can claim by waving a flag. The rainbow symbol is easy to co-opt, but the experience it represents is not.

That’s why it wasn’t comforting to see hundreds of my Facebook friends’ profile pictures draped in rainbows. It didn’t feel like they were understanding my struggle; it felt like they were cheapening it, celebrating a victory they had no part in winning.

Some of the rainbow-colored faces were people I would never talk to about being gay – a relative with conservative politics, high school buddies I didn’t come out to because I feared losing their friendships. They weren’t necessarily homophobic, but they weren’t great allies either. They didn’t march during pride celebrations; they didn’t participate in the “day of silence”; they didn’t even bother to inquire about my life. If they were true allies to me or the LGBT community, where were they before Friday?

Moskowitz’s Washington Post piece has been widely circulated, and resonated with many in the LGBTQ community. I didn’t share Moskowitz’s sentiments, though I did feel more than a twinge of sadness.

I thought of a gay friend I had who passed away a few years ago. He died of natural causes, but had attempted suicide years earlier, when he had been a lonely, alienated high school student. He felt isolated and alone at his high school because he was gay. With my late friend in mind, I did not see the profile pictures as an appropriation or as an attempt to jump on a bandwagon. Instead, I saw them as the digital equivalent of the “safe space” stickers I used to see around campus when I was in college. I saw the profile pictures as a way for straight, cisgender people to indicate they were supportive of their friends.

That said, however cynical Moskowitz’s take might seem, he does invite us to look at the history of the rainbow flag and other LGBTQ banners whose storied background many of us didn’t understand before the flood of profile pictures a few weeks ago.

Gilbert Baker first created the Rainbow Flag after Harvey Milk asked Baker to make a flag for a march he was organizing. The rainbow seemed a natural symbol, as it had been associated with the gay rights movement ever since the Stonewall Riots in 1969, which coincided with the week of Judy Garland’s death. The first flag, made in 1978, had eight colors:

hot pink, red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, indigo/blue and violet — but it gradually lost its stripes until it became the six-color version most commonly used today. Each of the colors has its own significance, he says: hot pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, turquoise for art, indigo for harmony and violet for spirit.

The flag lost its hot pink stripe when Baker approached the Paramount Flag Company to begin mass producing them – the hot pink fabric was too rare and expensive to include. The flag lost its indigo stripe before the 1979 Gay Freedom Day Parade. The committee organizing the parade wanted to split the flag in half and fly each part from the light poles along both sides of Market Street, so it became a six-striped flag.

The rainbow flag is the most commonly known flag associated with LGBTQ issues, but certainly isn’t the only one. It’s not even the only one that you can overlay on your profile picture.

Michael Page created the bisexual pride flag (above) in 1998 to represent bisexual people at Pride rallies. Page’s reasoning for his design:

The pink color represents sexual attraction to the same sex only (gay and lesbian), the blue represents sexual attraction to the opposite sex only (straight) and the resultant overlap color purple represents sexual attraction to both sexes (bi). The key to understanding the symbolism in the Bi Pride Flag is to know that the purple pixels of color blend unnoticeably into both the pink and blue, just as in the ‘real world’ where bi people blend unnoticeably into both the gay/lesbian and straight communities.

You can even overlay the bisexual pride flag onto your Facebook profile.

Monica Helms, a transgender woman, a created the transgender pride flag (above) in 1999. The reasoning for her design:

The stripes at the top and bottom are light blue, the traditional color for baby boys. The stripes next to them are pink, the traditional color for baby girls. The stripe in the middle is white, for those who are intersex, transitioning or consider themselves having a neutral or undefined gender. The pattern is such that no matter which way you fly it, it is always correct, signifying us finding correctness in our lives.

You can even overlay the transgender pride flag onto your Facebook profile.

The International Bear Brotherhood Flag (above) was introduced by Craig Byrnes in early 1996 to represent bears, “a term for rugged gay men who often exhibit body hair and can be heavyset (though this isn’t always the case).” A similar but different flag had been designed by Steve Heyl and Jim Maxwell in early 1992.

Of course, these are but a few of the flags associated with communities within the LGBTQ movement. There are many other flags.

The rainbow flag, which may or may not have just experienced its “tipping point,” has become the most well-known flag associated with gay rights. If you hadn’t seen it before two weeks ago, you’ve certainly seen it now.

Will the other flags be as ubiquitous?

LGBTQ advocates have long said that same-sex marriage was but one of many issues affecting the community. Transgender issues have gained more visibility in the mainstream press, for a variety of reasons. Laverne Cox was featured on the cover of TIME and Caitlin Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair. Islan Nettles’s murder and Leelah Acorn’s suicides have highlighted the threats and pressures facing the transgender community, especially transgender women and and transgender women of color.

Obama, conversion therapy, and presidential stances on LGBT issues

Posted on April 9, 2015 by Patrick Garvin

When President Obama told Robin Roberts on ABC in May 2012 that he supported same-sex marriage, he added, “I’ve stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community.” Thus, in the context of an Obama presidency, Wednesday’s announcement that Obama condemned conversion or “reparative” therapy for LGBT youth could seem like just one more example of the president standing “on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community.” Less than two years into his first administration, he repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A year and a half later, he became the first sitting president to endorse same-sex marriage, and has since then stated his support for the end of bans on gay marriage.

But Obama hasn’t always been this vocal when discussing LGBT issues. No president or candidate has been. Thus, in a larger context, Wednesday’s announcement signalled that once again, the Obama presidency could be remembered for how Obama talked about and interacted with the LBGT community in a way different from past presidents. Because, in a larger context, this entire time in US history will be remembered for how society as a whole changed the way it talked about and interacted with the gay community, regardless of who was president at the time.

One need not go back too far in history to see how US presidents have evolved when talking about LGBT issues. This is a cursory list, and is certainly not meant to be exhaustive.

1993
President Clinton announced and later signed the policy that would become known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” in which LGBT members of the military could continue to serve, but not openly. The policy forced gays to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal. More than 13,500 people were discharged under the rule since 1993.

Sept. 21, 1996
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under laws of other states. Between then and the general election in November, Clinton’s campaign broadcasted ads on Christian radio touting that he had signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Feb. 24, 2004
President George W. Bush announced support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Aug. 3, 2004
Missouri voters passed an amendment that added a ban on gay marriage to the state constitution. Senator John F. Kerry, who was then the Democratic presidential nominee, said in an interview published with the Kansas City Star later that week that he would have voted for the gay marriage ban.

Nov. 2008
Barack Obama and John McCain faced each other in the general election. Though both men said they oppose same-sex marriage, they disagreed on whether the state constitutions should ban it.

Dec. 22, 2010
President Barack Obama signed legislation allowing gays to serve openly in America’s military, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

Feb. 23, 2011
President Obama declared that he will no longer defend DOMA.

May 9, 2012
President Obama became the first president to endorse same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney, who would face Obama in the general election in the fall, reiterated that he opposed same-sex marrige.

Jan. 2013
In his second inauguration address, President Obama referenced LGBT rights and struggles when he said, “Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall”.

Feb. 2013
In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Obama administration told the US Supreme Court that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

March 2013
Former president Bill Clinton wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post, calling for The Defense of Marriage Act to be overturned. “As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution,” Clinton wrote.

January 2015
President Obama became the first president to use the word “transgender” in a State of the Union Speech.

March 2015
In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Obama administration urged the US Supreme Court to rule that states could not ban same-sex marriage.

This, of course, is a very incomplete list. And this is not to say that Obama always had the same stances on LGBT issues. He will often say that he evolved. Clinton himself said that when he signed DOMA, it was a “different time.”

I wrote last year that some bloggers and pundits thought Obama had unfairly gotten a “pass” on his 2008 statements on gay marriage. The unifying question was this: If Brendan Eich had to resign as CEO of Mozilla because he gave $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in 2008, why does Barack Obama get a pass for saying in 2008 that marriage should be between a man and a woman?

As I wrote then:

If Obama or anyone who voiced opposition to same-sex marriage ever got a “pass,” it certainly wasn’t an across-the-board pass from the LGBTQ community. A quick Google search of the terms “Obama” “gay marriage” shows quickly that prominent sites and blogs about LGBTQ issues — The Advocate, The Bilerico Project, GoodAsYou and Towleroad — show that Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats did not get a “pass” on their stances on same-sex marriage or other issues. Bill Clinton, the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, didn’t receive a pass last year when he wrote an op-ed denouncing the law.

How presidential candidates will discuss gay marriage will probably be strongly influenced by how the Supreme Court will rule this year on the topic. It’s not an issue that will go away. Obama’s presidency does not mean that no candidate will ever oppose same-sex marriage again.

Nor do the LGBT milestones during an Obama presidency mean that he is responsible for them. As I said earlier, the Obama presidency could be remembered for how Obama talked about and interacted with the LBGT community in a way different from past presidents. But that probably has a lot to do with the fact that this entire time in US history will be remembered for how society as a whole changed the way it talked about and interacted with the gay community, regardless of who was president at the time.

This week in LGBTQ news, April 7-13

Posted on April 13, 2014 by Patrick Garvin

In case you missed it, here are some of the biggest news pertaining to LGBTQ issues to come out of the last week:

ACLU filed suit in North Carolina
The American Civil Liberties Union launched a new legal assault on North Carolina’s constitutional ban on recognizing same-sex marriage, urging a federal judge to quickly negate it to help children and gay couples suffering from urgent health problems. The civil rights group said it was seeking to speed up a decision in lawsuit filed in 2012 by citing the urgent health needs of a child who suffers from cerebral palsy who was adopted by one of the lesbian couples involved in the case. The ACLU also filed a new lawsuit on behalf of three other lesbian couples struggling with health conditions made more difficult because they lack legal recognition of their marriages performed in other states, said ACLU staff attorney Elizabeth Gill.

For more context:
ACLU sues for faster action to overturn North Carolina same-sex marriage ban [Charlotte Observer]
‘We don’t have time to wait,’ 78-year-old gay plaintiff says [News & Record]

—————

Federal judge ordered Indiana to recognize couple’s marriage
A federal judge ordered Indiana to recognize the out-of-state marriage of a gay couple before one of the women, who has ovarian cancer, dies. The decision, specific to the couple, who married in Massachusetts in 2013, doesn’t affect other lawsuits challenging Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriages.

For more context:
Indiana must recognize couple’s marriage [The Boston Globe]
Judge grants request to force Indiana to recognize couple’s same-sex marriage [The Indianapolis Star]
Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman’s marriage [The Chicago Tribune]

—————

Tom of Finland stamps announced, Harvey Milk stamp ceremony at White House announced
Itella Posti Oy, the Finnish equivalent of the United States Postal Service, announced it will release new stamps featuring the sketches of Touko Laaksonen, better known as Tom of Finland. Per the announcement:

His emphatically masculine homoerotic drawings have attained iconic status in their genre and had an influence on, for instance, pop culture and fashion. In his works, Tom of Finland utilized the self-irony and humor typical of subcultures.

During his career, Tom of Finland produced more than 3,500 drawings. The two drawings on the stamp sheet were selected by graphic artist Timo Berry, who designed the stamp, and Susanna Luoto, the Finnish representative of the foundation named after Tom of Finland operating in Los Angeles.

The stamps will debut in the fall. Unless you’re my mother or my nephew, click here to see the stamps. But if you are my mother or nephew, then please, do not click there.

—————

Chelsea Manning to serve as honorary grand marshal of San Francisco Pride Parade
Chelsea Manning, an imprisoned U.S. Army private charged in a massive leak of U.S. secrets to the WikiLeaks website, will serve as an honorary grand marshal in this year’s San Francisco Pride parade. Parade organizer Gary Virginia said Friday that Chelsea Manning — formerly known as Bradley Manning — was chosen to make amends for a controversy last year. Manning was named an honorary grand marshal ahead of the 2013 parade, but had the honor revoked. Virginia apologized, saying that decision was mishandled.

For more context:
Bradley Manning won’t get Pride honors [San Francisco Chronicle]
San Francisco gay pride rescinds honour for Bradley Manning [The Guardian]
Chelsea Manning parade retraction still creating tension on SF Pride board [San Francisco Examiner]

—————

Open letter to Pope Francis urges him to change church teaching on homosexuality
The head of a homeless shelter for LGBT youth published an open letter to Pope Francis in The New York Times Sunday, asking him to change the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

I write to you as a Roman Catholic, a former Benedictine monk and as a gay man who has spent over 30 years serving the homeless, first as a member of the Catholic Worker Movement, and now as the founder and Executive Director of the Ali Forney Center, America’s largest center for homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth based in New York City.

I write on behalf of the homeless LGBT youths I serve. I ask you to take urgent action to protect them from the devastating consequences of religious rejection, which is the most common reason LGBT youths are driven from their homes. At the heart of the problem is that the church still teaches that homosexual conduct is a sin, and that being gay is disordered. I hope that if you understand how this teaching tears families apart and brings suffering to innocent youths, you will end this teaching and prevent your bishops from fighting against the acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society.

Read the full ad here.

—————

Alan Simpson announces support for same-sex marriage
Former US Senator Alan Simpson has filmed a same-sex marriage commercial that will air in Wyoming and other western states. Simpson says as a Republican he believes one of the party’s core values is the right to be left alone. He says whether people are gay or lesbian or straight, if they love someone and they want to marry, they should marry.

Obama’s stance on gay marriage in 2008, and what that means in 2014

Posted on April 13, 2014 by Patrick Garvin

This past Friday, Mike Huckabee referenced Obama’s 2008 views on gay marriage when speaking to Laura Ingraham on “The O’Reilly Factor”:

The position that I hold is the position that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden held in 2008. Barack Obama held it until 2012. And my question that I would love to pose to the president is this: Mr. President, please explain that when you said in 2008 at the Saddleback Church forum that you stood for traditional marriage and you did so because you were a Christian and because it’s what the Bible taught, please answer: Were you lying then, are you lying now, or did the Bible get rewritten?

View the video below:

Huckabee’s not the only one referencing Obama’s stance in 2008. In the last few weeks, in the wake of Brendan Eich’s resignation as CEO of Mozilla, several pundits and bloggers have referenced Barack Obama’s views on same-sex marriage in 2008 when he was a candidate running for president. The unifying question was this: If Brendan Eich had to resign as CEO of Mozilla because he gave $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in 2008, why does Barack Obama get a pass for saying in 2008 that marriage should be between a man and a woman?

It echoes a similar question posed by Larry Elder of WND a few years ago, who asked why Rick Santorum was being scrutinized for his views on same-sex marriage, but Obama was getting a “pass” when, in Elder’s estimation, Obama had similar views as Santorum had.

DID Obama share the same viewpoint as Santorum, Eich or Huckabee? Well, how comparable Obama is to Eich, Huckabee or Santorum depends on how narrowly or broadly you define his views in 2008.

Indeed, in 2008, at Saddleback Church, Obama did say, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian… it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Click the YouTube video below to watch in full.

In that video, after saying that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, then-candidate Obama said he supports civil unions. He also said he does not believe in a constitutional amendment defining marriage. As recently as 2012, a month after Elder’s column comparing Obama to Santorum, Santorum voiced opposition to civil unions for same-sex couples while saying that he couples could work through the existing legal system to use contracts to get each of the rights associated with marriage.

Thus, to compare someone’s views on same-sex marriage to Barack Obama’s view in 2008 simply on the definition of marriage as a man and woman doesn’t tell the whole story on Obama or that other person’s viewpoints on civil unions. To only stop at the man-woman definition of marriage is too narrow and potentially misrepresents both Obama and the people to whom he’s being compared.

Specifically, if we’re comparing Obama and Brendan Eich. Eich was pressured to resign because he gave $1,000 to support Proposition 8. Obama, in 2008, did say, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” But in 2008, Obama also said that Proposition 8 was “divisive and discriminatory.”

It’s unknown why Eich supported Prop 8, or what his personal views are. When the donation became public knowledge, he said he didn’t want to discuss Prop 8 on his blog or on Twitter. He said he wanted to focus on the company, not his personal beliefs.

[W]ithout getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work — when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends’ eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

Hampton Catlin, a developer who couldn’t legally marry or start a business with his partner until the Supreme Court ruled last year that backers of Proposition 8 lacked standing, had blogged that he and his husband Michael would be pulling their product from the Mozilla Marketplace. Many came to see them as the figureheads of the boycott. After Eich’s resignation, Hampton Catlin wrote:

I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems.

It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.

We absolutely don’t believe that everyone who voted yes on Prop 8 is evil. In fact, we’re sure that most of them just didn’t understand the impact the law would have. That’s why so many people have changed their mind in 4 short years – because they saw the impact and pain that the law caused to friends and family members.

People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.

The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.

Many think that Eich got a raw deal and it was unfair that he was pressured to resigned. But has Obama gotten a clean pass on his statements?

If Obama or anyone who voiced opposition to same-sex marriage ever got a “pass,” it certainly wasn’t an across-the-board pass from the LGBTQ community. A quick Google search of the terms “Obama” “gay marriage” shows quickly that prominent sites and blogs about LGBTQ issues — The Advocate, The Bilerico Project, GoodAsYou and Towleroad — show that Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats did not get a “pass” on their stances on same-sex marriage or other issues. Bill Clinton, the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, didn’t receive a pass last year when he wrote an op-ed denouncing the law.

When former Florida governor Charlie Crist announced his support for same-sex marriage in an interview this past winter, he, too, compared his previous stance to that of Obama in 2008, but when comparing himself to Obama, he didn’t simply stop at the man-woman definition of marriage:

The President and I had the same view: we supported civil unions. I saw the interview he did with Robin Roberts last spring [in which he expressed support for same sex marriage]. I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s powerful, because you can tell he’s speaking from the heart.

I can’t speak for the President, but I suspect that to some degree, like me, he felt his support for civil unions was political. And so he’s finally saying, ‘Enough is enough. I’m over this. I’m not going to play the political angle anymore. I’m tired of it.’ Which is just the way I feel. You get to a point in your life where you say, ‘I’m just going to tell it.’ And here I am… I’m telling it. And I don’t care what anyone thinks.

Similarly, Richard Socarides, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, conceded in a New Yorker piece last year that Bill Clinton’s signing of the Defense of Marriage Act was fueled by politics rather than personal views.

As the tide turns and public opinion changes, more and more famous politicians who opposed same-sex marriage will announce a public change in their stance on the issue. They might use the word “evolved,” like Obama did, or they will cite a family member is the reason for their change of heart, like Republican Rob Portman did in March 2013.

And as they voice their support for same-sex marriage, will their previous stances be compared to those of Barack Obama in 2008?

This week in LGBTQ news, March 31-April 6

Posted on April 6, 2014 by Patrick Garvin

The Brendan Eich news was by the far the most-covered piece of LGBTQ news this past week, so to mention anything else before delving into that feels like saying, “Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” So, here’s what happened:

Brendan Eich, Mozilla and OkCupid
Ten days after being appointed CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich resigned. On Monday, a week after Eich’s appointment, dating site OkCupid greeted Firefox users with a message asking that they switch browsers before visiting the site. In an interview published Tuesday on CNet, Brendan Eich said:

[W]ithout getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work — when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends’ eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

By Wednesday, OkCupid had removed its message to Firefox users, but the next day, Eich resigned.

Hampton Catlin, a developer who couldn’t marry or start a business with his partner until the Supreme Court ruled last year that backers of Proposition 8 lacked standing, had blogged that he and his husband Michael would be pulling their product from the Mozilla Marketplace. After Eich’s resignation, Hampton Catlin wrote:

I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems.

It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.

We absolutely don’t believe that everyone who voted yes on Prop 8 is evil. In fact, we’re sure that most of them just didn’t understand the impact the law would have. That’s why so many people have changed their mind in 4 short years – because they saw the impact and pain that the law caused to friends and family members.

People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.

The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.

Friday, the National Organization for Marriage called for “Americans to remove the web browser Mozilla Firefox from their personal computers to protest the company forcing out its CEO over his support of Proposition 8.” NOM President Brian Brown said, “This is a McCarthyesque witch hunt that makes the term ‘thought police’ seem modest. We urge all consumers to remove Mozilla’s Firefox web browser from their computers as a sign of protest.”

For more context:
*Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO [The Mozilla Blog]
*OkCupid’s Firefox protest refreshingly innovative [The Boston Globe]
*Gay marriage, Mozilla’s Brendan Eich, and the role of a CEO [The Los Angeles Times]
*The Hounding of a Heretic [Andrew Sullivan, The Dish]
*Dear Andrew Sullivan, ‘Left-Liberal Intolerance’ Did Not Bring Down Mozilla’s CEO [Michelangelo Signorile, HuffPost Gay Voices]
*The New Gay Orthodoxy [Frank Bruni, The New York Times]
*Quinn: Brendan Eich, Mozilla’s former chief executive, needed to tell us more [San Jose Mercury News]

—————

In case you missed it, here are some of the OTHER biggest news pertaining to LGBTQ issues to come out of the last week:

Judge struck down part of Ohio gay marriage law
A federal judge said Friday that he will order Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Judge Timothy Black made the announcement in federal court in Cincinnati following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban. He said he will issue the ruling on April 14. This would only pertain to marriages performed out-of-state, and would not force Ohio to perform same-sex marriages.

—————

Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Mississippi governor Phil Bryant signed the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which supporters said would protect religious freedoms but opponents thought could open the doors to discrimination against gays and lesbians. The bill has been compared to similar legislation that was passed in Arizona earlier this year before ultimately being vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.

For more context:
*Melissa Harris-Perry’s letter to Phil Bryant about putting rights in God’s hands [MSNBC]

—————

Alabama representatives vote for US constitutional ban on gay marriage
The Alabama House of Representatives Wednesday approved a resolution calling for a convention to put a same-sex marriage ban in the US Constitution. Representative Patricia Todd, Alabama’s first openly gay legislator, said on the House floor, “I respect your opinion about the way I live my life and who I love, as I respect yours. I am appalled that this chamber would have resorted to something like this to make a point.”

The concept of an amendment to the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage is not new. Two days after the US Supreme Court issued its rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 in June 2013, Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, along with 28 other Republican members of the House of Representatives, proposed the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would amend the US constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman only. In February 2004, President George W. Bush announced support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

—————

Five years of gay marriage in Iowa
Thursday was the fifth anniversary of the day that Iowa’s Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a unanimous decision that made Iowa the third state — and the first in the Midwest — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

For more context:
*2009 Iowa ruling seen as gay-marriage harbinger [USA Today, The Des Moines Register]
*Iowa gay marriage ruling a turning point for justices [USA Today, The Des Moines Register]
*Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa at Five Years: Is The Trend Towards Acceptance? [KCRG]

—————

Gay Boy Scout leader removed from troop
The Boy Scouts of America removed an openly gay troop leader in Seattle, saying he made an issue out of his sexual orientation. The organization told Geoff McGrath in a letter Monday it “has no choice” but to revoke his registration after he said he was gay while being profiled by NBC News. The BSA has allowed gay scouts to participate in the organization since Jan. 1 of this year.

For more context:
*‘Extremely Disappointing’: Scouts Boot Openly Gay Troop Leader [NBC News]

This week in LGBTQ news, March 24-30

Posted on March 30, 2014 by Patrick Garvin

In case you missed it, here are some of the biggest news pertaining to LGBTQ issues to come out of the last week:

New Mozilla’s Proposition 8 donation leads to calls for his resignation
Mozilla’s newly appointed CEO, Javascript creator Brendan Eich, is coming under fire for his 2008 donation in support of Proposition 8. Two developers who are married and launched a tech startup together have called for a boycott until Eich is removed as CEO. By the end of last week, some Mozilla employees asked that he step down.

For more context:
*Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO [Wall Street Journal]
*Should it matter that Mozilla’s new boss donated to California’s anti-gay marriage proposition? [BizJournals.com]
*Owen Thomas’ open letter to Brendan Eich [ReadWrite.com]
*Brendan Eich’s post about Inclusiveness as Mozilla [BrendanEich.com]
*On Mozilla’s Support for Marriage Equality [Mitchell Baker’s blog]

—————

World Vision announces it will allow same-sex marriage for employees, then reverses stance
On Monday, World Vision President Richard Stearns announced that the Christian relief charity’s code of conduct would now allow employees of its American branch to enter into same-sex marriage marriages. The company lost more than 3,000 donors, and by Wednesday, reversed the decision.

For more context:
*Analysis: World Vision’s gay marriage flip-flop reflects evangelical angst as culture shifts [Salt Lake Tribune]
*World Vision’s reversal on marriage policy for gay workers is start of a conversation [Seattle Times]

—————

Stay on same-sex marriages in Michigan extended, but those marriages will be recognized
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder said the state won’t recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed before a court halted a decision that opened the door to gay nuptials. The announcement came a day after an appeals court indefinitely stopped any additional same-sex marriages. By the end of the week, US Attorney General Eric Holder extended federal recognition to the marriages of about 300 same-sex couples that took place in Michigan.

For more context:
*Bill Schuette: Defending traditional marriage is defending the state constitution [Detroit Free Press]
*Nancy Kaffer: Gov. Snyder needs to take a stand on issues like gay marriage [Detroit Free Press]
*The history of same-sex marriage in the US, 1970 to now [The Boston Globe]

—————

US police to get training on how to respond to transgender crime victims
The Justice Department launched a program Thursday to train local police departments to better respond to transgender individuals, help police identify hate crimes and build trust with a community that law enforcement officials say is too often reluctant to report crimes.

For more context:
*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and HIV-Affected Hate Violence in 2012 [The Anti-Violence Project]

—————

Gay marriage begins in England, Wales
As of Saturday, same-sex couples in England and Wales are now legally able to get married. The law was passed by Parliament in July, and Prime Minister David Cameron has been a vocal supporter.