Santorum Bows Out...For Now

On April 11th, Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination for President.  Santorum reportedly returned home Easter weekend because his daughter’s health had worsened.  The suspension was a surprising development that came eight days after Santorum’s primary defeats in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Wisconsin.  After the primary results were announced, Santorum made a speech in which he declared that he was not going anywhere, that it was only halftime.  Santorum was expected to remain in the race at least until after the primary in his home state, Pennsylvania, on April 24.

Santorum was a long shot early on in the crowded Republican field, but became stronger as his opponents bowed out one by one.  Many initially perceived Santorum as a fringe candidate, the representative of the extreme right.

It is unclear whether the increased popularity Santorum enjoyed in the last few months was a true indication of support for his right-wing views or whether it was a product of anti-Gingrich and anti-Romney bias.  In addition, some states allow for all registered voters to vote in primary elections so Santorum’s increased support may have partially been a product of Democratic voters trying to prolong the Republican primary season.

On April 10, Santorum was interviewed by Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family.  Dobson also founded the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the highly respected Southern Poverty Law Center for spreading disinformation (i.e., deliberate misinformation) about LGBT people.  During the interview, Santorum vowed to keep fighting for conservative values on the national stage and declared that his wife would have made a great first lady and STILL MIGHT.

Santorum has reported that he ended his campaign due to lack of funds.  He is currently soliciting donations to help defray debt from his campaign to be the Republican nominee for president.  Santorum reported that after his loss in the Wisconsin primary on April 3, his campaign debt increased to a level he was not comfortable with.

The popularity of Rick Santorum should scare all of us.  Here is a man that believes that the U.S. population should live under the archaic rules of the Catholic Church, rules that most American Catholics do not adhere to.  Santorum also enjoyed a great deal of support from conservative Christians who usually are reluctant to support Catholics.  Santorum wants to take this country back into the early 20th century, with draconian social measures.  I can only imagine that the rest of the civilized world is laughing at the U.S. once again, because a man with these values has a national platform for his views.  This is our country, and we need to wake up to the reality that the rights that we have fought so hard for are being threatened.  Are you listening?

Published April 17, 2011  http://www.gayrva.com/news-views/oped/santorum-bows-out-for-now/

Virginia Is For Lovers (But Only Heterosexual, Married Ones)

On March 1, 2012, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland signed a law legalizing gay marriage that will take effect on January 1, 2013.  With Governor O’Malley’s pen strokes, Virginia is now bordered by Maryland and the District of Columbia, and shares the Delmarva Peninsula with states (i.e., Maryland and Delaware) with legalized civil unions or same-sex marriage.  Given Virginia’s historic role as the capital of the Confederacy, the delay in civil rights for all of Virginia residents should not be surprising.
As the march toward formalized contracts between same-sex individuals in the form of civil unions and same-sex marriage continues, the state of Virginia has been making news of its own as legislators have recently lashed out against women in legislation that can only be described as the legalized sexual assault of women who wish to have an abortion.  Isn’t that the term for having your body invaded with something against your consent?  But I digress…

It is particularly ironic that Virginia’s long-held tourism slogan is “Virginia is for lovers,” when state policies make it very clear that the tourism slogan should read Virginia is for heterosexual, married lovers.  Virginia is one of 29 states with a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.  This law in Virginia also impacts contractual relationships and prohibits civil unions and any marriage-like contract between two unmarried individuals.  This law is one of the most restrictive in the nation.
The law, which codifies discrimination, matters a great deal, because 2010 census numbers indicated that single Americans make up almost 46% of the U.S. population.  The percentage of single women is at the highest point since the late 1800s, with the percentage of single men approaching 1920s and 1930s levels.  Clearly, we are becoming a nation of unmarried people.  Since 2000, the one-person household is the most common in the U.S.  In addition, the number of unmarried individuals that are cohabitating increased 88% between 1990 and 2007.

If marriage and civil union policies in Virginia do not catch up with its neighbors, and states in the Northeast, it will be left behind when businesses are considering expanding into the state.  Why would a company choose to build new branches in a state that actively promotes unequal civil rights for unmarried individuals?  How do you attract the best and the brightest when people do not want to live in a state that continues the long history of denying certain individuals their constitutional rights?

Based on the current political climate, it seems that the only individuals that the government of Virginia cares about are heterosexual, White, married men.  We’ve come a long way baby…except that we haven’t.  I fervently hope that I am wrong, but I don’t expect it to change anytime soon.

http://www.gayrva.com/featured/virginia-is-for-lovers-but-only-heterosexual-married-ones/  3/14/12

Prelude To A Three-Way? The nomination process is in desperate need of a makeover

I will admit my biases upfront and note that I have no intention of voting for the Republican nominee for President in 2012.  However, this Republican presidential nomination process has given me much to ponder.

Last week, the second full week of January, the Republican race was filled with so much excitement that each new day seemed like a telenovela, a limited-run, Spanish-language soap opera.  Coming into the week of January 13th, the race seemed almost over.  Many commentators had already declared Mitt Romney as the eventual Republican nominee.

On Monday, January 14th, fresh off of a very disappointing finish in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman Jr. declared that he was dropping out of the race for the Republican nomination.  It was unfortunate to me, that an intelligent well-spoken man, who has served his country well in many capacities, could not garner more support for his candidacy.  Although some of his more modern views were unpopular with the Republican base, Jon Huntsman Jr. stayed true to his beliefs.

On Thursday, January 17th, Rick Perry also declared that he was out of the race, and endorsed Newt Gingrich.  After rocketing to the top after declaring his intent to run for President, Perry badly damaged his aspirations by his poor debate performances.  Perry’s endorsement of Gingrich seemed to make the nomination process into a two-man race between Gingrich and Mitt Romney.  However, moments later to everyone’s surprise, after recounting the caucus votes, Iowa caucus officials declared that Rick Santorum won, with some ballots missing, and reversed the previously-declared victory of Mitt Romney.  Could this possibly turn the race into a three-way battle between Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich?

After turning on the debate moderator in the Thursday night debate (January 19th), when he dared to question Gingrich’s personal life, Former Speaker Gingrich enjoyed the support of the debate crowd and surged to a victory in South Carolina in Saturday’s primary.  As I am writing this article, Gingrich is gaining on Romney in Florida.

To me, this nomination process has highlighted a number of issues: the challenges of Super PACs-the legacy of the Citizens United ruling; the meteoric rise and fall of several candidates; the importance of debate performances; and last, but not least, the disconnect between the average middle-class citizen and Republican candidates.  So will it be the billionaire, the condescending Washington insider, or the long-shot conservative?  A better question may be, why do so few get to choose the candidate for so many?

Do we really believe that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are representative of the rest of the voters in the United States?  While Florida is certainly more diverse, she is definitely not representative of the rest of the country either.  When are we as a nation going to devise a more representative selection process for candidates for the nation’s highest office?  This year, more than ever, it has become clear that this nomination process is in desperate need of a makeover.

02/08/2012

http://www.gayrva.com/news-views/prelude-to-a-three-way/

The Brave New World of 2012 (January 9, 2012)

During this past holiday season, which for most is the busiest time of year, you may not have been keeping abreast of the news.  It appears that this is exactly what Congress and President Obama were counting on as they passed and signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act.

This bill greatly expands power in the Executive branch of government by allowing authorization of the indefinite detention of American citizens in military custody, for aiding or supporting terrorist activity, without charging them or putting them on trial until the end of the war on terror.

This provision in the NDAA tramples all over the Bill of Rights, specifically the rights identified in the Fourth (unreasonable arrest without probably cause), Fifth (guarantees due process), and Sixth (guarantees rights:  to speedy trial, to know charges, to legal counsel, and to face accuser) Amendments.  All of this is occurring under the guise of fighting the war on terror.

While President Obama issued a signing statement saying that he disagrees with the provision in the bill that expands the power of the Executive branch, he chose to sign the bill despite the vigorous objections of civil liberties advocates.

We should not take this provision lightly.  Can you imagine a return to the McCarthy era or worse when the definition of “terror” and “terrorist activity” could be defined to mean almost anything?  One has only to look at some of the inflammatory language coming from the Republican presidential candidates in this highly-partisan political environment to speculate what could be classified as “terror” under a new Republican presidential administration—perhaps war protestors, the ACLU, a civil rights group that defends Muslim Americans from the bigotry and intolerance of their neighbors?

What about the LGBT community?  Many of the Republican presidential candidates have already signed the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledge, which states that if he or she is elected, he or she will appoint a presidential commission to investigate the harassment of traditional marriage supporters (i.e., organizations who advocate for civil rights).

Not only do they want to roll back the civil rights the LGBT community has gained in the past few years, many of the Republican presidential candidates have pledged to investigate civil rights organizations.  With the broad new powers authorized under this piece of legislation, it is not a stretch to imagine that some of these same organizations could be branded with or threatened with the “terror” label.

I signed a pledge of my own this morning with the ACLU, to fight what I believe is this illegal and unconstitutional provision in this piece of legislation.  However, I have to admit that I paused for a second.  What if one day, a few years from now, we are labeled anti-American and supportive of terror for trying to fight this provision?  We cannot allow that to happen!  I don’t know about you, but I am going to fight so that day will never dawn.

http://www.gayrva.com/news-views/the-brave-new-world-of-2012/

Richmond’s Own House of Design (December 21, 2011)

Nestled quietly on the corner of Monument and Davis Avenues is a beautiful mansion, the Branch House, that is home to the Virginia Center for Architecture.  The Virginia Center for Architecture is the only Architecture museum in the Southeastern United States.  The residence was designed by John Russell Pope, who also designed what is now the Science Museum of Virginia (formerly Broad Street Station), the National Archives, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, and the West Wing of the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C.

A Lego model of the Branch House (Virginia Center for Architecture) using more than 1,000 individual Lego pieces. Photo courtesy of Natalie Porter.

Although the mansion is beautiful, other than several small purple flags with the current exhibit name (Design 2011), there are no outward markings designating the building as a museum.  As I cautiously pushed open the very heavy wooden front door, I was almost afraid that I had the wrong address.

Admission to the museum is free and the museum is open from Tuesday through Sunday, with shortened hours on the weekend.  There is free street parking available on Davis Avenue next to the museum.  The Museum has one exhibition at a time, but has regular special programs, including free brown bag lectures and behind-the-scenes tours with a paid admission.  There is also a gift shop which sells design books and books depicting the history of Richmond and Virginia.

The current exhibition, Design 2011:  A Retrospective of Winning Work, features design projects in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. in the areas of architecture, interior design, and historical preservation.  The exhibition is housed on the main floor of the mansion in the gallery and great hall.

One does not have to know a lot about architecture to really appreciate the designs that are showcased in these exhibits.  One shining example was Virginia Commonwealth University’s Dental Clinic in Wise, Virginia.  The clinic seems to almost melt into the surrounding landscape of trees due to the design choices of the architects.  Another favorite of mine was the LumenHAUS at Virginia Tech, built by the Virginia Tech Solar Team.  This net-zero building optimizes efficiency and responds automatically to weather conditions.

In the studio of the mansion was a multicolored Lego model of the Branch House (pictured).  Built with over 1,000 Legos and displayed in a glass display case, a blue sign explains that Legos originated in Denmark, a country at the forefront of design.  Legos allow builders of all ages to design to their heart’s content.  Surrounding the model was “The House That Pope Built,” an exhibit depicting the history of John Russell Pope and the Branch House.  Also included is a brief history of Monument Avenue.

As I walked around the back of the house to look around, I noted that the beautiful grounds would be an ideal setting for a garden party or a wedding.  Although young children might be bored, if you are looking for a great way to spend an hour or two, the Virginia Center for Architecture is a wonderful addition to any afternoon.

http://www.gayrva.com/arts-culture/richmonds-own-house-of-design/

Home For The Holidays Or “Are You Dating Anyone Yet?” (12/02/2011)

The holiday season is upon us and for the LGBT community, it can be filled with more angst, emotional, and psychological pitfalls than for the average person.

Even if our nuclear family members accept that we are gay, extended family members may not be so welcoming.  Because of the lack of acceptance of who we are, I think LGBT individuals become extraordinarily good at choosing and building our own families, made up of friends who become much closer to us than our blood relations.

That is because our friends accept us for who we are, warts and all, and we can live our truth around them, without fear.

Most of us would not be here today without our friends, our real family that we build bit by bit, stone by stone, when we begin the coming out process and lay the foundation for our new life.

I may be an outlier, but very few of my friends had an easy time of it with their families when they came out.  Some of them, years later, are still not allowed to bring their partners to their parents’ home.  Others are asked to please not mention their boyfriend or girlfriend around extended family members.

Now granted, there are many heterosexual individuals whose parents may not like who they are dating or who they married, but for the LGBT individual who is banned from bringing their partner home for the holidays it is not about the person they are dating and everything about who he or she is.  That is the difference that some do not understand.

When you are asking the LGBT person to deny who he or she is, when you are asking the LGBT individual to lie about who he or she is, when you are asking the LGBT individual to bite his or her tongue when Aunt Millie asks if he or she has met the right man or woman yet, you are asking him or her to commit a crime against his or her soul.  And that crime will not go unpunished because it is a crime against one’s self.

At a certain point, all of us will look at ourselves in the mirror and decide that the lies must end, a moment when we realize that when family members are asking us to pretend to avoid family conflict what they are really asking us to do is slowly kill ourselves with self-hatred.

For that is really the choice, giving in to the fear of hate or loving ourselves enough to embrace who we are, all of who we are, and live our truth.

http://www.gayrva.com/news-views/home-for-the-holidays-or-%E2%80%9Care-you-dating-anyone-yet%E2%80%9D/

Morality versus Legality (November 17, 2011)

“I didn’t realize that Penn State was a Catholic university…that’s the funniest thing I ever heard,” this was someone’s status update on Facebook on November 9th. Someone else responded “LOL.” It took a minute for the words to sink in and then a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach started to creep upwards toward the back of my throat. It had been a frequent feeling since Sunday, November 6th, when I had first heard on ESPN about the Sandusky alleged child sexual abuse case at Penn State.

My thoughts immediately flashed to a gay friend of mine, a former lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico living with AIDS. He grew up in the Catholic church, but he is Catholic no more, another nameless, faceless victim that people joke about when they cleverly find new ways of brushing aside the thousands of boys and girls who were “special friends” of Catholic priests. I read on, I can’t help myself and the bile continues to rise into my throat as others on Facebook defend the 84-year old icon who is the face of Penn State football and for many, Penn State herself.

I don’t understand how you can know that a defenseless 10-year old boy was raped in your locker room and yet you go to bed every night for nine years and you sleep. You have a son of your own! Perhaps I cannot be unbiased because I have sat through too many undergraduate and graduate courses in Psychology, including the Psychology of Trauma. Perhaps I cannot be unbiased because I have too many friends who have been touched by the soul-destroying horror that is sexual abuse. Perhaps I cannot be unbiased because for a time I worked at a job where I was required by the State of Florida to report any suspected child abuse.

For those who say that Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal duty that he did what he was supposed to do, think for one moment about the 10-year old boy. When that adult saw him being brutalized, that 10-year old boy knew in his heart that it would never happen again because someone would save him, so he went home and he waited for a savior who never appeared. And it happened again, and again, and again.

I am not saying that Joe Paterno is a horrible individual, nor am I saying that there is not blame to go around, but Joe Paterno made a horrible mistake. He placed his friendship with Sandusky, the football program, and Penn State ahead of the welfare of this child. This decision, and his decision every day, thereafter, not to contact the police shows that he is a person with deep moral flaws, not someone to emulate, not someone to idolize, not someone to build a statue to.

http://www.gayrva.com/news-views/morality-vs-legality/