Changing Hearts and Minds. That was the focus this past weekend at two panel discussions I moderated at the California NAACP State Conference on the topic of Homophobia in the Black Church. From my vantage point it’s clear that these real in-person talks truly help people understand the dangers of homophobia. After the panel, a few people testified that their views about homophobia and even LGBT equality have changed completely. It’s remarkable the change that we can effect through honest, respectful conversation.

I waned to share just a few highlights from the panel:

Rev. Kenneth Samuel (Vice Chair - African American Ministers Leadership Council of PFAWF and Pastor of Victory for the World Church in Stone Mountain, GA) spoke passionately about the health risks to the Black community from Heterosexism and Homophobia. Forcing people to live closeted or secret down low lives, leads to risky behavior. This in turn can lead to grave consequences as it relates to STDs.

Dr. Sylvia Rhue (Director- Religious Affairs of the National Black Justice Coalition) reminded us that the LGBT Equality movement is comprised of fights for several basic civil rights, and that speaking out against homophobia is a continuation of the civil rights movement.

Rev. Deborah Johnson (Founder- Inner Light Ministries) spoke out about the dangers of Homophobic behavior. He explained how it has led to a history of violence against LGBT people of color throughout history, even at the hands of black brothers and sisters.

Rev. Byron Williams (Pastor- Resurrection Church in Oakland, CA and member of the AAMLC of PFAWF) dared all of us not to compare “black” oppression to “LGBT” oppression, but to recognize that oppression is just that, and it goes against the Christian ethic of Love thy Neighbor.

As moderator of the discussions the common ground was clear to me - we must LOVE one another and speak out against homophobic behavior.

Question: Can a police officer pull a driver over on suspicion of drunk driving based only on an anonymous tip? Based on the quotations below, can you guess what governmental body was asked this week to answer that question?

Every year, close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes - roughly one death every 40 minutes. ... Ordinary citizens are well aware of the dangers posed by drunk driving, and they frequently report such conduct to the police. A number of States have adopted programs specifically designed to encourage such tips ...

[Another lawmaking body] adopted a rule that will undermine such efforts to get drunk drivers off the road. [It] commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road - by which time it may be too late.

There is no question that drunk driving is a serious and potentially deadly crime ... The imminence of the danger posed by drunk drivers exceeds that at issue in other [situations]. In a case [with an anonymous tip that someone at a bus stop is carrying a gun], the police can often observe the subject of a tip and step in before actual harm occurs; with drunk driving, such a wait-and-see approach may prove fatal. Drunk driving is always dangerous, as it is occurring. ...

The conflict is clear and the stakes are high. The effect of [needing more than an anonymous tip to permit the police to stop a driver] will be to grant drunk drivers "one free swerve" before they can legally be pulled over by police. It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.

Is this a legislator urging his colleagues how to vote on an important policy question?

No. It's Chief Umpire John Roberts, and he's not exactly neutrally calling balls and strikes.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in Virginia v. Harris, declining to hear the appeal of a drunk driving case involving a police stop based only on an anonymous tip. Roberts, joined by Justice Scalia, issued a stinging dissent from that decision not to hear the case. Their dissent was brimming with ... policy considerations.

This blog has written before on the pernicious myth that judges shouldn't affect policy, pointing out that that's exactly what courts are supposed to do. It's inherent in interpreting the law in difficult cases. Yet part of the Far Right's propaganda to demonize liberal judges and portray them as anti-American is the line that they "legislate from the bench," usurping policymaking powers from the people's elected representatives.

No one should be fooled into buying the Right's framing. Progressives shouldn't be bullied into parroting it. And the press needs to start asking why the Right always remains silent when conservative jurists engage in this perfectly normal, long-accepted practice.

Last week, four Congressmen, obviously concerned that they had so-far failed to plumb the depths of anti-Muslim bigotry, decided to demand an investigation into Muslim interns in Congress.  Their evidence?  A book published by World Net Daily, itself a monument to America's First Amendment protections for the ignorant and the morally bankrupt.

But before this story gets swept into the dustbin of political history, we should applaud some folks who stood up against the reckless, McCarthy-like accusations being leveled against young people who wanted to get engaged in the political process.

Per TMP, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was first out of the gate in condemning the smear, followed by John Conyers and Andre Carson.

And, if you missed it, Rachel Maddow spoke out on the issue, appropriately slamming the group of Congressmen who decided that it would be politically expedient to fan the flames of religious strife.

So, while it's important to condemn elected leaders who exploit bigotry for political gain, it's important to applaud those who stand up to it.

Bravo!

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of 13 Uighur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay who are no longer classified as enemy combatants and have been determined to be no threat to the national security of the United States. These detainees - who were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan and have been held by the U.S. since 2001 - were cleared for release by the Pentagon in 2003, but six years later, they have yet to be set free.

After the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene last year that Guantanamo detainees have the right to bring habeas corpus claims in federal court to challenge the legality of their detentions, a federal judge in DC ordered that the Uighur detainees be immediately released into the United States since they cannot return to their own country. As members of a Turkic Muslim minority from the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China, their release back into their own country would likely result in torture and execution.

In February 2009, a 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that order, finding that the federal courts lack the authority to order their release into the U.S. Describing it as an immigration decision, the panel concluded that only the executive branch has such authority and even suggested that the detainees apply for entry into the United States through the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to our immigration laws. In petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari review, the Uighur detainees argued that stripping the power from the federal courts to order their release into the United States rendered the habeas right recognized by Boumediene meaningless. And indeed, they continue to be held behind chained fences guarded by military men.

Disappointingly, Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case, arguing that they have no right to enter the United States. Kagan wrote that "they are free to leave Guantanamo Bay to go to any country that is willing to accept them," but acknowledged that the detainees "understandably do not wish to [return to their home country]." Kagan's brief even attempted to portray the conditions of the Uighurs' imprisonment as not so bad.

In contrast to individuals currently detained as enemies under the laws of war, petitioners are being housed under relatively unrestrictive conditions, given the status of Guantanamo Bay as a United States military base…[They are] in special communal housing with access to all areas of their camp, including an outdoor recreation space and picnic area. . . [They] sleep in an air-conditioned bunk house and have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.

Sounds just as good as freedom, doesn't it?

But what if there is no country willing to accept them? That is the case for at least one of the Uighur detainees who has serious mental treatment needs. In that scenario and under these set of circumstances - where they have been found to be no threat to the United States - shouldn't the U.S. take it as a moral imperative to immediately release these people even if they must be released into our borders? Particularly since the media coverage of their wrongful detentions at Guantanamo Bay by the United States is what highlighted the bull's eyes on their backs for the Chinese executioners in the first place?

Let's not be distracted by side arguments by the DC Circuit or our new SG. First, this is not an immigration matter subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security or Congress. These people had no intention or desire to migrate to the United States. They were involuntarily and wrongfully imprisoned by the United States for over eight years. Second, they are not free in any way and are in every sense of the word imprisoned. If relocation to another country is not available, the United States has a moral duty to immediately release these people into the U.S. subject to any parole conditions that may be appropriate. And if the judiciary is the only branch of our government that has the moral compass to do what is right, they should be vested with the power to do so. That is the root of habeas corpus relief which was designed to remedy unlawful government detention. That is why we have our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Today, People For the American Way was represented by our General Counsel Debbie Liu at a press conference to oppose the Vitter-Bennett amendment, which would require Census workers to ask all Americans their citizenship and immigration status in the 2010 census. Doing so could discourage minority communities’ participation in the 2010 census, and would result in an inaccurate census. Not only is the amendment unconstitutional, it is a thinly-veiled effort by the radical Religious Right and their counterparts in Congress to target undocumented immigrants. 

Above, attendees at the press conference to oppose the Vitter-Bennett amendment.

The New York Times featured an editorial citing how changing the census would waste time and valuable resources. Should the Vitter-Bennett amendment pass, the Census Bureau would have to reprint forms, promotional materials and training software:

As required by law, the Census Bureau gave Congress the exact wording of the survey’s 10 questions in early April 2008 — more than 18 months ago. Changing it now to meet Mr. Vitter’s demand would delay the count, could skew the results and would certainly make it even harder to persuade minorities to participate.

It would also be hugely expensive. The Commerce Department says that redoing the survey would cost hundreds of millions of dollars: to rewrite and reprint hundreds of millions of census forms, to revise instructional and promotional material and to reprogram software and scanners.

Other civil rights groups including the Center for American Progress (CAP), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), Demos, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) attended the press conference.

Once more, the Obama Administration is in federal court defending government-mandated discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. This time, it's Don't Ask Don't Tell, in a case arising in a California federal district court.

Previously, DoJ asked the district court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, arguing that Ninth Circuit precedent already clearly addresses the legal issues in favor of the Administration. The court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed discovery to proceed, and the Log Cabin Republicans filed their request for discovery. (Discovery is the pretrial phase of a lawsuit where each party can compel the other parties to turn over documents and other evidence that may be relevant to the case.)

So on Friday, the Department of Justice filed what's called a motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal (legalese for "we want to appeal the court's decision now, instead of waiting until the end of the trial") to avoid its obligation to respond to the discovery requests. The Administration is arguing that the case will eventually be dismissed. Since the plaintiff's discovery requests are so "burdensome" for the Administration, appealing the court’s decision not to dismiss the case will "materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation."

If the Administration is concerned about bureaucratic burdens, the President can issue a stop-loss order and freeze the anti-gay machinery that is destroying lives and weakening our armed forces.

And if he wants to "materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation," there's a better way than an interlocutory appeal. That would be for President Obama to show some leadership on this issue. He ought to give a timeline for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and push Congress to act on it.

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, has celebrated the imminent passage of legislation that will allow the Justice Department to prosecute discrimination against the LGBT community.

Pending legislation includes hate crimes legislation that passed the House last week and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

In a speech to his colleagues, Perez said, "We must fight for fairness and basic equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters who so frequently are being left in the shadows [and to] ensure that there's a level playing field in which our LGBT brothers and sisters are judged by the content of their character."

Perez’s announcement is a welcome step forward for ending discrimination against the LGBT community in a division that has traditionally focused little attention on LGBT equality issues.

Perez began his position in the Civil Rights Division only last week after failed attempts by Senate Republicans to block his confirmation. Senate Republicans have continued to block well-qualified nominees like Perez from being confirmed to important offices, especially Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

Sign the PFAW petition to confirm Dawn Johnson so that she too can restore justice at the Justice Department.

The Right regularly attacks progressive judges for "making policy" and "legislating from the bench." But in oral arguments yesterday, the Supreme Court Justices demonstrated yet again that one of their most important roles is to make policy in difficult circumstances where the law is unclear.

The case involves a man named José Padilla who was born in Honduras and has lived in America for 40 years. (He is no relation to the former "enemy combatant" of the same name). Considering whether to plead guilty to trafficking in marijuana, he turned to his lawyer for advice. Relying on the lawyer's incorrect assertion that a guilty plea would not affect his immigration status, he pled guilty and now finds himself subject to deportation.

The Court must decide if Padilla was unconstitutionally deprived of effective assistance of counsel and should therefore be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. During oral argument, Justices across the ideological spectrum appropriately asked probing questions as they wrestled with difficult policy options. The Washington Post reports:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor ... said the threat of deportation was an important component of a defendant's decision on whether to go to trial and risk a longer sentence, or plead guilty to a charge that would automatically send him back to a place where he "might starve to death."

But other justices worried that it would be impossible to limit the issue to deportation -- a tack that Padilla's attorney Stephen B. Kinnaird suggested was one way to narrowly decide the case.

"We have to decide whether we are opening a Pandora's box here, whether there is any sensible way to restrict it to deportation," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "What about advice on whether pleading guilty would -- would cause him to lose custody of his children? That's pretty serious. What if pleading guilty will -- will affect whether he can keep his truck, which is his main means of livelihood, or whether -- whether it would be seized by the government as the instrument of his crime?"

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he was sympathetic to Padilla's predicament. "Your argument has an appeal because removal is such a harsh consequence, particularly for someone like your client, who had been in the United States for a long time," he said. But he wondered how to ever know whether such a conversation had occurred between client and attorney.

Clearly, deciding difficult cases like this is not as easy as simply calling balls and strikes.

I look forward to hearing those who vigorously complain about "legislating from the bench" condemn Justices Scalia and Alito for yesterday's questions.

I also look forward to seeing exactly what process they propose the Justices use to call this a ball or a strike.

Sunday, October 11, 2009 marked Coming Out Day and the National Equality March in Washington DC. The sun was shining but it wasn’t too hot. There was a large crowd of tens of thousands of people who came from near and far to attend the march. There were lots of college students who came from all over the country to march. The area was well guarded with police officers on segways and on foot. The atmosphere was peaceful and upbeat.

I only encountered a few protesters saying that gay people are going to hell and that they are here to save us. These protesters also had anti-choice posters with pictures of aborted fetuses. Although I am not sure how gay rights and abortion are related, my guess is these right wingers just wanted to lump all the liberally minded causes together.

Most of the homemade signs addressed the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. One favorite sign: “Obama—let mommy marry momma!” and the chant “Hey-hey! Ho-ho! Homophobia has got to go!” I carried my handmade sign reading “Pass a trans-inclusive ENDA” while a friend I marched with carried their sign reading “Equali(t)y—the T is not silent!” although there were very few other signs addressing ENDA or other gender identity-specific sentiments. Our chant of “Hey-hey! Ho-ho! Transphobia has got to go!” caught on for a while but didn’t seem to gain as much momentum as some of the other chants.

With the combination of perfect weather, good company, and an excellent cause, I left the march feeling excited about how many young people were at the march and the energy that we—as young activists—have towards LGBT issues. And even as we push to repeal DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it’s important that we make sure that the ENDA gets the grassroots support it deserves.

Last night, the House passed the Department of Defense Authorization bill in a 281 to 146 vote. Attached to the legislation was the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which will expand current hate crimes law to cover acts of violence motivated by a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity.

The bill passed despite Republican opposition to the hate crimes provision and accusations that it would prosecute "thought crimes." People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan said in a statement:

Last night's vote was an important step towards finally enacting these hate crimes protections into law. This bill will help ensure that fewer Americans will become victims of violence simply because of who they are, while at the same time providing strong First Amendment protections. Limited hate crimes protections have existed for years on the basis of race and religion. It's long past time to expand this to include other targeted groups. I'm especially proud that this bill includes protections based on gender identity-the first time gender identity will receive positive protection in federal law.

The Byrd/Shepard Act is expected to pass in the Senate next week, the same week as the anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard, the University of Wyoming student murdered in 1998 because he was gay.