The Worst of Times for Latinos? Two Stories

In an interview with NPR's "Latino USA," author Sandra Cisneros ("The House on Mango Street")lamented that right now is the worst time in history for Latinos in the U.S. Deportations, the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and crippling poverty for many in our community, are the evidence she uses to paint a bleak portrait of the Latino experience in this country. And while I've written about some of these things, specifically the uptick in violence against immigrants and the inflamatory rhetoric of the anti-immigration movement, her comments shook me up. They made me feel like the uppity, self-made and self-righteous villain in a Tyler Perry movie. I realized, listening to Cisernos' interview on my iPhone at the gym, that I have deliberately distanced myself from the issues of the 'hood I grew up in and I have made every attempt in my life to never go back there.

But my parents - whom I love dearly and whom I'm lucky to have a wonderful relationship with - are still there. And they probably won't ever leave. So they'll keep it real with me and they'll tell me about the things that are going on around them in el barrio. In between our conversations about the trips they're going on and where they'll meet James and me for dinner, there are real, true and disturbing stories about people who can't get their act together or who simply were never given a chance to do right by themselves. My mom is on the front lines of this divide - she works in the public school system, making sure kids are fed and that they have somewhere safe to go to until 6 when most of their parents can pick them up from work. She sees parents younger than me picking up 10 year-olds, she talks to teenage mothers who are raising their kids out of shelters, and she consoles children who are missing a parent. But sometimes there are problems that can't be hugged away or laughed and talked about in Spanish in the schoolyard. For many Latinos it is indeed the worst of times, as Sandra Cisneros said. Here's one such story.

On July 17, Yorceli Flores,a 26-year-old immigrant from Puebla, Mexico, was stabbed to death in her apartment in Sunset Park. She was pregnant, and left behind two boys, aged two and six. One week later, her 22-year-old boyfriend - who claimed to have found her body - was arrested and charged with murder. The children, with no father, are now in the foster care system.

Yorceli's oldest son spent a year in my mother's classroom at the after-school program at P.S. 24. She didn't form much of a bond with his mother, who had obtained a restraining order against the boy's stepfather - who has since been deported - and then took up with a younger guy who would ultimately kill her. The alleged killer had come on numerous occasions to pick the boy up from my mom's program - even while the boy's stepfather would come in and ask my mom and her colleagues for help, saying that the kids were not safe in their home. My mom spoke up about this, but ultimately, there wasn't much the school system could do for the kids.

So you have the perfect storm of domestic violence, broken families, dubious immigration status and all-around hard living here. Was Yorceli's death avoidable? Did her kids really have to suffer as they did in the months leading up to their mother's death - there are claims that the children were underfed and lived in a cramped apartment with other families - was there anything that the victim could have done for herself and her kids to avoid all of this? And while Yorceli was being sentenced to death and her alleged killer was making small talk with my mom, I was across the river, sipping cocktails and toasting life.

The victim was two years younger than me but, as we say in Spanish, had done a lot more living. She probably came to my neighborhood long after I had left, seeking opportunity that I never thought existed there. And our common denominator is my mom - always eager to help, always uber-involved, always unnervingly task-driven. I wonder if these two women had formed a relationship if Yorceli's life would have turned out differently - I don't underestimate my mom's power of persuasion.

Where Yorceli's story and mine begin and end, in the place I grew up but always wanted to leave, the divide between esos Latinos who are making it and those who are scraping by isn't really that wide. It's a fact that gnaws at me and questions everything I thought was good and fair about a system that has worked for me.

Had Henry Louis Gates Jr Acted Like a Gentleman, We Wouldn't be in this Mess

We're halfway through the summer of 2009 and thus far, the top news stories of the season have been the Iranian elections, Michael Jackson's death, and the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by a crooked, racist police force in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

That last story is an issue of national obsession - perfectly timed with the second installment of CNN's pandering "Black in America" series, as it seems the media is hell bent on reminding blacks and other people of color that we still have a noose around our necks. And that point couldn't be more perfectly illustrated than the visual of a slight, older and bespectacled African American male handcuffed at the entrance to his own home.

So here's the story: On July 16 Professor Gates was trying to enter his front door, had trouble with the lock, then asked the driver of his cab to help him, they pushed in the door, all while a neighbor close by saw the action and thought there was a robbery in progress.

Cops were dispatched, Gates refused to cooperate, responding to the authorities who asked to speak to him "I'll speak with your mama outside." And soon enough the man was in handcuffs.

In the meantime, the 911 caller has had to step into the fray to say that at no time did she insinuate that the men at Gates' home were black.

Today, Gates and the cop who arrested him will have beer with President Obama to talk candidly about race.
***

And that's where you lose me. I understand that law enforcement hasn't always been fair with people of color - I'll admit: I'm not a fan of cops and I generally distrust them - but in the few instances when I've been confronted by them, I tend to cooperate, as I think that if you have nothing to hide you might as well bite the bullet and let the cops do what they must (these instances have involved my alleged speeding through Cape Cod or the backroads of New Jersey). But Gates was apparently belligerent from the start - and yeah, it's annoying that the cops show up at your house for no reason, but a neighbor did see someone from afar busting in a door - this could all have been resolved in under ten minutes. But Gates, as we say in Spanish, "se puso guapo," which means he got cocky, and the cops had to show the man who was boss.

Really, this whole situation is Gates' fault. As a pre-eminent scholar on issues black, he ought to be ashamed of himself for causing all of this trouble - for not setting a proper example on how educated and accomplished people of color should deal with unwanted attention from the cops. Had he simply shown the cops his ID and explained his situation - had he been a gentleman about the whole thing - none of this would have happened. And I resent this weak and unnecessary debate on race because it propagates the thinking in disadvantaged communities of color that the cops and the white man are ultimately out to get them. People of color don't need to hear this, kids in the projects don't need any more ammunition against the cops - this whole issue only exacerbates tensions that exist between minorities and the police. We now find the debate on race muddled by the stubborn and impertinent actions of someone who, ok I'll say it - is probably an uppity negro. Gates gets to have beer with the President tonight while some cocky teenager is going to mouth off at the cops and will likely get tazed or shot. Nice going, Professor.

Weekend with 10 ladies? Shore.

I'm one of those gays that loves the ladies. Yours truly has always traveled five or ten deep with girls of all stripes, immersed in petty drama, awash in cocktails, bloated with late night (or mid-day) junk food. This weekend was no different.

One of my fav chicas is jumping the broom in September and to celebrate the passage from Miss to Missus, I joined 9 girls for a weekend on the Jersey shore.For a split second I had a pang of testosterone-induced angst, "Why am I the only guy invited to this? Do they think I'm one of the girls just because I'm gay? Is a weekend of champagne and penis talk too much even for me?" The answers came quickly when I saw the girls at Penn Station: I love a good time; yes; kinda.

After a sticky two-hour train ride down to the lovely seaside town of Sea Girt - sticky 'cause the penis straws agitated the contents of our mini champagne bottles and we were drenched within two minutes of pulling out of the station - we wound up at my friend's soon-to-be-inlaws' beach house. Ah, the mint-and-honey-infused cocktails we received upon arrival, the chairs decorated with aprons, the obligatory veil for the bride...I passed out within three hours. The next day, we were scolded by some beefy (read: yummy, totally my speed) beach cops who asked us to put away our plastic phallus. The rest of the weekend was, as they say, maxi-dresses, chicken salad, beer, and history.

On the way back to New York, sitting next to stupid James who had come to fetch me long after the ladies had left the Shore (last man standing, holla!) I got to thinking: thank GOD the gays can't get married. I cringe at the thought of the spectacle that some queens would put me through if they were encouraged to partake of the rituals surrounding traditional marriage. The parties, the Martha Stewart clippings, the cocktails, the penis-talk...argh, wait a minute...being gay is like one long bachelorette party. So I guess the ladies needed a pro to oversee the festivities.

Now I get why I was invited. Thanks, C-Face.

One More Thing re: Sotomayor: It's Not About Bringing Down Whitey

By now we can all agree that Sonia Sotomayor aced the senate confirmation hearings, accepting high praise from the likes of Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and roiling Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham, who is still in a nit over the Supreme Court nominee's "wise Latina" comments. Congratulations are in order, and yes, so is some celebration over the appointment of an unexpected (read: minority) though exceptionally qualified candidate to our nation's highest court. But, on behalf of Latinos and other minorities who are making it in the professional world, I just want to say that our mission is not to bring down the white man - regardless of Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich's misguided cheerleading.

Both New York Times writers have underscored the point that with President Obama's ascent to power and now Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court, whitey is losing his grip on power.I don't see it that way, and I'm sure Sonia Sotomayor doesn't either. Did some of the senators in last week's hearings reveal astounding ignorance and insensitivity? You bet - especially one Tom Coburn (R-OK) who will go down in history as the guy who told the Supreme Court nominee "you'll have lots of 'splaining to do." I WISH someone would say that to me in a conference room, but that's another story.

Still, I would argue that the white liberal cheerleaders grandstanding on Sotomayor's nomination aren't doing much of a service to upwardly mobile people of color. It's condescending - though in a much different way than referencing Ricky Ricardo - because it smacks of "it's up to us white, enlightened folks to help out these blacks and latinos" thinking. In fact, these folks are antagonizing racial tensions that educated people of color have to suppress for fear of that proverbial "chip on the shoulder," or for playing the race card when things don't go our way.

As a Latino I couldn't be more thrilled by Sotomayor's nomination and her stellar performance in front of the Senate last week. She makes me proud! But I would respectfully ask that the celebration over a historic nomination tread a careful line that acknowledges the changing complexion of power in this country without making it seem like we're emerging from Apartheid. Not only is that an unfair statement about our country's system, but it reinforces stigmas that people of color have had to overcome in order to hold their own in the board room or in Ivy League campuses across the country - let's get the chip, and that dirt, off our shoulders please.

CNN Commentator: Gays are Mostly Petulant White People

ESPN reporter and CNN commentator LZ Granderson is putting the smack down on uppity white gays who are leading the chorus of disappointment over Obama's turtle pace on gay issues. To call gay the new black is offensive and underscores the disconnect between a truly disenfranchised people and a bunch of Lady Gaga-listening white people who act like "a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner." Blacks, says Granderson, have had it tough way longer than the gays have ("Miley Cyrus is older that DODT") and they are loving their new black President. It's justice served and all you gays need to love the moment and stop complaining.

Still, Granderson isn't attacking the gay rights movement, he's putting gay white culture - that which most of America sees - on blast. He speaks like an outsider, conflicted over the sting of not fitting in yet not wanting to belong anyway. Case in point: he's happy to accept the praise of organizations like GLAAD, who gave him an award for journalism this year at a $500 a person fundraiser in New York (I was there) but you know, he still wants to be down.

I can understand his frustration, and I can understand that being gay, educated and a person of color does pose a lot of challenges for men of color who are expected to be a certain way, namely not gay and educated.

But the rights gay people want transcend color, and the gay community has every right to express its disappointment with President Obama. The longer he takes to enact fair policy and give gay people the rights they deserve, the more credence he lends to conservative arguments against gays. And this community has been on his side, putting all of its resources behind him to help put him in the White House. As for the petulant child comment - that's just ignorant. A gay person of color should have a greater impetus to effect change and blunt the blow of exclusionary politics than anyone.

Granderson's comments are a distraction and speak more to his internal turmoil than to any latent racism within the gay community. There's room for everyone under that rainbow flag, but we can't sit idly by and let elected officials pander to us on the campaign trail only to denigrate us once they're in power.

"And I'm from the South Bronx, so I was like 'yo! g'ahead Miss Sonia'"

Need I say more to express how most New Yorkers feel about our homegirl Sonia Sotomayor's fearless performance at this week's Senate hearings? "Barring a meltdown" - she is slated to become the first Latina to be seated on the Supreme Court. Holla back, I love it!

The quote which serves as the title of today's post came from a receptionist whom I was chatting with in between appointments yesterday. And there are more bon mots that have been delivered by of our city's overlooked residents - those who don't have a New York Times or Wall Street Journal folded under their arms or tucked between the handles of their Goyard totes - to describe their elation over seeing someone they can relate to in a position of power. What I love about this week's proceedings is how INVOLVED mi gente, my people, are in the political process. The past two years have been the ultimate civics lesson for blacks and latinos who otherwise didn't really give a damn about politics.

What I like about President Obama's nominee is that she's not looking to give people of color a free pass. She's holding everyone accountable to the standards of the law and of working-class ambition. She's a staunch believer in the possibility of American citizenship and the responsibility that places on everyone - blanquitos or not - to be our very best selves. That's why she locked up three Puerto Rican guys for a shoot-out in a Lower East Side housing project - only one of them had a gun but she thought they all posed a threat to the community - and that's why her early college years were focused on figuring out why minority youths got into more trouble than their white counterparts. Sadly, that's a search that could occupy one, two, countless lifetimes, but the effort is there and ultimately, the would-be Supreme Court nominee decided to keep pushing for justice, and personal excellence, with the hope that her own work could somehow stem the tide of recidivism in our communities.

There hasn't been a meltdown yet, so it's probably safe to assume that we're in store for a historic appointment in the coming weeks...and once again, the standard is elevated for mi gente.

GCL Goes to the Movies: Bruno Sucks

Feel free to place the requisite Euro dots over the u's in the title of the post.

Before I delve into why Sacha Baron Cohen's follow up to 2006's critically acclaimed Borat sucks, I have to say that as a publicist who has to tell every one of his clients "welll, maybe this particular story isn't good enough for the Today Show," I'm beyond pissed that Matt Lauer had to promote this film on Friday because the shows's parent company (Universal) distributes it. Meanwhile my laundry detergents, airlines and destinations go unnoticed. It isn't fair. So, for that alone, fuck you Matt Lauer and NBC Universal. Again, stick those dots where you see fit.

The unfairness of why Matt Lauer won't do a segment on any of my clients notwithstanding, Bruno is a piece of (Euro)trash. And I love gross humor (kinda) - just last weekend I was dying over the hijinks of Bradley Cooper in "The Hangover." But Bruno was just stupid. (And Bradley Cooper is just so yummy.) Picture all of those gay jokes you heard in junior high school - all those anal-centric jokes, to be exact - and now picture them on the big screen. Within five minutes the lead character finds himself on his knees having a massive dildo pedaled into his rear end by his Pygmy boyfriend. And then champagne is poured out of said Pygmy boyfriend's derriere, which Bruno then proceeds to pound furiously with a fire extinguisher to produce all sorts of yellow gunk which flies across the frame. There's also a love story beneath Bruno's attempts at stardom, and this too winds up in fisticuffs, plastic sheets and soiled hand prints in a motel room.

The film, according to Baron-Cohen, is meant to satirize anti-gay attitudes. So they sent a flamey sexual deviant into red states to poke fun at Jesus and hit on a bunch of yokels. Let's just see how many times the word faggot can be tossed around by a bunch of stupid Americans (incidentally, it's not - ever - even by the most visibly disturbed and straight laced/ignorant/whatever people the film is trying to expose).

Now, the good people at GLAAD are upset about the movie, and God bless em', their mission is to make sure that Tim Gunn reigns supreme as the model for how gay men should behave on TV and how the world should embrace them. So they're right to kick up a fuss. As a gay man myself, however, I'm not the least bit offended by the movie - the character is so off the mark with who I am and who my partner and friends are that, yes, he is laughable. But I do think it's appalling that most media outlets have jumped on this bandwagon, hailing Baron Cohen as a genius, devoting fashion spreads to him (thanks, NY Times, GQ) and, once again, a full segment on a morning TV show (because Today Show moms will LOVE to see a giant penis waved in their face, repeatedly, at $12.50 a pop). That's what's objectionable to me: the media's complicity in peddling this sort of stupid filth.

Breaking News: Sarah Palin Steps Down

On what promised to be a slow weekend flipping between MJ coverage and peering out the window hoping for sun, here comes Ms. Sarah Palin with a doozie: she's stepping down as Governor of Alaska. Because she's a "point guard with her eye on the basket" and doesn't want to be a "lame duck." Her words, y'all. Her words.



Her tone: Mommy explaining to the kids that there is no tooth fairy, and gosh darn it, smile and the world smiles with you.

This train wreck of a candidate and political figure ain't goin nowhere. CNN and MSNBC are in a scramble to decipher the code of jibberish and flat a's that comprise Sarah Palin's speeches. "Is she dropping out of politics so people won't talk about her slut daughter?" "Is she plotting a bid for 2012?" Questions that have been answered with a resounding "This is a stupid move." Regardless of her intentions, Sarah Palin has confirmed, once and for all, what most of us already know: that she's stupid - or if you're feeling polite this 4th of July - she's not ready for primetime.

According to the AP: "Palin hinted she had a bigger role in mind, saying she wanted to make a 'positive change outside government.' But she kept supporters in suspense, promising on Twitter: 'We'll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election ... this is in Alaska's best interest, my family's happy ... it is good. Stay tuned.'"

CNN commentator and democratic strategist Donna Brazile counseled Palin to "get rid of those novices around her" if she has any aims of revisiting public life.

GCL says: Wherever Palin winds up this certainly isn't the last we'll hear of her. She didn't have a "my mother was a saint" tone, instead she had the measured, pumped up stance and inflated rhetoric of a contender (pronounced contendah, fyi), sleeves rolled up and ready to storm the White House. Let's watch what happens...

My Obligatory Michael Jackson Post

If one is going to refer to oneself a political and pop culture blogger, then it would be irresponsible to not write about the biggest pop culture story of our time, the death of Michael Jackson.

Sigh. I really couldn't care less about Michael Jackson. I love his songs but the unitards, crotch-grabbing, his Jackie-O whisper of a voice, his self-mutilation to the point of looking like a cross between an elf and an octogenarian female Wasp and, oh yeah, those child-molestation charges, made him less than palatable for me. So, why beat a dead horse (or circus freak)? Michael has crossed over to the beyond, he can finally rest from what seemed like a tortured life. Instead of talking about Michael and the lurid details of his life and untimely death, I'd much prefer to talk about his tacky family, attention-seeking monsters who in the days following his death have shown the scrappiness of street hustlers. Joe Jackson, this one's for you.

Everyone may want to shake Michael's doctor down for keeping the now deceased pop starlet on a steady diet of pills, but MJ was his own problem, that was a train headed toward collision. Period. But if fingers must be pointed, let's focus them on the Jackson family patriarch who thrust his kids into the limelight with fists and gall. The same man who is known to have beaten Michael as a child was able to muster up a red carpet ensemble to hock his wares on the red carpet at this past Sunday's BET Awards. Yesterday, in a black fedora standing next to Al Sharpton (speaking of fists and gall), Joe Jackson was the consummate pitch man, promoting his new record label and bemoaning his son's death. Wretched.

And then there's Janet. Miss Jackson. How nasty is she? Nasty enough to show up in her weave and faux tears at the BET Awards to thank the public for loving Michael, who wasn't an icon to her, but family. Womp womp. Can these people let the poor man's body get cold before they take to the airwaves to make a spectacle of themselves?

We're not even a week into this story and already I'm sick of the Jacksons. The only thing that will keep me sort of interested in this fiasco is the obligatory funeral, which will be the ultimate celebrity conclave. After that, I hope the entire Jackson brood skulks away into obscurity, leaving good music - and just the music - in their wake.

Happy Pride from GCL and Friends

I'm chomping on one of three dozen bagels that James and I bought for the Pride brunch we hosted yesterday. It was a day of air kisses and camaraderie, pecs and pressed flesh, disco and trance, mimosas and sequins. Our little brunch was the run-up to the parade along Fifth Avenue and the Heritage of Pride Pier Dance (VIP access this year for GCL and friends thanks to the job, holla!). I've bored y'all with what Pride means for me last week, so the day after the festivities which culminated in a spectacular fireworks show on the Hudson, here are some pictures for your Monday morning amusement...

Brash and Entitled, 40 Years After Stonewall

In the run-up to this weekend's Gay Pride festivities in New York, forty years after the floodgates of identity politics were opened by the death of a starlet, some gays wonder if the "struggle" rages on - as it should, or if it should.

Hence the "gay generation gap" cited by writer Mark Harris for this week's issue of New York magazine. Whereas one generation of gay men had to act up for their rights, my generation - according to some - just shows up and expects a round of applause for our mere existence. Our slouched stance on everything from politics to work is infuriating, according to Harris, to some gays whose identity is perpetually linked to a fight. That the fight has yielded exactly what our predecessors envisioned, an unencumbered gay life that exists seamlessly in the straight world, is unnerving to some.

For my friends, DOMA, Prop 8 and DADT are sidebar discussions - we're mostly consumed with ourselves, our careers, our bodies and our boyfriends. And AIDS, thank God, isn't even a topic of discussion. We get the significance of these debates, though, and we're reasonably appalled by the fact that our right to exist is a subject of debate, but then, what would we do about it? A few weeks ago when the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, there was a call for a rally from Christopher Street to Union Square. Only one of my friends went while some of us went out for drinks and dismissed the event with a yawn, we figured "what is getting upset going to do, anyway?"

That the most community-centric things I've done are limited to the Pier Dance and scoring (not buying) a seat at the GLAAD Media Awards can either be seen as disgusting or just a casualty of normalcy.

James, my boyfriend, came of age at the height of the AIDS epidemic. But when he talks about his college days, it's not with a clenched fist and rancor in his voice, he just has a lot of fun stories to tell. And after college, the fun seems to have continued with other out-and-proud gay men in the world of business. If anything, James' 80's experience is more Wall Street than Philadelphia. I suspect the guys have always been as brash and entitled as my friends and I are. Had they not been, we'd all be living a completely different experience now. For that, we say thanks.

Happy Birthday, GCL!

GCL turns 3 today! Feel free to roll your eyes but I'm gonna celebrate. For the past 36 months I've been tapping away at this laptop trying to make sense of my life, politics, and pop culture. I've made some enemies, I've caused trouble, I've said some incendiary things - in short, I've had an amazing time.

When I started this blog I was just getting smart to this whole "digital revolution" and what it meant for a PR underling like myself who was trying to get ahead in the world. The goal was, and still is, to share a screen with Larry King or Anderson Cooper - but in the meantime, being a relentlessly gay conservative liberal has brought me tremendous satisfaction and even professional gain. I never articulated this thought until now, but I'm proud of this blog.

Over the past three years I've been able to write about some pretty exciting stories, most notably the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of our country. That was without a doubt the most exciting time for me as a blogger. I know I ticked off a lot of people with my skepticism about his candidacy(yep, I called him the Antichrist), but I stand by what I said then - we were on the cusp of a monumental election, it wasn't the time for blind allegiance, it was a time to ask questions, it was a time to make demands from democrats who had lost two elections to the worst President in our nation's history. I was also glad to write about the situation in Colombia, my mom's homeland, both from a political and personal perspective - the release of the U.S. hostages along with Ingrid Betancourt, whose story was one of the first I ever followed on this blog, was a thrilling moment for me. It was equally thrilling, though in a different way, to make the trip to see my grandma in Colombia, in spite of our differences about my "lifestyle," and enjoy the city and home that had been such an important part of my childhood. Speaking of my lifestyle, I've delved into my own issues with gay life through this blog; it's been an exploration that has found me expanding on my faith and the place it occupies in my life. Some people have found this insightful, others have found it preachy, self-hating and backwards. Quite simply, it's an on-going dialogue that will likely never be resolved for this Jehovah's Witness kid from Brooklyn.

So what's ahead? Let me tell you, it's been hard for me to keep up with this blog these days. And it's not for lack of material - what with Prop 8, DOMA, Iran and my crazy family, I could spend all day writing. This anniversary is the kick in the pants I needed to rev up my posts - there's a lot going on in the world and I firmly believe that someone, a gay conservative liberal perhaps, should be out there talking and getting people to think, or at the very least, get them pissed off.

Getting Away with Murder in Pennsylvania

From CNN:Two teens were sentenced to at least six months in prison for the beating death of an undocumented Mexican immigrant in Pennsylvania. The victim, 25-year-old Luis Ramirez, was attacked by a drunken group of teens who shouted racial epithets at him and later succumbed to wounds so severe that at one point "brain tissue oozed out of his skull during surgery at a hospital."

The defendants, Brandon Piekarsky, 17, and Derrick Donchak, 19, were portrayed as two fun-loving, all-American teens (they were on their school's football team!) who fell into an unfortunate situation. They were just hanging around doing what small-town teens do, which is drink and look for trouble, and then came across a person of color who was beat to death. For that, you get 6 to 23 months in jail. The judge on the case, William Baldwin, was unmoved by a letter from Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell asking for the case to be considered a hate crime and following the verdict, though he did tell the defendants "You picked out a guy who was not one of you and just beat the pulp out of him." Governor Rendell sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking to pursue civil rights charges.

***
I've written about this before, the rise in hate crimes in this country, the rise in attacks against Latino immigrants in particular, and I couldn't be more offended by the verdicts handed down in Pennsylvania. For me, an educated Latino who doesn't feel vulnerable in the eyes of the law, it's infuriating to see a system that I (mostly) believe in disregard the rights of certain people. I refuse to believe that minorities are powerless, but it's certainly crushing to see acquittals or lenient sentences in case after case of white-on-black or latino violence. That these issues should divide people along political lines is also disappointing, as there shouldn't be a middle ground when discussing the death of an innocent person.

Cases like this place a huge responsibility on educated people of color who can and should talk back to the system and who should speak up for those of us who have less recourse to defend themselves.

On DOMA: Repeal Brown vs the Board of Education

President Obama thinks that the issue of gay marriage is one that's best left to individual states without interference from the federal government. Except it isn't - the feds are unequivocally anti-gay and last week our President submitted a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act. No federal benefits for same-sex married couples and no reason for states to recognize same-sex marriages.

In an editorial that appeared in yesterday's New York Times, the paper noted that the most distressing part of the Obama's administration's support of DOMA is the hurtful way with which it addresses the issue by saying that same-sex marriages deserve no more recognition from states than incestuous unions. In light of such blatant bigotry and discrimination, the administration's stance is a resounding "yeahh, sorry about that."

Or in legal speak:

"[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize."

Fine.

How about we repeal the Supreme Court's decision on Brown vs the Board of Education then? Or, let's take a trip back to 1954 and tell the black families of Topeka who just wanted the same access to education as white people that "Segregation is a cautious policy of federal neutrality toward race integration. Segregation maintains the view held by our slave-owning founding fathers that negroes aren't the same as white people, so, if some states want to race-mix that's fine, but we can't force everyone to subsidize education for people they wouldn't even sit next to on a bus."
***
See my point? There are no two ways around the issue of gay marriage anymore. Either you believe that tax-paying, law-abiding, same-sex couples deserve the same protections and benefits as heterosexual couples or you don't. If it's the latter then you're a bigot.

So which side of the fence are you really on, Mr-benefited-from-a-not-so-neutral-stance-on-desegregation-President?

Holocaust Museum Shooting: How Easy is it to Kill in America?

A few months ago I wrote about the troubling trend of racially motivated violence in US cities and what I feared was the unraveling of our humanity. In the wake of an abortion doctor's murder followed by the murder of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist, my argument - that we're losing our humanity - holds true.

So I wonder, how easy is it to kill in America? From the legality of obtaining a firearm to the societal factors that make shootings in schools, museums, malls and churches a common occurrence on the evening news - have we gone from being a nation that suffers occasional random violence, to, I don't know, Iraq? And to what extent is our decency and humanity compromised when we examine these issues through the prism of our political beliefs?

Regardless of your political leanings the fact remains that in the U.S. the phenomenon of random gun violence happens more often than in other developed nations. We have every which excuse to explain these acts but no one is any less dead for all of our conjecture: the assailant was crazy, the assailant was a Nazi, the assailant couldn't speak English, etc. So I'm still right: we're a nation of murderers.

Or are we not? This is, first, an issue of gun control - forget the Second Amendment and the public's so-called "right" to bear arms. This is also an issue about our values; as the American public continues to mire itself in divisive, incendiary political debate that ultimately demonizes people who hold different beliefs from ours, we set the stage for bloodshed. Does this sound like a huge leap? I don't think so. I think Americans have been stirred into a tizzy, overloaded with information, caffeine and entitlement - we've become murderers, predators and all sorts of crazy. And I wonder, what's next?

GCL @ Santigold Show @ Terminal 5

Yours truly is an uppity gay who does not like people, crowds, children and other gay men. Hence weekends are spent at home, with what's-his-face, watching things like the No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency. But sometimes I like to go out and wild out. And thankfully, my other gays are always ready to direct my attention from things like this and take me to, oh, I don't know, the Santigold show at Terminal 5.



If you're like me and you get your hip music recos from Gossip Girl, then you know the song "Shove It," which thumped menacingly as one Dan Humphrey stared down a ticked-off and vamped-out Serena van der Woodsen in one of the many encarnations of their tumultuous teenage love affair.



Anyway, last night's show was a lot of fun. Santigold took charge of the stage with a pimp strut and a gold track suit. That's boss. Way boss. Then homegirl rocked the mic with such gusto that the fans throwing hands up didn't think twice about the fact that her vocals were, um, hyper-stylized. As in, chick was definitely lip synching. But that's cool, the show was still raw, loud and edgy enough to warrant a $20 ticket. You probably want more details than this, so check out my boy Jay Williams over at OMFG New York for a more learned recap of the show.

L is for Legitimization

According to some conservatives, gays have all the rights they need. So the push for marriage equality or for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (which, sadly, is still in effect following a Supreme Court decision)is really just a ploy for the legitimization of our "lifestyle."

Well, duh. This point got me to thinking about how the vernacular of gay rights is ever-changing: we've gone from lovers to partners, gay community to LGBT community, unions to marriage. And now we want legitimization - not acceptance. To me, it makes perfect sense. See, you can accept that there is evil in the world but you don't have to condone it. And in spite of what you've heard about me, I'm not evil, so acceptance means nothing to me and countless gays and lesbians. I want the same rights my straight friends have, period. And until that happens, I am not a legitimate U.S. citizen.

That's the realization that the gay community is coming to. Forty years after the Stonewall riots we're no longer fighting for the right to live as outsiders in our country (as in, "fine, we're different but please let us keep our jobs"). Now we want the legitimization of our place in American society. If you want to be crude about it, yes, we want the red carpet of citizenship rolled out for us. The Mormons did it (and they got a whole state in the end!), the black community did it, and now the gays are doing it.

Let's all rally behind the new L word.

Spotted: GCL at Queens Pride

Hop the 7 train to Jackson Heights in Queens and you'll find, amid the mash-up of South American and Asian stores and ads for American brands in anything but English, an outer-borough version of Chelsea. There's room for everyone in this part of the city, Colombians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and yes, the gays.

So it's fitting that between the rowhouses and empanadas there should be a five block long festival of boys and girls in various states of undress celebrating gay pride. Church-going families scurried past the drag queens, and other passer-by stopped, looked around, and went about their business. Under the tracks of the 7 train, the gays poured out of local hotspots Atlantis and Friends Bar and into family-owned restaurants like Mario's and Mi Pequena Colombia, all of which were adorned with rainbow flags. Some shots below:

Gay Pawns

When it comes to gay marriage, says the Washington Post, Dick Cheney is resolutely left of the Obama administration's stance on the issue. Well tickle me pink.

While our President hails the achievements of the LGBT community and, in his words, is the first president "to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration," he still refuses to support gay marriage and prefers to tow the Republican/Democrat agenda of civil unions. At this point it's fair to say that neither gays or conservatives want civil unions - it's an all or nothing proposition.

So, what's up with Dick Cheney getting air time...again...on another issue that helped define his administration? A few weeks ago the former vice president was sparring with Obama over torture, saying that waterboarding has kept us safe, now Tricky Dick v2 is tackling gay marriage and next week he'll be swapping strudel recipes with Rachael Ray. Me thinks the shamed former VP doth protest too much.

While significant gains have been made in the gay rights movement over the years we're still nothing more than a hot button issue that sells news. Politicians, for the most part, feel no obligation to us - they stump for our issues on the campaign trail but once they're in power they prefer to sweep us under the rug. I'm talking to you, former President Clinton, he of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Rudy Giuliani used to march in the Gay Pride parade here in New York until he decided to run for President.

That's why I've stopped listening to what politicians have to say about the issue. They'll do whatever the public tells them to do when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights in general - so the strides made in Vermont, Iowa and perhaps New York do matter and can turn the course of events throughout the country. But the hot air and posturing from our nation's leaders is all a show - gays, you mean nothing to them.

A Nation of Murderers

"The last time a Republican thought I had rights, I was a fetus."

So goes a bumper sticker for left wingers' Priuses. But it rings true, so true, on a day when a doctor was gunned down at his church because of his weekday job as an abortion provider. Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, met an assassin's bullet this morning while attending Sunday services at his local church. Sadly, pro-lifers are split on what is clearly a right-or-wrong issue - check out the report at Jezebel.com.

What's even more sad is that this incident shows how America has lost sight of the sanctity of human life. Dr. Tiller did not deserve to die, but he also worked with the full protection of the law and was allowed to perform late-term abortions. So what about the countless children that didn't get to see life at the hands of Dr. Tiller? We live in a society that condones this sort of violence and brands it as a "choice," and then we save our shock and dismay for times when the same level of callous violence is perpetrated on adults or anyone who can "live on their own," to borrow a page from pro-choice dogma. We're also a country that executes criminals, is engaged in a dubious war with a country that posed no threat to us and turns the page every time another school shooting is sprawled across our newspapers. We're all callous and we've all shrugged off any culpability for the direction that America is going in.

This isn't a Democrat/Republican problem, it's a problem with the values that inform our humanity. We haven't evolved to the point where we truly consider all murder to be wrong. That's why there's war, abortion, crime...you get it. So, shame on all of us.