Why attack Gays? Killer: They are easy targets

UPDATE:  Jerry Swinford, the killer discussed in this post, is eligible for parole in 2009.  That’s this year.  If he’s lucky, he’ll be out on the streets again soon.

On April 29, 2009, during a debate on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill, North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx displays her ignorance of the facts.  The bill passed, however, there are still folks who refuse to accept the facts. 

As quoted from Pam’s House Blend, check it out to see the video of Rep. Foxx’s statement:

Rep. Foxx: "The bill was named after a very unfortunate incident that happened, where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's, it's really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."[House Floor Speech, 4/29/09]

The sad fact is that Gays are targeted because they are gay.  This is what a hate crime is.   Matthew Shepard is just one example, but there are many others.  Meet Jerry Swinford. 

Jerry Swinford and a friend met Chris Miller aka Miss Gay Arkansas, and Joe Fredericks at a park where gay men hang out.  After joining them at their house, Swinford and friend robbed and killed Chris Miller and wounded Joe Fredericks after a gay advance was made. Sound familiar? Listen for yourself as killer Jerry Swinford discusses how he came to target 2 gay men.

Was this just a random robbery?  Was there some other motive or reason for picking Chris and Joe?  Have a look at, in the killer’s own words, where his motivations come from. 

Many people believe that there’s no good reason for Hate Crimes legislation, that people aren’t really targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, or religion.  This is simply not true.  Our culture and society has been stained by the influence of religious extremists and heterosupremacists.  Some folks simply cannot feel good about themselves unless they can place someone else below them in the hierarchy of society.  It is them who are destroying our society.

Please take a stand, contact your elected officials in support of any hate crimes legislation.

CC09: Ballot Initiatives and Corporate Support. HRC’s CEI is too easy.

NGLTF Creating Change session on Corporate Ballot Initiative Support

One of the sessions I went to at Creating Change last week was about increasing corporate support for LGBT Ballot Initiatives.  I am a corporate minion and on the board of my company’s LGBT employee group, aka Employee Resource Group (ERG).  I was very curious to see what the panel had to say.  I’d previously attempted to get our company to take a position on CA Prop 8, unfortunately to no avail.  I was looking for tactics or data that would help me make the case to my management.  Ideally, i was hoping for pre-created business cases for how these rights positively impact our bottom line.  I was disappointed.

The session focused itself on “Ballot Initiatives”  however, I didn't hear anything that was specific to Ballot Initiatives that could not apply just as well to any corporation supporting any type of LGBT rights enhancement.  Ballot Initiatives are one, but legislative bills are another.

Overall the session gave a lot of data on the historical trend of increasing corporate support and a somewhat rudimentary taxonomy of the internal groups within a company that should be engaged in order to succeed.  If you haven’t been to Out and Equal, or this is your first time approaching a local corporation for their support, this was a good primer.

Aside from this, there wasn’t much distinction between seeking money and seeking a public endorsement, which is significant.  Money can be given quietly or indirectly.  A public statement is just that; public.  The former is really a cost analysis question, where as the other is a moral one.  Achieving these require different tactics and are dependent on different groups of people buying in.

Either way, with the ongoing recession, we should be realistic about what we can get money-wise.

The HRC factor

Lately the No on Prop8 campaign has been hoarding all the scrutiny and criticism.  That’s just unfair and wrong!  Let’s share some with our good friends at the HRC.

The most interesting thing I heard that might impact companies’ actions around being publicly supportive of LGBT rights legislation or ballot initiatives came not as a part of the presentation, but what seemed to be a fit of exasperation.

It is too easy to achieve a perfect “100” score on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI). I don’t mean to diminish the tremendous value of the criteria that a corporation must meet in order to score that high.  They are important, very important.

If we really believe that corporate support for the advancement of our rights is critical; If we really want to raise the bar on what we expect from employers of gay people, then we need to stop rewarding them for failing to do so.  We need to raise the bar of what’s required to achieve a score of 100.

For simplicity, lets work with 2 points for now. A company should only be able to earn these points if they can prove that they supported a state (1 point) and national (1 point) policy for the advancement of LGBT rights.'

If a company refuses to take an LGBT positive position on such a policy in their state, or nation, they lose these points.

This would likely mean that most companies that meet today’s bar for 100, would be at 98.

If the number “100” is too attractive to the marketroids and they afraid of insulting otherwise LGBT friendly companies, perhaps the max score should be 102.  Space shuttle engines can provide thrust greater than 100%, why can’t the CEI?  These could be bonus points.

Perhaps companies that do these courageous acts could get discounts on sponsorships of our events or formal dinners.

I know our legal, PR and recruiting folks pay attention to the CEI score.  So do progressive potential employees.   I’m not saying that making such a change will automagically cause all companies to come out for us.  However, pushing companies to take these positions is herding cats, uphill.  Making such a change will make that hill a bit less steep.  That may just be what we, as ERG leaders, need to push it over the top.

The key is that we’re not using our carrot and stick very well here. We need incentives for companies to act. There needs to be a few extra points up there that can only be earned by companies that can prove that they took a stance in support of actual legislation for the advancement of LGBT rights. 

Support the CA Supreme Court

While we’re focusing on JTI and the Courage protest, we should also shed some light on legal challenge and the controversy that could lead to.

A friend and I have been watching the discussion that’s ensued since the election and there is an interesting concern emerging regarding what could happen to our allies on the California supreme court if they stand with us.

As California’s court is composed of elected justices, their ability to stand on principle is significantly more constrained than the US Supreme Court.  Given that a decision in our favor would be viewed by our opponents as overriding the will of the people, our allies could very well face re-election problems at the ballot box.   An angry movement of bigotry could not only remove our rights, but replace the justices with less friendly socially conservative ones.

As it happens right now, the YES on 8 bullhorn is preemptively stoking anger at the judiciary in California. 

Note this quote from the 11/12 YES on 8 Mailer:

Although past court decisions seem to favor our case, we cannot trust the same judicial system that overturned Proposition 22 to protect our Election Day decision.

We must remain active and hold our government officials accountable. This battle is far from over. Join us as we continue to push forward in our defense of marriage!

I think the reality is that when they say "we cannot trust the same judicial system..." that's a coded threat to the state supreme court.  If they the court reverses the bigotry of Prop 8, they will suffer.

This is not the first time this has happened.  Take Rose Bird, for example.  She was the first female justice on the CA supreme court, also the Chief Justice.  In 1986, after 10 years on the bench as a progressive ally, she was removed by a revenge effort by conservatives.

From her Wikipedia Page:

Rose Elizabeth Bird (November 2, 1936–December 4, 1999) served for 10 years as the 25th Chief Justice (and first female Justice & only female Chief Justice) of the California Supreme Court until removed from that office by the voters. Bird was targeted by well-funded conservative and pro death penalty groups whose withering attacks painted her as a soft-on-crime liberal. After being outspent two to one, she lost her reconfirmation bid and left office in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird

So, we must stand up for our progressive allies on the California court.  They stood up for us earlier this year when they ruled, despite the state voters having approved prop 22, that same sex marriage is a right that we have.  Now, they will likely face a pitched battle to either bow to our enemies or face removal.

For bloggers, we need to get this message out in the short term.  This dovetails well with the protests this weekend.   There have been calls to ensure that these protests are Americans expressing their right to equality, a founding principle.  People are suggesting bringing American flags as well as rainbow flags. 

If you can, please repeat this message and encourage protesters to show their support for the California supreme court.  They’ve shown their support for us, now we need to support them!

If you’re protesting yourself, and can carry a sign, consider one supporting the court.

A quick brainstorm in my head came up with:

• “Defend our Rights, Defend the Court”
• "I (heart) the judicial system"
• “activist judges eliminate rights. support a supreme court that preserves them!”

Anyone have any other clever ideas?

My WA State Democratic Caucus experience

Last week I went to the Washington state democratic caucus here on Capitol Hill.  My neighborhood is definitely quite liberal and very, very gay.  In fact, I think it is so liberal, that you would be more likely to get beaten for wearing a McCain sticker than a big sign that said "I'm a bit fat homo!".

I have to say, I was disappointed with the caucus experience.  It is amazing that the system actually works.  The people assigned the "chairmanship", if you want to call it that, of a given precinct, are laypersons.  The folks running mine, precinct #2541, had never done this before.  In order to keep things running as smoothly as possible, the leaders had given out step by step process documents, as well as worksheets for the math steps required to calculate the results. 

The most annoying part of this was that they had stationed a bunch of precincts in what is basically a cafeteria at the local community college, Seattle Central Community College.  What this meant was that you had 4-5 groups of 60 people crowded around in separate circles trying to have discussions and give speeches.  This really did not work.  It was really hard to hear anything going on with all the distractions from the nearby precincts.  Our speakers were regularly drowned out by applause and cheering from other groups.  I would say that other groups suffered the same interference from us, but our precinct seemed to be low on the energy side.

Overall, people were for Obama vs Clinton by a factor of 4:1.  Our precinct elected 4 Obama delegates and 1 Clinton delegate.  Clinton hung on by a thread.  If a single uncommitted voter had switched to Obama, she would have received NO delegates.  This is definitely Obama country.

Our Obama Delegates:

Me standing with our lone Hillary delgate:

The math worksheet with our final results:

F

Finally a video of my experience.  If you are interested in what it was actually like and want to hear the kinds of speeches people made to "sway" the participants, check this out: