Wow!

Gay marriage, gender roles and data from Iowa

By Nan Hunter-

According to a study by the Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism -
...[M]arriage statistics show that female couples made up nearly two-thirds of the same-sex marriages in Iowa in the year after the state Supreme Court ruled it legal in April 2009. Although experts say a single year does not constitute a trend, they say the disparity is consistent with the traditional way Americans raise children and establish their gender roles early in life. The disparity also reflects similar trends in other states where same-sex marriages are allowed...
...Rather than examining the nature of gay marriage to determine the merit of opponents’ arguments, the public debate has focused mostly on opponents’ charge that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and proponents arguing that gay couples deserve equal rights.
The IowaWatch study found that similarities range from the way men and women often view marriage to the more mundane tasks of married life, such as doing yard work. Like people in traditional marriages, same-sex couples also talk about raising children and shielding them from the verbal slings of peers, the stability and unit-strength of a family and the value of loving relationships among parents and children, as well as legal necessities and financial security.
The study is based on more than a dozen interviews with gay couples and national experts and on an examination of journal articles, marriage statistics, census data, polls and court rulings...
[The marriage issue is part of Iowa politics this year because of two campaigns.] One is the gubernatorial campaign between Democratic Gov. Chet Culver and Republican challenger Terry Branstad, who, along with social conservatives hope to win enough legislative seats to get a vote to allow a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. In the other campaign, three of the state Supreme Court justices are fending off retention challenges led by anti-gay marriage forces...[H]ealth department’s statistics also suggest gay marriage is not a trend on the fringe. Of the 19,204 couples who bought licenses to marry during the year ending March 31, one out of ten were gay. In Pottowattamie and Johnson Counties, the ratio was one out four. The marriages occurred in 21 of Iowa’s 99 counties...

“I have not seen any evidence that same sex couples approach marriage differently,” said Lee Badgett, research director of the UCLA Law School’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy.
But the fact that lesbians make up nearly two-thirds of same-sex couples poses somewhat of a mystery to researchers. The proportion is way out of line with the 2000 Census figures showing lesbians made up 49 percent unmarried same-sex couples. That pattern follows in other gay-marriage states.
Adding to the mystery is that more married same couples in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are male, according to Esther Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. Studies in the early 2000s found the ratio around 3 to1 male. Moreover, in Mexico City, where a six-month-old same-sex marriage law was upheld in early August, gay male marriages also outnumber lesbian marriages.
So, why do more American lesbians marry than gay men?
Some experts think it goes back to the way America culture raises children. Long before children know about sexual orientation, society begins foisting gender roles on them, Mimi Schippers, associate professor of sociology at Tulane University, said. Tradition dictates that women desire marriage more than men, she said.
“Girls are raised pretty from the moment they become consciously aware to think about marriage, to desire marriage and to see marriage as a goal.”
Males, on the other hand, are socialized to be reluctant to marry, said Stephanie Coontz, of Evergreen State College in Washington and author of numerous books on marriage, its history and myths. Because gay men and lesbians are raised in the same way, the pattern effects same-sex couples and helps explain differences in the two sexes’ desire for children...
The 2000 Census found that 33 percent of lesbian households have a child compared to 22 percent of same-sex male couples. The disparity also has an economic explanation: men make more money than women, and gay men across the Atlantic, whose marriages enjoy national recognition, have greater financial incentive to marry than do gay men in America, where federal law doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, according to Rothblum.
In a 2005 article for the Journal of LGBT studies, Rothblum wrote the lack of federal recognition makes state-level marriage largely symbolic. Because women have a greater desire to marry and have children, a symbolic marriage may have more attraction for them....

see more at Hunter for Justice


-end-.

Focus on the Family Goes After LGBT Students

Submitted by Maureen Costello

   For the last few days, an “educational analyst” for Focus on the Family has been getting a lot of press. She’s been suggesting that anti-bullying efforts that draw attention to the harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students are part of a “gay agenda” to “sneak homosexuality lessons into classrooms.”
   One can argue, as some have, that Focus on the Family is a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of Christians in the United States. That’s true. But it’s also true that Focus on the Family has an outsized impact on conservative thought in this country. And by using deception and spin, the group has managed this week to grab the media spotlight. The goal is apparently to make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers. That cannot be ignored.
It’s also impossible to ignore Focus on the Family’s smarmy tactics. Taking a page out of George Orwell, the group has developed a website for parents designed to “challenge the monopoly.” They’ve named it TrueTolerance.org. Sound familiar?
   Teaching Tolerance has been fighting for children and teachers for 20 years. We can say with certainty that the Focus on the Family campaign has nothing to do with tolerance. And it has nothing to do with keeping children safe. The harassment of LGBT students is rampant and destructive, as has been detailed in the new Teaching Tolerance documentary, Bullied: A School, a Student and a Case that Made History. This film tells the story of Jamie Nabozny, a gay student who was tormented and beaten by bullies while school officials steadfastly looked the other way.
   Be assured of one thing: Today, thousands of other LGBT students face this same hell just by going to class. Focus on the Family admits that 30 percent of American children report being involved in bullying at school. But all the evidence shows that LGBT students are disproportionately represented in that 30 percent.
   According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), 86 percent of LGBT students report being bullied - a rate almost three times higher than students in general. The federal government reports that openly gay and lesbian students are at an even higher risk of bias-related violence and physical assaults. Lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents are more than twice as likely as their straight peers to be depressed and contemplate suicide. More than 60 percent report feeling unsafe at school.
But we don’t need statistics to tell us this. Anyone who has spent any time in a school, especially a middle school, knows that the words “gay” and “faggot” are hurled casually—and they are not intended to be kind. Students who are gay, lesbian or questioning live in fear of exposure. Others dread the ridicule that comes with being seen as different, and may side with the bullies, or decline to stand up for the harassed, out of self-preservation. The people at Focus on the Family know this as well and they want to keep it that way. The group has its own agenda that could be roughly boiled down to three points:

1. LGBT students should be invisible. The group argues, with absolutely no evidence, that generic anti-bullying policies that don’t name LGBT bullying are “most effective.” GLSEN, on the other hand, offers plenty of data to show just the opposite. Schools become safer for everyone when they adopt anti-bullying policies that spell out the categories of students most frequently targeted by bullies—including race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
   
2. LGBT allies should be silent. Focus on the Family says essentially, “Don’t focus on the victim, focus on the bad behavior of the bully.” But handling each bullying event in isolation ignores the environment in which bullying breeds. Bullying usually begins with name-calling and then escalates. It escalates because too often neither the school staff nor the other students realize that they have a role in stopping it. Bullying thrives amid passive bystanders.
   
   
3. School administrators and teachers should be very, very afraid. After terrifying parents that their kindergarteners are soon to be the target of homosexual indoctrination, TrueTolerance.org offers up a menu of deception designed to rally the forces of fear. Parents—armed with misinformation about their taxpayer rights, screwy science about childhood sexuality and bad legal advice—are urged to apply pressure. The group knows that fearful administrators will want to avoid trouble, so teachers will find it harder to stop LGBT harassment.

   Focus on the Family’s biggest fear is that schools will reflect a diverse U.S. society—one that includes LGBT students. They do not want to be challenged in their belief that homosexuality is immoral, abnormal and changeable.
   We don’t expect to change those personal beliefs. Simply put, our goal is to ask those who would ignore the pain and suffering of these children to understand that acknowledging the problem of anti-LGBT bullying—and wanting to make schools safe from harassment for all students—doesn’t require that you approve. At the risk of sounding pedantic, we would remind them that living in a democratic and diverse society means living alongside people with whom you disagree
   The alternative is to stay silent and stand by while terrible things happen to other people’s children. Terrible things that no parent would ever want to happen to his or her own child.
   We are glad to stand up for LGBT students and we will not rest until educators across the country do so as well. We are glad to work with groups like GLSEN, PFLAG and Welcoming Schools (a project of the Human Rights Campaign), three of the “gay activist” organizations Focus on the Family is gunning for. And we are proud that they have endorsed the movie “Bullied” as a tool for fighting against anti-gay bigotry.

Costello is the director of Teaching Tolerance.

-end-

New Ads to Try to Build Public Support for Gay Marriage

   Advocates for same-sex marriage in New York, in a major departure from their strategy of lobbying political insiders, will begin making a direct appeal to ordinary voters in a series of commercials featuring Hollywood actors, fashion designers and civic leaders.
   The videos, to be released starting this week, are the most vivid attempt yet to persuade the state’s lawmakers to legalize gay marriage, which the Legislature voted down last year, despite polling that showed a slight majority of New York voters supported it.
   In the aftermath of that defeat, many grumbled that the backers of same-sex marriage had failed to rally ordinary residents behind the bill or to humanize the issue outside of Albany — the explicit aim of the new ads.
   In them, celebrities like Julianne Moore and Kyra Sedgwick and leaders like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Rev. Al Sharpton will speak in strikingly personal ways about their support for gay marriage.    “I’m Julianne Moore, and I’m a New Yorker,” begins one of the videos. “We all deserve the right to marry the person we love.” She adds: “We are so close to equal marriage rights in New York. But we need your help.”    The timing of commercials is deliberate, and revealing: With the front-runner in the governor’s race, Andrew M. Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general, pledging his support for same-sex marriage, and the Legislature in Democratic hands, advocates are pushing for a new vote early next year. “We want to build excitement and momentum in advance of that,” said Brian V. Ellner, of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization that is sponsoring the ads.     As part of that strategy, the Human Rights Campaign and its allies are spending heavily to oust three New York state senators — all Democrats — who voted against the marriage bill last year and who face opponents in the primary on Tuesday: William Stachowski of Buffalo, Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx.     But there are several hurdles: With most voters fretting about the dour state economy and a budget crisis, the next governor may be uneager to plunge into a potentially divisive debate about same-sex marriage. Opponents, like the New York State Catholic Conference, are expected to fight the bill. And the lawmakers who doomed the measure in 2009 could hold on to their seats. Still, gay rights advocates say they want to lay the groundwork for its passage now, well ahead of a vote. The ads were the brainchild of Mr. Ellner, a former Bloomberg administration official and a one-time Democratic candidate for Manhattan borough president. They will appear first online and later on television, closer to a vote on the gay-marriage bill, organizers said. Mr. Ellner, who is overseeing the group’s same-sex marriage push in New York, said that “polls show there’s broad-based support for marriage equality in this state, and this campaign is the first in a series of efforts that will put faces to that support.”        In interviews, those appearing in the videos expressed puzzlement and dismay that New York had fallen behind states like Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriage. “I think we will look back someday and say, I can’t believe we were so blind to this issue,” Ms. Moore said. She called it a human rights issue. Future ads will feature, among others, Kevin Bacon, Whoopi Goldberg, Fran Drescher, Tom Colicchio, the chef, and Jeanne Moutoussamy-Ashe, the widow of Arthur Ashe.

-end-

Senator's Gillibrand and Udall To Attorney General Holder: Don't Appeal DADT Case

By David Mixner-

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

We are writing to bring to your attention the recently issued decision of Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court of the Central District of California in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, which declared that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) underlying law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and free speech, thereby rendering DADT unconstitutional. In light of important national security concerns, we respectfully request that you, in your capacity at the Department of Justice, refrain from appealing this decision or any permanent injunction which may be granted against this law in the near future.
The following quote from the judge’s decision captures the overwhelming reason why the decision should stand: “Among those discharged were many with critically needed skills … Far from furthering the military's readiness, the discharge of these service men and women had a direct and deleterious effect on this governmental interest.” As one of many criteria that the Justice Department will examine in deciding whether to appeal a potential permanent injunction to this policy, we ask that you examine whether or not an appeal furthers a legitimate governmental interest. We would say any appeal does not.
Additionally, DADT harms military readiness, as well as the morale and the cohesiveness of our armed forces, at a time when our military’s resources are strained and unity is critically important. For every person discharged after ten years of service, six new servicemembers would need to be recruited to recover the level of experience lost by that discharge. This not only weakens our military, but neither is it an effective use of our government resources or taxpayer monies.
President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have all publicly advocated for the repeal of this harmful law. There is no legal or military justification and not one shred of credible evidence that supports continuing the discriminatory DADT law, and considering the guidance of the commander-in-chief and the nation’s top two defense officials, we urge you to refrain from seeking an appeal. The federal court decision was a step in the right direction, and we are confident that the Senate will take the ultimate step by voting this fall on the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to permanently lift the ban on gays in the military. Although we understand that only action by Congress can bring real finality to this issue, we believe an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back those congressional efforts. Therefore, we request your assistance in ensuring that we can eradicate this discriminatory law permanently and urge the Justice Department to choose not to appeal any court decision that would keep this law in place.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We look forward to hearing from you.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D- NY) and Senator Mark Udall (D-CO)

read more from David at Live From Hell's Kitchen.


-end-

Gays Want in on Cardinals’ Kiss-Cam

  Adam Sandler and Kevin James in
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

Organizers of a planned gay night this Saturday at the St. Louis Cardinals’ Busch Stadium are trying to convince the team to feature gay and lesbian couples on the kiss cam, according to STLToday.com.

Pride St. Louis’s Ethan Barnett organized the “Out at the Ballpark” afternoon and said members of the group decided to campaign to appear on the kiss cam after two straight men were captured jeering at the camera during a St. Louis Rams game against the Arizona Cardinals.

Bennett said the group isn’t accusing the Cardinals of discriminating but wants to feel like gay couples aren’t being left out. By letting the camera linger on two straight men, being gay becomes a punch line, he said.
"We always felt left out because the kiss cam always singles out heterosexual couples," said Harrison Roberts, the manager of St. Louis gay bar Just John, which is hosting this weekend’s after-party. "But after what happened at the Rams game, all the gay and lesbian fans that were there felt embarrassed and a little degraded. Why shouldn't we be on the camera too?"


-end-

Russian Gay Activist Arrested at Moscow Airport

■ Nikolai Alekseev: Arrested at Moscow airport
MOSCOW, September 15, 2010 – Russia’s best known gay rights activist was arrested this evening at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport. And there are concerns as, so far, officials are not giving out any information about his whereabouts.

Nikolai Alekseev was about to board Swiss Air Lines flight LX 1337 for Geneva and had passed through passport control when he was arrested by Russian border police at about 7pm Moscow time (4pm UK).

No explanation has yet been given by officials as to why he was arrested.

He was taken to a closed room at the airport.

However, he was able to get messages out by mobile telephone of his arrest before his handset was confiscated as he was speaking with other activists at GayRussia.ru Website.

A group of three fellow activists, led by Nikolai Baev, immediately headed for the airport to assess the situation.

But airport police refused to give any further comment apart from saying that “Alekseev is not here”.

One police man did, however, suggest that Mr. Alekseev might have been transferred to the FSB, formally the KGB, headquarters on Lubianska Square in Moscow.

Ludmila Alekseeva from the Moscow Helsinki Group called the Main Office of the Moscow Police and was told that there is no track of the activist in their system.

Yesterday, activists from GayRussia announced that they had applied to stage a picket against the Moscow Mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, on September 21 on the occasion of his birthday. The theme of the picket was “Luzhkov – gomiki”.

Recently a Russian court confirmed that when the Mayor of Moscow called gays “gomiki” in the media, the term was not offensive. Gomiki is the translation of “faggot”


-end-

GLBT History Month 2010 Overview

Penn. Gov. Rendell Appalled by State's Tracking of Gay Activists

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (pictured at right) said Tuesday he is "appalled" and "embarrassed" that his administration's Office of Homeland Security is tracking and circulating information about protests by activist groups that don’t pose a threat to public safety.
Rendell said he was unaware the office had been paying an outside firm to track a long list of activists, including groups that support gay rights, oppose drilling, and animal rights activists, According to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
"Let me make this as clear as I can make it," the governor said at news conference Tuesday night. "Protesting against an idea, a principle, a process, is not a real threat against infrastructure. Protesting is a God-given American right, a right that is in our Constitution, a right that is fundamental to all we believe in as Americans."
Included in a three times weekly circulated intelligence bulletin: Information about the city's PrideFest; a rally that supported his administration's education policy; and an anti-BP candlelight vigil.
Tell me, what critical infrastructure does the gay and lesbian PrideFest threaten?" Rendell asked. "How in the Lord's name can we consider them to be terrorists?"
Rendell said he won’t fire or discipline anyone in the department, but has ordered them to terminate their contract Philadelphia-based Institute of Terrorism and Research Response, which he said has been paid $125,000 in the last year to gather data about possible security threats.


-end-

A very good night for LGBT candidates

After Tuesday’s primaries, we’re one giant step closer to adding a fourth openly gay member of Congress.  But that’s not the whole story of last night.  Out candidates advanced in races across the country, setting up the possibility of an historic year in gay politics.
Providence Mayor David Cicilline won his Democratic primary to represent the Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House, a key test in a very blue state.  Still, he’s not measuring for drapes in a Capitol Hill office just yet.
Cicilline sent the following message last night when he learned he’d won his primary:

“I’m very grateful that the Victory Fund and their supporters believe in this campaign, and I thank you for your hard work on our behalf.  Together we really can change politics in Rhode Island and across the country, and make sure that all Americans have a voice in their government.  I hope you’ll continue to stand with us as we work hard for a big victory this November.”

In all, 29 of the Victory Fund’s 33 openly LGBT candidates with primaries Tuesday night advanced, and many of those have only token opposition this fall.
Other highlights:
–The Maryland House of Delegates is set to welcome three new gay and lesbian members, bringing the total number of out Maryland state lawmakers to 7.  This could have an enormous impact on the fight to bring marriage equality to the state.  Gov. Martin O’Malley earlier this month pledged to sign a marriage equality bill if the state legislature is able to pass one.
–Among the winners in Maryland is Mary Washington, who is on track to becoming just the second openly lesbian African-American to be elected to a state legislature anywhere in America.  Her Baltimore district will likely have two lesbian representatives in the House of Delegates.  Incumbent Maggie McIntosh also won her primary.
–Harry Bronson could become the sixth openly LGBT member of the New York state legislature.  Bronson won the Democratic primary in his Rochester-area district.  He would be the only out Assembly member from upstate New York if he wins the general election this fall.


-end-

DADT on Trial: Maj. Witt's Dismissal "Negatively Impacted the Unit"

This week, the ACLU of Washington is before the U.S. District Court in Tacoma representing Maj. Margaret Witt, a decorated U.S. Air Force Flight nurse who was dismissed under the discriminatory and counterproductive policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). This is a dispatch from the trial.

   After opening statements, Jim Schaffer, current Spokane Fire Department captain and former member of the 446th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron (Maj. Witt's squadron), began his testimony. Before retiring from the Air Force in 2006, he and Maj. Witt served on the same flight crew on a number of missions and were deployed together a number of times. Schaffer spoke about Maj. Witt's stellar career and told stories of how her calm, cool, and collected nature, plus her ability to include all team members, helped their team succeed and save lives. He told of a particular occasion where a Department of Defense civilian went into cardiac arrest while aboard a plane, and Maj. Witt's ability to accurately assess the situation made sure that the person survived.
   He also spoke about the nature and culture of the 446th. Particularly moving was his description of his retirement party: He made sure to invite Maj. Witt to the event, and then used the occasion to provide a send-off for her, complete with signed notes and a photograph from members of her unit. Schaffer made it very clear that Maj. Witt was someone he admired and trusted.
   Next up was Jenny Kofpstein, who was discharged 2002 from the Navy under Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Jenny, a decorated Navy Lt. Junior Grade, spent much of her testimony discussing integrity and honesty. After she completed the Naval Academy and served a few years, her inability to talk about her life off-ship became a problem. She spoke of the trust needed to work well as a team. By avoiding routine conversations about weekend activities, partners and dinner plans, she had inadvertently created space between herself and her shipmates.
   Knowing that to live with integrity she must tell the truth, Jenny wrote a letter in July of 2000 to her commanding officers, telling them that she was a lesbian. She closed that letter with "I can only live my life openly and honestly. Anything less isn't fair to the Navy, my family, my peers, my subordinates or to me."
   A current 446th flight nurse, Lt. Col.Vince Oda, was next to testify. Vince comes from a family of service members; his father served as a member of the 477th all-Japanese-American combat brigade in Italy during World War II. During their service together, Maj. Witt and Lt. Col. Oda never spoke directly about her sexual orientation because, as he stated, "it was not important to me."
   Over the years, Lt. Col. Oda began to believe that Maj. Witt was a lesbian — not because she ever said anything, but because of what she didn't say. As Schaffer had testified previously, Lt. Col. Oda explained flight crew culture as involving close teamwork that gives all participants an intimate look at each other's lives. Flight crews spend all of their time together. Because Maj. Wittnever spoke about her personal life — her partner, what was happening in her home — Lt. Col. Oda came to assume that Maj. Witt was a lesbian. He stated that Maj. Witt's dismissal "negatively impacted the unit."
    Since 1993, more than 13,000 service members have been discharged due to their sexual orientation. At least 240 of those service members have been discharged since President Obama took office. The Senate will debate DADT as early as next week. 

Join the ACLU in urging Congress to act this year to finally end DADT once and for all.


-end-

Who's a family? Some say pets in, same-sex couples out...

   New research being released Wednesday shows steadily increasing recognition of unmarried couples — gay and straight — as families. But there's a solid core resisting this trend who are more willing to include pets in their definition than same-sex partners.

How "family" is defined is a crucial question on many levels. Beyond the debate over same-sex marriage, it affects income tax filings, adoption and foster care practices, employee benefits, inheritance rights and countless other matters.
   The new research on the topic is contained in a book-length study, "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definition of Family" and in a separate 2010 survey overseen by the book's lead author, Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell.
   Between 2003 and 2010, three surveys conducted by Powell's team showed a significant shift toward counting same-sex couples with children as family — from 54 percent of respondents in 2003 to 68 percent in 2010. In all, more than 2,300 people were surveyed.
Powell linked the changing attitudes to a 10 percent rise between 2003 and 2010 in the share of survey respondents who reported having a gay friend or relative. "This indicates a more open social environment in which individuals now feel more comfortable discussing and acknowledging sexuality," Powell said.

Notion 'should give us paws'
   Only about one-third of those surveyed said they considered same-sex couples without children to be a family. And in 2006, when asked if gay couples and pets count as family, 30 percent said pets count but not gay couples. "The sheer idea that gay couples are given less status than pets should give us pause," Powell said in an interview.
   In the 2010 survey, 83 percent of the respondents said they perceived unmarried heterosexual couples with children as a family; only 40 percent extended that recognition to unmarried straight couples without children.
   In line with several recent national opinion polls, Powell's 2010 survey showed a near-even split on same-sex marriage — with 52 percent supporting it and 48 percent opposed. Even though five states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages, the federal government doesn't recognize them. The Census Bureau definition of "family" remains traditional: "A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together."

Holding onto tradition
   Many religious conservatives hope the government sticks by that definition, even in the face of shifts in public opinion. "Same-sex marriage is a dangerous social experiment," said Glenn Stanton, director of family formation studies for Focus on the Family. "A lesbian couple who legally married in Massachusetts — are they family? We would say, 'Absolutely not.'" Stanton said it was increasingly difficult to engage in serious debate on the definition question.

"We're moving in this headlong direction toward same-sex families without any intelligent discussion about whether it's actually good for the children and the adults," he said. "This whole issue has boiled down to, 'Are you a bigot or not?'"
   The shifts described in Powell's research pleased Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, which advocates on behalf of same-sex families. "People are taking a more expansive view of what a family is," said Chrisler. "But for any family that doesn't fit the 1960s Ozzie and Harriet mold, slow and steady doesn't feel fast enough." Chrisler and her wife, Cheryl Jacques, a former Massachusetts state senator, are raising twin boys.

Adoption bill backed
   The Family Equality Council has been lobbying on behalf of a bill pending in Congress that would prohibit states and child welfare agencies from denying adoption or foster care placements solely based on the sexual orientation or marital status of the potential parents. The bill is targeted at states such as Florida, which bans gays and lesbians from adopting — a policy now being challenged in court.
   The bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., has been applauded by the Alternatives to Marriage Project because it encompasses single people as well as same-sex couples, "I get frequent letters and e-mails from people who find the political rhetoric of 'family' to be extremely exclusive of singles," said the project's executive director, Nicky Grist. "For singles, it might be a code for 'You don't count.'" For Powell, the major finding of his new research is the shifting view of same-sex families — which he compared to the gradual acceptance of interracial marriage. "We envisage a day in the near future when same-sex families also will gain acceptance by a large plurality of the public," he wrote. His book was published by the Russell Sage Foundation, a social science research center, as part of a series overseen by the American Sociological Association.

-end-

Providence Mayor Cicillini claims victory in Democratic primary for Congress

Cicilline, left

   David Cicilline, the openly gay mayor of Providence, won the Democratic nomination in Tuesday’s Rhode Island congressional race. He’s vying to replace Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), to represent the state’s 1st Congressional District.

   If victorious in November general election, Cicilline would become the fourth openly gay member of Congress. He will face Republican state Rep. John Loughlin, the House minority whip, on Nov. 2.
Cicilline captured 36% of the vote in a four-way race for the nomination, beating former party Chair Bill Lynch (23%), former Gem Plumbing President Anthony Gemma (22%) and state Rep. David Segal (19%).
Cicilline was endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender candidates for public office. Victory Fund president and CEO Chuck Wolfe hailed the win as genuine progress for LGBT Americans.
   “Adding more authentic LGBT voices to Congress is a Victory Fund priority, and Mayor Cicilline’s win tonight puts us one giant step closer to doing just that. When he wins this November, he will join Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank and Jared Polis as the only openly gay and lesbian members of Congress—our greatest champions for real change and real progress toward full equality. We’re proud to have supported Mayor Cicilline throughout his political career, and thrilled about this historic victory,” Wolfe said.
Cicilline has spent two terms as mayor of Providence. He entered the congressional race in February, two days after Kennedy announced he would not seek a ninth term.

More recognition for the importance of the sex discrimination analysis in Perry

By Nan Hunter-

Judge Walker's analysis of the sex discrimination issue in his decision in Perry is getting more attention, as it should. Although not the focus of the evidence presented at trial, the sex discrimination question was prominent at oral argument for a good reason: the constitutional standard for testing a law that discriminates based on sex is tougher than what any federal court has ever applied to sexual orientation discrimination. So the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that banning gay marriage enacted a distinction based on the sex of one's partner, and the defendants argued that because marriage is all and only about procreation, the sex differential is not bad, but essential.
The significance of the link between gender, marriage and sexuality, however, runs much deeper than that. Here's what Judge Walker wrote:

The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage...Rather the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed...
Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines... Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.
Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals....

Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination. ...The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation....Sexual orientation discrimination is thus a phenomenon distinct from, but related to, sex discrimination.

In my view, this was the most creative part of his analysis. Linda Greenhouse at the NY Times agreed:

Of the many smart moves Judge Walker made in his 136-page opinion last week, the smartest was his unveiling of a central hiding-in-plain-sight fact: the change in society’s expectations about what partnership in a marriage entails...

There is much more to Judge Walker’s analysis, but it seems to me that this revelation is the heart of it: that while we have been fussing about same-sex marriage, marriage itself has undergone profound change as the result of forces completely independent of federal judges...
If Judge Walker’s opinion survives on appeal in its full sweep, I think it will be on this basis...

BU Law Professor Linda McClain pointed out that another important aspect of the analysis was its highlighting of the irrelevance of gender to parenting.
Going a step further, Loyola Law Professor Doug Nejaime highlights the channeling function that the ban on gay marriage serves and offers an explanation for why the question got a more extensive examination in Perry:

Marriage equality advocates have pointed out the connection between marriage restrictions and gender roles in earlier litigations. But state courts considering same-sex couples' right to marry have consistently rejected or neglected the way in which marriage restrictions rely on and perpetuate sex stereotypes that subordinate women. While disappointing, this hardly seems surprising; state officials defending the restrictions increasingly refuse to explicitly rely on gender norms, and arguments about sex stereotypes are often buried in amicus briefs.
But Proposition 8 proponents' direct role in the Perry litigation forced Judge Walker to fully consider the sex-based implications of Proposition 8. Arguments based on sex stereotypes now constituted part of the principal case put forward by the proposition's defenders. And where Proposition 8 supporters saw legitimate justifications for the amendment, Judge Walker saw impermissible sex stereotypes, concluding that "Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage."
For all the confusion introduced by Proposition 8 proponents' role in the litigation, their presence has made one thing crystal clear: Laws that prohibit marriage for same-sex couples constitute just one part of a broader normative framework of the family that harms individuals based on both sex and sexual orientation.

I agree with Doug that Perry unmasked the kind of heteronormative "marriage culture" that is at base what the conservative true believers want.  Unfortunately for them, it's no longer what most Americans want. And that is a huge part of the reason why public opinion is shifting about gay marriage.


-end-

Immigration reform for binational gay couples caught in cross-fire

The Washington Post sees little chance of reforming immigration laws to benefit same-sex couples:

About 24,000 gay and lesbian couples in the United States include at least one foreign partner, according to an analysis of census data by researcher Gary Gates at UCLA's Williams Institute. Though five states and D.C. issue marriage licenses to gay couples, a large number of the 24,000 so-called binational couples in long-term relationships live in states that do not allow or recognize gay marriage.
The demand by these couples to gain the same immigration rights as heterosexuals is supported by key members of Congress, but is undermining the fractious coalition of groups needed to push through an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. Including equal treatment for gay partners of U.S. citizens, key advocates say, threatens to doom the already fragile hopes for change.
"It introduces a new controversial element to the issue which will divide the faith community and further jeopardize chances for a fair and bipartisan compromise," said Kevin Appleby of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which last year said the inclusion of gay couples in a House bill aimed at reuniting families made it "impossible" for the group to support the measure. "Immigration is hard enough without adding same-sex marriage to the mix."
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, a 16-million-strong group of evangelical Latinos that could play a key political role in an immigration overhaul, is similarly opposed to including provisions for gay and lesbian families. The president of the organization, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, said that including such a measure would prove to be the "death knell" for comprehensive change.
Gay and lesbian foreigners around the country ... said the opposition of powerful Catholic and Latino groups was ironic because those groups often saw an immigration overhaul as a civil rights issue - and were quick to blame xenophobia and racism for anti-immigrant sentiment - while simultaneously arguing against equal rights for gays and lesbians...
It is unclear whether an immigration overhaul will take place in the next 12 months. The rise of the "tea party" movement, the popularity of tough new anti-immigration laws in Arizona and other states and the growing likelihood that Republicans will control the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate after the 2010 midterm elections all suggest that an immigration overhaul will be difficult.
At the same time, advocates for such an overhaul say, there are also powerful social and political forces that could move changes forward: Chief among them, the presence of 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country and the growing political clout of Latinos in states such as Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Rodriguez rejected the argument that opposing gay marriage provisions in an immigration overhaul constituted homophobia. Rather, he said, the choice was between excluding gay and lesbian families from an overhaul of immigration laws - or losing out on an overhaul altogether.
The key constituency to changes getting passed are white evangelicals, he added. After years of outreach, Latino evangelicals have formed alliances with white evangelical groups - and those evangelicals are key to getting Republican votes in the House. Including provisions related to gay marriage, Rodriguez said, would prompt white evangelicals to desert the coalition.
"It is not a matter of being anti-anything but being pro-immigration reform," he said. "It is not fair to morph the immigration agenda with the same-sex agenda."
Steve Ralls, director of communications at Immigration Equality, a legal aid and advocacy organization that seeks to include gay and lesbian families in any immigration measure, said he was confident that equal rights would be part of any overhaul. In the Senate, he said, an immigration bill would have to pass through the Judiciary Committee, where Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) has been a strong backer of equal gay and lesbian immigration rights.

-end-

Witt trial day one: Former colleagues testify in support of plaintiff

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

...The first witness, retired Master Sgt. James Schaffer, testified that Witt was exceedingly competent and said her dismissal was so unfair, it was part of the reason he retired in 2007. "It was a rather dishonorable act on the part of the Air Force," Schaffer said. "It should not be about what you are, but who you are."...

FILE - In this June 30, 2006 file photo, U.S. Air Force Reservist Maj. Margaret Witt is seen after a hearing of a case challenging her dismissal from the Air Force for being a lesbian in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Wash. Witt is suing the Air Force in federal court in Tacoma, seeking reinstatement following her "don't ask-don't tell" dismissal. Witt was discharged in 2007 after serving for 19 years - less than a year short of receiving her pension. Her trial began Monday, Sept. 13, 2010. (AP Photo/John Froschauer, File)

Peter Phipps, a Justice Department lawyer representing the Air Force, insisted during his opening statement that Witt's conduct necessitated her firing. That included a long-term relationship with a civilian woman, an affair with a married woman and two earlier relationships with fellow servicewomen, Witt acknowledged in a May deposition.

A 2004 e-mail from the married woman's husband to the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. John Jumper, prompted the investigation into Witt's sexuality. Witt remains in a relationship with that woman, whose husband divorced her.

"By committing adultery, she compromised her integrity and her ability to lead," Phipps said. "Plaintiff set an example of a disregard for Air Force policies."

Witt's discharge therefore eliminated a risk to unit cohesion and morale, he added. He said the support she has received from colleagues is irrelevant; the law's constitutionality doesn't depend on the views of her friends...

Witt acknowledged in her deposition the extramarital affair was not consistent with good "officership." She also said she told two members of her unit about her orientation - forcing them to choose between loyalty to Witt and Air Force policy, the Air Force argues.

Former colleagues who testified Monday disagreed that Witt's firing accomplished anything - especially because it came during a shortage of flight nurses. "We were at war at the time," said Lt. Col. Vincent Oda. "It was the loss of an able flight nurse is what that was."...

One of Witt's lawyers, Sarah Dunne of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state, said in her opening statement that the McChord Air Force Base aeromedical evacuation squadron with which Witt served welcomed gays and lesbians, and it was her dismissal - not her orientation - that caused problems in the unit.

Schaffer, the retired master sergeant, said he went on hundreds of flights with Witt, including several missions to evacuate ill or wounded Americans from the Middle East and Afghanistan. Witt received a standing ovation when she showed up at his retirement party in 2007, he said.

Dunne said Witt received glowing performance reviews that attested to her nursing ability and leadership, even one that was written in 2005, after her suspension. Her suspension came less than a year before she would have earned her full pension.


-end-

WGLB presents: These Homophobes Have No Clothes!

By TNichlsn

              Polling Data
       
             
             
             

from The Edge-
  An overwhelming majority--75%--of Americans say that gays should be allowed to serve openly, recent polls have found, including a survey conducted by the Washington Post and ABC. A similar 2008 poll showed the same result.
  The Post reported on demographic variances revealed by the poll. Democrats and Republicans alike supported the repeal, though Democrats were more in favor at 83%, opposed to 64% of Republicans. Independents fell in the middle, with 77% favoring the ban’s repeal.
  Differences appeared according to gender as well, with 65% of men in favor of rescinding the ban, compared with 84% of women. The generational divide was as apparent among civilians as among members of the military, with 69 percent of older Americans in favor of scrapping DADT, whereas 81% of the under-30 set indicated support for ending the ban.

  SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, CONGRESSIONAL/SENATE DEMOCRATS, WITH A 33% APPROVAL RATING, ARE WORRIED THAT TACKLING AND OVERTURNING DADT WILL SPOIL THEIR RE-ELECTION CHANCES IN NOVEMBER, A MOVE WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY A HUGE MAJORITY OF BOTH THEIR DEMOCRATIC (83%) AND REPUBLICAN (64%) CONSTITUENTS. ---THESE KINGS HAVE NO CLOTHES! THEY ARE HOMOPHOBES!

My father in-law

Never thought I would say those words and have the weight of a legal marriage behind it.

We used to joke about our (air quotes) in-laws, but now its real. Now that I married my husband in August of 2008 I have in-laws. They don't know we are married though, they are very old school Chinese and it just didn't seem important to rock their world. We get on great my father in-law and I. We visit them at least once every couple of months over a weekend. My father in-law and I both get up early and have a cup of coffee while reading the morning paper. Sometimes there's a bit of a language barrier but we understand each other pretty well.

Funny thing about the ability to get married... you get all the rights and the responsibilities, responsibilities like in-laws. I guess I feel lucky that my in-laws never felt like a burden, matter of fact I really enjoy our weekend jaunts to visit them.

Another responsibility? In-laws pass away and my husband is trying to put on a brave face tonight but I know that his big heart is breaking over the fact his dad passed away tonight and he can't wait to fly home tomorrow morning to be with his mom and brothers. Me? My big heart is breaking too... for him, for my father in-law (have you noticed I really like to say that?) and especially for my mother in-law.

Rest in peace Quinn, I'll miss you. You raised a very fine son, I promise to take care of him.

Cooper

Noted in Passing

• "WITTy" quote:
  
  The government is expected to argue that, along with her orientation, Witt also should have been fired because she committed adultery. A precedent that, if enforced, would shrink our armed services to approximately the size of Hungary's.
  


• Former Cadet Katherine Miller on tonight's Rachel Maddow Show:
  
  "I will serve my country in one capacity or another."
  


• Pope expresses 'concern':
  
  The pope zeroed in on continuing efforts in favor of gay marriage in Germany, saying that the church "views with concern the growing attempt to eliminate the Christian concept of marriage and the family." Marriage should always be a permanent union between a man and a woman, open to the transmission of life, he said.
  


• Minnesota poll:
  
  The Minnesota Family Council released poll numbers... Commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage... The NOM poll asked if marriage “should be redefined to be any two people regardless of gender” and found that 54 percent of people rejected that idea, while 40 percent supported it.
  
  So 40% of Minnesotans in a NOM sponsored poll support marriage equality. The true number is likely creeping up on 50%. Instead of crowing, they should be worried.
  


• Acronym of the Day: TEABAGGER = Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights
  

International News

=======================
INTERNATIONAL NEWS #855
September 13, 2010
by Rex Wockner
=======================

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gays to march in Serbia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gays will march in Belgrade, Serbia, on Oct. 10 for the first time since 2001, when marchers in the first pride parade were beaten by nationalists, skinheads and soccer fans. Dozens of marchers and police officers were injured.

A planned pride march last year was canceled under pressure from police and the government, who said they couldn't protect the marchers from thousands of anti-gays who planned to attack the event.

Opponents of last year's aborted march had covered walls in the city center with graffiti that said, "We will get you," "Death to faggots" and "Blood will flow," and had spoken openly to reporters about the planned assault.

Following the parade's cancellation, the Swedish ambassador organized a "mini-pride" at his suburban residence. It was attended by about 50 people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
398 same-sex marriages in Mexico City
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There have been 398 same-sex marriages in Mexico City since the groundbreaking law legalizing gay nuptials took effect March 11, city officials said Sept. 6.

Fifty-three percent of the marriages have been between men, and 41 foreigners have married a Mexican citizen of the same sex.

The nation's Supreme Court recently upheld Mexico City's same-sex marriage law and, in a second ruling, also upheld the part of it that legalized adoption by married same-sex couples. The court further ruled that Mexico's 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages from Mexico City.

US News

=================
U.S. NEWS
September 13, 2010
by Rex Wockner
=================

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Federal judge strikes down Don't Ask, Don't Tell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., struck down the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on open gays in the military Sept. 9.

Phillips found that the ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of free speech and due process under the First and Fifth Amendments.

"The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers in many ways," Phillips wrote in her 86-page opinion. "The Act denies homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces the right to enjoy 'intimate conduct' in their personal relationships. The Act denies them the right to speak about their loved ones while serving their country in uniform; it punishes them with discharge for writing a personal letter, in a foreign language, to a person of the same sex with whom they shared an intimate relationship before entering military service; it discharges them for including information in a personal communication from which an unauthorized reader might discern their homosexuality. In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, Defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the Government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. Defendants failed to meet that burden."

Phillips said the government's contention that letting gays be open in the military harms its functioning is fully undermined by the fact that the military delays discharge of gays and lesbians who violate DADT until they return from combat deployment.

The six-year-old case, brought by the gay group Log Cabin Republicans, was heard without a jury in July.

Phillips said she will issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the military from enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She gave LCR until Sept. 16 to submit proposed language for the injunction and gave the U.S. government until Sept. 23 to respond to LCR's submission.

"She could at that point stay the injunction pending an appeal or, as Judge (Vaughn) Walker did (in the federal Prop 8 case), she could deny such a stay but grant a temporary stay to allow the government to seek a stay pending an appeal from the 9th Circuit," said Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal.

If no stay is issued, it is unclear whether Phillips' ruling would take effect nationwide or just in California's Central District of the federal courts.

"This is an historic moment and an historic ruling for the gay military community," said Servicemembers United Executive Director Alexander Nicholson, who was kicked out of the Army under DADT. "As the only named injured party in this case, I am exceedingly proud to have been able to represent all who have been impacted and had their lives ruined by this blatantly unconstitutional policy. We are finally on our way to vindication."

Gay activists responded to the ruling by calling on President Barack Obama to cease enforcement of DADT immediately and demanding that the U.S. Justice Department decline to appeal Phillips' decision.

Days After ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Ruling, Another Challenge Heads to Court

By JAMES DAO

For 17 years, Maj. Margaret Witt rose steadily through the Air Force and Air Force Reserves, winning plaudits from colleagues, strong performance reviews from superiors and service medals from the department. A flight nurse, she treated wounded troops during Desert Storm and was featured in Air Force promotional materials for years.

Maj. Margaret Witt, discharged from the Air Force in 2007, won a significant appeals court victory against the military. Major Witt is also a lesbian. To hide her sexual orientation, she skipped military functions where dates were invited. She dodged questions about her personal life. And she avoided inviting colleagues home, lest some possession — a book, a photograph — might tip them off.

“You can’t be honest,” Major Witt, 46, said in a recent interview. “I didn’t want to answer questions, even to say what my weekend plans were.”
Her efforts to maintain a low profile ended in 2004, when the jilted husband of a woman Major Witt had started to date sent a note to the Air Force disclosing her orientation. After an investigation and hearing, the Air Force discharged her in 2007 under the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
But her case is far from over. Major Witt sued, and, in what will be one of the most closely watched challenges to the law to date, she is scheduled to appear in federal court in Tacoma, Wash., on Monday to argue that the Air Force violated her rights and must reinstate her. The court appearance comes at a time of growing debate about the policy. On Thursday, a federal judge in California ruled that the don’t ask, don’t tell policy was unconstitutional.
Major Witt’s case has already set an important precedent. After a federal judge dismissed her lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated it, ruling in 2008 that the government had to meet a higher standard of scrutiny before intruding on her private life. The panel sent her case back to the district court for trial.
If Major Witt prevails in the district court, she will become the first woman allowed to serve openly as a lesbian since don’t ask, don’t tell was enacted in 1993. The law, however, would continue to apply to other service members.
“It’s not as if she would go around telling people,” said James E. Lobsenz, a lawyer who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, is representing Major Witt. “But if someone asked, ‘Are you a lesbian,’ she could respond, ‘yes,’ and not be thrown out.”
Under don’t ask, don’t tell, the simple acknowledgment of one’s homosexuality can lead to discharge.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit said that to discharge Major Witt, the government must prove that removing her, or any other individual service member, is the only way to significantly advance an important policy. The ruling applies only in the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco and covers much of the West.
The government has asserted that Congress firmly established that homosexual behavior undermines morale and military readiness when it enacted don’t ask, don’t tell. But the Obama administration did not appeal the ruling, saying it would wait until Major Witt’s trial concluded in the lower court.

Noted in Passing

• Magical unicorn mayonnaise:
  
  Thus even if, in the world of magical unicorn mayonnaise, both laws were repealed, it would remain completely legal for a future Congress and/or President to reinstate bans on gays and lesbians serving in the military...
  


• Says who?
  
  marriage is not a "right" at all. It is a state-licensed privilege. That distinction is large and critical to the clarity of the debate.
  
  "Marriage is a fundamental right." -- US Supreme Court, Loving vs. Virginia.
  


• Good ole' flippety-flop Charlie:
  
  Independent U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist is set to endorse an array of pro-LGBT legislation pending before Congress, according to a leaked document obtained by Raw Story.
  


• This might actually be relevant:
  
  Chris has always been a supporter of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community here in Delaware. As County Executive, he created an external Diversity Commission that reviews county policies and practices and includes a representative from the LGBT community. Chris has also ensured domestic partnership benefits in New Castle County government and supported LGBT issues debated in the state legislature. If elected to the US Senate, he will continue fighting for LGBT issues such as: marriage equality for all Americans, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, and supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and Uniting American Families Act (UAFA).
  
  

Sunday Dinner

Hi Everyone,
I am going to try and start some sort of foodie, recipe exchange and cooking diary series. Last night I made a warm, spicy and fall flavored menu. I hope you will enjoy it. I made a chipotle shrimp and corn chowder. The recipe was based on something that I found on www.food.com, which is a great place to start looking for new and interesting dishes. I am fundamentally incapable of not tweaking a recipe

• 2 slices thick sliced bacon, diced
• 1 cup onion, diced
• 1 red bell pepper diced
  
• 1/2 cup celery, diced
• 1/2 teaspoon garlic, minced
• 2 tablespoons flour
• 1/4 cup sherry wine
• 2 cups chicken broth
• 1 1/2 cups frozen corn kernels
• 1 1/2 cups red potatoes, diced
• 1 -2 tablespoon chipotle chile in adobo, minced (or to taste)
• 1/2 lb medium shrimp, peeled, deveined and halved lengthwise
• 1 1/2 cup half and half
• salt
• fresh cilantro for garnish
• 
  

Hell's Kitchen Journal: We Have Lost Something....

By David Mixner

Sep 12 2010 Yesterday I could not help myself and once again watched the memorial services and the endless recounting of the horrible day of September 11, 2001. Somehow, I wanted to pull back from it and move on but just could not bring myself to do so. Then I realized that we have not had closure. That the nation is still bleeding from the wounds inflicted on that day of infamy. That, indeed, the attackers that day took away a part of America that we have not yet recovered.
As we reflect from that day forward, the history of our nation has not been stellar. Yes, our soldiers and their families have responded with an unbelievable sacrifice and courage. Those we lost that day, the photographs and stories still have the capacity to bring us to tears. We came together right after the attacks as one nation, filled with love for each other and taking care of each other. None of us can forget the kindness of strangers, the never ending giving, the children remembering the fallen and entire communities coming together with new determination and spirit. Great poetry and music was written.
The entire world was by our side sending love and respect for the America they knew; tributes were held to our fallen. Never has there been such an outpouring of love and sympathy among the family of nations. One of the moments that brought me to my knees in tears was when Queen Elizabeth II ordered that our national anthem be played outside of Buckingham Palace. Who knows why, it was just one those moments for me.
That gift that emerged after 9/11 of a nation united, caring and loving has been tragically lost. We need it back or the extremists will have won and we will be denied our urgently needed closure, not to mention our very soul.
Since those moments we have had two very unpopular wars. Nearly 6,000 of our best and brightest young people have died in those wars. Close to 35,000 of our young have been injured many with massive head injuries or losing limbs. Some of those who represent our future have served three, four or five rotations in the hells of war.
The nation has run up a trillion dollars of debt in seeking some sort of revenge and retribution and a false sense that we can now, through force, create a secure world. Our privacy and sense of community have been invaded with massive positioning of cameras, dogs, guards, police and other trapping for internal security at every corner. We have been willing to sacrifice at times our basic constitutional rights for that very evasive and false sense of security.
Our schools are a disaster. Our poor get more hungry. America no longer has that international good will. The ability of our nation to be a beacon of democracy and hope increasing looks like a moment from our history that won't be recovered. Instead of number one in education we are not even in the top ten. As the wars have so consumed us, we have yielded our position of leadership in Africa and Latin America to other nations with more resources to do good. We are not building, producing, creating nor working in this new America.
Most importantly, the America we saw right after 9/11 of love, unity and determination seems to have dissolved into hate, bitterness, unemployment and mistrust. The American dream is slowly becoming a nightmare. Living in fear has lead us to living without hope. Our youth see a modern world where leaders, created by the media, have 50 followers who preach hate instead of heroes and heroines who are pioneers, scientists, artists and governmental leaders. We have worshipped at the alter of fame and greed and not the one of the legendary American spirit of caring for our neighbors.
We indeed lost something on that fateful day. We mourn and get angry because we have not been able to retrieve what was good, what was wise, what was distinctive for our children. Those of us who have seen the American experience in its full glory fear that the future will be about the American decline.
We must not honor those who perished with our own violence and intolerance. I promise you this, each and every person who gave their lives on 9/11 would want their families and friends to not inherit a world of hate, war and strife. They would want us to have good schools, safe streets, neighbors loving neighbors, the best that technology has to offer, that always golden college degree and a sense of hope and greatness.
Let's bring the needed closure. Let's put aside our anger and our fear and rediscover our love and power and humanity. Before it's too late.

Read more from David at Live From Hell's Kitchen.