Yes We Can, But No We Won't

This video shows the hanging in Iran of two young boys, Ayaz Marhon and Mahmoud Asgari. Their only "crime" was being gay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARvwzFWSr4

Pride Month is coming to an end, and those of us gay people who are fortunate enough to not live in a savage theocracy have a lot to be proud of. But for gay Americans, that pride is mixed with anxiety. Many European countries made the lack of marriage equality in the United States the subject of their Pride festivities. Why should they be surprised? Look at our fearless leader.

That brutal double-murder of Ayaz and Mahmoud is a routine occurence in Iran, and yet Presidnet Obama did not once pressure Iran (or any other Islamic country for that matter) to end its oppression of gays in his massive "apology" on behalf of the United States to "the Muslim world." Under the law of the Islamic Republic, the penalty for lesbian sex is one hundred lashes, with the death penalty enforced after the fourth offense. The death penalty is due on the first offense for male-on-male sex.

A young gay Iranian seeking refuge in Britain tells The New Internationalists,"It’s because of the Islamic revolution that people like me are here [in the U.K.]. . . The revolution is a really bad memory for gay and lesbian people. Before, they were free but now they can’t live in Iran and have to escape (Webster, Anna. "An Auspicious Anniversary.")

http://www.newint.org/features/special/2009/03/30/an-inauspicious-anniversary/

In the disastrous aftermath of the recent Iranian elections, in which scores of Iranians protested the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama decided not to put any U.S. pressure on the ayatollahs to listen to the will of the people.

Obama even remained silent (until it was much too little, far too late) as the brutal regime killed innocent protesters. This would have been the perfect time to speak out for not just gay Iranians, but all Iranians. Oddly, Obama has spent the first one hundred days of his presidency paying more respect to the religion of Islam than to human beings.

After more than one hundred days in office, Obama's record on gay rights is dismal, despite his campaign promises and his effort to energize the gay community into voting for him. He invited anti-gay Rick Warren to his inauguration. He has effectively pushed both marriage equality and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into whenever "the sun sets on his administration." And that's if he gets re-elected. If the next president is a Republican, gay people might as well leave for Europe.

But the most shocking aspect of Obama's first hundred days is the blatant, vitriolic bigotry. Most of us have become used to Democrats paying lip service to gay rights but offering a winking, "Sorry, guys, I have to do this" approach to marriage equality. Not so with Obama. His Justice Department's defense of DOMA (which is anti-equality) is a sickening read: it equates gay sex with incest and same-sex couples with inbreeding rapists.

Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign says in a predictably tepid open letter to Obama, "As an American, a civil rights activist, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. . . I realize that although I and other LGBT rights leaders have introduced ourselves to you, clearly we have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours."

Insultingly, Obama responded to criticism that he has done little for gay rights by declaring June Pride Month, something he was expected to do anyway as a Democrat. Not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton had first done this in 1996; how depressing that Obama's one substantive stand on gay rights takes us no further than the 90's. Other than that, Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post points out that Obama's federal extension of gay rights benefits--part of his supposed turnaround on gay rights--is only partial; plus, it's a memorandum instead of an executive order. ("HRC's Joe Solomonese Tells Olbermann Obama Went 'Way Over the Line.' ")

Is there any reason to believe the author of The Audacity of Hope will improve? Will he change his priorities and start showing more concern for gay people than for Iranian ayatollahs? It's hard to say. Obama invited gay rights activists to the White House for a gala celeberating "LGBT pride" and commemorating Stonewall. Sadly, the White House barely advertised it until the media called out his administration on its hypocrisy.

And even if Obama's little gay party had been out and proud, how does that help the female couple who wants their union recognized as something more than shacking-up-with-medical benefits? How does it help gay kids like Ayaz and Mahmoud, who live under the brutal rule of a theocracy that's protected at all costs by political correctness?

For gay people in 2009, hope really is audacious.




CapeCodKwassa, Copyright 2009

Hateful New Oklahoma Bill Targets Muslim Americans

First gays. Then Hispanic immigrants. Now Muslims. Oklahoma lawmakers are at it again.

Oklahoma House members just approved HB 1645, a new bill making it mandatory for religious people to remove their traditional head coverings both while taking driver's license photos and also whenever a law enforcement officer demands it for identification purposes. While it's true that a few people from other religions will be slightly affected, there is no question that Muslims and Sikhs are the true targets of this bill.

The creator of the bill all but admits it. Republican Rep. Rex Duncan says he wrote the legislation after reading about how a Muslim woman from Norman, Oklahoma--Monique Barrett--recieved an apology from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety when she complained that she was asked to removed her hijab (traditional Islamic head scarf) for her new driver's license photo.

Many Muslim women only reveal their hair to their husbands and male family members, and it is against Barrett's particular brand of Islamic faith to not wear her head scarf in public.

Barrett was issued an apology, and she was allowed to take a new photo with her hijab. The ODPS said it was happy to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and that the organization would educate its employees on religious issues related to dress and photos. As of last year, the employee telling Barrett she had to remove the hijab was in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

How quickly the world takes a turn for the worse. House members approved the legislation 88-8. Duncan tells Micheal McNutt of The Daily Oklahoman, "If we're going to allow people to cover their hair and parts of their face, then it's going to be difficult for the law enforcement folks to confirm who they're actually looking at" ("Groups Oppose Oklahoma Driver's License Photo Bill.")

But that is not true. Barrett--like most Muslim women--was not covering her face, not even part of it. And anyone of any background can change her hair color or wear a wig, so how does showing one's hair help police identify people? Aside from that, there is clearly no widespread problem being addressed here anyway. It is simply a hateful piece of legislation targeting a religious minority.

So how does an anti-Muslim law relate to Jews?

Rajdeep Singh Jolly, legal director for the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, says, "'We also call upon all religious communities, civil rights organizations, and concerned citizens throughout the nation to demand that the government of Oklahoma clarifies its commitment to protecting civil rights in the 21st century."

We as Jews know what discrimination feels like, and our most sacred text reminds us to be kind to the stranger because we were once strangers. Everyone should speak out, but our voice should be the loudest.