Marriage Equality: A Winning Plank

In 1996 I was still in Iowa and Chairman of the Platform Committee of the 2^nd District Democrats.  Just a few years before President Clinton attempted, via presidential order, to remove the ban on gays serving openly in the United States military.  His attempt was thwarted by those believed the age old ban should stand, including old guard Democrats such as Senator Sam Nunn.  Thus the atrocious “compromise” known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was born.

As Chairman, I was able to place a plank in the 2^nd District’s Platform calling for a repeal of DADT and to allow gays to serve openly in the military.  It was a plank I was proud of as only nine years before, I was denied entry into the Army because I was gay.  Oh sure, I could have dishonored myself by signing the contract which specifically required that I swear that I was not gay.  Why serve my nation in dishonor?  So I didn’t enter the Army and I didn’t dishonor myself.

At the state convention, I fought to place the same plank that was in the 2^nd District’s Platform in the Iowa Democratic Party’s Platform.  Those of us who supported the ability of gays to serve openly in our nation’s armed forces were rebuffed by the old guard of the party.  I was mad at the old guard as the proposed plank was defeated.  I was ashamed, but not mad.

16 years later DADT has been repealed and gays are allowed to serve openly alongside their fellow Americans in our armed forces.  But a new battle wages on within the Democratic Party.  A battle to decide if the party will be on the side of equality for all or bow down to the will of the old guard and our milquetoast president.  The current battle is over whether or not the Democratic Party will have as a national plank in its platform the cause of marriage equality.

I understand why the question of having a marriage equality plank within the platform is even an issue of contention.  I understand that elements of the old guard would rather marriage equality play itself out in court rooms, ballot boxes and legislatures.  I also understand the old guard’s fear that support of marriage equality will be used against them by Republicans in this election cycle.  I also understand that the old guard would support such a plank if the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, wasn’t still “evolving” in regards to marriage equality.

But why is President Obama’s view on marriage equality still “evolving”?  Does he believe that gays and lesbians are somehow less than other Americans?  Does he view us as second class citizens who should not enjoy the same rights and privileges that he and “straight” Americans enjoy?  Why doesn’t he unequivocally support “equality for all”?

Does President Obama fear an electoral defeat if a marriage equality plank is included in the platform of the Democratic Party?  Does he fear he will lose the support of the moderates and conservatives he has kowtowed to all these years?  Does he fear that if marriage equality does become a plank that liberals will become too powerful within the party?  If President Obama doesn’t support marriage equality, should he still expect the support of liberals?

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads.   One wonders which path it will follow: The path of equality for all or the path of least political resistance?  I know which path I vote for.  What about you?

Dunkerton High School: Ashamed To Be An Alumnus

One of the reasons I don’t post a lot is because I am very careful about what I write.  I try to have as many facts as possible and not to write about something because the subject hits my emotional buttons.  So, I do many rewrites and there are tons of “articles” that never get posted.  The controversy surrounding Dunkerton High School and its decision to use the group Junkyard Prophet to put on a “motivational” assembly is one of those subjects that hits a lot of my emotional buttons.

I am an alumnus of DHS, Class of 1987.  It’s a small school (K-12 is in the same building), in a small town about 13 miles north east of Waterloo, Iowa.  I am not going to say that I remember all of my days there fondly, because that would be a lie.  I will tell you that overall I have a decent fondness of alma mater and my experiences there.  I had some great teachers who helped to harness my inquisitive energies and some teachers who saw me as nothing more than a disruption.  I also had some good friends and memories of those friends.

Even though we had many assemblies, including a couple “motivational” ones, I can’t remember any that claimed if I listened to a certain type of music or because I was gay that I would die by the time I was 42.  I definitely can’t remember any assembly where a Southern Poverty Law Center listed hate group was the featured “motivator”.  Mr. Smith (the Superintendent) and Mr. Murphy (the Principle), would never have allowed it.

It troubles me that the DHS administration didn’t do its homework and didn’t vet Junkyard Prophet and its parent organization.  It troubles me that they would allow such a hate filled assembly to go on for as long as it did.  It troubles me that an organization that was brought in to “motivate” the student body instead to say that if you are gay you will die by the age of 42.  How the fuck is that “motivational”?

It is bad enough that we have politicians who want to destroy public education.  It is bad enough that we have people who enjoy destroying the separation of church and state.  Why fan the flames?  Why choose Junkyard Prophet?

A terrible injustice was done to the students of Dunkerton High School last week and for the first time ever, I am ashamed to be an alumnus.

Ignoring the Strike: Arizona Republic's Disservice to Arizona

Did anyone else notice that the Arizona Republic's online addition is missing a major story?  That's right, although the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1433 has officially been on strike against Veolia Transportation (the management company contracted to provide bus service in Phoenix) since 12:01 am Saturday morning, the Arizona Republic's online addition hasn't printed one word on the story.  Now why would the state's leading newspaper choose to ignore a story that affects tens of thousands area residents?

My guess is that since Veolia Transportation is the factual villain, the anti-union and anti-labor Arizona Republic doesn't want to report on it.  If the Arizona Republic reports on the strike, it will have no choice but to point out that ATU 1433 and its members are in the right.  It will have no choice but to show that Veolia Transportation has been negotiating in bad faith with the union for the last 20 months while also trying to secure a sweetheart contract with the City of Phoenix.

It will also have to show that if bus service in the Valley wasn't privatized, the union wouldn't have been able to strike, under state law.  That's right.  Because the striking workers are employees of Veolia Transportation and not employees of Phoenix or Tempe, they are not covered under state laws barring strikes by public employees.  That's right, privatization of a public service has allowed for this massive disruption to the lives of tens of thousands in the Valley.

But the Arizona Republic doesn't want to report that type of story.  It only wants to paint unions and labor as the villains and this strike doesn't allow for that.  To bad that the Arizona Republic is doing such a disservice to the people of Arizona.