Barack Obama and the Grassroots Art Movement

Not since the late sixties with civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam War can I remember a more spontaneous grassroots arts movement on behalf of a candidate or cause. Literally thousands of stunning songs, pieces of art, dance and writing have coalesced around the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama. The "Yes We Can" campaign has brought out the best not only in the established arts but also in homes and offices all over America. Youtube.com is filled with professional and amateur videos that capture the spirit of Obama.

To assist you in dealing with the chronic anxiety that we all are feeling about this pending election, I have picked four videos to remind you of the arts and this campaign. Take some time, chill, relax and remember what this campaign has been all about over the last year. Hopefully with all the hard work and a little bit of luck we will wake up on Wednesday morning to a new America.

Major Newspapers Come Out for Obama

As expected the flood of endorsements are continuing from all the major newspapers. The big news is out of Chicago where for the first time in its history the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for President. Other endorsements are really not a huge surprise but amazingly strong and unconditional endorsements of Obama. It is important to hear these voices so here are excerpts from key newspapers: Chicago Tribune

Chicago Tribune

"The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.....

......He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States."

LOS ANGELES TIMES

"We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.....

.......We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."

Washington Post

"The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good. ......

.......But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment."

Breaking News: General Powell Endorses Obama

Election 2008: Hollywood Stars in Fun and Funny Video on Voting

Almost every major star in Hollywood in four minutes urge you not to vote and then to vote. This is a fun and important video. Time is running out in many places to register and in some places like Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky early voting is beginning. Please take a few minutes to watch and pass it on.

Governor Races: Interview with Nathan Daschle

In an exclusive interview with davidmixner.com, Nathan Daschle who is Executive Director of the Democratic Governor's Association (DGA), shares with us the challenge of focusing our attention on crucial races for Governor. It is not an easy task given all the media focus on the Presidential and Senate races. However, as Daschle states, these races could have a major impact on redistricting in 2010 and the future composition of the United States Congress.

Daschle has been with the DGA since 2005 when he left the prestigious law firm of Covington and Burling. Before that he was working with labor at AFSCME and on the environment at the Natural Resources Defense Council. A cum laude graduate from Harvard Law School, Daschle has rapidly become one of the most respected young minds and talents in Washington, DC. Reading this interview, you can see why that is the case.

Why are the Governor races important this year?

They are important for two reasons. First, they will determine the leadership of eleven states -- over 1/5 of our country -- for the next two to four years. Democratic Governors have proven themselves to be results-oriented, forward-thinking chief executives. It's why they are winning not just in traditional blue states, but also red states that historically have voted Republican. Democratic Governors represent exactly the type of change and leadership we need at the state level, where decisions on critical issues like health care, education, infrastructure, and jobs are made.

Second, the Governors elected this year will be in office in 2010, when we will undertake the next round of congressional and legislative redistricting. As I write this, National Republicans are publicly anticipating a 16-seat pick up between now and 2010. They plan to use these seats to gerrymander an additional 30 House seats for Republicans. By electing Democratic Governors this fall, we will take the first step at stopping this nefarious scheme.

What impact could the races have on Congress given redistricting in 2010? How many seats could be at stake?

In 42 states, Governors have a direct role in the legislative and congressional redistricting. As I mentioned above, National Republicans are executing a plan to pick up 16 gubernatorial seats between now and 2010 and use these to gerrymander an additional 30 House seats for Republicans. If this sounds familiar, it's because it’s the same gambit that Tom DeLay made famous in Texas,when he redrew all of the congressional districts to ensure Republican victories. The RGA's spokesman could not have been clearer, "We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting...The odds are, if it is a Republican in the governor's chair, the seat will end up in GOP hands."

It's rare that you see a scheme coming far enough in advance to prepare for and defend against it, but we have that opportunity right now. If we stop them from taking over our statehouses this fall, they can't gerrymander their way back to a congressional majority. Just think about what we could have done if we knew years in advance that Tom DeLay was going to steal house districts in Texas.

Have you had a tough time being heard with the Presidential race and the battle for Congress?

People are understandably paying a great deal of attention to the race for the White House. All down-ballot races, whether they are for Governor, Senate or House, to some extent compete with that race. In our targeted races, however, we have seen a very charged and active electorate. Across the country, and particularly in the states in which we are active, there has been a surge in Democratic voter registration. We anticipate minimal drop-off after the presidential vote, which is promising for our candidates.

There is no question, though, that once the 2008 elections are over, all of the attention will be on the 2009 and 2010 Governors’ races. With 38 races and as many as 24 open seats, the next round of gubernatorial races will be more critical to the future of our country than this year's presidential race.

What are the two or three crucial races and why?

We are active in all eleven races, but our most targeted races are in WA, NC and MO. The race in Washington is one of the most competitive in the nation. We have a rematch of the 2004 election, when Gov. Chris Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by 133 votes. We always expected this year's race to be close, and the polls confirm that. This year, though, Gov. Gregoire has an advantage in that she has a record of great success behind her. She took her state from budget deficit to surplus, has cracked down on sex offenders, expanded health care for children, and improved the state's transportation infrastructure. At the same time, the sheen on her opponent, Republican Dino Rossi, is fading as people are realizing that he's a Bush clone, both in style and substance. He refuses to answer tough questions or give any details for his policies. That's not leadership. What’s more, he is so infatuated with our current president that he named his dog "Dubya." You can't make this stuff up.

North Carolina is another competitive race in which we are very active. Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue is running a positive campaign about her vision for the state of North Carolina. Her opponent, Republican Pat McCrory, is well-funded, well-organized, and receiving enormous outside support from National Republicans. The polling shows, though, that when voters hear about McCrory's mayoral record of high crime and high taxes, as well as his pro-voucher and anti-stem cell positions, they move to Perdue. This race will come down to the wire, but experience and leadership always beats political posturing, so I feel good about Perdue's chances.

Missouri is our best pick-up opportunity. Attorney General Jay Nixon is running a superb campaign, out polling and out raising his GOP opponent, Congressman Kenny Hulshof. The problem for Congressman Hulshof is that he has nowhere to go for votes. His record as a Washington insider is exactly what the voters don't want this year. Moreover, his party is fractured, and he is receiving only nominal support from his primary challenger. While we take nothing for granted, we are optimistic that Jay will join the ranks of Democratic Governors in November.

In addition, keep your eye on very strong challenger races in IN and VT, where our Democratic candidates are running very competitive races against Republican incumbents. These races have a very good chance of going our way on Election Day.

How much has the DGA raised and what are their needs before the election?

We have raised $15 million this year, and we’re on track to raise well-over our $18M all-time record. We will use much of this for 2008 races, but we are also building a war chest for 2010. Our ability to plan ahead is critical because it takes the money issue off the table. For the first time ever, Republicans will not be able to outspend us.

Musician, Author, Activist Holly Near on Obama.

If Woody Guthrie were alive today he would be Holly Near. This kind, gentle person is one of the great folk singers, writers, activist and teachers alive. She was the one of the first women to ever create an independent record company called Redwood Records over thirty years ago. She has been a major presence in the LGBT, feminist, peace and justice movements her entire life. When one thinks of champions of civil rights and human rights you think of Holly Near. Most of all, Holly is a brilliant singer and entertainer who has sung in all corners of the world. Coming from a left, feminist and activist viewpoint, we asked her to discuss her support of Obama with us.

1. Who did you support in the primaries and why?

I didn’t work for any of the candidates. I don’t like either party much and have always worked outside of the mainstream political system. But I do vote. Kucinich's ideas were probably the closest to my own. I have a friend who voted for Edwards by absentee ballot but by the time the actual California Primary happened, he had withdrawn so her vote was wasted. Clinton would have been her second choice. It is crazy her vote didn’t count. We need a new system. I voted for Obama in the primary.

I feel frustration during an election year. I can’t stand flag waving and phrases that suggest this country was built on the principles of democracy and equality when in truth our “for-folks” had slaves, lynched people, and terrorized indentured servants including little northern European girls who looked like me working in sweat shops. Millions of indigenous people were killed - so the whole show un-nerves me.

That said, I’m not stupid. I think critically and strategically. I like Obama and McCain scares me to death. If Clinton had won the primary I would be supporting her as well. I am a long time activist - always left of the Democrats - but I like to choose with whom I am going to struggle. I did NOT vote for Nader last time nor would I vote 3rd party this time. I like the idea of building a third party from local level up but I am startled by the thought that experienced political organizers would vote 3rd party this time around at the presidential level.

I don’t feel I’m voting for an icon or a politically perfect social feminist candidate. How could I? No one with my politics would make it through the primaries. Senator Clinton did not represent my all my perspectives either. But now, like she is, I am voting for someone who is running for president of the largest power in the world, albeit dwindling. It is time to get very clear about the nature of our job. We are not just voting for people in the United States. Because of the role the US plays in the world, our vote has global ramifications.

Our job is to choose the leader that we think will be the most reasonable in the face of contradictions, the most tolerant in the face of diversity, the wisest in the face of danger, the calmest in the face of crisis and the one who is most likely to listen before making a decision. To me there is absolutely no question that Obama is the safer and more responsible choice, by far.

2. Do you believe the progressive left and feminist should work hard for Obama?

Yes I do - fast and furious. I have many leftist/feminist friends who just did Camp Obama and are heading for Nevada. Obama is impressive and inspirational and a diplomat in style. Hey, he is not a socialist, never has been, and has run his campaign to reach out to a large circle. Why is anyone surprised? He is running for president of the empire. But given that, he seems open minded and skilled and he will inherit a disastrous economy, a murderous war. As far as I can tell, he won't be able to get much done without a powerful social change movement in place to counteract the right wing pressure that is mobilizing full force right now. I like Obama. I can actually listen to him speak which is more than I can say for the current President.

In these coming weeks, the ones I’m concerned about are those who are deeply tied to a single issue, are clinging to some old notion of political purity or are sunk in cynicism. How do we reach them and say, “You don’t have to vote naively, but I beg you to vote strategically.” I’m guessing people in Chile would have preferred a centralist to Pinochet!

3. How about his stand on marriage equality? Should the LGBT Community support him?

Absolutely. Look how far marriage equality has come under right wing Bush/Cheney. Imagine the leaps it can take under Obama. There will be some doors opened, some alliances made. And no doubt some Supreme Court justices appointed. Again, strategy. I think McCain/Palin are building a huge wall to obstruct equality in order to satisfy their extremist supporters. I would choose an open door to a huge wall any day.

I think Palin has given permission for hate and fear based thinking to surface full force. It has been a mighty wake up call. Any of us who can counteract that hate with a creative expression of tolerance and love must do so right now - at work, in places of worship, on your car bumper sticker. I see this as an historic window of opportunity.

The success of marriage equality will come not top down but community up. Obama knows that. He is a community organizer. He also knows that he is running for president of everyone and in these next few weeks he will try to draw the largest circle possible. And if we in the GLBTQ community are so unsophisticated as to think he will play this any other way, then we need a talking to. Once he is president, then the door is open to keep organizing public opinion and state opinion so that eventually equality wins out. Think about it. Who do you want to struggle with? Obama or McCain? It is a no brainer. Get Obama elected so we can get on with the business of repairing this world. And it isn’t just marriage equality. It is everything. GLBTQ people have other problems beside equality in marriage. Class, race, prison, housing, jobs, health, immigration.

4. Is he the anti-War candidate?

No, neither was Clinton. Democrats have voted money for war in the most disgusting fashion. But I don’t think they are trigger-happy. I don’t think they are rage-ahaulics. And I think Obama will actually do very well in negotiations. He is calm, a diplomat. I think he will make decisions I disagree with so I will keep going to anti-war demonstrations.

Some indigenous tribes say that the clan mothers pick the ones who will serve different aspects of the community. They would never put a warrior as chief. They would only put a diplomat. So, when I imagine that red blinking button and a cinder box moment involving nuclear weapons, it terrifies me to think of McCain or Palin representing our national security. Obama is not an anti war candidate but he is thoughtful and seems to know how to listen. And he makes room for an anti war movement in his belief system. I don’t feel hated by Obama. I feel hated by McCain.

5. Is he really different from McCain on the issues?

Who knows what they believe at this point? Between now and the election they will say what they need to say to win. But look at them. Obama is calm and strong and focused. McCain seems all over the map, confused and uneven. Obama will have lots of advisors as do all presidents and he will make some decisions I like, some I don’t. But his job as president is also to be the figurehead. He must stand for something greater than what Bush and Cheney have stood for. And I believe Obama "represents” anti war feminist progressives better than McCain.

Whether or not Obama will get the support he needs to change this nation, that is something else again. And in my mind, that is where we come in. We need to keep building social change movements to push for all the things in which we believe. But I believe Obama brings some calm to the table, some national security, and some sense of reason. And he is spending money training people to be organizers. Sure, that will help get him elected but it will be in place after the election. This is an amazing infusion of energy and training. That was a smart move. Progressive people haven’t worked together, gotten to know one another like this in a long time.

And on top of all that, I am very moved that after a history of extraordinary racism, which is not over yet, that someone other than a European American is running for president. I want to make room in my skepticism to celebrate and honor that. It is truly worthy of our attention. I thrill at the sight of Barack and Michelle in the White House and what that says to the world, what that says to women, and importantly what that says to the hate based thinkers that fill the ranks of the right. I will support it, celebrate it, and defend it.

6. Many feminists were not thrilled with how he ran against Hillary. Why should they support him now?

This is politics. Hillary did not run against Obama so well either. And the press was having a hay day. It was disgusting. Sexism and racism and class, all played with as if no one ever dies from these conditions. I don’t like how we elect the president. But at this stage of the game, it is as if there never was a primary. I think Hillary was courageous and profoundly clear on this at the convention. We have to look at Obama and McCain and their running mates and make a hugely important choice. Huge.

7. How important do you personally believe this election to be this year?

This is one of the most historic and important elections I have experienced in my lifetime. And the Republican Convention just upped the ante. How often do we get to do something as the citizens of the United States? I’m not a nationalist but I do live in a nation that is seen around the world as violent and insensitive and greedy and weak and self absorbed.

I want the world to see the other side of our nation, see us make a choice, even if it seems to some to be symbolic. Most people in the world don’t know about the in fighting in the left or about gay marriage. All they know is that their lives and the very safety of the planet has been in grave danger for the last 8 years. I believe they are looking at us to see if we will stand with them to form the biggest circle of resistance the world has ever seen in opposition to Bush-Cheney policy. Regardless of what Obama can achieve or not achieve, I believe one of the strongest things we could do for national security is to show the world we have the courage throw out the Republican agenda and replace it with an offer friendship - to each other and to the world.

Evan Wolfson: Marriage Equality and the Presidential Election

Evan Wolfson is a dear friend of mine. Almost more than any other, Evan is responsible for bringing the issue of marriage equality to the forefront of our struggle for civil rights. He is a courageous pioneer who has been relentless in this battle for marriage equality. Evan has agreed to answer some basic questions that so many of us are being asked in this election year about marriage equality.

Evan Wolfson is Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, the gay/straight partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Before founding Freedom to Marry, Evan served as marriage project director for Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case, and participated in numerous gay rights and HIV/AIDS cases.

Evan previously served as Associate Counsel to Lawrence Walsh in the Iran/Contra investigation, and as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn, New York. Between Yale University and Harvard Law School, Evan spent two years with the Peace Corps in West Africa.

Citing his national leadership on marriage equality and his appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, the National Law Journal named Evan one of "the 100 most influential lawyers in America" in 2000.

In 2004, Evan was named one of the "Time 100," Time magazine's list of "the 100 most influential people in the world."

Evan Wolfson’s first book, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry, was published by Simon & Schuster in July 2004 and was re-released in paperback with a new foreword in June 2005.

1. Do you think to be for marriage equality is a liability for Presidential candidates in 2008?

No, but I think having to reply to questions again and again without providing a convincing or coherent answer could be. Being drawn into repeated expositions that lack authenticity or logic makes a candidate less appealing (even to people who would respect leadership and a position they don't fully agree with). Half-answering over and over is a distraction from a campaign's preferred focus on central questions more significant to more voters, such as war and national security, economy and the increasing wealth gap, health care and education, and so on. In back-to-back pieces on The Huffington Post, I recently marshaled evidence that politicians can vote right on marriage and prevail, and laid out the best way to answer the marriage question — not just because it's in our interest that they get it right, but because it's in theirs, too. The Democrats will never be anti-gay enough to satisfy the opponents, and there is no evidence that they will lose voters who agree with them on the "what" of "equality" (which they all profess to favor) but then reject an honest stand on the "how" of marriage equality.

2. Why should a candidate be for repealing DOMA?

Because the so-called "DOMA" or federal anti-marriage law passed in 1996 was a radical and cruel departure from 200+ years in which the federal government honored the marriages of Americans without discrimination. So-called DOMA creates two classes of marriage, first-class marriages for those the federal government likes, which receive more than 1000 legal protections and incidents, and second-class marriages, for those the government doesn't like, which get no access to this important safety-net that matters to couples, kids, and those interacting with them. In the United States, we don't have second-class citizens, and we shouldn't have second-class marriages, either. Government has no business putting obstacles in the path of Americans seeking to care for one another -- gay or non-gay.

3. What is Section Three of DOMA, which Senator Clinton wants to repeal, and what would remain if that section is taken out?

Senator Clinton, like all the other Democrats running for president, favors repeal of the worst provision of the federal anti-marriage law, the part that says that the federal government will not honor the lawful marriage of a taxpaying same-sex couple, thereby withholding from the 1138+ federal protections and responsibilities that marriage triggers. These include your family's access to your Social Security, fair treatment for your family under immigration law, fair treatment under tax laws, access to veteran's coverage, etc. What Senator Clinton has not yet addressed is the other part of so-called DOMA, which says that states can dishonor and destabilize marriages of people from other states. People should not have to worry whether their marriage will be honored and their family protected depending on where they are parking that day.

4. Are the candidates being politically wise in being for civil unions and not for marriage equality and should we support them in that political strategy?

No, and no, as discussed in my Huffington Post pieces above. Civil union, let alone the freedom to marry, doesn't just happen. Support for increments along the way comes through the engine of fighting for the freedom to marry, and the powerful, resonant, humanizing, shared vocabulary of marriage. It's not as if the candidates or society are generously offering civil union or partnership, etc., and we are somehow unreasonably asking for more; rather, it's our engagement -- asking for, fighting for, making the case for -- the full that has moved them on the partial. Marriage is the tug, and when gay people undercut that tug, it doesn't help our cause, or the candidates either. Those who are giving early support to particular candidates may have good reasons for doing so, but when we too quickly say "it's okay" for them not to support full equality (and even fudge what full equality is), it's not helpful. You can't get people to care if you begin by saying "I don't care," as in "I don't care what we call it," etc. And if we drop down, if we fail to do the heavy lifting (particularly at this very early stage of an unusually long presidential cycle), we do the candidates, our cause, couples, kids, and the country the disservice of not creating the space in which America (and its politicians) can rise to fairness.

5. Aren't civil unions the same thing as marriage with a different name?

No. Marriage, in the US, is a civil union -- a legal institution and a legal (or civil) status created through a license issued by the government. But "civil union" is pointedly, deliberately, not marriage, when offered as a separate and lesser alternative for same-sex couples denied the same freedom to marry the candidates professing support for equality all have. I discuss this more fully here and in my book, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. One of the main protections that comes with marriage is the word marriage; everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you are building your life with, and so much flows from that, tangibly and intangibly. We need to explain this, patiently, to people (which means we all should do a little homework to know how to explain the differences clearly and simply. Marriage is a system that provides meaning, clarity, and security through a tangible safety-net and intangible vocabulary and shared experience and aspirations. "Civil unions" or "partnership," etc. are not a system; they are varied legal mechanisms springing up in response to our fight for the freedom to marry. They are a step in the right direction, certainly better than nothing, but far short of marriage and all that it brings. Would any of the married candidates swap their marriage and the freedom to marry for a civil union? Why should other Americans have to?

6. Do we have to compromise on marriage equality in order to win the 2008 election?

On Election Day one makes decisions whom to vote for by determining which outcome in a (usually binary) choice will better advance one's interests and values, and the well-being of our loved ones, our country, etc. As Barney Frank wisely says, voting is not dating; you may have to accept imperfection. But at this stage in the campaign, there is no need to dumb down or write off the possibility of getting that binary choice as good as possible, and improving the climate in the meantime so that post-election we are best placed to advance. We cannot put all our eggs in an election basket, and particularly not when that election is more than a year of work, possibility, and change away. Regardless of how we ultimately vote, or even what we decide to do at various points, why give up on doing better now?

7. Didn't marriage cause the Democrats to lose in 2004 in places like Ohio?

No, that myth has been refuted over and over -- not just by the Task Force and HRC, but by political, academic, and media analysts as well. Some of those analyses are collected here. And, of course, 2008 is not 2004. The country, as Senator Clinton put it regarding her position on marriage, continues to "evolve." As Senator Edwards has put it regarding his position on marriage, Americans are on a "journey." Those of us who are not running for president have the obligation to continue that movement, not count on time or others to allow fairness to simply waft in. There is no marriage without engagement; it is our job to engage. And the Democrats lose when people sense they stand for nothing. In this case, given the party's history of fighting for inclusion and civil rights, the stands state Democratic parties have taken in favor of the freedom to marry, the votes most Democratic legislators have cast (including those in MA and CA who voted for marriage and all got reelected), and the current candidates' positions on gay "equality," the public rightly believes the Democrats are the party of marriage equality. The only ones who haven't admitted it yet are the leading presidential contenders, even though they demonstrably cannot explain why they don't support the freedom to marry. This election will not be decided on gays or marriage (and nor was the election of 2004). But how candidates deal with important questions such as equality, protections for all, standing up to discrimination, and the values of marriage (love, commitment, fairness, freedom) can be symptomatic of how they address dispositive questions and win over or alienate voters. Hence the word "yet." They all have a chance to get this right -- and we all have the chance now to help them.

In Your Own Words: Eric Marcus Dancing The Night Away!

Eric Marcus is one of my favorite writers and his book Making Gay History was crucial in assisting me in being an out and proud gay man. He has served as one of community's leading intellectuals. In that position, he has written and spoken on key issues confronting the LGBT community. His upcoming book for LGBT teens is called What If Someone I Know Is Gay? In this delightful piece, Eric shares with us how the most simple act can change minds and create pride and self esteem.

Care to Dance?
by Eric Marcus

We went to a lovely wedding last weekend—a “regular” wedding, as my late grandmother came to call weddings between a boy and a girl. Two hundred people in a beautifully decorated hotel ballroom on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, all gathered to celebrate the happy occasion. Not that it should matter, but I was glad to see that we weren’t the only gay couple among the two hundred guests, although we were the oldest of the three male couples by about a decade.

During the reception, when the twelve-piece band tore into one of our favorite seventies classics, my partner of thirteen years asked me to dance. We both love to dance and we love dancing together. I won’t pretend that we dance at straight weddings without hesitation, but over the years as gay people have become more visible and we’ve grown more comfortable, we’ve gotten less hesitant and less concerned with what people might think. So at last weekend’s wedding, which was hosted by a liberal, warm, and embracing family we didn’t think twice.

Still, there were some surprised looks as the two middle-aged gay guys took to the crowded dance floor. Most of the looks were of happy surprise (there were smiles and I didn’t stop to ask). But there were also a couple of scowls from people a decade or more older than us. It’s not like we were surprised by the smiles or disappointed by the scowls. Our place in society is still a work in progress and it will be a long time before our open presence is a total non-event.

But there was one thing that did surprise and disappoint us. Neither of the other two couples danced a single dance. One couple sat out the whole evening. And while the other couple never left the dance floor, they never danced with each other and their partners were always women.

I’m the first person to say—and I’ve said this for a long time—that gay people need to move at their own speed when it comes to how public they choose to be about the fact they’re gay. Coming out is a very personal thing and we all have different comfort levels. That said, I wish we hadn’t been the only boy-boy couple on the dance floor. And I wish this for a couple of reasons.

First, it would have been nice to have a little company. For one thing, if there had been another same-sex couple on the dance floor, the attention paid to us would have been diluted. Second, we gay people still have work to do when it comes to our visibility. And while I don’t think that everything we do has to be a political statement, being ourselves in a public setting sets an example. The more we’re all out there, the more people will grow accustomed to seeing same-sex couples, and, one hopes, the more comfortable they’ll be when we do normal things in public, like dancing at weddings, greeting each other at airports, or shopping together at the grocery. And we know from past experience that as people get to know us they support the legislation that’s important to us, from employment protections to domestic partnership and gay marriage.

Dancing at a wedding isn’t quite as heroic as the public demonstrations of past decades when the early gay pioneers fought for our basic rights, but it’s still an opportunity to make a difference, however incremental. Besides, it’s fun. And we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that not dancing sends a message, too.

In Your Own Words: Sweatshops and Human Trafficking in Mariana Islands

When I think of human trafficking, I usually think of Eastern Europe or Africa. But never in the United States. That is exactly what is happening in the Mariana Islands, which established a political union with the United States in 1976. Neal Pople and Nick Shepard are two young men who have stepped up to the plate to end these practices.

As two young twenty-something’s in California, they decided to take action and find a way to bring relief to the beleaguered immigrants left behind from the human trafficking which has marred these beautiful islands. Currently in the process of forming a 501(c)3 organization called Ripples of Hope, they are building a network to financially local organizations on the Islands and give the resources to end these horrendous practices.

They have been joined by numerous politicians like former California Congressmen Pete McCloskey, Jerry Waldie and Vic Fazio, former Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and former United States Ambassador to the Pacific Hadyn Williams, as well as celebrities like Mixed-Martial Arts Champion Urijah Faber and ‘Lost’ star Jorge Garcia.

Today we listen in their words about the situation in the Mariana Islands.

Trafficking and Exploitation in the Mariana Islands
by Neal Pople and Nick Shepard

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is a small chain of islands in the Pacific Ocean just north of Guam. With beaches and forests of unparalleled beauty, the CNMI seems like it would be the perfect place to get away from it all. The truth, however, is that a seedy underbelly exists on these tiny islands under US protectorate, and many women and children are living lives of quiet desperation as sex slaves.

Listen to the story of Kayleen Entena as told by Ms Magazine:

“When Kayleen D. Entena was offered a chance to leave the rural Philippines for work as a restaurant waitress in far-off Saipan, in the Marianas Islands, she jumped at it. “I was excited about the opportunity to work abroad,” she told a Senate Energy and Resources Committee hearing here today. At 21, the eldest of five children of a widowed mother, she was told she would earn $400 a month, enough to support her family at home and go back to college herself.

Instead, she and another young woman from the Philippines were forced to work in a brothel. They became two of the countless young women who have come to the mid-Pacific Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, in search of work and better lives over the past 20 years. If they are lucky, such women work 20 hours a day in sweatshop garment factories, living in shacks or barracks and earning $3.05 per hour, far below the U.S. minimum wage. But the clothes are for top-tier U.S. brands and are often labeled “Made in the USA.” If the women are not lucky, they end up like Kayleen and her friend.

The brothel owner, a woman they called Mamasong, took away their documents and told them they had to work to pay off their tickets or their families at home would suffer. On her first day in Saipan, Kayleen was raped by four men. “We tried to run away twice, but they were always at the front….Mamasong told us if we tried to leave she would call the police. We were very scared. We begged her to give us the jobs that they promised us in the Philippines.”

The mess that we know as life for the immigrants to the Marianas started in the mid-1990’s, when a young lobbyist by the name of Jack Abramoff was hired by the government on the Marianas to represent them in Washington, DC. The government was in desperate need of damage control over reports that the garment industry on the islands was resorting to sweatshop labor being brought in from China, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Thailand. Through his numerous high-level contacts in the U.S. House of Representatives, Abramoff was able to effectively influence numerous Congressmen to kill legislation that would have wrangled in the immigration and labor violations.

Many of the immigrant workers were lured to the Marianas by recruiters sent from the garment industry. They were promised good paying jobs on the “American Islands,” and were sent to the CNMI to find those jobs did not exist. Instead, they were placed into the garment factories. Since the Marianas enjoy American Territorial status, the garment factories were legally permitted to sew “Made in the USA” on the labels being produced by immigrant sweatshop labor. Children as young as thirteen were sold into slavery in karaoke clubs, forced to perform sexual acts on visiting tourists and sailors on leave. The entire time, Congress had mostly turned a blind eye.

By the time that Jack Abramoff was exposed and came under charges of bribery and influence peddling, most of the damage had already been done. Some members of the United States House of Representatives were exposed to have received donations from Abramoff that coordinated with the mysterious legislative black hole known as Mariana reform legislation. Some of those Representatives saw the losing side of Election Day this past November, but the moral victory against corruption has not ended the suffering of victims of human trafficking in the Mariana Islands, 

This story, which has yet to see its happy ending, has been making its way to the American people’s attention over the last decade. ABC News’ 20/20 and Ms. Magazine has shown the spotlight on this horrible situation. Organizations like the Catholic Church’s Karidat (the Catholic Social Services group in Saipan) have been assisting the victims of this trafficking. We are beginning to see just the tip of an iceberg of corruption and misery.

Ripples of Hope is building a network to financially support such organizations as Karidat in its efforts to rescue the sex slaves and give them a safe harbor.

Soon, help will be on its way to bring justice to the Mariana Islands.

In Your Own Words: Zach Petkewicz

All week long I have been attempting to find the right words to add to the discussion around the horror at Virginia Tech. As is often the case in these types of moments, there seem to be too many words by too many commentators. The most powerful words come from those who survived this tragedy.

That is the case with Zach Petkewicz, who was in one of the rooms of the Norris Building. In this interview with Matt Lauer, Zach recounts his fear and his own bravery. One is struck by his vulnerability, sorrow and courage. Amidst the horror of these last few days, Zach’s actions and words offer more hope than anything I could possibly write.

Zach appears midway through this piece on heroes by Matt Lauer. He also told his compelling story on CNN and The Early Show.