I have been informed that individuals invited to the LGBT luncheon with Luke Ravenstahl are not being required to make a campaign contribution. They are invited to do so, as their discretion.
I don't know all the ins and outs of these sort of invitations, so I'm going to take this information at its word. What I must do is also assume that my original source acted in good faith and perceived the invitation language in a different way. That's for them to sort out.
I stand by the rest of my post. LGBT leaders attending a campaign fundraiser for Luke Ravenstahl strains creduality in light of his failure to move one single inch closer to gay-friendly positions during his tenure as Mayor. It just gives him further ammunition to say that he has broad based LGBT support.
Attending a meeting with the Mayor in his capacity as an elected official is a different animal, particularly when you hold him accountable for his promises. Where is the gay liaison? Where is the gay advisory committe? Where does he stand on gay civil protections and domestic partnership benefits under a City-County merger?
The private campaign meetings (apparently, 4 not the 2 I reported earlier) are not generating results for our community. Does it make sense to make financial contributions or lend your name to a campaign under these circumstances? Is is the responsible thing to do when you represent our community? I say the responsible thing to do is to ask the Mayor to take one step forward and take action before you support him.
That's my opinion. Yes, I am stirring up the pot. I do it all the time. But you -- you the supporter of Luke, you the letter writer from Braddock, you the person who took on a leadership role in the GLCC or the PrideFest committee -- you put the pot on the stove. I am following a long tradition of pot stirring -- stirring that took groups of Pittsburghers to DC marches, stirring that got PrideFest up and running and then up and running again, stirring that codified civil protections in City law, stirring that grew a phone line into a community center, stirring that brought thousands of gay people out of the closet.
I just use a computer instead of wooden spoon. I'm not out to attack anyone personally and just this morning took down an anonymous comment that slandered someone in our community. This isn't about attacking anyone. It is about a dialogue. Sure, I get the ball rolling with my thoughts and opinions. But blogging is a wonderful resource and it would be great to see more folks in the LGBT community doing it.
As we discussed earlier in the week, plans are underway for LGBT "supporters of Luke" to get together with him over lunch to discuss LGBT issues. A few key LGBT designated leaders have been invited. This was confirmed by local LGBT business owner and chair of the Delta Foundation, Gary Van Horn, in the comments section of our blog.
Also confirmed in the comments: this is a private event and not open to the media.
What I've recently discovered is that those attending the private lunch to discuss LGBT issues are allegedly being required to make a campaign contribution to the Luke Ravenstahl war chest.
Wow. I'm sure this goes on all the time. Money buys you access. Is it a sign of the times that gay money is worth courting? Should we care about a secret meeting?
Well, yes. And here is why. This will be the second private opportunity for dialogue on LGBT issues between the Mayor and actual LGBT people. The first was held on election eve after he infamously announced live on WQED that he was opposed to civil unions. That meeting, too, was top secret and did not result in the Mayor reversing his public stance on civil unions.
Publicly, the Mayor has had contact with the LGBT community. He's just adroitly sidestepped any type of public contact that involves dialogue. This includes the "Big Gay Chat" sponsored by the Allegheny County Democratic Committee last spring. Luke sent a surrogate.
Luke himself did attend PrideFest. With a police escort. He attended OUTrageous Bingo. He spent some time in a gay bar. None of these contacts allowed for any real dialogue between Luke and our community. He came, but he didn't listen. He didn't even know we had anything to say. Or maybe he just didn't care.
The community is not well-served by secret meetings and backroom negotiations. We deserve a Mayor that is willing to talk publicly about our issues and engage a cross section of the community, not just one particular interest. We deserve a Mayor who doesn't trade access for campaign contributions (allegedly).
If that is the price of admission to this luncheon, let us hope that those who represent us on boards and committees and commissions will think twice before attending. Have any of the previous private meetings and soirees moved Luke a single inch further along the line of gay tolerance? There is no evidence of that. No change on civil unions. No support for HB 1400. No promise to protect the civil liberties and domestic partner benefits in a City-County merger. No nothing.
The private meetings aren't working. At least, they aren't working for our community. They might be working for the campaign. We don't know because even the gay media is excluded (believe me, I've tried).
Make no mistake, gentle readers, we are WAY past the point at which attending PrideFest is newsworthy. There's no extra credit points for taking that risk. The Mayor's people should be aggressively courting connections with the LGBT community. What happened to plans for a LGBT liaison in the Mayor's office? Or the LGBT advisory committee?
So, the meeting. Gary thinks it is a worthwhile investment of his time and he's entitled to that opinion. He's also entitled to organize events to support candidates in whom he believes. However, I think that continuing to contribute our hard-earned monies to a candidate that hasn't done a single thing for our community is going to get us nowhere. We cannot allow Luke Ravenstahl to continue making promises to us -- liaisons and committees, etc -- with no consequences for his failure to act.
So, why not email your local LGBT leaders and ask if they plan to attend the Mayor's event and, if so, whether they are financially supporting his campaign? It would be interesting to identify LGBT leaders that publicly support a candidate opposed to civil unions. After all, we can get the campaign contribution information after the fact if the City Paper keeps up the database. It would just be nice to know in advance where people stand.
What's more important for local social justice - the stability of the Thomas Merton Center or the culpability of a dead police dog? I'd like to ask Carole Weidmann that question. Carole's pants were ripped during an anti-war protest a few years ago and the culprit may have been Ulf, the dog who was shot and killed by Justin Jackson a few weeks ago. Mr. Jackson was subsequently killed by return fire. (Ripped pants do not equal dead teenager.)
Carole is oft brought up as an example of the horrors of police brutality in Pittsburgh. Carole is also a board member of the Thomas Merton Center, Pittsburgh's most significant anti-war organization. The Merton Center seems to be in terrible straights -- almost all of the professional staff have resigned. One sent an email (I have a copy if you want it) citing board issues as a reason for his resignation. The organization is struggling financially.
Who is going to protect the rights of other Justin Jacksons if TMC isn't back on solid ground? As a member, I'd personally prefer Carole put her time and energy (and her legion of fans) to use on that issue.
It is sad to read a City Paper story about a CMU student who claims to have stared down Ulf and avoid being "mauled" as he put it. That's just silly, condescending talk. David Struthers believes his elite status saved the day when he was confronted with a big bad police dog anxious to get 'em. I noted with some interest that the City Paper did not include any perspective from reputable dog trainers. I have consulted a few and their interpretation of the YouTube video footage is very different than Mr. Struthers.
Further, there's the never-ceasing coverage of police dogs gone wild with little if any acknowledgment of situations where police dogs saved lives or prevented violent endings. No information on the difference between a dog grabbing a suspect and a dog biting a suspect. Anyone with large dogs can tell the difference. A dog can be trained to subdue. They do it every day and no one ends up dead. It doesn't take Swami Struthers to prevent a catastrophe.
I love the man called Potter and his crew. They do good reporting. But this story mimics the one-dimensional approach to the death of Justin Jackson we saw when the story broke. And it continues to really piss me off to see all of this man v dog coverage. And I would be disingenuous if I didn't write this post out of deference to their feelings. I almost didn't. But they have much thicker skins than certain people who write 80 paragraphs responses to my criticism. So on we go ...
If David Struthers is so concerned about the other Justin Jackson's of the world, maybe he should call up Carole, roll up his sleeves and do something to build up the TMC.
Instead we get this ...
Still, Struthers believes, there was one overwhelming factor that helped his police-dog encounter toward its peaceful end. "I had a confidence, when I was sitting there, with the dog coming toward me, [police] weren't just going to let the dog maul me," he concludes. "First, because there were a lot of people there. But, really, if you release dogs on people attending elite universities there's going to be a lot of people upset at that," and very publicly. "I can't imagine [Jackson] thinking that a lot of people are going to care if he gets mauled, in the world at large. It changes how you are going to react in that situation. What happened to this guy was par for the course in many Pittsburgh neighborhoods, and that's the real story, as far as I'm concerned."
Par for the course? Ahem. This man puts monies (and his talent) in the coffers of a University that builds robots for war. A war in which Justin Jackson is much more likely to be used as cannon fodder than CMU "elite" students. So spare us the moral high ground, David. You have no clue what Justin was thinking when he pulled that trigger and it is insulting to imply otherwise. More importantly, why don't you speak out about what you are doing to make a difference?
To summarize. Stop the man v dog media coverage. Give the public a well-rounded perspective on police dogs -- find out how many suspects have been apprehended without violence with the assistance of a police dog --- now that would be a story. Consult dog behavioral experts instead of college students for analysis. Figure out what the hell is going on with the Thomas Merton Center -- they don't even list their board members on the website.
Simply put, we cannot support this merger until we have two guarantees.
First, we must have the County pass legislation ensuring our civil rights are preserved. Right now, those of us who live or work in the City are assured protections based on our sexual orientation and gender identity. At the Big Gay Chat last spring, sponsored by the ACDC, County Council President Rich Fitzgerald admitted that passing this type of legislation would be an uphill battle.
Second, we must insist that the County provide domestic partnership benefits for all employees. Onorato hides behind claims that it is a budget issue. That's ridiculous. If all the gay and unmarried heterosexual employees quit tomorrow and they were replaced by happily married heterosexuals, the budget would somehow accommodate their families. WHY IS MY FAMILY DIFFERENT? I can say this based on the fact that Ledcat works for the City so this will directly impact moi!
So, here's where our champions suit up and make sure that Pittsburgh's gay residents are not kicked to the curb. I understand that Luke is having a big gay luncheon at Images in the next few weeks. I'm hopeful Gary and company educate him about the importance of these two issues. It is important that we use whatever access we have to make sure Luke is aware of how this very significant legislation will impact us.
How come I never get invited to important gay luncheons? I eat lunch. I know my silverware.
Let's not forget Dan. Or our County Council reps. Oh, in my case, that's NOT Brenda Frazier so I'm basically screwed (thanks, HosPAC for quashing homo allies, by the way). We'll need that $0.15 discount on those drinks to drown our sorrows when we can't take the damn bus out of the County to find housing or jobs. Awesome.
Deep breath.
Anyway, we need to be sure that our County Council and Chief Executive understand that we are law-abiding, tax-paying, bus-riding, drink-buying residents of this County and we deserve equal rights.
So, our champions have their work cut out for them. Bill and Doug, Patrick and Bruce. Rich. Brenda. Gary and Steel City need to work with Luke to make sure he understands these issues. Someone needs to do something with Dan. Maybe explain budgets.
Pennsylvania's most colorful Senator -- and he would stand out brightly even in the gayest of gay communities -- Vince Fumo is proposing to amend the, well, amendment legislation to outlaw divorce with a few exceptions.
Mr. Fumo, who leaves the Senate on Nov. 30, said the stated goal of Senate Bill 1250 is to "protect the sanctity of the marital institution" by defining a legal marriage as only between one man and one woman.
The next logical step, according to Mr. Fumo, is to also outlaw divorces
You know, there just isn't much I can add to that.
Except this ... if Vince Fumo will go to such lengths, can't you make a phone call?
The legislation passed in the Appropriations Committee 18 - 8. Four Democrats voted yes. Two Republicans voted no. So now the legislation moves toward a vote by the full Senate.
Yes, that means more telephone calls.
The "yes" votes (pro-Amendment) in SW PA are:
John Pippy (R)
Barry Stout (D) - Yikes!
Mary Jo White (R)
Regola (R)
The "no" votes (anti-Amendment) is SW PA are:
Gerald Lavelle (D)
Sean Logan (D)
So here is what you need to do. If you live in Lavelle (most of Beaver County) or Logan (Monroeville and some of the Mon Valley) country, please call them to say thanks and ask them to continue to oppose the legislation.
The big thing for me is Barry Stout -- a Democrat -- voting in favor of legislation that would constrict the civil rights of my community. Your job is to think of at least one person you know that lives in his district and pick up the phone to call THAT PERSON to make a call to Senator Stout telling them they do not appreciate his vote on this issue and that not everyone in Washington, Greene or Beaver counties are bigots.
Does your sister live in Mon City? Is your cousin from West Finley Township? I know there are gay people in Waynesburg. This is the time. Call 'em up. Ask them who is taking care of their health care, their jobs and their taxes while Senator Stout protects them from gay marriage?
Stout's telephone numbers: (724) 225-5400 and (717) 787-1463
And kudos to reader ctb for calling out John Pippy on the issue. Is it deplorable that his staff would treat you with such disrespect just because your opinions differs from him. He still works for you (and by default, so do they). Good for you for not backing down. Sending the letters is perfect. You deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy when you call someone elected to represent you. Good for you.
So get on the phone. Here's a handy map for Senate contact information. Lots and lots of gay people come rolling into town from these areas. Hey, isn't Patrick Arena from Little Washington? Someone call him. Get some names from him. Isn't Eda Bagel from Little Washington?
I know some women from Beaver County read this blog. We need your help!
UPDATE: I made a call this morning to Fontana's office in Harrisburg. They are getting a ton of calls, going both directions. Similar reports from Costa's Harrisburg office. Keep it up. Sneak out for a cigarette break, even if you don't smoke, to make the call. I also heard that the rally is noisy. All good news. Keep it up. You are doing great
Rejoice, fair homo and homo allies, for there is something very important you can do right from the comfort of your own cell phone.
Call your Senator. Tell the nice staff person who answer the phone that you are opposed to attempts to amend the constitution of Pennsylvania to prevent gay marriage aka SB 1250. That's all you really need to say, along with your name and address (so they know you are really a constituent).
If you want to say more, do so. Ask how the Senator stands on this issue (if you don't know). Thank the Senator for a pro-homo stance. Tell them why you are opposed to the amendment. Talk about your family. Mention the issues that are important to you -- health care? employment? economic development? taxes? whatever!
The important thing is that you are reaching for your cell phone right now, scribbling down the number and heading for whatever quiet nook is necessary for you to make the call.
Why now? Why Monday? Because the bill is going to be voted out of Appropriations and possibly to the full Senate for a vote. This week. So waiting until it is more convenient for your individual life is not an option.
This isn't a situation where you -- especially if you are a gay person or love a gay person -- have the luxury of letting someone else do the heavy lifting. A contingent of Pittsburghers gave up a day to staff the rally for us. The telephone calls, well that's our part of the homosexual agenda. Step lively, people. Or, rather, dial lively!
You know that this amendment is smoke screen designed to keep us from organizing around important civil rights legislation sitting in committee. You know that this is about using gay marriage as an issue for the election -- rile 'em up to vote for McCain.
And you know that is all complete bullshit. The worst thing that could happen to our heterosexual married friends, family members and neighbors if Ledcat and I were to marry? The wedding registry. We have expensive tastes.
Why are you still reading this? Oh, you need telephone numbers. Here's the entire fleet of Southwestern PA Senators. If you don't know who represents you, click here to find out.
Jay Costa Hburg (717) 787-7683 Pittsburgh (412) 241-6690 Sean Logan Hburg (717) 787-5580 Pittsburgh (412) 664-5200 Wayne Fontana Hburg (717) 787-5300 Pittsburgh (412) 344-2551 John Pippy Hburg (717) 787-5839 Pittsburgh (412) 262-2260 Jim Ferlo Hburg (717) 787-6123 Pittsburgh (412) 621-3006 Jane Orie Hburg (717) 787-6538 Pittsburgh (412) 630-9466 j J. Barry Stout Hburg (717) 787-1463 Pittsburgh (724) 225-5400 b Gerald Lavelle Hburg (717) 787-3076 Pittsburgh (724) 654-1444 Mary Jo White Hburg (717) 787-9684 Pittsburgh (814) 432-4345 Donald C.White Hburg (717) 787-8724 Pittsburgh (724) 357-0151 Robert D. Robbins Hburg (717) 787-1322 Pittsburgh (724) 588-1323 Bob Regola Hburg (717) 787-6063 Pittsburgh (724) 600-7002 Richard Kasunic Hburg (717) 787-7175 Pittsburgh (724) 626-1611
Now stop reading and start calling. It is practically painless.
Monday, May 5, 2008 is the Rally in Harrisburg. Rally? The Rally Against the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment. Ledcat and I had hoped to attend, but fate (and work) conspired against us. Are you planning to attend? I'm hoping for an eyewitness account.
Last week, there was a "highly charged" hearing in Harrisburg. The PG has the coverage
Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.
"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.
It continues to amaze me that the folks opposed to the amendment have a long list of concrete ways this legislation will have a negative impact on families whereas the other side just has a claim that it will protect families with nothing to back it up. How is it we are still having this discussion?
Here are the letters of recent vintage:
M.W. Sage of Swissvale puts it succinctly:
Regarding the bill to protect heterosexual marriage ("Backers, Foes of Gay Marriage Collide at Capitol," April 30): There are many greater issues needing attention. Couples know when a relationship is working and when it isn't. They can seek help if they want it.
The same is so for gay relationships.
The nation and the world have more pressing issues to be addressed. Let the Legislature busy itself with those.
Well put.
Meanwhile, a series of letters in the Tribune Review finally address this issue.
First up is Sharon Capretto of Mt. Washington. She is a member of the Cult to Protect Marriage (something like that) and thinks that the will of the people is not embedded in our legislative system. She must not vote. Or at least, she doesn't trust most of the people who do vote:
This proposed amendment would give our federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional protection to ensure that a judge or the Legislature could not redefine marriage in our state without the will of the people. Twenty-seven states have seen fit to pass similar amendments. Pennsylvanians would like the same consideration.
In response, Amesh Adalja of Butler (hey, that's cool -- Metcalfe Country)is embarrassed by the Republicans embracing this issue at the expense of real concerns.
Inserting religious proscriptions into the state Constitution utilizes precious legislative time that could be directed toward lowering taxes, scaling back the size of state government, privatizing the state liquor stores and many other worthy Republican causes.
Such moral reasoning recognizes that marriage is inherently based upon the complementarity between a man and a woman. They are clearly designed to come together in a way that leads to the generation of new life. It is the fundamental building block of any society.
I'm not sure it is scientifically accurate to claim that two men or two women cannot complement each other, unless you reduce human beings to the sum of the reproductive organs. I'd say the 20,000+ children in the Pennsylvania foster care system are proof positive of that reductive assumption being utter bullshit. By the way, how many kids do you foster, Kris?
Now, I'm not an expert on the Founding Fathers, but I did study a little political theory. My understanding of Jefferson and Madison is that society is built upon the individual in relationship to the institution. They had a clear concept of individual freedoms and liberties, not family based liberties. Women and children weren't even enumerated in the Constitution, considered the property or wards of the male head of household. Is that where Kris wants to go? It was only through societal progress and a recognition of the civil rights of women (and children) that the modern family has evolved (and women are allowed to read newspapers).
The family is not the building block of society, Kris. Your partner/spouse and your children have rights and responsibilities that are separate and distinct from your own. Coming together to build a family sometimes strengthens society and sometimes does not. But you should be more precise if you plan to throw around scientific terms like "complementarity."
