jaysays.com |

The Macy’s store at Rivercenter Mall in San Antonio, Texas, recently came under fire for its termination of Natalie Johnson, who was employed by Macy’s until a few days before Thanksgiving. Ms. Johnson refused to allow a transgender woman to use the lady’s fitting room. According to the organization representing Ms. Johnson, Liberty Counsel, she was fired for her religious beliefs. To clarify, they argue she was fired for being Christian.

Blog posts and comments abound, telling the story of the oppressed Natalie. Most of the stories indicate that Liberty Counsel is a pro-Christian rights organization, a claim which is designed to sway the public to rally behind a suspect class: the religious. But Liberty Counsel is anything but pro-Christianity. Their purpose has not historically been to walk in the steps of Christ, but instead to demand our government provide them, as moral superiors, with the infinite power to bend others to their will.

In her recent address in honor of Human Rights Day, Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton highlighted these sorts of religious justifications for discrimination noting:

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal.

But even though Liberty Counsel wants you to believe this is about Ms. Johnson’s religion, it is not. Liberty Counsel is not a “Christian rights group,” but rather an organization devoted to preventing the human rights of LGBT people. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

In 2009, J. Matt Barber, formerly with Concerned Women for America and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality…, joined Liberty Counsel as director of cultural affairs (also becoming Liberty University’s associate dean for career and professional development). A year earlier, Barber had argued that given “medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,” it should be considered “criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.”

The Counsel also has been active in battling same-sex marriage, saying it would destroy the “bedrock of society.” In 2005, the group’s blog said: “People who … support the radical homosexual agenda will not rest until marriage has become completely devalued. Children will suffer most from this debauchery.” A 2007 blog posting said same-sex marriage would “severely impact future generations.”

Like other anti-gay groups, Liberty Counsel argues that hate crime laws are “actually ‘thought crimes’ laws that violate the right to freedom and of conscience” — an opinion rejected by the Supreme Court.

The claims by Liberty Counsel are not a declaration of freedom, but instead further desperate attacks by a group of people protected by Federal Non-Discrimination Laws (religious people), on a group that is not (transgender people).  Freedom of religion is a protection from worshipping as one chooses, not from forcing your opinions on others.

From protest of ousted Bexar County DP Chair, Dan Ramos.

The Texas State Democratic Party bowed to fear this past week when the Executive Committee met to vote on proposed primary ballot referendum.  In a move that silenced one of the most staunch populaces aligned with the Democratic Party, the LGBTQ community, Texas Democrats voted 33-22 to exclude a marriage equality referendum on the 2012 Democratic Primary ballot.  However, legalizing gambling will be on the ballot.

According to a press release received from Dan Graney, President of the Texas Stonewall Democrats, arguments against including the marriage equality measure were:

1. The Republicans will go after us on this.
2. This will negatively impact on our Democratic candidates.
3. What if the measure should fail?

As to the first argument, the Republicans are going after the Democrats anyway.  All that was accomplished by excluding even a chance for marriage equality in Texas was that Democrats were silenced and we will now see Democrats going after Democrats in Texas for their blatant disregard for their own party platform, which states:

Democrats believe that we all have a part to play in promoting equality and protecting Americans against discrimination, and we continue to work vigorously toward greater freedom and equality in America.

Working vigorously toward greater freedom apparently means bowing to political pressure, fear and intimidation, as is noted by the second opposition view that supporting freedom and equality will negatively affect Democratic candidates.  In this instance, the lack of integrity and moxy will do more to negatively impact candidates than standing up for your party values EVER would have.

Perhaps the most disturbing argument presented in keeping marriage equality off of the primary ballot is the argument, “What if the measure should fail?”  For that, I turn to other thinkers and provide the following motivational quotes:

“The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try nothing and succeed” – Lloyd Jones

“Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.” – Unknown

“Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, “I will try again tomorrow.” – Mary Anne Radmacher

“Try and fail, but don’t fail to try.” Stephen Kaqqwa

“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.” – Dale Carnegie

“The worst thing one can do is not to try, to be aware of what one wants and not give in to it, to spend years in silent hurt wondering if something could have materialized – and never knowing” – David Vicsott

“I am not judged by the number of times I fail, but by the number of times I succeed: and the number of times I succeed is in direct proportion to the number of times I fail and keep trying.” – Tom Hopkins

“You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don’t try.” – Beverly Sills

“There is no comparison between that which is lost by not succeeding and that lost by not trying.” – Francis Bacon, Sr.

Try as I might, I was unable to find any motivational quotes encouraging people not to try.  However, I was able to find a quote by an unknown person that sums up my feelings toward the Texas Democratic Party:

Fuck you for giving up on me.

The Facebook group titled “Gay San Antonio” will be marking the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by “coming out” from the “private” setting to the “public” setting on Facebook.  When the Administrators formed the group, they originally set the privacy settings so that, without an invitation, the group postings and its members remained hidden.  The chosen method of celebration seems appropriate and symbolic, but not all members support the change. Several of them announced that once the group goes public, they will be removing themselves from it for fear of retaliation by their family, co-workers and friends.

One of the group members who is leaving stated:

Sorry I can’t be a part of it but being a part of a political organization like this in the public eye will greatly harm my credibility at work. I’d rather be semi-in-the-closet and employed than openly gay and broke.

This is a very real and reasonable fear shared by many. “Coming out” of the closet as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is far too often a career killer.  It’s no wonder that the repeal of DADT is so bittersweet for me.  I see through the rose-colored, celebratory glasses and look directly at our oppressors and oppressions ruling us with fear.  The reality that our lives are still governed by this fear is a grotesque ode to the heavy toll denying dignity and freedom to a people has on their lives.

So to all members of Gay San Antonio (past, present and future), I offer you this video of Ms. Nina Simone, answering the question, “What’s freedom?”:

*WARNING: The below commentary contains links to subject matter that may not be appropriate for all viewers.  Some of the information contained on “The Gathering of Pastors” website may cause nausea, vomiting and/or increased blood pressure and heart attack or stroke.*

The City Manager of San Antonio, Sheryl Sculley, completed and introduced the new budget for San Antonio with an included provision to allow for financing of Domestic Partnership benefits for city employees in same-sex relationships.  While providing healthcare should not be controversial, the right wing attacked.  Cult leaders began organizing against the budget initiative under the title “The Gathering of Pastors“.  The City Council endured countless hours of hearings, hundreds of emails and telephone calls and listened as lie after lie poured from the mouths of purportedly Christian people.

I had the pleasure of being actively involved in support of this initiative.  In spite of my objections to the fact that Domestic Partnership benefits are only needed because same-sex couples are not afforded equal protections under present marriage laws, it was clear to me that no one deserved to be denied access to affordable healthcare.  After all, “Why shouldst thou not take even as much pleasure in beholding a counterfeit stone, which thine eye cannot discern from a right stone?” (Thomas More)

With the assistance of an entire community of peoples, we worked tirelessly (o.k. I got pretty damn tired) to counter the arguments against the benefits package.

But The Gathering of cult leaders did not stop.  They argued that domestic partnership benefits lowered the bar from marriage and allowed more people to receive benefits, which would prohibit or limit the motivation of an employee to commit to a legally binding relationship (i.e. marriage).  They went on to indicate that the unwillingness of an employee to make such a commitment reveals selfishness and a weakness in morality.  However, according to the Cult’s website, “Homosexual couples can never be married per definition.”  Therefore their argument fails.

A “homosexual” employee of the city who is in a long term relationship is barred by law from entering into the very “legally binding relationship” to which the Gathering refers.  To prohibit someone from conforming to an action, then to punish them for not having undertaken that action is the truest form of selfishness.  It is for the jail keeper to do these things, not kings (and yes, that is a paraphrase of Thomas More).

On Wednesday night, September 14th, I joined other community members in council chambers for “Citizens to be Heard,” a moment when citizens may address council regarding matters before them.  Many spoke in favor of domestic partnership benefits, but without surprise, the cult spoke in opposition.  One of the opponents (and some day I will catch her name) was a woman who assaulted members of the Direct Action Network of San Antonio with holy water for unfurling a banner at a hate rally that read “Homophobia and Transphobia Kills.”  Another man, who declared himself a minister, stood at the dais and compared domestic partnership benefits to “the morning after” pill and abortion.  He then noted that the City has the moral authority to be a “no kill animal” city, but supports murdering babies.  All of which were blatantly lies, but most notable his assertion that the City maintains a “no kill” status.

At the end of the meeting, this same man returned to address city council and posed this question in front of all attendees (including children):

What is more dangerous, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, riding an iron horse or riding somebody bareback?

Although the question was improper and likely rhetorical, I still fail to see the relationship between barebacking (having sex without a condom) and domestic partnership benefits.  While I assume he was making reference to the risk of HIV infection (as accusations were made repeatedly that nearly all gays have AIDS), he failed to address the fact that the subculture of “barebacking” is not strictly a homosexual phenomena.  In fact, the appeal and marketability of pornography depicting barebacking is prevalent in both heterosexual and homosexual pornography.  See Chapter 2, “Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Bare Backing.”

One thing that became clear from the Cult commentators – they are obsessed with sex, more particularly, that gays have sex.  In fact, I was very much reminded of the anti-gay cult leader in Uganda who constantly refers to gays as eating “da poo poo” of their partners.

These cult leaders often ignore the fact that sexual subcultures do not exist solely within the framework of “homosexuality.”  The moral objections are misguided, misdirected and misconstrued – but even so, consensual sexual practices should not be grounds for denying healthcare benefits.  If it were, no politician and fewer evangelicals would be safe.

For the record, the city passed the budget with the inclusion of domestic partnership benefits for City employees.

Sunday, May 22^nd would have been the 81^st birthday of slain civil rights leader, Harvey Milk.  While cities throughout the country marked the event with various marches, rallies and celebrations, something much more sinister was taking place in Portland, Oregon.  Brad Forkner and Christopher Rosevear where walking across the Hawthorne Bridge from Waterfront Park to the Eastbank Esplanade.  Like many couples, they were holding hands.  Sadly, unlike most couples, their hand holding did not go without notice.  The two men were attacked from behind by five other men.  Both men survived, with Rosevear receiving lacerations on his lip and above his eye which required stitches.

The community in Portland has responded, launching the “Hands Across Hawthorne Bridge” event to demonstrate against violent crimes.  The event requests attendees to come to Hawthorne Bridge on Sunday, May 29^th at 7:30 p.m. and hold hands in solidarity with the beaten men.  However, not everyone has been so kind.  Upon hearing of the event, one commenter had this to say:

“I think it’s undignified for men to hold hands in public. But I know I’m way in the minority on that.  But if gays wanna do it, they should be prepared for it not being warmly received.”

Victim blaming has been in our vernacular since the early 70’s, when it was coined with respect to racism and social injustices; however, more recently it has been used as a means for people to justify rape, i.e.: “She was asking for it by wearing a short skirt.”  The concept is largely unpopular except in cases of hate crimes against LGBTQ people.  In fact, victim blaming is a useful tactic for murders of gay men, particularly.  In one case, after inflicting 61 stab wounds and killing his neighbor, Joseph Biedermann, Terrence Hauser was acquitted by a jury thanks to victim blaming (he said Joseph had made a pass at him).  This victim blaming is also known as “The Gay Panic” defense, and became popular after it was successfully used in 1995 by Jonathan Schmitz, a guest on the Jenny Jones show, who murdered Scott Amedure after he confessed he had a crush on Jonathan during the show.

See: How to Get Away with Murder, A Guide to the Gay Panic Defense.

So, should you meet up with our commenter friend in a dark ally, I suppose you could claim bashing their head into a wall was justifiable because they are ignorant… but violence begets violence, so instead, here’s to the organizers of the Hands Across Hawthorne Bridge and all of those who are taking a stand against violence and victim blaming.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

Yesterday evening, about 2 dozen lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, along with their allies, stood in front of the Granada Homes building where the “Proud Democrats” were hosting a fund raiser for the Bexar County Democratic Party (“BCDP”).  Dan Ramos has previously announced that he would attend the event; however, he did not show up and organizers claim he was not invited.  It seems though, that in Bexar County, there is no reason to be proud of being a democrat under Ramos’ leadership.

The Chair of the BCDP, Dan Ramos, recently made numerous disparaging remarks about LGBT people, disabled people and the plight of the African American Community in their quest to obtain equal representation under the law.  Since that time, a vast majority of the BCDP’s Executive Committee and Steering Committee have been demanding his resignation as Chair claiming his comments violated the rules of the party and were outside the scope of the Democratic Platform, which states:

We believe in and support the repeal of discriminatory laws and policies against members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

But Dan Ramos isn’t listening to the Board or the people of Bexar County and beyond.  In a press conference early yesterday morning, he refused to resign and reiterated his position that gay people are like, “white termites who have infiltrated the party much like termites infiltrate your house.”

Last night’s protestors were met mostly with support by those attending the fund raiser; however, a few people stood up against our plea for Dan Ramos’ resignation.  In fact, the President of the organization, Jose “Joe” Gallagos, came out to tell the protestors that it was our fault so few people showed up at the fund raiser – (Hey Joe, it couldn’t possibly be because the people don’t want to give money to homophobia and racism, though, could it?

Perhaps most surprising was an accusation from an African American attendee.  She was furious with the protestors as she walked up claiming that those that want Dan Ramos removed are “the whites.”  Yet one of Dan Ramos’ choice comments in his tirade was, “I go back to an old very well-used slogan: blacks wanted to get their way because they were black.”  While I find the comment terribly offensive and degrading to the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Bayard Rustin, Rosa Parks, and many more heroes of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement, the sentiment wasn’t echoed by this objector as one would expect.

Another objector was a resident of Granada Homes (which serves as a retirement community and Banquet Hall).  She wasn’t upset that we were calling for Dan Ramos’ resignation, but instead felt we were blocking the doorway (which we were not).  However, we started talking with the lady a bit about Mr. Ramos’ disparaging remarks against the disabled people – particularly kids born with Polio legs and not being able to kill them or sweep them under the rug.  This struck a chord with the lady and she told us her own story of being taunted for being Hispanic by a fellow resident who claimed, “You Hispanics are nothing but the dirt under my feet.”  We explained that we felt as angry as she does about the comments made by Dan Ramos and she departed with a bit more understanding of us.

One supporter immediately made me think of Will Phillips, who once said, “My generation is the change they fear the most.”  Bobby, who appeared to be no more than 14 years old, and his friend were walking by the protest and noted our signs.  They stopped, inquired and joined us for a short time.  Bobby, a resident of Ft. Worth, Texas, was in town with family and was offended when he learned of Dan Ramos’ comments.  I asked Bobby what made him stop and join us.  In his social studies class in school, Bobby had wanted to take a poll of students about how they felt about Gay Rights.  His teacher felt the subject would meet with parental disapproval and refused to allow Bobby to do the project.  Bobby noted how “upset” he was that he couldn’t even ask questions of his peers about the issue, and decided he should stand with us to denounce Dan Ramos.

Dan Ramos’ comments don’t just reflect on Dan Ramos (although that’s the message the BCDP is desperately trying to relay to the public).  Rather, they reflect on the BCDP as a whole.  The BCDP is desperately seeking money to pay off the near $200,000 debt owed to the county after a nasty embezzlement charge, yet their only official spokesperson is making horrible accusations and disparaging remarks against a large part of the democratic base.  So I ask you dear readers – would you give money to an organization that is spewing hate?  I believe the answer is no – and neither will I.

Dan Ramos, the Chair of Bexar County Democrats, representing the Democratic Party in the City of San Antonio, Texas and surrounding areas,  recently went on a racist and homophobic tirade:

[Gays] are all connected to the gay Democratic Party, the so-called Stonewall Democrats. Just like termites they managed to get some of their people in key positions.  … I liken them to the Tea Party — the Tea Party and the f—ing Nazi Party — because they’re 90 percent white, blue-eyed, and Anglo, and I don’t give a f— who knows that. Just like the blacks … they’re American, but you can’t get your way just because you’re black.

The degradation by Mr. Ramos of the LGBT community is so far off the mark that it almost goes without my typical ranting; however, I can’t resist.

Gays are like the Nazi Party: This couldn’t possibly be further from the truth.  Perhaps the largest indicator of how factually incorrect this is lies in the history of a symbol that has been representative of the gay community for decades – the pink triangle.   This symbol was originally sewn or pinned to the shirts of gay men during the occupation by Nazi Germany.  They were courted off, along with other non-Aryan, non-Christian, non-white folk to camps, where they were pushed into “showers” along side many others.  hundreds of thousands of gay men and lesbians were murdered by the Nazi Party.  Therefore, it seems logical that the gays couldn’t possible be “like the Nazi Party” any more so than Jewish people could be “like the Nazi Party.”

90 Percent [of gays are] White, Blue-eyed, and Anglo:  I’d love to know where Mr. Ramos found this statistic.  In my  household, only 50% of the gays are white, Anglo and blue eyed.  In my closest circle of friends, that drops significantly – to roughly 1 out of 10.

You Can’t Get Your Way Just Because You’re Black:  Putting this phrase into the context used by Mr. Ramos, it’s evident that he’s referring to the fact that LGBT people are struggling for rights such as marriage equality and prevention of work place and public sector discrimination.  In so making the comparison, he belittled not only the struggles of the LGBT community, but also the struggles of the African American community in fighting for their civil rights, desegregating society and struggling to be seen as whole citizens of the United States.

Sadly, in spite of the fact that the attack was directed mostly toward the members of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats, the organization has not released a statement and has chosen to remain silent on the issue at this time (perhaps because May is an important election time for the group?).   Thankfully, not all LGBT organizations in San Antonio are remaining silent.  The Direct Action Network of San Antonio has recently launched a campaign to join with the state’s Chair of the Democratic Party to demand the resignation of Mr. Ramos.  You can find a petition here.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

Two headlines appeared in my Facebook feed one right after the other tonight, in what can only be described as a sad irony (if I use the word “irony” as liberally as most).

• 16 Year old Arrested for Antigay Beating, and
• 11 Year-Old Arrested For Threatening His Own Bullies.

If you stop the hate, you can stop the violence.

Today, five activists from GetEQUAL Ohio, a direct action LGBT rights group associated with the national organization, GetEQUAL, were arrested while attempting to deliver a petition to Speaker of the House John Boehner at his office in Columbus.

The petition, which urged the Speaker to focus on job creation rather than using tax payer money to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), contained over 33,000 signatures.

Upon arriving at the office, the group was locked out and denied their First Amendment right to petition the government.  Not to be deterred in their representation of those who should be treated equally under the law, five members of GetEQUAL OH began reading the names of the petition signers in front of the office while others participated in a demonstration on the sidewalks.  Shortly thereafter, they were arrested for “trespassing” and removed from the premises.

Speaker Boehner sent a clear message with these arrests: the U.S. Constitution has no value to him, his office or our government.  It is undeniable that citizens of the United States have a right to petition their government.  Such right falls squarely within the First Amendment and is a fundamental right enjoyed by all Americans.  The right can be simply defined as “the right to present requests to the government without punishment or reprisal.  This right is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (History Central, 1).

If Speaker Boehner is willing to violate the rights afforded within the “Bill of Rights” there is no reason he will not continue to deny the rights provided by the 14^th Amendment, which is the portion of the Constitution that deems DOMA unconstitutional.

Call, write, email or visit (at your own risk) Boehner’s office and demand an immediate apology for continually violating the rights of Americans.  Tell him to focus on creating jobs as the Republicans promised instead of using tax payer money to defend unconstitutional government policies.

Those arrested include: Sean Watkins, Morgan Bonney, Jesse Bonney, Liz Mills and Karay Miller (pictured).

It’s no secret that I’ve been critical of some of the decisions made by the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”) and comments made by their spokespeople, but what should also be apparent is, like any organization, the HRC was developed with people power.  Like me, all of those people are fallible.  Mistakes can and do happen.  It took me a long time to recognize that for myself.  Sometimes, I speak for me, sometimes I speak for an organization – at no time is my speech necessarily correct.

About two months ago, I had an interesting conversation with Darrell Parsons.  Mr. Parsons is a member of the Board of Governors for HRC and Chair of the San Antonio Gala Planning Committee.  He suggested that I come to the Gala Planning meetings as media, putting on the record “the good, the bad and the ugly.”  It was an offer that a queer blogger and grassroots activist like me could not pass up.  For one, it would allow me to grow my understanding of the motivations of those involved with the HRC.  It would also provide me with a method to hold the organizational process publicly accountable when I witnessed them going astray.  While I saw the opportunity as a way to prove me wrong about some of my perceptions of HRC, I did not fully consider the very real possibility that I could be right.  What could my “report” mean for the community?  Will it build it up or further tear it down?  Would an “ugly” moment divide us more than any “good” moment could possibly pull us together?

After two committee meetings and finding budding friendships with many of those participating, I now find myself reluctantly upholding my responsibility to report “the good, the bad and the ugly.”

The Good.

One of the most obvious “good” scores was discussed in the preceding paragraphs.  It’s the fact that I was even invited to attend these meetings on the record.  This shows a willingness on the part of our local HRC chapter to be transparent to the community and to be held accountable publicly should they go astray.

Another “good” score was obtained by the HRC Gala committee developing a “Diversity and Outreach” sub-committee.  As an enormous fan of radical inclusiveness, I would be candidate number one to be on such a committee; however, my purpose with the group is as a reporter, not as a committee chair.  That position was filled by Kevin, who is also the faculty advisor for a college LGBT organization, “OUT.” While diversity should be a key factor of any organization rather than a sub-committee, this development at least shows that there is a willingness to try to solve the overall exclusion problem within the larger HRC organization – even if it is an afterthought.

The good didn’t stop there.  This year, the committee decided to offer a significantly reduced student rate of $75.00.  To further that, they have offered to allow members of the community to purchase a student ticket at that rate and have the ticket later donated to a worthy student.  They’ve also allowed for payment plans – HRC Gala, on lay-a-way.  The reason I put this in the “good” category isn’t because a $75.00 meal is affordable, but it is certainly a step in the right direction to bring less affluent members of our community to the table.

A less substantial “good” that deserves a mention is the social aspect of volunteering with the HRC.  There are many wonderfully charming and intelligent people volunteering their time to promote the organization. When asked, many stated that they chose to work with the HRC because they believe that we are all deserving of equality.  Whether we agree or disagree on the methods and inclusiveness of various organizations, we can agree that at the finish line, we will all celebrate the victories.

The Bad.

In the “good” section, I discussed the fact that the committee had a sub-committee devoted to “Diversity and Outreach.”  A bad moment was when Mr. Parsons found himself stumbling for a way to explain the committee’s function, stating its purpose was to reach out to those that might not be familiar with HRC and try to get them to come to the Gala event.  Examples of this outreach included approaching the black and Latino communities.  This was “bad” to me as it seemed to solidify the perception of the organization as being a predominantly white, upper class group that is completely out of touch with the remainder of our community. It’s possible that it would make it into the “ugly” section as it seemed to focus more on race than full diversity; however, diversity is often difficult to explain and starting with race is often the easiest path for people to get to the whole picture.

Another bad revolves around the issue of giving credit where credit is due.  I mentioned the Target debacle to Darrell Parsons and the recent interview in Billboard Magazine with Lady Gaga.  I noted that it seems like the company may be making an effort in the near future to make amends with the LGBT community and Mr. Parsons quickly noted that HRC pressured them into it.  While I would concur that HRC contributed to the pressure on Target with their petition campaign and removal of the company from their buyer’s guide, credit should also be given to grassroots organizers who took actions against the store – including, but certainly not limited to, a PFLAG mom who, on her own volition, returned a basket full of items purchased from Target and explained the rationale behind her return to management, and the group Queer Rising, who invaded Target stores in their “Target Ain’t People” campaign declaring, “Attention Target Shoppers” – know when you shop at Target, your money is going to fuel hate. Pressure on the company came from many avenues within our community without one direct action being planned by HRC directly.  No one organization or group deserves full credit for any progress made.

This isn’t the first time HRC has ignored or outright taken credit for grassroots’ efforts.  In fact, immediately following the National Equality March, HRC declared the event “big” and responsible for a “burst of momentum” in a fundraising email.  At no point did they mention that they fought against the National Equality March tooth, nail, fist and high heel all the way to D.C.

The Ugly.

Perhaps the thing that makes the “ugly” so very “ugly” was the fact that it directly affected one of the “good” items on my list, the reduced rate for student tickets.  I heralded the more reasonable rate on Facebook, noting that San Antonio is trying to bring more people to the table.  However, when a “Table Captain” and active member of the Steering Committee for HRC was asked about purchasing an entire table for students, the inquirer was quickly told that the problem with donating a table to students is that students won’t pay attention, won’t “bring anything to the table, will be drunk and won’t purchase silent action items.”

While this is ugly on its face for the “drunk” comment if for none other, it’s also terribly wrong.  I have worked closely with the students and LGBT Youth organizations on many occasions as a volunteer to help them out and as an organizer looking for them to help me out.  Each time, the students have brought a lot to my table, including: passion, energy, intelligence and hard work.  While it may be this person’s experience that students aren’t worthy of a place at the HRC Gala, I wholeheartedly disagree and would like to refer this individual to their Diversity and Outreach committee for further training.

It isn’t the official policy of the Human Rights Campaign to disregard the value of students.   According to Mr. Parsons, “Students are our future and bring a great deal to the table; which is why we have focused on supporting the student organizations over the past few years.”  But actions speak louder than words.  The San Antonio chapter of HRC has taken pro-student actions in the past, including assisting St. Mary’s University students in getting recognition for their GSA and speaking to the Alamo Community College District Board in support of a fully inclusive anti-discrimination policy; however, it is still “ugly” to call the students drunks and dismiss them for choosing to have a meal the next day instead of buying silent auction items.

Righting the Wrong.

I’ve always believed it’s never too late to right a wrong.  Hopefully, the Gala planning committee, and more particularly the offending “Table Captain,” will make it up to the students by donating a table to the local student groups, free of charge as the benefactor had originally intended to do, and with no obligation for the purchase of a silent auction item.  Of course, they may have to lock up the liquor cabinet before inviting all those pesky alcoholic students.