It was unthinkable in my high school years that I, a gay person, could be a successful politician. It was drilled into our heads that we had to be “extras” in the political arena, but never star in the leading role. The jobs we could take, if we remained at least semi-closeted, were communications director, political consultant, or campaign manager. But the idea of people voting for an open homosexual to lead a city or represent a state was almost unfathomable.
After decades of bitter fighting against implacable foes, the tide finally turned in the remarkable year of 2012. President Obama took a “risk” in backing marriage equality and still handily won reelection, sweeping the majority of swing states where this issue could have harmed his chances of winning. Wisconsin elected Tammy Baldwin, the nation’s first openly gay United States Senator. Joining Baldwin in Congress are David Cicilline, D-R.I., Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., Mark Pocan, D-Wis., Jared Polis, D-Colo., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., Mark Takano, D-Calif. Additionally, there is a farm team of openly gay and lesbian state lawmakers, who all have bright futures.
The historic year of 2012 brought victory in four gay marriage referendums (Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington), bringing the total of states with same-sex marriage to nine and the District of Columbia. The entire region of New England, except for Rhode Island, is a gay marriage zone. By the end of 2013, all of the west coast, with the exception of Oregon could potentially have marriage equality. In the Midwest, there is a decent chance that Illinois will join Iowa in marrying gay couples.
In 2012, we saw the unraveling of the so-called “ex-gay” industry. The year started with Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, admitting that Exodus had a 99.9% failure rate. Dr. Robert Spitzer renounced his infamous 2001 study that said some highly motivated homosexuals could change from gay to straight. California passed a law prohibiting “ex-gay” therapy for minors, while Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced a resolution condemning such quack therapy. The Southern Poverty Law Center launched a landmark lawsuit against the “ex-gay” program Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH) for its quack-like practices.
The past year offered an avalanche of celebrities who came out of the closet. The all-star list was led by CNN host Anderson Cooper and ABC weatherman Sam Champion. We saw a professional boxer, Orlando Cruz, a former NFL player, Wade Davis, and several Olympic athletes acknowledge their sexual orientation. Rapper Frank Ocean came out and the hip-hop world didn’t seem to care. The most influential new political figure, New York Times writer, Nate Silver, also announced that he was gay. The number of people who acknowledged their sexual orientation in 2012 was so great, that for the first time, there are Top 50 lists.
The future seems limitless and gay youth can plan brilliant futures without their sexual orientation being an impediment. This is not only a time for dreaming, it is a moment when dreams come true. America electing the first openly gay president is now a distinct possibility within my lifetime.
Meanwhile, our most fearsome foes appear rather feckless. Catholic bishops and fundamentalist Christians repeatedly teamed up to deny LGBT people equal rights. These zealots gave it their best shot and still failed. They will not give up and we will still have to battle these bigots to achieve full equality. However, we are in a situation where even conservatives, such as George Will and Newt Gingrich, admit that there is no putting the gay genie back in the bottle. Those who still oppose gay rights are increasingly viewed as dead enders, such as the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown, and fringe fanatics like Peter LaBarbera, who snoops around gay sex clubs and calls his voyeurism “research.” Outspoken homophobia is increasingly terrain where reasonable and respectable people will no longer venture.
The LGBT movement will have its good days and bad in the year ahead. Gay people can still be fired in most states because of their sexual orientation. Bullying is an ongoing problem in schools. Society must address the despicable violence and hostility against transgender people.
Still, it is pretty clear that there will be fewer setbacks and more celebrations in the coming years. While we will enjoy the pyrotechnics on New Year’s Eve, the fireworks for the LGBT movement will continue in 2013.
Thanks, Wayne, for keeping our cause in the news and for countering prominent homophobic persons and organizations publicly. We all owe you a toast tonight! Happy New Year, Wayne!
“The Southern Poverty Law Center launched a landmark lawsuit against the “ex-gay” program”
Just out of curiosity, the SPLC is suing JONAH for simple fraud, so what makes this a “landmark lawsuit”?
Fraud and malpractice suits happen every day. There is absolutely no shortage of highly qualified fraud lawyers in New Jersey, or just across the river in New York, and none of the plaintiffs is indigent.
So why is this world famous civil rights law center taking on a simple fraud case? What are the civil rights issues at stake here?
If JONAH is selling its clients a bill of goods, any decent lawyer can prove it easily in court. A fraud suit is not a violation of civil rights.
This really is little more than a publicity stunt by the SPLC to gull gay donors, just as is the SPLC’s other New Jersey show trial where they’re bringing a simple copyright infringement suit on behalf of a gay couple whose photograph was used without permission.
http://wp.me/pCLYZ-d3
It’s time for the SPLC to get back to its core mission of fighting for civil rights and leave these civil suits to regular lawyers.
What an odd comment Richard. It’s not that fraud has never been prosecuted before–it’s that this suit is against the ex-gay industry. Is that really hard to understand?
I guess what I don’t understand, Daniel, is what qualifies the ex-gay industry as unique from any other pack of charlatans?
If you want to call it a “landmark” because it’s the first time that particular industry has been sued for fraud, I guess you can make that case, but as fraud cases go, it’s not much of a “landmark.” This has all been done before.
And my apologies to all, but I still don’t see the “civil rights” angle here. The men who were defrauded by these practitioners hired them to perform a service that those quacks knew full well they could not perform.
Nobody forced them to go there against their will, (several of the plaintiffs brought their mothers, so it’s not like it was some sort of secret cult that “lured” them in), and no one denied them admittance based on race, religion, gender or preference.
Where’s the civil rights violation?
As for the SPLC, last year they took in more than $106,000 donor dollars every day, (more than $4,400 every single hour), on top of the millions of tax-free interest generated by their quarter-billion dollar cash reserves, and they produced very little to show for it.
And again, these plaintiffs were paying good money for this worthless “therapy,” so they aren’t indigent and certainly can afford good lawyers, and they are surrounded by thousands of such highly qualified lawyers within a 30-mile radius, so why do these “civil rights” lawyers have to be flown in from Alabama?
I don’t defend “ex-gay therapy” by any means. It’s a total crock, but I stand by my charge that the SPLC has only insinuated itself into this case as a shallow public relations ploy. They bring nothing to the case but publicity and they intend to spin that cheap publicity into more donor dollars.
Here’s a thought for you, Richard. I don’t have a lot of time to write today.
What other therapeutic intervention– and those words are used only for convenience when referring to exgay therapy– also happens to be the therapeutic arm of a political movement, in this case, the antigay industry?
That’s what makes this particular pack of charlatans different from all other groups of charlatans. The exgay industry regularly supports political agendas, most of which are the products of the antigay industry. The prejudice against gay people shouldn’t end because we can change!!!! Change, change, changed at last!!!!!! Thank de lawd, I’s changed at last. except I haven’t, but I will claim I have on order to provide ammunition for the culture wars.
Ben, which political agenda does JONAH represent? Please elaborate?
Richard:
Actually this is a landmark lawsuit because it is against the “ex-gay” industry. I have worked closely with lawyers at SPLC and they care very deeply about this issue. They are good people who share our views on the “ex-gay” myth. I can assure you from firsthand experience that this is not a publicity stunt.
In terms of gay donors helping SPLC — I hope they get donations. Their legal team has worked very hard on this case and they deserve support.
Wayne, thank you for your reply and for the opportunity to have this discussion on your site. I think I hit most of my key points in my reply to Daniel, so I won’t repeat them here.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the SPLC. Having studied their fundraising and hiring practices for years, I find that their day-to-day activities don’t quite mesh with their press releases.
The SPLC is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the American Civil Rights Movement, and they are located literally in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King’s home church on Dexter Avenue, and yet, not one of their top executives is a minority.
In fact, the SPLC has never hired a person of color to a highly paid position of authority in its entire 42-year history. Even its “Teaching Tolerance” program, which purports to promote diversity in the K-12 classroom, has been led by “whites only” for 21 of its 22 years.
http://wp.me/pCLYZ-c6
This is only one of a large number of inconsistencies that seldom gets reported in the Media. I’m sure you find the additional publicity they bring to your cause beneficial, but if you’re genuinely interested in the truth, you owe it to yourself to take a closer look at the SPLC’s actions and policies, and decide for yourself.
So your problem is actually with SPLC. Maybe your issue with this organization blinds you to the civil rights aspect of the case.
Daniel, I freely admit that I just cannot see any “civil rights” angle to this textbook fraud case. This is why I asked you and anyone else to point out the civil rights issues in this fraud case that I just cannot seem to see.
Here’s the link to the plaintiff’s claim in this case, as found on the SPLC’s own web site:
http://cdna.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/case/Ferguson_v._JONAH_-_Complaint.pdf
The term “civil rights” never appears once in the 28 page document and all the case is seeking is to put JONAH out of business for gross misrepresentation and to collect monetary damages from same. (Pages 23-24)
And, as it turns out, the actual lawyers in this case are Lite, DePalma and Greenberg of Newark, NJ. The SPLC has no authority to practice law in New Jersey and is only listed as pro hac vice, as such.
Again, if there are no civil rights issues mentioned in the actual legal complaint, and a highly competent New Jersey law firm is already handling the case, why exactly is a “civil rights” law firm from Alabama involved, as opposed to, say, a famous patent attorney from Montana?
It makes no sense unless the ultimate goal is a shallow public relations stunt. It would in no way be the first time the SPLC has pulled one.
Again, if I’m missing the obvious, please, please, please don’t just tell me “you’re missing the obvious!” Please, I ask you or anyone else to look at the court documents and explain to me what the civil rights connection actually is.
Respectfully,
Richard Keefe
Thanks Wayne, my champagne glass goes out to you. Your tireless work by you and yours with keeping yourself on the news and in the news has been piercing for the opposing parties. What a total honor to be on the losers dart board.
Here’s to 2013 being even more landmark than 2012.