No one doubts that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a huge gaffe when he said that Barack Obama could become the nation’ first African American president because he was “light skinned” and had “no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Obviously, this was a poor choice of words and Reid expressed immediate regret — offering an apology that was accepted by President Obama. Reid will continue his efforts this week to be contrite and make things right, as he should.

However, the reaction by leading Republicans who called for Reid to resign was nauseating. It was astounding to witness a party built on a “Southern Strategy” of appealing to disaffected white males suddenly pretending to be the NAACP.

On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Liz Cheney called Reid’ comments racist and played the tiresome conservative victim card.

“Can I just point out, I think one of the things that makes the American people frustrated, time and time again, liberals excuse racism from other liberals,” Cheney said. “The comments were outrageous…I don’t think racism is OK, George, whether you’re saying it in private or in public…”

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said that Reid should resign from office and accused the Democrats of hypocrisy, because Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) was forced to step down from his perch as Senate Majority Leader in 2002 after he made racially insensitive remarks.

“There is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own,” Steele said in an interview with Fox News Sunday. “But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism.”

In today’ Republican Party, all is cynical and nothing is sacred. There is little profound and much that is profane. Such political pathology is reflected in the mindless attacks on Reid. To buy the GOP’ indignation, one must be completely ignorant of history, devoid of basic reasoning and have no understanding of context.

In the case of Reid, his comment was an aberration that contrasted with his history of supporting equality. Indeed, the actual comment was in favor of Obama’ candidacy and spoke to his viability. A true racist would never have endorsed the idea of an African American president, because by definition such a person believes that other races are inferior and not capable of leading this nation.

Conversely, Sen. Lott (pictured left) had a history of flirting with racism and other forms of bigotry. He began his political career in 1968 working for Rep. William M. Colmer, a segregationist from Pascagoula.

The Washington Post revealed that Lott had appeared as the keynote speaker at a 1992 meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) in Greenwood, Mississippi. This was a racist organization that barely concealed their belief in white supremacy. The organization’ magazine, The Citizens Informer, had featured a large photograph of Senator Lott at the CCC conference and quoted him as telling attendees that “we need more meetings like this” and “the people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let’s take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries.”

So, by the time Lott appeared at former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond’ (R-SC) 100^th birthday party on December 5, 2002, an unmistakable pattern of intolerance had already been established. At this celebration, Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

Thurmond’ presidential campaign in 1948 had explicitly been about racial segregation. So, there was no way that Lott could have been “proud” of this presidential run and conclude that America would have been better off with a Thurmond victory unless he believed that segregation was good for America. This was more than simply a poor word choice. It was the seeming endorsement of a noxious, overarching worldview that had nearly destroyed this nation.

Lott denies that he supports discrimination and is a racist. However, one cannot separate his comments from the context in which they came. Compare this to Reid, who did no more than use an old fashioned, anachronistic vocabulary word. His comments were regrettable for sure, but certainly not part of a pattern of racism.

To criticize Reid in a vacuum is vacuous and the histrionics of Liz Cheney and Michael Steele blatantly ignore history. The GOP has long trivialized genuine racism and used crass political opportunism to exploit race for political gain. Now, they are doing the exact same thing, except this time they are pretending to be the guardians of diversity. Their act is embarrassingly transparent and the only “races” these phonies care about are the ones that will put Republicans back in power.

Is there nothing this amoral crowd won’t say or do to win elections?

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration has inserted language into the federal jobs Web site explicitly banning employment discrimination based on gender identity. This is excellent news and Obama should be praised for taking this step. While there is so much more work to do, let’s rejoice today and enjoy our progress.

Of course, social conservatives became nearly deranged over the move:

“We at the Family Research Council oppose including gender identity as a category of protection,” said Peter S. Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies. Mr. Sprigg said his group believed that what it calls “gender identity disorder” should be “treated with therapy to help people be comfortable with their biological sex rather than affirming and celebrating and protecting those who want to deny their biological sex.”

Actually, Sprigg and everyone who “thinks” like him are the ones in need of therapy. To paraphrase a Seinfeld episode, they need, “a serious team of shrinks for a major intervention, maybe even from Austria itself.”

The transgender community is a small minority that has hurt no one. They simply want to work, make a living and be left alone. The fact that Sprigg feels threatened by these individuals says more about his mental health, or lack thereof. People who are secure in their gender identity or sexual orientation know they are not directly affected by such matters. It is only closet cases and mental cases who feel they must suppress the transgender community and gratuitously insult them.

Do people like Sprigg really think that if trans-Americans receive support and acceptance, a large number of people will suddenly jump up and run off to the doctor to change genders?

Really, what exactly is it that this man fears? I don’t get it.

Bottom line: The new language will help those who are transgender, which is terrific and fully embraced and supported by Truth Wins Out. It will have zero impact on people like me – and most other straight and gay people. It will drive people like Sprigg – who seems to have more issues than a New York magazine stand – absolutely nuts.

My question to Sprigg is, “Dude, how does this affect you?”

From a Steve Ralls, Communications Director at Immigration Equality, Huffington Post op-ed:

In about 72 hours, a plane from The Netherlands will arrive at JFK Airport in New York and two passengers onboard will, for the first time in more than two decades, be able to step safely onto U.S. soil. The arrival of Clemens Ruland and Hugo Bausch will also signal the end of a shameful and discriminatory policy that has exacted a heavy price on our country’s reputation in the scientific community and kept countless individuals – both straight and gay – separated from their loved ones.

Beginning today, the United States’ decades-old HIV Travel and Immigration Ban will be a relic of the past, and the stigma and discrimination it has engendered around the world will, with any luck, begin to fade, too.

Slowly, but surely, America rejoins the rest of the civilized world under the Obama administration. It is nice to live in a country with a smart president that does not kowtow to retrograde reactionaries. For those on the flight from The Netherlands, welcome to The United States of America.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s has charged that the White House engaged in “seedy Chicago politics” to get its health reform bill passed.

“It was definitely a cheap shot and completely unwarranted,” Valerie Jarrett, one of several Chicagoans who came to Washington with President Obama, said of the South Carolina Republican’s recent remark on CNN.

I suppose Graham would prefer seedy South Carolina politics – such as a family values governor, Mark Sanford, claiming he walked the Appalachian trail, while he was flying to South America to shack up with his mistress. And, who can forget Rep. Joe Wilson who screamed “you lie” at President Obama during his State of the Union address. Such decorum and southern hospitality.

Or, how about when John McCain lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican South Carolina primary, after the Bush campaign insinuated that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black baby?

Let’s not forget that for decades, Republican presidential candidates were forced to pander to racist Bob Jones University if they hoped to get the nomination. It is sad to say, but the absurd Confederate Flag issue is still a big deal politically in this state.

Of course, the most corrupt, sleazy political operative of all, Lee Atwater, perfected his craft in South Carolina. And, let’s not even get into the career of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Sen. Graham, please spare us the disingenuous, sanctimonious lecture on the morals of South Carolina politics. This type of opportunistic regionalism is obnoxious and divisive.

For the record, I’m not picking on South Carolina. I am from Miami, not exactly a hotbed of political ethics. But, Graham just looks plain foolish insulting Chicago, when political corruption and immorality in his state is at least as bad, if not worse. The last thing we need is this windbag insulting the Windy City.

It was thrilling to participate in the National Equality March (NEM) in Washington on Sunday. The event, although smaller than in past years, achieved the desired goal of drawing the nation’ attention to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration were also put on notice that an anxiety-filled GLBT community demanded action, not just flowery words.

While this was my third march, it was inspiring to see this event through the fresh eyes of Jamie, (left, in red) my partner. He is thirty years old and grew up in a small town in rural Nebraska (population 700). From his vantage point, the march was an extraordinarily life-affirming event. He shared the same look of awe and empowerment that was on the faces of the energetic youth in DC, who will one day become our leaders.

The NEM occurred over the objections of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), who said that the spectacle was a “waste of time.” If I were Frank, I’d be more concerned about not delivering on GLBT issues while the Democrats control Washington. This may cause disillusionment, leading some people to believe that voting is a “waste of time.”

Frank believes that instead of marching, GLBT people should organize more efficiently and effectively by becoming more like the National Rifle Association (NRA) or the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).

He is correct that we should organize into a political force, but get real. The GLBT movement can’t be compared to organizations that possess immense constituencies. Botox notwithstanding, we all grow old and that is why AARP has thirty-five million members. America loves guns, which is why even city slickers like John Kerry and Mitt Romney feel compelled to purchase varmint guns and tromp though the fields to whack squirrels. (Read More)

On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke to the Human Rights Campaign about GLBT issues. On Oct. 11, 2009, Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director, Wayne Besen, commented on the speech and the National Equality March that took place later that day.

If I were advising President Barack Obama, I would tell him to pay as much attention to the ornery jeers from protesters outside the Human Rights Campaign’ Oct. 10th Washington dinner as the cheers coming from inside the ornate ballroom.

“The last thing we need is more flowery rhetoric in front of rich, self-effacing gays and lesbians dressed up like penguins,” said Andy Thayer of the Gay Liberation Network, who plans to picket the event.

The cross mood expressed by Thayer is indicative of the restlessness felt by the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender grass roots in the early stages of Obama’ presidency.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) deserves a heaping helping of praise for furnishing a primetime platform for Obama to impart his message. But, the President and HRC must realize that the stakes are even higher than the price of the steaks served in the ballroom of the black-tie affair. While no one will likely yell, “you lie” in the middle of his remarks, there will be a collective sigh if all we get is a pretty speech.

Let it be known that the GLBT community is no longer interested in being pals with the powerful or having the famous tell us we are fabulous – unless it leads to action. If the goal of this evening were simply to provide an interesting dinner guest, Meryl Streep or Michael Moore would have sufficed. What we want from Obama, however, is a fighter working to set us free. We need signed paper in the form of laws, not paper-thin promises and illusive signs of hope. Unless a concrete vision is offered at this event, Obama’ speech will sink like concrete in the Potomac River. (Read More)