ElectionChannel

Meet the 13th C.D.'s Gay Candidates

Karen Ocamb — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:07:00 GMT

Our News Editor Karen Ocamb asked each of the three openly gay candidates seeking L.A.'s 13th Council District seat now held by Eric Garcetti—Matt Szabo, Mitch O’Farrell and Alex De Ocampo—to please answer a few questions about why they’re running and why LGBT voters should pick them. Below you'll find links to stories on each of them, followed by their answers.

Click here for the story on Matt Szabo.

Click here for the story on Mitch O'Farrell.

Click here for the story on Alex De Ocampo.

Meet the L.A. Mayoral Candidates

Karen Ocamb — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:06:00 GMT

People in the LGBT community first got to know the name “Garcetti” when Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti appointed a lesbian to head up the new Hate Crimes unit. A lesbian Deputy DA best known for prosecuting murderers – Carla Arranaga – took over shortly thereafter as Garcetti expanded the Hate Crimes Unit. Arranaga networked with targeted and vulnerable community organizations around LA County, bringing that expertise to Washington DC in 1997 as a participant in the first White House conference on Hate Crimes. When Gil Garcetti lost his re-election to Republican Steve Cooley, the Hate Crimes Unit slowly disappeared, as did the visibility of LGBT people in the DA’s office. But just as Gil Garcetti was finding a new life as a professional photographer, his son Eric appeared and quickly seemed to claim the LGBT community as his second family. He’s been family ever since. Here’s a story I wrote for Frontiers – but please go toericgarcetti.com for more info on his stands on other issues.

The LGBT community has known Wendy Greuel even when they didn’t know they knew her. Wendy has been to more LGBT events than most LGBT politicos – not showy but quietly making the rounds, shaking hands, listening to concerns, making mental notes about what could be done to fix a problem. She’s been doing this since she was the first LGBT liaison from LA Mayor Tom Bradley’s office – and she’s doing it still, now running to be the next mayor of LA herself. Here’s a story I wrote for Frontiers – but please go to her websitewendygreuel.org – to get more info.

WATCH: Meet the 2013 West Hollywood City Council Candidates

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Watch below as Traipsing Thru Film's Renee Sotile and Mary Jo Godges interview each West Hollywood City Council candidate at the WeHo City Council Candidate Public Forum held on Wed., Feb. 6.

Stay tuned for more on the upcoming election in the Feb. 20 issue of Frontiers from news correspondent Peter DelVecchio.

CHRISTOPHER LANDAVAZO

JEFFREY PRANG

JOHN DURAN

NICK GARZILLI

RUSTY WIGGS

SAM BORELLI

STEVE MARTIN

TOM DEMILLE

TRISTAN SCHUKRAFT

Photos by Paulo Murillo

California Democrats Vote for Party Delegates on Sunday

Karen Ocamb — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:09:00 GMT

One lesson voters in the 50^th Assembly District learned during the contentious November elections was just how intricate and explosive the endorsement process can get for any candidate seeking elective office. But for political junkies—it’s also thrilling, a challenge to one’s intellectual and persuasive skills and a way to develop the insider skill-set to become a candidate or a party operative. But perhaps most importantly—the state party delegates determine what the California Democratic Party will look like and what issues it will stand for. (See the California Democratic Party video about the delegate process below.)

If you are a registered Democrat—including in the 50^th Assembly District—you can vote to select who you want to represent you in the Democratic Party at events and conventions. And there is a Progressive Slate that includes members of the LGBT Stonewall Democratic Party. Voting takes place Sunday, Jan. 13 at Mckinley Elementary School Auditorium, 2401 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90404. Registration opens at 1:30 p.m. and you must be in line by 3:30 p.m. to vote (it’s OK to vote, then leave if you must.)

Voters will elect six men and six women to represent their district in the Democratic Party, as well as one Executive Board Representative. As a reminder, the 50^th AD includes Hollywood (including Larchmont and Hancock Park), West Hollywood, Miracle Mile/Fairfax District, Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades, Topanga Canyon, Agoura Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu and part of West L.A..

Here is a video from the California Democratic Party explaining the process and why it’s important. Below the video, find information from Stonewall’s Susie Shannon on the Progressive/Stonewall Slate.

From Susie Shannon: Candidates on The Progressive Slate / Stonewall Slate

Women

Melissa Grant

Deana Igelsrud

Genise Schnitman

Susie Shannon (also running to be the AD’s Executive Board representative)

Heidi Shink

Jessica Yas

Men

Ben Allen

Jon Katz

Kevin McKeown

Casey Robinson

Ted Vaill

A. Lee Walkup

Our slate of candidates have come together to ensure that the California Democratic Party represent progressive issues we care about, such as:

Marriage Equality

Anti-war Issues

Single Payer Health Care

Poverty Issues

and more.

The 50th AD Progressive Slate delegates have made huge strides on all of these issues in the California Democratic Party! They have all been hard won victories that we don’t want to see unraveled in the coming years.

For a full list of issues, please visit progressiveslate.org

Delegates make decisions on initiatives, platform issues, legislation, candidate endorsements and resolutions, among other things.

If you plan to attend the meeting and vote for the Progressive/ Stonewall Slate, please e-mail me at susieanneshannon@gmail.com

If you are not in the 50th A.D., please visit progressiveslate.org to find progressives running in your assembly district.

For a full list of issues and more information, visit progressiveslate.org.

Amazon Founder Pledges $2.5 Million to Marriage Battle in Washington State

Karen Ocamb — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:14:00 GMT

In response to an email plea from one of his first employees, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie pledged to contribute $2.5 million in the fight to retain same sex marriage rights in Washington State.

Last February, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the marriage equality bill in an emotional ceremony. Two rival groups of marriage opponents immediately tried to collect enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal the law—one failed. However, in June religious activists collected enough signatures to force the question onto the November ballot. Referendum 74 asks voters to approve or reject the marriage equality law. If approved, Washington officially becomes the sixth state, plus the District of Columbia, to recognize gay marriages.

“To get this [pledge] from a straight, married couple sends a powerful message that marriage is seen as a fundamental question of fairness,” Zach Silk, the campaign manager for Washington United for Marriage, told the New York Times Thursday.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Steven A. Ballmer have already donated $100,000 to the referendum campaign, the Times reports. But the historic pledge from Bezos, who runs a $48 billion-a-year retail empire, is considered a game-changer.

And the money is much needed, especially considering the cost of TV air time during this election year. Washington United for Marriage needs to explain why it is important to keep marriage equality in the state—they have not yet noted, for instance, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement on Monday, July 24, the one year anniversary of the Marriage Equality Act, that same sex marriages have equality generated an estimated $259 million in economic impact and $16 million in city revenues. AND they need to explain HOW to vote to retain marriage—that is a vote to APPROVE or yes on Referendum 74.

Meanwhile, the opposition is lead by Preserve Marriage Washington, which says on their website that “the definition of marriage in Washington is under attack” and that “if this law goes unchallenged, voters would have no say and marriage would be changed for every person in our state from being the union of one man and one woman to being a genderless institution.”

But in this instance, a simple note confounded that outdated sentiment. From the Times:

Mr. Bezos was approached via e-mail on Sunday by Jennifer Cast, one of Amazon’s earliest employees and a lesbian mother of four children who is now a fund-raising chairwoman of the pro-referendum effort.

In her e-mail, sent Sunday evening, Ms. Cast, 50, implored Mr. Bezos to understand the importance of the issue to her and her longtime partner.

“I want to have the right to marry the love of my life and to let my children and grandchildren know their family is honored like a ‘real’ family,” Ms. Cast wrote. “We need help from straight people. To be very frank, we need help from wealthy straight people who care about us and who want to help us win.”

In an interview on Thursday night, Ms. Cast said she had no idea how Mr. Bezos would respond. Though she had worked closely with him when Amazon had only a few dozen employees, she left the company in 2001 and said she had never talked about same-sex marriage with him.

“We were chatting about the biz. We weren’t chatting about our lives,” she said, recalling her time at the company. “I never, ever in my life talked to him about gay marriage.”

In the e-mail, Ms. Cast described in detail the pain she endured as a young adult and the difficulties she faced publicly acknowledging her sexuality. At the end, she pointedly asked him to donate between $100,000 and $200,000 to the referendum cause.

“Jeff, I suspect you support marriage equality,” she wrote. “I beg you not to sit on the sidelines and hope the vote goes our way. Help us make it so.”

She hit “send” and waited.

Two days later, on Tuesday, she received a reply while in a car with her family. Recalling that moment, she said she had to read it out loud twice to make sure she had read it right.

“Jen,” the e-mail said, “this is right for so many reasons. We’re in for $2.5 million. Jeff & MacKenzie.”

“I am thrilled by Jeff and MacKenzie’s staggeringly generous donation,” said Cast said in a press release. “Their support of our efforts to approve R74 comes at an important time and will have great impact. I am deeply grateful to both of them as this donation is going to help us make history.”

“The extraordinary contribution from Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos will make an enormous difference for our campaign to defend Washington’s marriage law,” said WUM’s campaign manager, Zach Silk. “While it provides an amazing base for the work ahead, we hope it spurs others to invest because we’re a long way from November and we face opponents with deep pockets who are committed to spending millions to defeat us.”

Some of those deep pockets belong to the National Organization for Marriage, as blogger Laurel Ramseyer has pointed out on Pam’s House Blend on Firedoglake. She has also blogged extensively about NOM’s unsuccessful efforts to keep the names of their petition signers secret.

NOM has also unsuccessfully pushed for a boycott of Starbucks. From The Stranger last March:

“There has been an incredible Facebook campaign of photos of people drinking coffee at Starbucks,” says Equal Rights Washington’s Josh Friedes. “In some ways, NOM did our work for us. They are highlighting the fact that major corporations based in Washington State are supporting marriage equality and that an out-of-state, anti-gay organization is spearheading the movement to derail it.”

But, as Andy Towle reported at the time, the backlash against NOM generated some creativity among straight allies—including this ode to Starbucks by the Goodriches, who write, on their YouTube page:

After hearing about some backlash that Starbucks has been getting for coming out with their support of same-sex marriage, my wife Cory Goodrich, dusted off an old song she wrote about Starbucks, while sleep deprived from having a new baby and drinking lots of Starbucks coffee. She recorded it, and I decided to do a video. We hope to spread the spirit of equality and dignity that Starbucks openly supports.

I also support boycotting and standing up for what you believe in. It is the only American right left practically. But I believe that companies like Starbucks, Google, Boeing, Microsoft and Nike should be commended and supported for their efforts for equal rights for all, not just the ones you like. “All men are created equal,” leaves no one out.

Let’s see how NOM attempts to boycott Amazon. The Bezos $2.5 million pledge may well inspire more odes, if not pledges to shop at Amazon.com more often. And perhaps more donors will contribute now to preserve, defend or prevent anti-gay measures in four OTHER battleground states through Freedom to Marry’s Win More States campaign.

Romney, People for the American Way Agree That Elections Have Consequences

Karen Ocamb — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:21:00 GMT

Mitt Romney’s campaign is already using the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act to fundraise.

Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when Mitt Romney is president, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.

This November it’s all on the line. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also seemed to dismiss the constitutionality of the Care Act:

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.

Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.”

Rand Paul, remember, is the senator also told NPR and Rachel Maddow that while he opposes discrimination, he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it bans businesses from discriminating against customers.

The Senate confirms or dismisses a president’s candidates for the US Supreme Court and Michael Keegan of People for the American Way pointed out today how important that decision is. Like Romney, Keegan, too, thinks elections have consequences:

Ultra-conservative ideologues have been remarkably successful in pushing the Court far, far to the right to advance their political ideology. And today’s close call will make the Supreme Court a major issue for progressives, moderates and independents in the upcoming election.

Every American needs to understand, in no uncertain terms: when you vote for President, you are voting for the next Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act, Including Individual Mandate

Karen Ocamb — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:09:00 GMT

Reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act (Photo via CNN)

(UPDATED with reaction) This is breaking and I’ll post updates. But it appears that the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Act, including the individual mandate through Congress’ power to tax, not through the Commerce Clause. Apparently states can opt-out. Here’s the link to SCOTUS: http://www.supremecourt.gov/ Here’s the opinion.

SCOTUSBlog is live blogging.

Also very important is the role played by Chief Justice John Roberts and the political fallout.

Instant reactions in 140 characters or less:

(UPDATED 8:35am) REACTION from Lambda Legal:

(New York, June 28, 2012) – In a decision released today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld key provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Lambda Legal issued the following statement from Scott Schoettes, HIV Project Director for Lambda Legal:

“This is a victory for all Americans, but in particular, the Court’s decision today will save the lives of many people living with HIV—as long as states do the right thing. The Affordable Care Act will finally allow people living with HIV to access medical advancements made years ago but that have so far remained out of reach of many. With continuing prevention education, early detection, and quality care for everyone living with HIV, we have the power to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

“But this is not a complete victory, because today’s decision allows states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion that would provide insurance coverage for many low-income people who cannot otherwise afford it. Our continuing challenge will be to make sure that states opt to expand Medicaid so that more low-income people, and particularly those with HIV, can get the health care they urgently need.”

Having been an advocate of healthcare reform for over 20 years and representing the legal interests of people with HIV from the start of the epidemic, Lambda Legal submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in this case which supported the federal government’s position that the ACA’s minimum coverage requirement (also known as the individual mandate) is constitutional.

The following organizations are listed as signatories in the amicus brief: AIDS United, Asian and Pacific-Islander Coalition on HIV/AIDS (APICHA), Black AIDS Institute, Center for HIV Law and Policy, Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), HIV Prevention Justice Alliance (HIV PJA), Latino Commission on AIDS, National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), National Native American AIDS Prevention Center (NNAAPC), U.S. Positive Women’s Network/WORLD, and Treatment Access Expansion Project (TAEP).

Lambda Legal’s HIV Project Director, Scott Schoettes, and Director of Constitutional Litigation, Susan Sommer, were joined as counsel on the brief by Ropes & Gray LLP attorneys Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Bradley Grossman, Brendon Carrington, and Jacob Heller.

Read the decision here: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/dept-of-hhs_us_20120628_scotus-decision

Read the amicus brief here: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/dept-of-hhs_us_20120113_brief-for-amici-curiae

REACTION from Human Rights Campaign:

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in a series of legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, upholding the historic law passed in the last Congress to reform our nation’s healthcare system. As part of that reform, the Act created or paved the way for important new protections for and investments in the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people – among them nondiscrimination in accessing healthcare in the individual market, collection of critical LGBT health data, and an end to barriers to care for people with pre-existing conditions like HIV/AIDS. Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision means millions of Americans—including many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families—will be better served by our nation’s healthcare system. The Affordable Care Act addresses a number of the barriers LGBT people face in obtaining health insurance, from financial barriers to obtaining affordable coverage to discrimination by insurance carriers and healthcare providers. While there is a great deal more that must be done to ensure that the health needs of all LGBT people are fully met throughout the healthcare system, today’s decision is an important victory in the fight for healthcare equality.”

Learn more about how the Affordable Care Act helps LGBT Americans here and more about HRC’s work to improve the health of LGBT people here.

UPDATE 8:53A -REACTION FROM L.A. COUNTY:

Statement from Mitchell H. Katz, M.D. Director, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Supreme Court Ruling a Victory for Los Angeles County’s Uninsured Population

As a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), over 80 percent of the 2.2 million people who are currently uninsured in Los Angeles County stand to gain access to affordable insurance coverage.

Over half of these individuals are eligible to receive coverage through Medi-Cal in 2014. This coverage will be contingent on the State of California’s participation in the Medicaid expansion component of the legislation. In anticipation of this expansion of Medicaid, the Department of Health Services (DHS) has already enrolled over 200,000 low-income County residents into Healthy Way L.A., the County’s coverage program known as the “Bridge to Reform.” While the ultimate decision on California’s participation is yet to be determined, the Supreme Court’s decision preserves a path for enrollment into Medi-Cal on January 1, 2014 for these individuals, as well as for three-quarters of a million other low-income Los Angeles County residents.

In addition to those who will be newly eligible for Medi-Cal, three-quarters of a million additional County residents will be able to purchase affordable health insurance through the state’s health insurance exchange, take control of their health, and reduce pressure on our strained County-run health care system. With a sustained commitment to serve as the safety net for low-income Los Angeles County residents, over the coming 18 months DHS will continue to transform our clinics and hospitals into a system of choice for these newly insured.

Beyond the impact of the ACA’s coverage components, DHS will continue to contend with the effects of other aspects of the legislation. Notably, this will include efforts to advocate for fair allocation of the Disproportionate Share Hospital funding cuts which were included in the legislation. These funds are an important revenue stream for Los Angeles County in that they provide a mechanism to reimburse hospitals for provision of uncompensated care. On this issue, DHS will advocate for a fair level and allocation of DSH funding. Finally, in recognition of ongoing fiscal challenges at the federal level, DHS will closely monitor the political environment and advocate for fiscal policies that safeguard DHS’ ongoing ability to serve as a safety net provider in Los Angeles County.

Over the coming weeks to months, DHS will continue to assess the full impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and take the steps necessary to secure a robust health care safety net for Los Angeles County residents.

HRC's New Site Points Out Romney's Flip-Flops on LGBT Issues

Aaron Drake — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:34:00 GMT

HRC launched a new website, MittNMatch.com, dedicated to educating voters about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's ever-changing views on a host of LGBT issues, from same-sex marriage to workplace antidiscrimination laws.

From HRC:

“Mitt Romney changes positions on LGBT issues more often than he changes clothes,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “It is mind boggling that someone can go from once saying he would be more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy to signing a draconian pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage.”

On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the site outlines his original opposition to the ban on gay servicemembers to his statements supporting DADT. On workplace non-discrimination, he promised to co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act before turning around and saying he opposed ENDA. And on relationship recognition, he once indicated he supported domestic partnerships but as a presidential candidate he’s signed on to the agenda of the National Organization for Marriage. By aligning himself with NOM, Romney isn’t just agreeing to support a federal marriage amendment and the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act—he’s even throwing his support behind a McCarthy-like commission to investigate allegations of “harassment” against NOM’s rabidly anti-LGBT supporters.

“Mitt Romney is someone that voters just can’t trust,” said Solmonese. “The only thing clear about his record is his willingness to say or do anything to get elected.”

Romney's National Anthem Gaffe

Stephan Horbelt — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:30:00 GMT

Mediaite.com has reported (via Buzzfeed) on a particularly interesting gaffe made by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney during his campaign.

During a recent speech in Reno, Nevada, last night, Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski took note of one claim by the former Massachusetts governor—that Americans are the only people on Earth who put their hands over their hearts during the national anthem. The statement is, of course, completely false.

You may be saying, "So what, who cares?" but here's what bugs me—and Mediaite as well. He's been saying this for months. Again, maybe you don't think it's a big deal. I mean, it's not exactly news that Romney—or the other Republican presidential hopefuls—has been spreading lies while on the campaign trail.

But shouldn't this man—who loves to bring up the fact that he "ran the Olympics" (and thus obviously knows how to run our country)—have maybe, I dunno, paid attention during the Olympic ceremonies?

And as Mediaite says, according to Romney, "it’s not enough that America be the best country on Earth, her people have to be the only ones who love their own country enough to show her reverence."

Get off your high horse, Romney. And while you're at it, please don't EVER sing "America the Beautiful" again. You should probably just lip-synch for your life.

(Click here to see citizens of several other countries showing hand-over-heart reverence during their national anthems.)

Obama in SOTU: Inequality is Unfair and Un-American but Apparently Acceptable for LGBT People

Karen Ocamb — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:32:00 GMT

After months of watching the Republican presidential soap opera and gasping as the candidates attempted to out-blather and revile each other, I expected President Obama to articulate a vision of America in his State of the Union address Tuesday, Jan. 24, that I could appreciate. I knew the speech would focus on the economy and a call to “renew American values” based on fairness and equality.

As a political reporter, I listened as he outlined his specific proposals, directing his administration to take action or announcing executive orders to bypass Congress. But as an official second-class citizen, my gay brain screamed every time the president talked about fairness and equal opportunity for American citizens who “play by the rules.”

Obama said:

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise [of the American Dream] alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules. [Applause] What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Amen! The most profound principle of American values is the full equality of each citizen—one to another. Warren Buffet shouldn’t have to pay less in taxes than his secretary.

But what about those of us for whom fairness itself is still an elusive dream—all those gay people, many with families, who cannot get a job because they’re gay, or fear even trying for a job or expect to be fired on the spot if they’re exposed as gay, and automatically feel that “less than” shame because they do not have the simple dignity afforded to anyone holding a job? (See Octavia Spencer’s Golden Globe acceptance speech for The Help for an example of what I mean.)

What about LGBT people, Mr. President? Many of us feel like we’re the growing number of people who are barely getting by—even though we pay more than our fair share of taxes and play by the rules. Right now, 34 states legally discriminate against LGBT people in employment. Why does that not merit a promise in the State of the Union where the message is about jobs and putting people back to work?

To read more about why President Obama must do something about anti-LGBT discrimination in employment, please click over to LGBT POV for the full essay.