Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee all came on live today to speak to students on a special MTV pre-Super Tuesday program. I enjoyed watching Ron Paul speak especially about the fact that Hemp can be used more effectively than Ethanol for energy. I also liked the fact that Hillary mentioned HIV, since it is rare of any of the candidates to say that word.

Here is the video from MTV if you would like to watch:

This all comes on the heals of the big Super Tuesday decision this week where things will come closer to the final decision in November. There has also been lots of HIV news this week including research that from Swiss AIDS experts saying that “some people with HIV who are on stable treatment can safely have unprotected sex with non-infected partners.”

The Swiss National AIDS Commission said patients who meet strict conditions, including successful antiretroviral treatment to suppress the virus and who do not have any other sexually transmitted diseases, do not pose a danger to others.

For some reason I could not find the Swiss National AIDS Commission website because all the newsstories came up in search instead of their site. I would like to see their full report on this subject instead of reading the blogs and various news gossip. Also in the news this week was the talk of HIV Funding and too much money being appropriated to abstinence instead of prevention or helping us battle the virus.

The folks over at the Oklahoma City Pride this year have done something I think is crazy they have moved the pride from a Sunday to a Friday. What on earth are these people thinking? The reasoning was so people who had to work on Monday could come on a Friday? But wait… Friday is also a work day. And last time I checked its a horrible day to get around in rush hour traffic.

I am in disbelief that the OKC Pride board would do such a thing and put the entire parade in jeopardy. I can understand them wanting to sell alcohol to make some extra money from the parade but why not on Sunday? This is during the summer time which helps out on it being Monday the next day for some. Am I just being too closed minded to change?

I thought these comments from Sarah Evans (I assume not the Country singer?) were a nice read on Hard News Online:

My apologies to Kelly Ogle, but lesbians have money too…..In my humble opinion, with input from several of my friends, here is what the board should look at doing……

Friday night, a nice fun Street Party down on 39th Street, local performers, not just drag queens, but musicians like IRIS, Peggy Johnson, Heath Fitzgerald, etc. We have so much real talent in this state, let’s show it off.. Block off 39th by the Bars and let’s have a great dance in the streets…… Have your vendors, have some charity type games for local organizations…. kissing booth, dunk the drag queen…. etc…..

Saturday, have the party in the park…. vendors, music… beer if you must… then kick off the parade that evening winding down on 39th Street for a Saturday night of fun, maybe another street party or just have all the bars have special promotions..Drag Shows, Drag King Shows, Live Music..Real Entertainment, how about bringing in a top notch performer or a DJ..

As for the parade, please let’s not have the new car/truck showcase again.. Parades are for floats with paper flowers and decorations, not a poster board announcing who is riding in the new car provided by the local car dealer…Plus, do we have any marching bands or cheerleaders??? I know there were gay and lesbian members of college bands and high school bands in Oklahoma..How about a marching band??? A kazoo band…. anything that would liven up the parade.

Sunday, let the Churches and other groups have their outreach. Local clubs can have a recovery dance and such. Trim it down to one day in the park, one night on the strip with the parade on Saturday……

I thought Sarah had some interesting comments that should generate some ideas about what to do with some pride festivities that they should use. I do not agree with what she is saying on doing away with the entire parade though. That is kind of like giving up on one of the backbones of pride itself. It tooks years of hard work to get where we are today and we should have a celebration in the streets and be proud of who we are. I just think doing it on Friday at 7pm is a horrible time. Also take into account that the highly popular Angles T-Dance will not be able to happen without the help of the Parade going on and that is sooo much fun.

The debate may cause quite some drama in Oklahoma City where many are against this time change. A poll on HNOKC.com recently showed more were against the change last week. The sites contributing writer Floyd Martin (myspace.com/itzfloyd) chimed in with some interesting points to take in to account …

I also think that Pride for many is the one chance all year that they get to be themselves, especially in repressed Oklahoma. If that means donning a wig, leather chaps, holding hands with your spouse, or dancing to The Pet Shop Boys, go for it. It’s Gay Pride, we’re Gay, why not celebrate who we are? We could go be boring straight people anytime. Some even live their life like that.

I, of course, think serving alcohol is fine at the park. It’s a celebration. Many people, the world over, imbibe when they celebrate. Ever heard of New Years Eve, or Mardi Gras? AA has conventions all year long, if you have that big of a problem with it.

It just amazes me the people that, rightfully so, feel that the government has no business on what they do with their bodies or whom they marry, are so judgmental of other people that believe in the same thing, basic human rights. It is not us against us, it is us against the world. Sometimes that’s easy to lose sight of when dealing with Gays and Lesbians, many of whom have strong personalities and opinions. Accomodating everyone shouldn’t be hard. When you go to a buffet, if you don’t eat meat, you skip it, and go to what you like. Why should pride be anything but a buffet of happiness, for all GLBT people and their supporters. Take what you like, avoid what you don’t. Of course, life should be that way as well.

Super Tuesday is now just days away. A few states’ primaries have already passed. Have you made your decision yet? Sadly, I haven’t.  I have pondered, considered, mused and fumed. I simply do not like the available options, particularly in terms of the issues that matter most in my daily life. I will try, over the next days in my own head, to balance out the candidates’ views and choose the best of the available options as far as the Democratic primaries go.  With that, here is my breakdown on the issues that matter to the gay community. The best source for information I’ve found? The candidates themselves, in the Human Rights Campaign survey they each filled out earlier this year. These responses have been conveniently broken down here (which basically tells you the current Democratic frontrunners Obama and Hillary agree with most the gay issues).

Obviously, we all know which issue is getting the press. Marriage rights are big news in our community, and rightly so. None of the forerunners for the Democratic nomination support marriage rights; however, both have voiced support for civil unions in clear and broad terms. Edwards, too, has voiced wide ranging support for civil unions. In all cases, they include medical rights, health insurance, employer benefits and the rights and responsibilities that go along with marriage in their definition of civil unions. Edwards and Obama have publicly stated that they would support the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, while Clinton supports only a partial repeal.

Other family-focused issues are also important within our community. Adoption rights, immigration rights and more affect the daily lives of many gay Americans. Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all voiced support for these issues as they impact our community. All three candidates have reached out to the gay community in a way we have not seen before. While it may not be adequate or enough, it is an improvement.

While the family-centered issues may be in the news, many other issues also impact our lives, sometimes in far more difficult ways. All of the candidates in the Democratic primary support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in the US military and strongly worded hate crime legislation. All three candidates actively support HIV funding, prevention and research

It quickly becomes clear that the differences may be fairly minimal for our community. We are left to make our choice on details, emotion, and personality. We are left to consider who is the most likely to win the general election, and who fits all the other criteria we each deem important. I think I’ve made my choice. Have you made your decision for Super Tuesday?

HIV funding, both on a national and international scale, is a significant issue to many of us within the queer community. Sadly, far too many of us have been personally touched by this. While even the current administration has increased the budget for funding health care, housing and cash assistance, and prevention, there are many problems with the current funding strategies, both within the US and outside its borders.How does funding play out in your neighborhood and your community? First, the good news: funding has increased from 2006 to 2007, in nearly every budget area, from providing for health care to housing and cash assistance.  Unfortunately, there is somewhat more bad news than good. Funding is not adequate to provide for even the basic needs created by this epidemic, with long waitlists for medications, struggles with Medicaid payments for health care providers and more. Moreover, again the current administration’s emphasis on abstinence only sex education, which fails both straight and queer young people,  has left some youth without the prevention information that they critically need. Some 50% of new infections are diagnosed in people under 25, and new CDC testing recommendations for routine HIV testing are likely to stretch an already tight budget even further.

The US is responsible for a significant portion of the international funding, under the heading of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). US funding, currently in the amount of 3.9 billion dollars earmarked for international HIV funding, comes with some strings attached. The most worrisome of these is a requirement that some 33% of funding go to abstinence only resources. This is, without a doubt, one of the most significant flaws in the overall plan for international funding a response to this crisis, as well as one of the major problems with funding for prevention programs in the US as well.

Need more information?

• Kff.org/hivaids/7029.cfm offers breakdowns of US budget funding for HIV in 2007 and prior years.
• Gmhc.org/policy/federal/pres_report.pdf will give you a look at where the current presidential candidates stand on funding issues.
• Whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids offers more information on PEPFAR.
• Avert.org/aidsmoney.htm provides a practical breakdown of funding for the international HIV crisis.
• Apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html details the flaws in abstinence only sex education with regard to prevention efforts.

If you want to help, consider consulting your local organizations that assist those in your community with HIV or AIDS. Many of the community based grassroots organizations in our communities need help, not only in terms of funding, but also are on the lookout for willing volunteers. While no one of us can end the crisis on an international scale, we can work locally in prevention and advocacy.

When it comes to the Republican presidential candidates I normally watch their debates as often as the Dems.  I find it interesting their views on things such as taxes, social security, gay rights, and of course the endless war in Iraq.

Mike Huckabee seemed like a nice guy when I watched him appear on the Bill Maher HBO show a few times and I even had a new love for Ron Paul once I saw him appear on Bill Maher’s Real Time. 

Then reality set in after watching a few debates and finding out this ex-Baptist preacher from Arkansas is really a hate-filled jerk.  This GOP contender that is leading many polls in Iowa and early primary states has not even taken back the mean words he has said towards gays or anyone with HIV.

Mike Huckabee brags to Christian Conservatives that he has the toughest position against gay marriage than any of the other GOP candidates.  Even Ryan Whites mother was sickened when she heard of Huckabee’s statement isolating infected people with HIV.

This man has no brains to lead our country.  AIDS cannot even be spread by casual contact and he is stating that gays with AIDS should be isolated.  He also commented that gays lived an “unnatural, sinful lifestyle”.   Ok, You Hitler jerk are you going to tattoo pink triangles on us as well.  Maybe make us your slaves?

Not only is Mike Huckabee uneducated but he has said many irrational things in his campaign this year and in previous years.  I certainly do not have anything against Arkansas because I have family there and love the Clintons but this moron is making Noahs-ArK-ansas look pretty bad.

The best thing to do in this situation is to donate time or money to the Ron Paul or Giuliani campaigns to fight against Huckabeast.  Even if you intend to donate Democratic we do not need this guy in any high ranking position.

This is a must watch! I watched the Presidential Debate on MTV’s LOGO TV the other night. I first noticed it advertised on Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC by the HRC. I saw Hillary Clinton and Obama and Edwards and Kucinich. The debate was upclose and it was more real than any of the debates we have seen this year with an excellent, unique format. Clinton said she still against gay marriage as Edwards.

Really good questions but I especially liked that the candidates were interviewed one at a time with no time limit for a particular answer and no posturing and no poking at the other candidates. It brought out each candidate’s best, I thought.

We were sitting here applauding Kucinich, he seemed like much less of a joke in this format, got me thinking that maybe he COULD have a chance if people got to see him in such a format more often.

Margaret Carlson was the moderator; I think I recognize her from Countdown or something. She’s written for Time and Bloomberg news. It’s those glasses, though. Melissa Etheridge was very sharp. She asked tough questions politely. Etheridge did an awesome job and put her heart into everything she said as always.

Anyway, so now I’ve seen two of the debates (okay, this wasn’t a debate, but whatever) and overall, despite Hillary and Obama’s waffling on the gay marriage issue, I think they both did well and actually, so did Edwards who was the most waffley of all. Mainly because none of the interviewers were jerks. They all treated all the candidates decently, which was good. I’m sure Biden and Dodd are sorry they sat it out; they really look like total chickens for no good reason.

I feel kind of like the lady I saw interviewed today on CNN. She was gay and was elevating the Dems showing with gay issues and she said: “It showed us that the Dems are more open to discuss equal rights for gay people” and are more willing to work for that.

Here is a bulletin posted from Matthew Shepard’s myspace:

Tonight history was made and Hillary Clinton prevailed…

Body: Tonight the Democratic Presidential candidates attended the first ever GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender) forum hosted by The Human Rights Campaign and Logo Tv in Los Angeles. Logo channel fo those of you sheltered people, is a gay channel- a sister channel to MTV. Never in the history of America has this occured.

Barack Obama impressed me which is very rare. Dennis Kucinich was very sincere and that seems so hard to come by. John Edwards lost any chance of support from “the gays” he kept on repeating that he did not support gay marriage, um good one!!! He is over… Bill Richardson well what to say? I feel like him and I should have a connection being that I am Hispanic and all. This is not the case however, sadly he also failed miserably.

The candidate that shined even through tough questions from Melissa Etheridge, was Hillary Clinton. When asked about how not much was done and how ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ was a failure she carefully and accurately described how it was a good policy at the time. She continued saying how the Republicans had control of the House of Reps and how much her husband fought for some middle ground regarding gays in the military. No one understands that progress takes time. Hillary Clinton is our girl!

Here is the Debate on Logo’s Visible Vote ‘08 Blog

The big news around the country in politics deals with not just the presidential nominees but a gay man running for Mayor in one of the fastest growing cities.  The religious right is fighting this with a vengeance but we can stop them.  The candidates are Ed Oakley, the gay Democratic candidate and Tom Leppert, who is millionaire and ex-CEO of a construction company.

Money has been such a huge concern in this election that Oakley was not able to communitate with non-local media contacts because he was non-stop fundraising.  The Dallas Morning News reported that only 11 perceent of Dallas residents showed up for last months election and that “only 70,000 people could decide who will become mayor of the nation’s ninth-largest city.”

If you live in Dallas you need to get out and vote.  Remember, if you decide to vote you must have a voter registration id and you are free to vote in the runoff election even if you did not vote in the general election.   This Saturday is our chance to make history and make Dallas the largest city ever to elect an openly gay mayor.

Get in Free at Sue Ellens and S4 

If you are 21 and up the Caven clubs Sue Ellens and Station 4 (a.k.a. S4 and formerly Village Station, the largest gay club in Texas) will pay your admission and let you in for free if you show your stamped voter registration.  If you are 18 and over you can get in free on Sunday night at S4.  It is a great thing that the nightclubs in Dallas are recognizing the fact they need a gay friendly major to survive unlike the jerk running NYC (Michael Bloomberg) who is shutting down clubs left and right.

In Oklahoma City just before the hate crime legislation comes up in front of our representatives there was a hate crime over the weekend in the gay district of the city. There is no telling how hate crimes go unreported or do not get enough media attention. The vote on hate crimes will be Thursday, and there is some disturbing news we have received from the Human Rights Campaign. Apparently legislators are being so heavily bombarded with calls and emails from the radical right that some are getting very nervous about voting for the bill. Knowing how close we are to getting this legislation passed, this is not good.

Even if you’ve already called your representative about this hate crime bill, and even if they’ve said they’ll vote for it, we need you to pick up the phone Today (Wednesday and Thursday) and remind them of your support.

I would recommend you going to the HRC website for talking points and to find out which representative to call.

If you haven’t done so then join the HRC. They are out there fighting for our rights every day. Tell your friends, send out a bulletin on MySpace.com, and get everyone involved. They need more money and more people involved to make this fight stronger with the radical right bullying us and politicians around.

I posted about news on Nancy Arabillas Morales’ asylum claim I read in February’s edition of the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes here. In reading this month’s edition of the Notes, I also came across the news that Jorge Soto Vega, a gay Mexican man who had been previously denied U.S. asylum, can now make a permanent home for himself in the United States.

Vega was denied asylum in 2003 by Immigration Judge John D. Taylor, who stated at the time that Vega could return to Mexico because “it would not be obvious that he was homosexual unless he made it obvious himself.” The 9th Circuit panel disagreed with Judge Taylor’s ruling:

[T]he 9th Circuit panel, ruling in Soto Vega v. Attorney General, 183 Fed.Appx. 627, 2006 WL 1518945 (2006), found that as Soto Vega had provided sufficient evidence of past harassment in Mexico, the burden was the government to show that his subjective fear of persecution there was not well founded.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told Judge Taylor that he had “applied an incorrect legal standard in denying U.S. asylum to [Vega].” This lead to Judge Taylor ruling on January 30, 2007, that Vega can stay in the United States permanently.

More on page 29 of February’s edition of the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes in “Immigration Judge Awards Asylum to Gay Mexican on Remand from 9th Circuit.”

Some of you may have picked up the news of Nancy Arabillas Morales’ bid for asylum last month. An article in February’s edition of the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes goes into great detail about this case:

Morales, born Juan Manuel Arabillas Morales, began using the name Nancy and dressing as a woman at age 14 when she moved out of her abusive family’s home. She was arrested for working in a bar as a minor and placed in jail, where prison officials laughed and ignored her cries for help while she was raped by several inmates. When she attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, Morales was attacked and raped by seven men. She did not report the incident to the police for fear of being beaten or forced to pay a bribe. Morales eventually fled to the United States, where she has lived since 1986.

In April 2002, Morales was convicted of communication with a minor for immoral purposes. She had also been charged with third degree rape of a child and third degree child molestation,but was convicted only of communication with a minor. The Department of Homeland Security placed Morales in removal proceedings for being illegally present within the United States, and also for having been convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude.” Morales applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT, all of which were denied.

Nancy Arabillas Morales’ claim for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) was first denied by an Immigration Judge (IJ), and then by the Board of Immigration Appeals when she appealed the IJ’s decision. The Mexican male-to-female transsexual then appealed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

In Morales v. Gonzales, 472F.3d 689 (9th Cir., Jan. 3, 2007), Judge David R. Thompson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded Morales’ claim for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to the Board of Immigration Appeals to the IJ who originally denied the claim.

Judge Thompson’s holdings, according to Bryan Johnson’s summary in the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes:

Senior Circuit Judge David R. Thompson, writing for the court, held that the IJ had incorrectly relied on facts that did not relate to the crime for which Morales was convicted that were contained in the appellate court’s opinion affirming her conviction of communication with a minor, to determine that Morales had committed a “particularly serious” crime. The IJ had concluded that Morales would have been eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, “but for [the] finding that she had been convicted of a particularly serious crime.”

Judge Thompson also held that the IJ had failed to apply the correct legal standard to Morales’s CAT claim, because the IJ had only taken into consideration testimony establishing “direct government action”, but had ignored the “willful blindness” of the prison officials who had watched and laughed at Morales while she was repeatedly raped by fellow prison inmates.

The IJ must now “determine whether Morales committed a “particularly serious” crime barring her from an otherwise eligible asylum claim. In addition, the IJ must consider the “willful blindness” of prison officials in establishing whether it was “more likely than not” that Morales would be tortured if she were returned to Mexico.

According to Kenneth Ofgang’s article:

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its order that a Mexican transsexual be removed to her native country, where she says she is likely to be physically abused because of her sex change.

The panel said the BIA erred in summarily affirming an immigration judge’s ruling that Nancy Arabillas Morales, who used to be Juan Manuel Arabillas Morales, does not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Morales, the judges said, may qualify for relief based on a well-founded fear that she will be attacked because of her trangendered status. Morales testified that such attacks occurred in the past, and the court said the IJ erroneously relied on Morales’ admission that her attackers were not associated with the government.

You can read more details of Morales’ case on page 20 of February’s edition of the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes in “9th Circuit Grants Review of Mexican Transsexual’s Asylum Claim.”