ExPat Moments....

Being an American living overseas is  always  an interesting  experience.  Regardless of your political affiliations you find yourself having to defend  U.S. Policies, be they foreign , domestic, economic, or what have you   on a  regular basis.  This is most often due to  the fact that you are usually the only American in the room.  So by default you become the voice of America, whether you want to be or not.

This  past week however,   was one of those rare occasions where  I found myself  defending the  United Kingdom from disparaging comments from fellow American Expatriates.

Earlier in the week, Eric and  I found ourselves  at a pre-election kick off reception for  Democrats Abroad.  the event  was held at a well known American style restaurant  called  The Texas Embassy.  It was odd to be in a room full of so many Americans in the center of London.   Eric got a kick out of trying to place the different  American accents he was hearing.

For me,  it was nice to be in a room full of Americans who share most of my political beliefs.  We all  were  greatly amused by the complete circus  that the Republican Presidential Primary process has been.    Everyone  there was  fairly confident in the  re-electability  of President Obama, when put up against  any of the  potential  GOP nominees, and  the  desire to increase Democratic voter turn out among the  expat community clearly  is aimed at helping with the much less certain race to control Congress  in  2013.

Yet I will be honest,  it was hard to  get  excited about  the whole thing.   It was hard to tell, but  from where we were sitting,  it appeared  that  Eric and I were the only same-sex couple there.  The upside to that was a number of people, including the  chairman of the UK chapter of  Democrats abroad, were  very deliberate in coming up to us,  welcoming us to the event,  and making it clear they were very happy to see us there.  

Yet  as the  speeches  started, touting the  successes of the  Obama-Biden first term,  I couldn't help feeling a little bit annoyed.   I have written  at length about my disappointment  with  President Obama, on the issue of the  Defence of Marriage Act,  and all the related issues connected to that.   Mainly, in our case,  the  right  to sponsor a legal spouse for  immigration  to the United States.   A bill was  introduced in  2009 that would  correct this injustice, but  since  its introduction, the bill has gone nowhere.



Yes  President Obama has worked wonders pulling   America out of  deep dank hole that  8 years of Republican rule had dug.  Yet  for couples like us,  the key issues that impact our lives  have remain largely untouched.   When  pressed on the issue of Marriage Equality,  the best answer the   first  African American President of the United States can come back with,  is  how he "struggles" with the issue and that his  position is still  "evolving", and then goes on to say his baseline position  basically amounts to the same  "separate but equal" argument that was used to support racial segregation 50 years ago.



Meanwhile,  here in the United Kingdom,  the  Conservative  Prime Minister,  David Cameron speaking at his party's annual  conference.  (The British equivalent of the  American GOP National Convention, ) had this to say on the subject of  Marriage Equality here in the UK.



Which brings us to  last night.   Eric and I had the  great good fortune to spend the evening with some of our  most amazing friends.    Our friends Peter and Simon  who live quite close to us here in London, ( but we don't see nearly enough of,)   had us over for dinner at their flat.  Also with us, was  our dear friend Daniel from New York, who was visiting us for the weekend, on his way home from a business trip in Paris.

Also there,  were Mike and Mark,  two friends of  Peter and Simon.    Who like us,  are a bi-national same sex couple,  where one partner is British, and the other American.  Who also like Eric and myself,   moved to the UK to be together, rather than stay in a long-distance relationship waiting for DOMA to be repealed.   Where we did our civil partnership here in  London, then applied for a spousal visa,  they were married in Massachusetts, which was then recognized by the  British government for immigration purposes.

The American half of this couple is an interesting fellow.  Originally from Boston,  he has lived here in the UK about a year longer than I have. From all appearances, he and his husband have a pretty good life.   Good careers, great friends and the civil equality that living in the UK affords to couples like them, and like us.   Yet  he had almost nothing good to say about life in the United Kingdom.

No matter the topic of conversation,  in his opinion, everything  here is pretty much inferior  when compared to the United States.   As the evening   went on, seated next to this person at dinner,  I  found myself aggressively  defending   my  adopted country from  the mostly  inaccurate aspersions from a countryman  from my homeland.

Yes,  there are significant  differences  between life in the US and life in the UK.  Yes, there are many things here I find  odd,  frustrating, and even down right ridiculous at times.  But when all is said and done,  in both our cases,  the United States essentially told us that  our marriages didn't  count,  didn't even exist as far as the federal government was concerned.  The United States,  tells thousands of American citizens just like the two us,  that  we are  something less than  equal, and if we want to spend our lives with our spouses, we  have to do it some place  else.



That some place else is,  in both our cases  the United Kingdom.  This  quirky, imperfect,  cramped, damp, foggy island in the North Atlantic  has proven to be more free than the country that claims to be  "the land of the free".  Yes America has better food,  but  England has  better laws.   Yes Hollywood makes  better  movies, but  London  has much better theatre.   Yes America gave the world Star Trek, but  England  gave it Doctor Who.  Yes, I may have left part of my heart in San Francisco,  but  it was London, not "liberal SF" , that said;   "Welcome!   You  have the SAME right to live with  the  person you love,  as anyone else does.  Make yourself at home." 



Yet  as the evening  went on,  I realized at least to some degree,  why my new friend felt as he did.  It really has nothing to do living  in the United Kingdom, but instead, has everything to do with the  inability to live in the United States.   As a fellow  "DOMA Exile",  I too struggle  with  feelings of  bitterness at  not even having had the option to live in my own country with my spouse.  As President Obama likes to say;  "Let me be clear."    I love London, but I did not choose to live here.  The bigotry and inequality of  the laws in the United States made that choice for me.

So, if it sounds like I prefer the UK to the US, you would be wrong. I am an American. I have no desire to be a citizen of any other nation on Earth. The sight of the American Flag fluttering in the breeze over Grosvenor Square, gives me a tug at the heartstrings every time I see it.

Yet the hard truth is, it is England that has said I should never have to choose between the Person I'm married to, and the country I live in. My own country is quite willing to force me, and thousands of my fellow Americans to make that exact choice.

So  say what you want about tube strikes, and  baked beans on toast for breakfast.  The fact remains  that  until  United States grows up and stops using minority rights as a political football,  it is  England,  that is living the ideals of  Liberty and Justice for All,   that  America (for now),  still only talks about.

Why Truth Scares Bigots....

(via afer.org)  Last night was the West Coast premier of  "8"  Featuring an all-star cast including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon and others, "8" is a play written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and directed by acclaimed actor and director Rob Reiner. 

It is a powerful account of the case filed by the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER ) in the U.S. District Court in 2010 to overturn Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. Framed around the trial's historic closing arguments in June 2010, "8" provides an intimate look what unfolded when the issue of same-sex marriage was on trial.

----------------------------------------------------------

We stayed up  until  3:30am London time to watch the live stream on You Tube.   The closing  arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger  may seem an odd subject for a play.  Yet the reasons  behind the production are  important..  Opponents of  Marriage Equality in California  fought  tooth and nail to prevent video of the trial from becoming public.   Their stated argument was they wanted to  protect their witnesses  from "harassment" by  Gay activists.   

After I read the transcripts,  It  became very clear why the  defendants in the case  didn't what the video of their testimony viewed by the public. All the arguments made in ridiculous  TV ads, flyers ,and  softball  "interviews" on  Fox News, may have made for  great  campaign rhetoric, but  none of it could stand up to even most basic standards of evidence.  

The argument  that  allowing same sex couples the same basic civil rights as everyone else would somehow "damage and redefine" marriage, completely fell apart when faced with actual cross examination under oath. The brilliant  David Boies, attorney for the  plaintiffs  summed it up perfectly when he said; "the witness stand is a lonely place to lie."

The defendant's  arguments  basically boiled down to a couple of points.  The first, was that  allowing  Gays and Lesbians to marry would  "redefine" and therefore weaken and irrevocably  damage the  institution of Marriage.  So if we take that  argument seriously, to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples, not more rights, not any new rights that straight couples do not currently have, but only the exact same rights, would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages.

Okay... , there is really only one question then. How? Would gay marriage mean that straight couples would lose any of the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that they currently have?  Would legal gay marriage mean straight couples couldn't file joint  tax returns, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social  security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each  other? Would the legalization of marriage for gays and lesbians mean that straight people could no longer marry and those who were  married had to get divorced? Would the marriages  of  any heterosexual change in any way?

The answer of course is no.  When faced with the reality of that, admitted even by their own star witness, they fell back on the second argument.   Society has a compelling interest to step in and prevent  same sex couples from getting married.  The "reason" for this  being,  same sex marriage somehow would result in  fewer children being born  and growing up in heterosexual two-parent households.

Uh... what??   If you have having trouble figuring that one out, don't feel too bad.  Turns out the defendants in the case couldn't offer any proof either, so  like the whole,  "Gays will destroy marriage" argument,  the  idea that Marriage Equality will end straight  procreation as we know it,  fell apart with an equally loud and absurd thud. 

So why  are  people like  Maggie Gallagher,  Tony Perkins,  James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their assorted ilk, so hell-bent (pun intended) on taking civil rights away from Gays and and Lesbians?  Conservative evangelicals say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of  marriage in the eyes of society. But since none of the marriage rights or benefits that straight couples have would change if gays were able to marry, what opponents of gay marriage are really saying is that letting gay couples marry cheapens their straight marriages in their eyes. 

Letting gays and lesbians get married would mean they would  have a right that only heterosexuals previously   had. And that makes them mad. It's not just that Gallagher and those like her want to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, they want make sure that gays and lesbians have as few rights as possible, if any at all. They see equal rights for everyone as an attack on them.

That's interesting. Even though  the institution of marriage clearly would not change in ANY way, the defendants in the Perry case,  firmly believe that marriage would lose value, status and might even come to an end, if gay couples were able to marry. It suddenly occurred to me there is a word for someone who is irrationally fixed on the artificial preservation of inequality that they feel is in their favor. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.

Bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

The testimony of in the Prop 8 trial, shows  vividly what  opponents of Marriage Equality really want . This small group of even smaller minds, who out of fear of losing what they feel is their superiority, want to put the civil rights of people they don't  like up to popular vote.   The Perry case put hatred and bigotry on trial, and  hatred and bigotry lost.  The bigots will appeal and appeal and stall and  block.  Yet  is only a matter of time.  

This case will eventually get to the supreme court.  Like Loving v. Virginia,  like  Lawrence v. Texas,   and yes like Brown v. Board of Education , it will be the US Supreme Court that  will be asked to  stand up for the equal protection under the law of all Americans.     

Amazing video of San Francsico

(hat tip to the Huffington Post)
Seriously cool video taken from a remote control model helicopter.   I'm not homesick.. really...  (sigh...)


Weekend in SF from robert mcintosh on Vimeo.

Remembering Steve Walker

(hat tip to Xtra)
Canadian-born painter Steve Walker died at his home in Costa Rica on Jan 4, 2012. He was 50.  Walker was a self-taught artist who began painting after an inspirational trip to Europe when he was 25.   For his subjects, he chose to paint gay men, depicting the struggles and joys the gay community lived through in his lifetime, from the ongoing struggle for sexual liberation to the devastation wrought by HIV and AIDS. But he believed his subjects were universal, touching on themes of love, hate, pain, joy, beauty, loneliness, attraction, hope, despair, life and death.

"As a homosexual, I have been moved, educated and inspired by works that deal with a heterosexual context. Why would I assume that a heterosexual would be incapable of appreciating work that speaks to common themes in life, as seen through my eyes as a gay man? If the heterosexual population is unable to do this, then the loss is theirs, not mine,” Walker once said.

Walker was always grateful for the support he received from the gay community for his work. In recent years, his work has been exhibited in galleries in Toronto, Montreal, Los Angeles, Fort Lauderdale, Key West and Provincetown.   "Any minority wants and needs to find artistic voices that reflect their own personal situations, and, in doing so, validate and record their lives and cultures for themselves and for the larger world," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I can't say I knew Steve. But I am very pround to say we were acquaintances.  I had the great good fortune to have met him three times. Always in Chicago. He would come and sign prints of his work at the North Halsted Market Days street festival on Chicago's Northside. I have one of those signed prints. It is his work entitled "Telling Him."

Like many people, during my own coming out process as a young Gay man, I found inspiration in Steve's work. In a way his work was the first "It Gets Better" message  I ever saw.  His depictions of Gay men just living their lives. Lives depicted with all the ups, downs and events that every life has. It was the first time I ever saw artwork that depicted that for people like... well... for people like me.

For Steve, like for so many Gays and Lesbians, coming to terms with his sexuality was an evolutionary process as opposed to a revelation—a not uncommon occurrence.

“I remember feeling a strange sense of elation upon having survived childhood, a rural environment, education, and the knowledge that my sexual orientation, (which was never a mystery or problem to me personally), would forever cause some people who never met me and would never know me, to hate me and others like me.” 

When I became involved in the San Francisco Pride Celebration I started using images of Steve's work in the promo videos we would show at volunteer trainings. When Eric and I were doing our long distance relationship, between San Francisco and  London, I created a video for a face book group of  bi-national same sex couples who were in the same situation. 

I posted a few of them on YouTube and was delighted to find out Steve saw them. This let to an exchange of emails over the next three years where he would share stories about the history of a particular painting that I had used in the videos. 

With his passing, I am very grateful to have had the chance to tell him about the tremendous impact  his artwork had  on me.  Not just because it showed the commonalities of life and love that all people hope for. But because his work does so from an unapologetically Gay perspective.

Something that in a world overwhelmed with images of "Boy meets Girl", gave a young gay man growing up in South Central Wisconsin, hope that the world had room in it for me too.  Where the story could be one where "Boy meets Boy".

A funeral will be held at Our Lady of the Visitation Parish (5338 Bank St) in Ottawa on Feb 25 at 11am. It is anticipated that a memorial celebrating the life of Walker will be held in Toronto at a date still to be determined.

25 Years Ago...

Back in June of 1987, I visited Berlin for the first time.  Standing in  front of the Wall  at  Brandenburg Gate, I  listened to President Ronald Reagan say "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"  

I remember at the time  thinking,  that was a nice sentiment, but never in my lifetime would I know what it was like to walk through Brandenburg Gate.   I have travelled to Berlin a couple of times since then, most recently in 1989, when the wall fell.  But I had yet to visit Berlin as a truly unified city.

Today... nearly twenty five years after that first visit,  I returned to Berlin, and  walked through that gate.

Proof, if there ever was,  that nothing is impossible.

More Seriously Cool Footage from the ISS

Recent solar flare activity has resulted in spectacular  Northern Lights  this year.  Now thanks to  NASA  we all get to see what it looks like from above.  Amazing video from the International Space Station  (ISS)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

and more...

Today's 9th Circuit Court Decision on CA Prop 8.

Here is the full court decision upholding the original decision that ruled  California's  Proposition 8, (the ban of same sex marriage) to be unconstitutional

Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision

So what does this mean exactly?  Is same sex marriage now legal (again...) in  California?   Well, no.  Or more accurately , not yet.   There is still a Stay of the ruling in place  pending an appeal by  the proponents of Prop 8.  That means same sex marriages  cannot yet  resume in California.   This decision also, only applies to  Proposition 8 in California, and has no effect on laws in any other state or on any federal laws  (i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act).

So yes,  today's court ruling is  good news. But  nothing has actually changed  yet as a result of it.

There is a lot to take in when you read the actual text of the  2-1 court ruling but  here is  a passage that stands out:

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

So just  to be clear,   the 9th Circuit Appeals Court today ruled that Prop 8 served no other purpose than to discriminate against Gays and Lesbians. This is significant,  in so much that it highlights the weakness of the one dissenting opinion in the 2-1 ruling.   The voice of dissent belongs to Judge N. Randy Smith.  Smith is a former head of the Idaho Republican Party, and was the lone vote in favor to uphold Prop 8.

Smith,  in his dissenting opinion could only raise the completely unrelated issue of parenting. Suggesting that if Gays and Lesbians can get married,  it somehow would mean fewer children would have Parents.. uh... huh?   How does that work exactly? (Smith didn't offer any explanation.)   It is also interesting to note that  Smith is also a Mormon.

Why is that relevant?  The opponents of Marriage Equality claimed that  the original 2009 ruling by   Judge Vaughn R. Walker  was invalid because Walker was Gay.   It is interesting to note  the plaintiffs in this case made no such similar  accusations against Smith, even though  The  Mormon Church was the single largest backer of Proposition 8.

So what happens next? That's a good question. The proponents of Prop 8 will undoubtedly appeal, so  they could go one of two ways. They could make a motion for rehearing in front of the broader Ninth Circuit (11 judges). If a majority of the circuit judges agree to rehear the case, the case would stay at this appellate level and go through  same process all over again in front of a larger panel. Or the Proponents could skip that step and decide to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime we can all enjoy the reaction on the  WingNut Bigoted Right as the American Taliban has pretty much lost their minds over today's ruling.  Shrieking hysterically about  "Activist Judges".  Everyone's favorite white supremacist nutcase,  Tony Perkins.  Head of the ridiculously  mis-named hate group  the "Family Research Council" pretty much soiled his adult diaper riding the  Waaaa-mbulance with rage after today's decision.

"This ruling substitutes judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.   


Yeah, because we have always allowed people to vote on the civil rights of other Americans.... right?




If the United States Supreme Court were to uphold the original Walker ruling, then like in the case of  Lawrence v. Texas,  suddenly ALL bans on same sex marriage across the United States would be unconstitutional.   This would also overturn the Defence of Marriage Act. (DOMA).  The  federal law banning recognition of same sex marriages.

That my friends,  is the endgame.    So while today's ruling is nice,  it is still only one more step on a very long road.  Albeit, a step in the right direction.