In reflecting on the past 30 years since HIV and AIDS entered our vocabulary, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Thirty years ago, an HIV infection was often followed with serious illnesses and, in many cases, swift death. Today, medications and greater awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS result in better quality and longer lives — at least, for those who know their status and have access to those medications and medical care.

However, much of the misunderstanding and stigma associated with HIV has not changed.

Early in the pandemic, the predecessors of Resource Center Dallas took legal action so that persons with HIV could receive care at the public county hospital, which was denying life-saving treatment for pneumocystis pneumonia, an opportunistic infection and leading killer of those who had HIV. Stigma and fear created bias and prejudice toward those needing care — primarily gay men — at that time.

Regretfully, fear, stigma and ignorance remain rampant today. We must speak frankly about a disease whose cause is now known and whose progression can be controlled. Many in the GLBT community have lost dozens of friends to the disease, yet 65 percent of new infections in Dallas County are among men who have sex with men.

As a community, what are we doing to stem the tide of new infections? How are we taking care of one another?

AIDS activist Larry Kramer was eviscerated in the 1990s when he screamed that the LGBT community must take responsibility for its own health and change unsafe sexual behavior. Wasn’t he right?

We now know HIV cannot be transmitted by a mosquito, a hug, a drinking glass or from a cough. We know it is transmitted by direct contact with infected blood, semen, vaginal fluids or breast milk.

We can talk safe sex, but preventing HIV is not that simple. We also must create an environment where people who are at risk of engaging in unsafe sexual behavior have alternatives. Many factors play into decisions that lead to unsafe sex: lack of knowledge, low self-esteem, drug use, fatigue from worrying about HIV, inability to afford condoms and — again — fear and stigma that scare us away from talking about sex and HIV.

Resource Center Dallas is one of many organizations committed to addressing these issues. We provide mental health counseling so that those dealing with self-esteem, fear, depression or other concerns can receive support, regardless of their HIV status.

Additionally, we offer some of the leading HIV prevention programs in Texas targeting those at the greatest risk: FUSE, U-BE and C3 — programs that empower participants to make better decisions and take responsibility for their behavior.

And, as a leading LGBT community center, we provide community and a safe place to gather and get involved in programs, events and volunteer opportunities.

We all have a role: Let’s talk honestly about health and sex, to our partners, friends and children.

HIV is not someone else’s problem. As community, let’s act up to end HIV infections.

Cece Cox is executive director and CEO of Resource Center Dallas.

By RAELINE NOBLES

So much has been accomplished around HIV/AIDS. But so much more has to still be achieved before we can all go home and say, “Our job is done.”

This is especially true now in an environment of significant political turmoil at the state and national level, funding cuts coming from every direction, apathy about the epidemic from donors, volunteers, providers.

Yet, there still exists a huge and growing need to reduce stigma, increase access to care, change values and behaviors around sexual health and relationships, develop new efforts for drug-related HIV prevention — the list goes on and on!

It’s an exciting time to be a part of the HIV field for both medical and social services, yet a very, very challenging time as well.

HIV-positive individuals since the very beginning have had to be heroes for their own advocacy, health and lives — as well as that for others. It would be so easy right now in all the constraints of dollars and attitudes for many HIV professionals to throw their hands up and leave the field. In fact many have and are.

But instead, now is the time for heroes to stand up, push our chins up and march smartly forward on behalf of 1.6 million people living with this disease, and work to overcome all of the challenges before us, AND take full advantage of the opportunities in front of us all.

Evolution and revolution are not that far apart. Both are exciting to be a part of, to influence. Both are also more than a little intimidating, frightening in terms of the effect of “losing the battle,” and sacrificial in many ways of our personal lives in order to “win the battle.”

In times of trouble, adversity and closing doors, there are so many windows of opportunity for positive change for those of us willing to climb through them.

Raeline Nobles is executive director of AIDS Arms Inc.

So if our governor participated in a Ku Klux Klan rally most Texans, (I said “most”) would be outraged. A call for his resignation would ring so loudly the state Capital dome would shatter. Why? Well the KKK is a hate group plain and simple.

So where is the outrage that our governor plans to participate in a “day of prayer” with another recognized hate group, the AFA? The American Family Group has long been a bastion of anti-LGBT rhetoric and is now recognized for what it is, a “hate group” by the SPLC. This is the same organization who tracks other hate groups like the skinheads and KKK throughout the nation. The AFA and its activities fall well within the definition of a hate group and as such our governor should have nothing to do with them. Instead Rick Perry is touting his participation in a “day of prayer and fasting”.

I sincerely believe we need to be vocal in disapproving this outrageous action by our state’s governor. The AFA has a history of defaming LGBT Americans as well as Jews, Muslims and other minorities. Start writing those letters!

Since my last post on this issue, I’ve met a few really cool folks in the “transsexual-not-transgender” camp. I was fortunate enough to meet one transsexual named Zoe. We messaged back and forth for quite some time over Facebook, and she really helped me to better understand where she’s coming from. And you know what, I 100 percent support her decision to self-identify herself as transsexual and not as transgender. The thing that seems to separate Zoe from the seeming majority of those in the TS-not-TG camp is that she’s not a hypocrite, she likes facts, and she speaks for herself instead of presuming to speak for all other transsexuals.

TS people don’t identify as TG anymore

A big problem with the idea that TS people no longer identify as TG is that it’s a demonstrably fallacious idea. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force recently published the largest American trans study ever with more than 6,000 respondents. In this study, they actually asked how we self-identify. Care to guess how many self-identified with the term “transgender”? Ninety percent. Yup; as in almost everyone but a small minority.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf

Double standards are fun

Also, I’ve not yet seen the TS-not-TG group address a double standard I regularly observe:

• Most in the TS-not-TG group will regularly group TS and IS people together when talking about themselves because, they claim, being grouped together with other types of trans folk is offensive to them.

• However, most in the TS-not-TG group seem to have a blind-spot when it comes to acknowledging that in many regions of America, intersex people are offended when they are grouped with transsexuals.

• So, it’s somehow OK to demand that all transsexual people stop being referred to as transgender because the very idea is seemingly too offensive to contemplate, but it doesn’t matter that grouping themselves with IS people is incredibly offensive to some IS people. That double standard is what I think most might view as being hypocritical.

Grouping us together is something new that was done to us

I’ve also noticed that many of the TS-not-TG people feel that they were grouped with other types of trans folk only very recently. Perhaps where they come from, this is absolutely true. However, it’s demonstrably incorrect to make that claim for all transsexuals. In Houston, for example, our community purposefully began working to create one unified community that encompassed all types of trans people in the mid-1970s.

Houston, 1976. Note that even then, we were one politically active community.

What about civil rights?

Another thing that irks me is the demonstrably false notion that if all non-cisgender are grouped together, that we transsexuals won’t get our civil rights. If that’s so, why then is it that in Houston (Bush-land) TEXAS, a deep-south RED State, we have …

• Houston City Council members sponsoring TRANSGENDER events

• The TRANSGENDER community supporting the mayor of Houston – an out lesbian – in politics.

• The second openly TRANSGENDER judge in the nation.

• Houston becoming home to the only TRANSGENDER Center and Archive in the nation.

• An Executive Order protecting TRANSGENDER people from discrimination.

• The County Sheriff, Houston mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attending and supporting any event our TRANSGENDER community puts on.

• Everyone from the FBI to the TABC meeting with Houston TRANSGENDER leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-cisgender people.

We did all of that in one of the reddest states in the union by becoming one active and unified community back in 1975 when HPD could and would get away with literally murdering people like us.

Houston Mayor and 2 judges perform a ceremonial swearing-in of openly transgender judge,
Phyllis Frye, at the Transgender Unity Banquet, 2011.

It’s a demonstrably false notion that presenting a united trans community somehow slows the march toward transsexual civil rights or somehow retards the quality of life transsexual people might hope to enjoy.

It’s called a dictionary

Lastly, I want to point out that regardless of what definition one chooses to confer upon the term “transgender” or how you personally feel about the term, all non-cisgender people are part of a group that the English language defines as being “transgender.” Look up the word in an English language dictionary. Just because someone somewhere uses the word in a manner consistent with the English language and in a way that the majority of the population in question would agree on and self-identity with, it’s (IMHO) a little unreasonable for a TS-not-TG person go around claiming that they’ve been somehow personally wronged when someone somewhere refers to the non-cis community as the transgender community.

The drama of elitism

Ashley Love: Being called transgender is assault and sexual objectification.

And the above gem brings me to the whole concept of trans elitism. Claiming that merely having an English language term to talk about non-cis people as a group is even in the same ballpark as assault and sexual objectification is, I think, a little over the top.

Some in the TS-not-TG group have what they call, “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” (HBS).  HBS is an effort to rebrand the term, “transsexual”. HBS people, like the “we’re not TG, we’re all TS/IS” group, are hoping to link the idea of transsexualism to intersex conditions in a worthy, but largely misguided effort to destigmatize the plight of transsexuals.

What’s the stigma that some in the TS-not-TG/HBS camp are trying to overcome you might ask? Well, that stigma would be all of the other types of trans human beings. A world view that blames our non-cis brothers and sisters for our plight instead of focusing on our real oppressors is lame IMHO. Also, you know what else I think is lame?

Check out what Harry Benjamin thought about transsexual people who transition – from Sexology, 1963

The man after whom HBS people have rebranded transsexualism believed that a non-cis male who transitions to female is still male. Yup. They named their syndrome after someone who believed the exact opposite of what they espouse.

And, the wrap-up

Don’t get me wrong, I think that in all likelihood, transsexualism is an intersex condition (at least, according to the growing mountain of studies looking at brain morphology). If you don’t want me to call you transgender, then I won’t. If you claim to speak for yourself and your own experience, I won’t take issue when you talk about your own experience. To be clear: If you’re someone who doesn’t prefer to be referred to as transgender and instead prefers to be referred to as transsexual, I think that’s fine.

However, when you presume to speak for all transsexuals, when you blame-shift our plight onto the backs of our non-cis brothers and sisters, when you make demonstrably false claims, make up ironically laughable syndromes and refuse to acknowledge your own hypocrisy, then I’ve got a problem that I’ll probably continue to blog about and lampoon from time to time. I also think that if you don’t want to upset yourself every time someone else refers to your non-cis experience, you’ll probably need to make allowances for the current English language terms that the majority of transsexuals use by not claiming that someone assaulted you (*cough-Ashley-Love-cough*) should they refer to you as being part of the non-cis community.

Cristan Williams is executive director of the Houston-based Transgender Foundation of America.

By TIFFANY CREECY and JOSH COLLINS

In April 2011, Texas State Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, proposed Amendment 143 to House Bill 1 — an amendment demanding that public universities that fund centers for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students also provide an equal amount of funding for student centers that promote “traditional and family values.” The amendment passed 110-24. Though it is unclear whether the Texas Legislature will include the amendment in its final budget, its introduction has created unnecessarily hostile discourse about GLBT issues at Texas A&M University.

Christian’s amendment inspired a group of A&M student senators to author a bill with identical objectives: SB 63-106, “The Sexual Education Equality in Funding” bill. While student governments at other public universities in Texas (e.g., University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston) have openly, adamantly, and clearly rejected the intentions of the Texas Legislature, A&M’s SB 63-106 passed with a vote of 21-21, with the speaker of the Senate breaking the tie in favor of the bill. The Student Government Association at the University of Houston called for the Texas governor to veto the state amendment, citing potential harm to the university’s already-existing diversity initiatives — initiatives similar to the ones in existence at Texas A&M, which have long been met with opposition by conservative Aggie student groups.

Immediately after the passing of SB 63-106, Texas A&M students both in favor of and in opposition to the bill expressed impassioned viewpoints that quickly manifested in emotional and aggressive debates. The fervor of these debates was further heightened by the publication of four GLBT-related articles in the student newspaper, The Battalion. GLBT/Ally students felt empowered by the publication of articles with positive representations of GLBT individuals, especially following the events of GLBT Awareness Week, which took place April 1-15. Some non-GLBT/Ally students felt that the articles contributed to an imbalanced, liberal-leaning perspective on the rise at Texas A&M. Many students from both perspectives on the issue have unfortunately engaged in hostile communications and the use of unwarranted personal attacks.

Texas A&M Student Body President Jacob Robinson vetoed the decision to pass the bill, sending it back to the Student Senate — where it failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to override Robinson’s veto. However, the damage to campus climate as a result of the bill had already been done. Tension between GLBT/Ally students, faculty, and staff and some of the bill’s more vocal supporters has never been higher. The Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center no longer feels like the safe space that it used to be, and although it appears, for the time being, that no funding will be cut and a center for “family and traditional values” will not be established, what has been most alarming about the events that have unfolded over the last month is the lack of public, GLBT-supportive responses from university officials. In perhaps the most critical moment for GLBT Aggies since they won the right to have a student organization on campus in the 1980s, the university has failed to send the message that homophobia, heterosexism, and hatred for the GLBT community will not be tolerated.

In 2008, a student group attracted negative, national media attention for hosting an “Anti-Obama Carnival” which included an egg toss station where participants were given the opportunity toss eggs at an image of Obama’s face. This group received a slap on the wrist from the university, with statements being released to indicate that while the student group had the right to free speech, their opinions should have been voiced in a more constructive manner. Though the University did not publicly address the blatant racism of the rally, a statement — any statement — coming remotely close to condemning the actions of the event helped deflect some the negative attention from the major media outlets. In this instance, the university recognized how the actions of a few can impact the reputation of the entire institution. However, when GLBT Aggies have been bullied with hateful rhetoric and threats to safety, not even the slightest slap on the wrist has been administered.

Just last semester, in October 2010, when a student group distributed fliers portraying Islamic women as oppressed and helpless human beings in need of Westernization, A&M President Dr. Bowen Loftin sent an email to the campus community reiterating “institutional commitment and responsibility to address hate and bias incidents on campus.” Dr. Loftin also said, “I oppose hatred and bigotry and stand firm in our commitment to diversity and the goals of our Diversity Plan.” Dr. Loftin was appalled at how the actions of this student group “misrepresent[ed] and mischaracteriz[ed]” Islamic people. SB 63-106, in placing a “traditional and family values” center in opposition to the GLBT Resource Center, posits that GLBT individuals do not and cannot embody “traditional and family values,” a lie that misrepresents and mischaracterizes the GLBT community. But, again, there has been no public or official university response to the discourse surrounding the bill or the conversations that have taken place as a result of its production.

It seems that issues of race and religion can more easily elicit a meaningful, public, timely, and calculated response from Texas A&M University officials than issues surrounding sexual identity. Perhaps it is because sexual orientation is not officially a protected class at our public institution of higher learning. Perhaps it is because homophobia still remains strong on this campus and has constructed and sustained fear in the hearts of even our most prominent leaders. The data from Texas A&M Student Life Studies in April 2010 indicates that 70 percent of GLBT students (compared to 2 percent of heterosexual students) have felt or regularly feel uncomfortable about others’ reactions to their sexual orientation. Make no mistake: A public statement addressing homophobia and heterosexism at Texas A&M must be made before progress can be achieved, before GLBT students can once again feel completely safe and accepted on this campus. Will we hear from our vice president for diversity? Representatives from the Division of Student Affairs? The university president? Will it take something more serious than the exchange of words to invoke a serious reaction?

What can YOU do to help? Email the following Texas A&M University officials to initiate conversations about more public administrative support for the GLBT/Ally Aggie Community:

• President Dr. Bowen Loftin: president@tamu.edu
• VP for Student Affairs, Lt. Gen. Joe Weber, USMC (Ret.): vpsa@tamu.edu
• VP and associate provost for diversity, Dr. Christine Stanley: cstanley@tamu.edu

Tiffany Creecy graduated from Texas A&M in 2009 with her undergraduate degree in psychology. Josh Collins graduated from Texas A&M in 2009 with his undergraduate degree in communication. Both Creecy and Collins will graduate again from A&M in May 2011 with master’s degrees in Educational Human Resource Development and graduate certifications in Women’s and Gender Studies.

A Texas A&M student holds up a sign during the “Hands Across Aggieland” Unity March on April 15. (From GLBT Aggies on Facebook)

Dear Senators:

I once thought that I was an Aggie. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I have made hundreds of friends, touched hundreds of Aggies’ lives and been touched by thousands more. Yes, I once thought that I was an Aggie.

On April 20th, 2011 the Student Senate made it clear that, in their eyes, I am an Aggie no more.

That day, the student senate told me that I was not worth as much as other Aggies. You told me that breaking the Aggie Honor Code and lying to my fellow students was preferable to you deciding to respect me for who I am. On that night, S.B. 63-106, otherwise known as the “Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill” in support of Representative Wayne Christian’s amendment to HB 1 passed. And with its passage, the Student Senate made its position clear: that because I am gay, I am not truly an Aggie.

Now you may be saying to yourself that I’m being overly dramatic, that that was not your intention in passing that bill, or something else along those lines. Some of you may have stopped reading this letter as soon as you saw the words “I am gay”. I would expect nothing less from the 17th least friendly campus for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students in the country (according to the Princeton review). If you’re still reading, then allow me to explain why I don’t at all feel like I am being melodramatic and state my reasons for concluding that the Student Senate no longer views me as an Aggie:

1. Harming the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center was the purpose of this bill, not, as the authors claim, the creating of centers for the purpose of so-called “traditional values education.” This is made clear in the second operative clause, where the opposition of increased student fees to cover this new “traditional values education” is set forth. The authors of the bill are not fooling anyone, since the drastic budget cuts make it clear that no additional government funding is at all likely for this new “traditional values” education, leaving one clear option: cut the GLBT Resource Center’s budget in half. This barely concealed attempt to attack the funding of the biggest support system for GLBT students and their allies on this campus is not just an attack on some perceived “immoral lifestyle choice” or whatever phrase people might choose to use. It is a direct attack on Aggies like myself, a clear “shot over the bow”, warning us that we are not welcome on this campus.

2. The purpose of this bill was not to promote equality of funding for support for all students. If that were indeed the goal, then allow me to point you to several areas where there is a severe problem. First of all, why is there a Women’s Resource Center on campus but no Men’s Resource Center? Applying the same logic that has been applied in the passage of S.B. 63-106, it is clearly unfair that my student fees, as a male, go toward funding the Women’s Resource Center, especially if I disagree that women need any special attention. I should demand equality of funding towards a center that supports me and my needs as a male. Likewise for the Department of Multicultural Services, because I as a Caucasian Amercian have no need of their services. Where is my Department of White American Services? Clearly, the student body does not have a problem offering support to the communities of women and multicultural students within the Aggie family. Thus, singling out support for GLBT students like me sends a crystal clear message: “you and people like you are not worthy of our support. Women, multicultural people, those groups deserve support. You do not.“

3. The assertion that there is not already “traditional values” education related to sex on this campus is laughable. Anyone who has taken a KINE 198 class can tell you that only heterosexual examples are given when discussing romantic or sexual interactions and the health guidelines related to them. And a mandatory class is far more pervasive in educating the students of Texas A&M than a resource center buried in Cain Hall that never requires people to pass through its doors. The programming that the center offers is optional for those who wish to attend. There is no requirement that straight Aggies listen to a discussion of sexual safety for gay men or lesbian women, but clearly the same is not true for GLBT Aggies. We are treated to a discussion of straight sexual safety and relationship guidelines whether we want to be or not. Thus, the assertion that “alternative sexual education” is being funded more than “traditional values” sexual education on this campus is not only patently false, but demeaning to those of us who are consistently maligned for being attracted to (a) different gender(s) of people than the Student Senate apparently feels we should be.

Senators, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning of this letter. Next year will be my 5th year of study. I am a Presidential Endowed Scholar. I attended Fish Camp. I went to football games and yelled until my voice was dead and my ass was red. I joined a FLO. I started two organizations. I received the prestigious Buck Weirus Spirit Award for my contributions to this student body. I happen to be gay. I am also a strong Christian, attend a local church, and have a wonderful relationship with my father.

A year ago, all of that almost vanished. I almost became a name read out at Silver Taps Senators, because I was so tired of living the lie, feeling controlled by fear. And the voices that were in my head were delivering the same message that the Student Senate is delivering to the GLBTQ students of this university: you aren’t worth as much as everyone else. I’m not accusing the Student Senate of causing suicides, but the passage of this bill simply reinforces a message that many GLBT people have been hearing their whole lives. Will it take a Tyler Clementi here at Texas A&M before this becomes apparent?

You may think it’s a sin, that I chose to be gay, and that I’m having wild, promiscuous, unprotected sex every chance I get. You may think of me as a faggot, a queer, a poof, a fairy, or a dirty homo. You may think that I will certainly die of AIDS…some of you may even think that I should die because of it. I know people on this campus and in this community who think that I deserve the death penalty for being gay. That is the reality of being gay on this campus, Senators. Even if a GLBT man or woman never once experiences outright discrimination, the knowledge that if it weren’t for Texas politeness they almost certainly would stays with them. It is fear, a constant awareness that we have to have when we’re on a date or walking across campus, an undercurrent of uncertainty about how people will react to us holding hands, wearing a GLBTAggies t-shirt, or standing in front of an Aggie Allies table by the Academic Building.

That is why the GLBT Resource Center is essential. It was part of what kept me alive a year ago, having a community where I knew I could find support, be able to talk to people who knew what I was going through and had the funding and resources to help get me (and every other person who visits the center, gay or straight) the information and support that they need to make it through a day, a week, a year, a lifetime.

Because guess what Senators? Somehow, most of us still love Texas A&M. Despite everything, we still bleed maroon. That’s why we are still here, why we haven’t just up and left, packed our bags, and hit the road for California or New York. The people who work at the GLBT resource center could have just given up years ago; it would have been easier. GLBT Aggies and their allies are still bettering this campus through our involvement in the student body. But we will continue to fight to be recognized fully as Aggies, despite the Student Senate’s clear position that we are not.

In closing, you will notice that my name is not attached to this letter. You may accuse me of cowardice, of choosing to hide behind the cloak of anonymity as I take potshots at you. Then again, you may not. But let me be clear: I have chosen to withhold my name not out of fear, but because you, as a senate body, have lost my trust. Choosing to come out to someone, which is what I would be doing if I included my name, requires trust. However, I do not trust you with my name any more than you as a senate trust that the GLBT students of this campus honestly need the support and resources that the GLBT Resource Center offers. You clearly no longer represent me, so you are no longer entitled to my name.

Maybe when you are willing to repair the damage that you have done to the Aggie Family I might be willing to trust you again.

Sincerely,

An Aggie No More

It’s been awfully dry in Texas and the wildfires are spreading big-time. What we need is help to fight the fires and more importantly, RAIN. Now I am a religious guy, even though some of my readers might not believe it, however I am not a big believer in intercessory prayer.

Not so our governor. He has issued an official state proclamation stating in part, “it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires.”

Though I applaud his sentiment, the idea of a state proclamation urging prayer really treads heavily on the line between separation of church and state. More importantly, instead of asking people to just pray, why not ask them to volunteer to fight the fires? Actions speak louder than words, Gov. Perry.

It is a shame and painfully unfair that the Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio are forced to respond to the continued discriminatory ravings and completely baseless accusations of Dan Ramos, the chairman of the Bexar County Democratic Party.  Mr. Ramos unapologetically bellows bald and bigoted charges, singling out Stonewall Democrats as “termites” and as the “Nazi Party.” But he fails to provide even the most rudimentary factual support for any of his purported allegations of misconduct, because his accusations are simply false.

This is a crucial time for Texans: the Republican-controlled Texas legislature is busy passing the most anti-Latino and anti-employer immigration legislation in our era; restricting voters rights through onerous voter ID requirements and biased redistricting; raising medically unsound obstacles to the long-held reproductive freedoms of women; and cutting billions of dollars to public education, further weakening the Texas economy. And yet, in the face of these pressing challenges for Democrats, Mr. Ramos has chosen to worry about whether his “fishing buddy” is gay. He has, moreover, apparently decided to hurl inflammatory bigoted remarks (such as referring to gays as a “sinister movement” and comparing homosexuals to “children stricken with polio”) to deflect attention from his own utter incompetence and misconduct as party chair.

The good thing, if we can find a silver lining in these turbulent times for Bexar County Democrats, is that Mr. Ramos is a dinosaur at the brink of extinction. He is irrelevant to our times, will be removed as party chair, and will never again be elected to public office in this county or state — not because of his age or ailments, but because of his archaic and decrepit discriminatory views that are contrary to the definitive trend of justice in the entire Western Hemisphere. True leaders do not succumb to irrelevancy even after their physical death. Even as early as the 1970s, the iconic Mexican-American civil rights lion Cesar Chavez strongly and vocally supported lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights.

Following this icon’s visionary leadership is a swell of voices that will continue to increase, from all corners, condemning Mr. Ramos’ bigoted remarks and calling for his resignation. Indeed, the Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio hope and demand that all fair-minded Bexar County Democrats, including our elected officials, party leaders, and voters strongly voice their opposition to Mr. Ramos’ views, demand his immediate resignation, and support his ouster.

Daniel Williams

By DANIEL WILLIAMS | Legislative Queery

HCR 110 by Rep. Paul Workman, R-Travis County, expresses the desire of the Texas Legislature for President Barack Obama to defend the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against court challenges. DOMA was passed in 1996 by Congress. It prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and allows individual states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

(HCR stands for “House Concurrent Resolution.” Concurrent resolutions must be passed by both the House and Senate and — in most cases — signed by the governor. They cannot create new laws but are used to express the will of the Legislature and, in some situations, to allow the Legislature to exercise its power. HCR 110 expresses the will of the Legislature for the executive branch of the federal government to take a particular course of action. If passed it would have no binding power over the president.)

On Feb. 23 the Obama Administration issued a press release stating that it would not defend section 3 of DOMA in two pending suits challenging its validity: Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States. Section 3 of DOMA is the part that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Pedersen v. OPM was brought by a group of same-sex- spouses of current, retired and deceased federal employees, all of whom were legally married. It seeks to require the federal government (their spouse’s employer) to provide them the same spousal benefits it provides the legal spouses of its straight employees. Winsor v. United States was brought by the widow of a New York woman who, although her marriage was recognized by New York, was subject to federal inheritance taxes upon the death of her wife that would not have been levied had her marriage been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, a branch of the federal government. Both cases argued, in part, that the licensure of marriage is a right reserved to the states under the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and so for the federal government to refuse to recognize a marriage recognized by a state is unconstitutional.

The Obama administration has made no statement regarding its defense of section 2 of DOMA, which allows individual states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

The irony of HCR 110 is that last session (2009) Rep. Workman co-authored HCR 50, which expressed the sentiment of the Legislature that the 10th amendment prohibited the federal government from imposing “mandates” on the state of Texas (by mandates they mean things like air quality standards and the voting rights act). He also was the principle (and only) author of HCR 54, which claimed that the 10th amendment prohibited the federal government from from establishing the Department of Education, the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Commerce, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor.

It seems that Rep. Workman loves the 10th amendment, except when its used to allow queer people to be treated like everyone else. Thus is the circuitous logic of the bigot, believing that the constitution should only be used to protect people they like, never people they hate.

Workman also argues in HCR 110 that:

“The constitutional role of the president of the United States is to execute the laws, not adjudicate them; it is well-established policy of the U.S. Department of Justice to defend a federal statute unless no reasonable argument can be made in its defense, but instead President Obama has unilaterally decided that DOMA is unconstitutional; the constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts, not by the executive branch.”

That little phrase “unless no reasonable argument can be made in its defense” is a whopping understatement. Rep. Workman didn’t write this resolution. It was written by one of the many fine lawyers at the Texas Legislative Counsel. I suspect that that knowledgeable lawyer insisted that this little phrase be included as clear precedent exists for the Justice department to discontinue defense of unconstitutional laws (precedent I assume Rep. Workman is either unaware of, or chooses to ignore). According to Law.com the Justice department declined to defend unconstitutional laws 13 times during the period from 2004-10 alone (under both the Bush and Obama administrations’ Justice Departments). Other specific examples of the Justice department declining to defend acts of congress include:

• Buckley v. Valeo – 1976 – The Ford declined to defend portions of a campaign finance law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal
• INS v. Chadha – 1983 – the Regan administration declined to defend congressional power to block visas
• Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady – 1992 – the first Bush administration declined to defend a law prohibiting the use of the name “Crazy Horse” for any alcoholic beverage

Certainly presidential administrations must exercise their power to not defend acts of congress with the utmost care, but it is not an unprecedented move, nor is it outside of the purview of the Department of Justice to do so.

If you would like to point out the Honorable Rep. Workman’s hypocrisy to him, or educate him on the well-established precedent for the Department of Justice to discontinue defending an unconstitutional law, you may do so by calling him at 512-463-0652 or by e-mail at paul.workman@house.state.tx.us.

ROB SCHLEIN | President, Log Cabin Republicans Dallas

Log Cabin Republicans are celebrating many accomplishments this year, but none so much as the defeat of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” From our victorious ruling in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States to securing dozens of GOP votes in Congress to repeal the policy, our members can be proud of the role Log Cabin is playing to end the ban on open service.

Join us in Dallas April 28-May 1 for an insider perspective on how it happened, and where we go from here.

The Log Cabin Republicans National Convention & Liberty Education Forum Symposium are known for bringing together an impressive slate of speakers — and 2011 promises to continue that proud legacy.

Dan Woods is a partner at White & Case and the lead attorney in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. He will be speaking about the trial verdict which turned the tide in the fight to end DADT, and the ongoing fight at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. For his work on our case, Woods has been named 2010 Attorney of the Year by The Recorder, and is the recipient of the 2011 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year Award.

Alex Nicholson served as Log Cabin Republicans named plaintiff in the suit against DADT, and his testimony was critical to our success. Alex is also the executive director of Servicemembers United, one of the core advocacy groups whose tireless efforts won votes in Congress for repeal and whose work continues as we look ahead to implementation and life after the ban. Alex is a past winner of Log Cabin’s “Uncommon Courage” award and is always a favored speaker at our events.

Last but not least, Log Cabin Republicans own executive director, R. Clarke Cooper, will join the panel with his perspective both as Log Cabin’s lead lobbyist for legislative repeal, but also providing insight as a currently serving captain in the Army Reserve. Little known fact: Clarke was actually in uniform when Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction against DADT went into effect. Join us in Dallas to hear the reactions of his fellow servicemembers to the verdict!

That’s just a small taste of what we have in store. Between now and April 28, Log Cabin Republicans national headquarters will be releasing more information about the 2011 Log Cabin Republicans National Convention & Liberty Education Forum Symposium — but don’t wait! The 2010 National Dinner sold out early, and you want to secure your place at what promises to be headline news in the fight for a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party.

*Important Note: a special student rate of $200 has been added to the registration page. Contact cberle@logcabin.org for any questions regarding eligibility.

Act now for Log Cabin Republicans special Convention rate of $149/night at the famed Hilton Anatole in Dallas. To take advantage of this rate, call 1-800-HILTONS and mention Log Cabin Republicans. For any questions, contact cberle@logcabin.org. See you in Dallas!