This is what marriage equality looks like

SF Pride Manning Controversy Continues After Community Forum

If you believe SF Pride, the community forum on May 31st was the final discussion regarding the Bradley Manning controversy and now that they've released a statement we can move on. Releasing a statement that said,

"Over the past several weeks, SF Pride has sought to respectfully listen to and consider the various opinions and perspectives on the matter of Pfc. Bradley Manning and related interests in extending representative support for Pfc. Manning.   The SF Pride Board of Directors recognizes the divergent opinions regarding the matter of Pfc. Manning, but none of the three main options we received from the community forum on May 31 garnered a consensus majority."

They went on to address the discrimination claim filed in San Francisco, and then wrapped up their statement saying, "Therefore, SF Pride will continue to produce this year’s Pride Celebration to ensure a safe and joyful time for all attendees as safety and security is our number #1 priority."
But if you believe that, you might have believed them when they said "the discussion of that matter is closed for this year" on Facebook last month.


However they'll have another protest on their hands tomorrow due to the method in which this release was made. After promising to release a statement within a week of the community meeting, activists prepared to hold a press conference at the end of the business day the Friday responding to the anticipated statement. Only to have SF Pride delay the announcement I quote above, until after the press conference ended. The activist's press conference ended at 6:15pm. The statement from SF Pride was issued at 6:28pm

As relayed from an email alert from Joey Cain, the past SF Pride Board President who nominated Manning, a group of Manning supporters under the slogan “Reinstate or Resign” will be organizing a protest and speak out outside Pride’s monthly membership meeting tomorrow, Tuesday June 11 at 6pm.

SF Pride needs to realize that declaring a controversy over doesn't actually end a controversy. They may be hoping that activists get busier as Pride Month continues, and that they tire of protesting this issue, however with the NSA leaks in the news the value of and consequences of being a whistle blower is being debated again and many Manning supporters have been energized by this debate. It should be interesting to see how this continues to unfold. But over a month into the controversy both sides seem to continue to not be heard by the other.

Divisiveness of SF Pride's Manning Decision is Nothing New for the LGBT Community

The LGBT rights movement is by no means a monolithic group, and the range of opinions was contextualized Wednesday night when famous activists Dan Nicoletta and Anne Kronenberg took the stage for an event discussing the impact of Harvey Milk at the Castro Theater hosted by Facing History and Ourselves.

During the Q&A the recent SF Pride controversy around Bradley Manning's nomination and subsequent removal from the grand marshal list was brought up, where Dan Nicoletta diplomatically supported SF Pride, the representation of Manning in the movement, as well as the process of debating and disagreeing with each other.

Replying to the question about what he thought about the controversy Nicoletta answered, "And you know I love Pride... and I've worked intimately with Pride... So the discourse is heartbreaking but I think Stuart Milk so eloquently always says that our differences are our strengths and we are going to have fights and we should fight... we'll figure it out, it's a complex issue and I think by giving that spokesperson for Bradley Manning a place to talk about those issues we're doing the right thing...
"Just like in Harvey Milk's Day... under the pressures from the rest of the world when Anita Bryant challenged us at the ballot box and John Briggs challenged us at the ballot box... there was a lot of scrambling to be something other than what we are. To have our arguments in public, I think that's a healthy thing and we will figure it out."

Dan Nicoletta's photography has done much to document Harvey Milk's life as a politician in San Francisco and both he and Anne Kronenberg, who got her start in politics working with Milk, spoke at length about how they think Milk would have lead today had it not been for his assassination.

Meanwhile in current San Francisco LGBT politics, Supervisor David Campus wrote a strong letter to SF Pride in which he said, "The decision to rescind this honor is unprecedented and the community has every right to be concerned about the consequences of this abrupt, top-down directive. Most importantly, however, is the obligation Pride has to be accountable, transparent and representative to the diverse LGBT community it serves. As an organization which receives City funding, Pride has a responsibility to operate with transparency and accountability, and to allow for timely appropriate discussions with the community as needed. The failure of Pride leadership to do so in this circumstance is contrary to this responsibility."

"Controversy is not a new phenomenon to Pride festivities, nor is it a valid reason for Pride not to fulfill its responsibilities to the broader LGBT community. The recent statement made by Pride that the discussion on this matter is “closed” is disturbing, and may serve to further divide the community and foster long-lasting resentments."

Tuesday this week activists also held a "mock Pride board meeting" with a row of empty chairs to represent the absence of SF Pride in the discussion.

Whether or not SF Pride takes the time to respond to the community outcry or Supervisor Campos, the vigorous debate is nothing new in LGBT politics, though it certainly seems to have become reinvigorated thanks to the Manning nomination.

Bradley Manning: SF Pride Still Doesn't Get Why People Are Upset

San Francisco Pride would really like you to forget the whole Bradley Manning issue. After Manning was nominated to be honored by former Grand Marshals of the city's yearly Pride Parade, the announcement was made public, some veterans and LGBT groups protested, SF Pride retracted the honor, faced community protests, changed its tactics, and was protested again — and yet the organization still hasn't absorbed why the community is upset and why it matters.

SF Pride has announced via email that it's postponing the May 14 meeting on Manning's invitation until a larger, suitable location is secured, with the rationale that “We want to allow people to have a chance to voice their opinions about the recent controversy, but also have a large event coming up, and do not want to let one issue, as important as it is to some, overshadow the concerns and interests of the hundreds of thousands who attend SF Pride.”

The email went on to say, “SF Pride's decision concerning the election process of Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal being consistent with SF Pride's long standing Grand Marshal election policy is firm. Thus, the discussion of that matter is closed for this year.”

With this attitude that the matter is closed, any such meeting on Manning serves no purpose. The activists who gathered to protest both on April 29 and May 7 were not hoping to just get an idea out there, they sought concrete actions from SF Pride in order to best reflect the will of participants.
SF Pride justified this decision saying, “A meeting in a larger venue after the 2013 Celebration and Parade will allow people from all sides of that issue and others to fully air and hear one another's viewpoints, without jeopardizing the production of this year's event and the safety and security of the attendees. We ask everyone in the community to come together in Pride this June, recognizing that we can embrace difference without violence and hate.”

This is a classic strawman argument. There is no safety or security risk in honoring or not honoring Bradley Manning. And to deny the community a chance to be heard prior to the event is not respecting viewpoints of a diverse community; it is silencing the chance for those viewpoints to be reflected in action. This lack of representation in action has been a complaint of many protesters, and in its newest tactic to avoid controversy, SF Pride is showing just the attitude the protesters have become tired of.

In my observation of the protesters, I saw no hate for Pride as an organization or movement. Rather, their protest sought to better represent the community and was based out of a desire for greater inclusivity within the community. Many had frustrations due to SF Pride not listening, however this press release shows that such a frustration is well grounded. SF Pride wants to first have its event, and then have a conversation when it can have no effect on the outcome.

Originally Posted Monday May 13, 2013 here.

Hey Look - I'm Writing Again! At Policy Mic...

In hindsight, I should have posted the last few articles I wrote here too… But oops. I didn’t. So I’m attaching them here. I will do this a series of posts this afternoon so they will be here, tagged and easier to find in the future.
Without further delay… here we go! – Starting with this post from exactly a week ago.

San Francisco Gay Pride 2013: SF Parade Honors Bradley Manning, Now Backtracking Any Way Possible

In a press release on the afternoon of May 7 prior to their monthly board meeting, the San Francisco Pride Board of Directors released a statement intended to clarify the reasons that Bradley Manning was named a community grand marshal before having that honor revoked.

In their release they argue that “the community grand marshal upon whom the Electoral College votes is defined as ‘a local hero (individual) not being a celebrity’ … Because Mr. Manning is not local, by definition under the Grand Marshal policy, he may not be nominated or elected by the Electoral College as its community grand marshal.”

This release comes on the heels of a protest on April 29 in which many community leaders protested SF Pride for their decision to revoke the honor they’d voted to bestow upon Bradley Manning.
Speakers at the April 29 protest included a wide range of military perspectives from Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, to John Caldera, an honorably discharged U.S. Navy corpsman and openly gay member of the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Commission. Also present was Rainey Reitman, who founded the Bradley Manning Support Network and spoke of the work of supporters, while Stephen Funk, a gay man who was court-martialed for his opposition to the Iraq war, called Manning a “freedom fighter.”

Almost all the speakers at the protest referenced SF Pride Board President Lisa William’s press release on April 27 which said, “Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country. We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform — and countless others, military and civilian alike — will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride. It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country.”

Caldera responded at the rally that “SF Pride sponsors include Bank of America and Wells Fargo, who have foreclosed on hundreds of veteran families” and went on to call for Lisa William’s resignation over the issue.

One former grand marshal, Gary Virginia, demanded an explanation of the process through which grand marshals are selected, and said until the board did so it not only would fail to represent the community, but also taint the honor of former grand marshals if the process was found to be unrepresentative. He assured the crowd that as a co-founder of the Pride Brunch fundraiser, their event would honor Manning.

While SF Pride’s newest press release doesn’t address all of the protesters concerns, nor does it address a recent complaint filed against it at the San Francisco Human Rights Commission concerning Mr. Manning — it does backpedal on the former political reasons for removing Mr. Manning’s nomination by changing the reason for revoking the honor to a technical byline. Whether or not this new tactic from SF Pride will remove the controversy surrounding the issue remains to be seen.

NOTE: This story has continued to develop as SF Pride’s Board had their monthly meeting Monday night. SF Pride called in police to remove protesters and promised to hold public comment in the future at a larger venue, however, no date has been announced.

Coming Soon - SFIAAFF!

Just a quick head’s up to what’s on the horizon other than all the Cinequest films I’m still trying to squeeze in: the 30th Annual San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival.
With 102 Films and Videos in 98 Screenings I’m sure there’s something for absolutely everyone…

I’m excited that among the 10 World Premieres, 7 US Premieres and 20 San Francisco Premieres there is the centerpiece feature Yes We’re Open which is as San Francisco of a production as you can get with writer H.P. Medoza and Director Richard Wong showcasing the world of a modern liberal couple from social politics to sex as they meet a polyamorous couple who challenge their assumptions about themselves.

Opening night promises to be an exciting affair with the world premiere of White Frog, Quentin Lee’s latest film about what appears to be a perfect family as things slowly unravel. While I haven’t had the chance to see it yet, I’m looking forward to seeing the all star cast of Joan Chen, B.D. Wong, and Harry Shum Jr. both onscreen and in attendance for what I’m sure will be a memorable evening in the Castro Theater. Following the screening the festivities continue at the beautiful Asian Art Museum where the opening night Gala offers the chance for fans of cinema to mingle with the film makers and community organizers who bring the festival to life.

Joan Chen will also be the focus of this year’s spotlight with a 
screening
 of 
her 
directorial
 debut 
”Xiu 
Xiu:
The 
Sent‐ Down 
Girl”
 and she will also be present at 
a “
Saving 
Face” 
reunion 
screening,
 with 
many
 cast 
and
 crew 
present. Her fans will thus get three chances to see her: March 8th, 9th, and 12th. I’m personally quite excited for Saving Face to be on a big screen as I only recently saw it and found it a charming and unconventional comedy which appeals to all generations. I will also be attending the spotlight screenings so you can expect more on this later.

I also am excited to see that Joan Chen is not the only actress with multiple films, as Lynn Chen also in Saving Face seems to be making a comeback with a packed schedule for this year’s festival appearing in “Yes We’re Open”, “Daylight Savings”, “Nice Girls Crew”, and of course the reunion screening of “Saving Face”. Her costar in “Saving Face” Michelle Krusiec is also going to be with her in “Nice Girls Crew” along with Sheetal Sheth who is additionally also costarring in “Yes We’re Open”. Meanwhile the writer of “Yes We’re Open”, H.P. Mendoza will also be premiering his new horror film “I Am A Ghost” and Dave Boyle who directs “Day Light Savings” also appears in “Yes We’re Open” With this amount of talent overlapping both in front of and behind the camera, it seems SFIAAFF’s aim of offering a stage to both established and up and coming talent is right on target.
The party will continue with the annual Directions in Sound showcasing the contributions of Asian American musicians while offering festival goers yet another chance to party and connect. I found this event particularly enjoyable last year and am looking forward to hearing the artists.

By the end of next week I’ll be coming back to San Jose as the festival migrates south to make sure Asian Americans in the south bay have the same opportunity to enjoy cinema within their community. Film goers currently at Cinequest which will end March 11th will thus have the ability to continue seeing festival films in the same theaters beginning Thursday night with the San Jose Opening night screening of Knots followed by yet another Gala.

If you want to buy tickets to any of these events or see what else the Center for Asian American Media has up their sleeve, check out caamedia.org.

With that said – I’m off to movies!

Prop 8 Ruling

I could try to write something now but I feel like today's ruling said so much that it speaks for itself...Page 38 was the best part in my view:

"We are excited to see someone ask, “Will you marry me?”, whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see “Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?”. Groucho Marx’s one-liner, “Marriage is a wonderful institution…but who wants to live in an institution?” would lack its punch if the word ‘marriage’ were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare’s “A young man married is a man that’s marr’d,” Lincoln’s “Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory,” and Sinatra’s “A man doesn’t know what happiness is until he’s married. By then it’s too late.” We see tropes like “marrying for love” versus “marrying for money” played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized importance and permanence of the marriage relationship. Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different. The name ‘marriage’ signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships."

Meanwhile within the introduction section (page 5) it summarized the case rather well as it said :

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort.'"

I was considering going out to celebrate - but I'm tired. Not just from sleep deprivation - but the mental exhaustion that arises with every time this case interrupts life. Every time a verdict regarding this has been on the horizon - whether from the voters on November 4th 2008, or before hearing the oral hearing on March 5th 2009, or when we anxiously waited for the first Day of Decision of that ruling, prepared to Meet in the Middle, set our scopes on national equality with the National Equality March in DC, when we fought the repetition of this case in Question 1 in Maine, as it went to Judge Walker, After his ruling when it was first made unconstitutional August 4th 2010, When it went back to court before Judge Ware to decide if the decision should be vacated after the proponents discovered Judge Walker had a long time same-sex partner, then to the California Superior court to advise the 9th circuit on if the state could be represented by the proponents if the state would not appeal, then to the 9th circuit which leads us to today...

On the eve of every one of these moments my insomnia gets worse and I spend an anxiety induced night with no sleep, groggy eyes when I finally get out of bed to shower and get on with the events of the day. (Whether that means driving to SF, working at voter reg or otherwise being active in the cause) Today was no different. I'm tired of these nights. The flashbacks of stresses and new stresses. The media narrative that makes me want to pull my hair out or slap an announcer for trying to be neutral and in doing so dehumanizing the people behind it. As such - I don't greet today's victory with a cheer, I greet it with a sigh. One more step on this fight...

Prop 8 Update... to come tomorrow

Tomorrow's Prop 8 ruling will likely cover three parts to the case...
1) If former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-time partner with whom he was not married (and therefore might have an interest in marrying someday)


2) If the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when the state of California won't

3) If Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents DO have the right to appeal, whether Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution....

... So tired of this nonsense. More news to come - 10:30 am tomorrow. Most likely on twitter...

Photos: Michal Wisniowski

Earlier this week I got a chance to hang out with and shoot a bunch of photos with a friend, Michal Wisniowski who's a talented artist based in SF. You can see samples of his work on his facebook page.

Scattered Thoughts on the Occupy Movement.

I seem to fall somewhere between the two main trains of thoughts I see up on facebook walls, peppering my twitter feed, dominating the opinion pages and otherwise publicly being declared. There are those saying the movement is a time waste and naïve – often based on economics, lack of political tactics, haphazard strategy, etc. And the other side is so refreshed by the sight of action that their perspectives are unapologetically bold in their support. Which isn’t to say there aren’t more nuanced perspectives out there – only that they aren’t the ones I seem to be encountering daily.

When the protests began I hoped the novelty would wear off soon and substance would come. The procedural running of meetings to achieve consensus complete with hand motions for a point of order, voting agreement or disapproval etc. reminded me of my first high school congress tournament with my Speech and Debate team – I could see the objective of rules to regulate the conversation but I found the dialog utterly disconnected from reality. So we all agree – now what? Consensus in general assemblies meant little in terms of future actions, just as the results meant little in my high school debates.

Later watching the police brutally attack protesters in New York with punches to the face, unprovoked pepper spray and kettling tactics it was surreal. The UC fee hikes had introduced me to those tactics and I must confess I am rather scared of pepper spray and batons as my encounters with them have not been pleasant. I’m sure activist friends who were with me when I was at such protests can attest – I’m a coward. I want to be close enough to the action to get the photos but I’m pretty useless when things are chaotic. I’m short enough to get lost in the shuffle and when I can’t see what’s happening I get worried. Regardless of my own dislike of chaotic situations, I went out to San Francisco again to see what the local movement looked like – did it have the same vibe as what I was observing remotely from video clips, photos and live streams from Wall Street?

I was disappointed. If you had told me the entire San Francisco contingent in those early days was simply the kids from the Haight who’d relocated I’d believe you. Several of the people I spoke to at the event had come out from Florida to go to the Blue Grass Festival and decided to stay on. This wasn’t a movement dominated by local San Franciscans asking to be heard. There were a handful out there – but it wasn’t a majority, and the loudest voices definitely weren’t locals (in the discussions I had.) I admit, I’ve gone out of state for a few days of GOTV work in proceeding elections, but there’s something different to me about being invited by campaign organizers to remind people their voices matter and physically occupying a space while claiming to represent the people in that space. The difference between co-opting versus supporting matters to me, especially in the early phases of a movement.

Other things also frustrated me. When there are only a few dozen people and you’ve made a rule through consensus I expect you to respect it. Seeing a man packing a bowl and getting high under the sign that set the rules No Drugs, No Alcohol, and No Smoking annoyed me. I have no problem with an 18 year old who’s legally allowed to serve in the military having a beer. I don’t think our government’s drug policy is logical at all and if you want to protest that – have at it! (I personally have chosen to respect it – and didn’t drink till 22, but my perspective doesn’t need to dictate your actions) But what frustrated me was that those in camp reached consensus that the camp would be drug and alcohol free, and yet some of those people who participated in making the rule didn’t respect it. This wasn’t a rule imposed by a higher power years before your birth, it was your community with your participation. If you’re going to do civil disobedience to change a law but can’t respect your own rules, why bother? If you’re going to ignore rules regardless of who makes them, why should the rules matter to you?

At Occupy San Jose I found much more to respect. It was a smaller delegation but rather than people asking me where to find a good cup of coffee and asking for directions – there was debate on whether the city ordinances should be respected as the protest was meant to target a national issue, however the ordinances would affect the action plan. The debate was much more nuanced and action oriented when I went – precedent of past protests was discussed as well as the cost in both public perception and use of time. It felt more concrete in how they were establishing their role, which to me is essential for being relevant. If you don’t have a concrete aim to be achieved – when will the fight be over? Are you planning on camping out forever?

When I made my way to Occupy Oakland I found it was like Occupy San Jose in the community being predominantly local, but as it was much larger it also had greater diversity. By diversity I’m refereeing to socio-economic status, racial representation, gender expression, orientation of couples holding hands etc- there was a much wider segment of society being represented. Like in San Francisco there were the occasional joints and drinks being served – but like San Jose they were being very methodical about running their General Assembly, and due to the size were breaking into groups of 20 for both discussions and voting to get an accurate headcount and make sure concerns were aired.

The day I came to Occupy Oakland was right after the camp had been forcefully disbanded by police, and after the tear gassing and pepper spraying of protesters who tried to return – so there was a much greater awareness of the cost of attendance and the possibility of force, even though the police were not present that evening.

However despite mostly agreeing with where protesters attitudes were coming from, still I found myself irked later in the evening when Mayor Quan came to address the assembly. When it came to being angry at her, I understand that. When it came to being physically assaulted by police I understand the anger. But far too many complained that she wasn’t listening, and when she came angry individuals ran towards her shouting she was not welcome. To me it meant the chance for a dialog was never made possible. If angry people run at me shouting, I’d leave – and I can’t blame Mayor Quan for doing as much.

Don’t get me wrong here, it was stupid of the city to use such violent tactics to clear the camp. It was even stupider to use tear gas in the name of public safety to clear a crowd that was mostly milling about (to be fair there were some trouble makers). That being said on the protesters side it was stupid to not stop other protesters from throwing paint canisters on police. They don’t know if you’re throwing water, paint or gasoline that you plan to follow with a match – so obviously they’re going to be more likely to use force when it seems like elements of the group are willing to fight. It was also stupid of protesters to not take advantage of the moment to engage with mayor and actually talk it out. Even if the protesters disagreed with everything she might have said, to let her talk would have made them the grown ups, the responsible ones. Undue force and irrationality would be pegged squarely on the city; but if a Mayor can’t walk into a public square without being verbally harassed with people chasing her – she’s got much more ground for future force.

That being said the evening ended on a much more peaceful note – live music being played, a community celebrating their presence, dancing, and I don’t recall the last time I felt so comfortable in a space. A man told me about his fears for his daughter who at age 5 had already seen several homicides in their neighborhood. I met young people who cheerfully invited me into their group. A woman made soup to hand out in cups – so when I stayed several hours longer than expected I was not hungry. I’ve been to a fair number of political spaces – but the common thread amongst most conventions and networking events is I’m miserable. I love the people I meet working phone banks, walking precincts etc – but political spaces always make me feel marginalized, so to see a movement so open armed is also a positive sign.

However as I see it the inability for the movement to self manage itself is the biggest hurdle to getting full support- because I’m not the only one that agrees that the problem of economic injustice is huge, that the government is being corrupted with money, that lobbyists exert too much control, that those in the financial industry who crashed the economy should be better regulated etc… a lot of the things being said in any of these three cities general assemblies I and many others agree with. And I like a lot of the people I’ve met. But if we’re talking about the principle of an idea not the implementation such agreement becomes meaningless to the larger issue.

The reality is we’re several weeks in and most of the general assemblies that I’ve been to are still working out group norms, talking about procedurals, and trying to figure out what the group stands for. To be fair – society hasn’t had a lot of these conversations in a long time, and it will take time to bring the discussion around, but I’m getting stir crazy. I want to see the movement DO something more than organize the tents and camp. At first I was impressed by having trash, compost and recycling separated and by having the first aid tents. But it’s been too long for that to feel good. It feels like the frustration I had with the congress tournaments in High School or the UN re-enactments at conferences, great dialog, what does it mean?

Last year I thought the Rally to Restore Sanity was an awesome way to bring together moderate Americans and those with a sense of humor to say the political machine was broken – but that was a feel good action that didn’t actually change anything but the media dialog. The dialog change was needed but it didn’t change any policies or the behavior of politicians. It made people aware that things had gotten too heated – but it wasn’t until Congresswoman Giffords was shot that the point was truly absorbed and the media coverage changed. My fear is that OccupyWallStreet could be something in those lines- a press event raising awareness for a serious issue that that despite it’s good intent needs a tragedy to make it’s point. The topic has been successfully raised (statistically we can prove this), the microphone (human or otherwise) is ready, but the elephant in the room is the lingering question, “Now what?”

I’ll be going to Oakland tomorrow to see what happens in the strike. Maybe my thoughts will change then… I’ll let you know.

San Francisco Pride