policy with pop

Anthony Woods: The Democrats' New Dream Candidate?

Move over President Obama, there is a new groundbreaking candidate and campaign in town.

Anthony Woods at 29 years of age already has a compelling life story similar to the President’s background. Like Obama, Woods grew up in a very modest, single-mother household. Both are also African American men who happen to be Democrats and Harvard-educated.
 
But Woods is not an Obama clone. He stands in his own right as a historic candidate. Woods is a decorated Iraq War veteran, earning the bronze star for commanding 81 soldiers, who all returned home safely.

Woods’ bravery does not end at the battlefield. While attending the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Woods stood up against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and subsequently was discharged. As a result, he lost his military funding for school. Yet, Woods persevered and completed his master’s degree in public policy. Afterwards, he became an economic policy specialist. Now he’s running for Congress.

Anthony Woods may be Democrats’ dream candidate post-Obama’s victory. Woods breaks stereotypes in every way liberals could hope for. He’s black. He’s gay. He’s an Iraq War vet. He’s Harvard and West Point educated. He comes from humble beginnings. No story could be written better.

Because of his unique life, Woods has earned national attention, fundraised impressive amounts, and attracted a loyal base of supporters.

But, winning California’s 10th congressional seat in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher, who left the seat to take an appointment in the State Department, will not be easy for Woods. He runs against not one but three Democratic-establishment candidates. They are California’s Lt. Governor John Garamendi, state Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan and state Senator Mark DeSulnier.  The three Sacramento politicians have better name identification. But, ultimately, voter turnout in this special election will decide the winner.

The Democrat with the most votes in the primary will likely win the election outright. Sound familiar? Well, if Woods wins on September 1st, it may be one of the biggest political upsets in history, rivaling that of Obama’s victory against the Clinton machine. I’m almost certain a movie will be made if that occurs.

But, if Woods does not pull off a political upset in Northern California, he should take comfort in the fact that Obama lost his election for a congressional seat in Illinois in 2000.

Kings, No Queens: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Thanks to Hulu.com I have found a new show to watch – Kings. I’ve only seen the first episode of the NBC drama so far, but its strong storytelling makes it a compelling watch.

Set in a fictional world, Kings follows the inner turmoil of the absolute monarchy in the country of Gilboa. The first episode starts with the country at war. Modest farm-boy turned soldier David Shepherd emerges as a national hero after rescuing captured soldiers, including Prince Jack Benjamin, from enemy lines. 

As David is celebrated as Gilboa’s golden boy by both the country and King Silas, Jack is jealous and feels resentment towards his father. The playboy prince confronts Silas, wanting to know why his father does not give him the respect he deserves as a soldier and as his son. Startling revelations are revealed in their heated conversation. Watch:

This scene immediately made me think about the national debate on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which gay military personnel are discharged if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Originally enacted during the 1990’s, President Clinton hoped to find a compromised solution that would allow the LGBT community to serve in the military. Before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military did not allow any gay people to join the military. Once enacted, the law allows gay people to serve if they hide their orientation. If not, they’re kicked out.

Proponents of the policy argue that openly accepting gay military members hurts military morale and cohesion. Some argue that many recruits have conservative beliefs and would not feel comfortable being around openly gay people. They argue that this tension would hinder military performance. So just like Silas, they essentially argue that LGBT servicemen should “wrestle it to the ground.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is criticized by opponents as a policy that is degrading, unfair and hurts military power. They argue the notion that heterosexuals can’t serve with openly homosexual soldiers insults the professionalism of our straight men and women in uniform. Other countries allow for LGBT people to serve openly without a decrease in cohesiveness or morale. Moreover, opponents say that the policy is degrading as it forces gay people to hide who they are. And, finally, they argue that discharging needed military men and women, especially in time of war, is dangerous. Arabic translators are in high demand in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; however, more than 50 Arabic translators have been discharged because of “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” since the policy’s inception.

A number of people have called for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” including President Clinton’s wife (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and a number of military higher-ups. President Obama has also stated he would like to see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His actions on this issue, however, have been… well… minimal at best. And congressional leaders, at least in the Senate, seem hesitant to put this issue up to a vote.

As politicians struggle with the future of this policy, what do you think? Should we take a King Silas approach and ask our gay men and women to hide who they are? Or would that mentality underestimate the professionalism of our straight servicemen and be an insult to the LGBT community? And what do you think is the best strategic military option?

Facebook: A Gender Identity Problem?

Facebook is a wonderful invention that has helped more than 115 million users keep in touch and… procrastinate like never before. 

A few months ago as I was procrastinating I noticed that one of my friends joined the Facebook group Appeal to Facebook to Stop Forcing Normative Gender. When I saw this, I checked out the group. The title sounded interesting.

Apparently, this group objects to the fact that Facebook makes its users select “male” or “female” in order apply “his” or “her” to mini-feed updates. For example, if Jane Doe selected “female” then the update would read “Jane Doe edited her profile.”

Admittedly I did not completely understand what the objection was when I first learned of this group. Fortunately, yesterday my school had a lunch-time event, which unintentionally reminded me and helped me better understand the Facebook group. Plus it provided free food! Anyway, the topic of the event was “Current Issues in Transgender Law.” By learning some of the transgender community’s views, I understood better where this Facebook group was coming from.

The group protests Facebook’s male-female only option because it forces some users to choose a gender that they may not identify with.  This is especially true for transgender people – people whose gender expression is nonconforming and/or whose gender identity is different from their birth assigned gender. The transgender community argues that gender does not only include two extremes – male and female – but that gender should be considered a spectrum with male, female and in-betweens. Thus, the group does not want Facebook to add pressure on transgender people to conform to a binary gender system.

Should Facebook get rid or change its current gender listing to be sensitive to all people? Or would this be an unreasonable request that appeases a small group of people?

And, do you think Facebook advocacy groups make a difference? If 10 Million Join Marc Zomberg Will Bring Back the Old Facebook! really!?!

Wedding Gift = Political Donations

Ellen DeGeneres is known for doing this:

Dancing! She sure likes to dance a lot on her talk show. But, Ellen has also gained national attention for recently marrying her partner, actress Portia de Rossi of Alley McBeal and Arrested Development fame.

So we’ve already had a passionate debate on the practice of gay marriage on PolicyWithPop.com. And you’re more than welcomed to continue it.

But the question that arises now is: What is an appropriate wedding gift for a gay marriage? Obviously, it depends on the couple and your relationship with them. But one interesting present that many in the gay community are asking for is a political donation.

As we know, California is considering a proposition that bans same-sex marriages since the state Supreme Court allowed for gay marriage a few months ago. Both sides of the proposition are heavily raising money for their campaigns. Thus, many gay couples are asking their guests to contribute money to their wedding registry on the Equality California Web.

For gay couples that have lived together and had committed relationships for years, new toasters, blenders and dishes would be a waste. Saving their right to marry is much more important and meaningful.

During the first fundraising reporting quarter, gay couples and friends have donated approximately $500,000 to Equality for All, an umbrella group which includes Equality California, That total pales in comparison ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage-California, which had raised S2.3 million in its first quarter.

However much the gay grassroots fundraising campaign raises and regardless of where you stand on the same-sex marriage debate, you have to admit that political donations as a wedding gift is certainly unique, creative and purposeful.

Would you ever forgo asking traditional wedding gifts to ask your friends and family contribute to a cause you strongly believe in? And if so, what cause?

The Practice of Gay Marriage

With the recent California Supreme Court ruling, gay couples are now able to wed in the state, causing a heated debate over the right to have same-sex marriages. Opponents of the ruling have launched a proposition that would change California’s constitution to ban gay marriage. Florida is also considering a similar state proposition, so there is a lot debate going on about this issue.

What better to learn about the different positions in the gay marriage debate than by watching scenes from The Practice - the 1990’s Emmy Award winning show about Boston lawyers?

In the episode “Civil Rights,” attorney Jimmy Berluti and Lindsey Dole represents Berluti’s recently outed lesbian mother and her partner in their petition for a marriage license. These two clips will highlight the arguments made on both sides of the gay marriage debate.

First up is the opposing counsel, who is asking the judge to deny the marriage certificate to Berluti’s mom and her partner. Here are his arguments:

Closing the show is Berluti, who frames gay marriage as an issue of equity and civil rights:

In the end, the judge declines to grant a marriage license to the lesbian couple because while he tolerates gay relationships he does not want to encourage them.

What do you think about the whole marriage debate? Were there any arguments you found particularly convincing from The Practice? Are there any other arguments for either side which the show failed to mention?

For those of you in California and Florida, how will you vote on the propositions that would amend your respective state constitutions to ban gay marriage?