"Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights."

In an amazing speech yesterday in Geneva, Switzerland, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced to the world that the Obama Administration considers LGBT Rights to be Human Rights:

"To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are."

The next part of her speech was the one that moved me the most, though:

"And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people."

It is truly a step forward for LGBT Rights worldwide to have the Secretary of State of the United States making such a declarative, powerful statement. You could well argue that this (and more) should have happened a long time ago, certainly earlier in this particular Administration, but I don't think that takes anything away from this moment itself.

Check out a video of the speech here, or read the full transcript here.

Secretary Clinton on Uganda

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at Georgetown University earlier this week on the subject of Human Rights and addressed the issue of Uganda, where legislation is pending that would make being gay or lesbian punishable by death. You can check out the full video of the speech on LGBT POV.

I've always admired Hillary Clinton a great deal (I supported her in the primaries over President Obama) and I think she's been far stronger on LGBT issues within the confines of her role than the President has been with far greater power at his disposal.

Speaking out on Uganda is crucial, especially at a time when even the BBC seems to think they can pose the question 'Should Homosexuals Face Execution?' as if there were a legitimate discussion to be had on the matter! Genocide doesn't come with a pro and con list. Uganda isn't the only place where LGBT people are facing grave Human Rights violations, though, and Secretary Clinton demonstrated her awareness of that fact.

After the speech, the Secretary of State was asked a follow up question by one of the students attending the event:

QUESTION: Hello, Secretary Clinton. Thank you so much for speaking to us today. You spoke about the situation in Uganda. Could you please talk to us a little bit more about how the United States can protect the rights of LGBT people in areas where those rights are not respected?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. And first let me say that over this past year, we have elevated into our human rights dialogues and our public statements a very clear message about protecting the rights of the LGBT community worldwide. And we are particularly concerned about some of the specific cases that have come to our attention around the world. There have been organized efforts to kill and maim gays and lesbians in some countries that we have spoken out about, and also conveyed our very strong concerns about to their governments – not that they were governmentally implemented or even that the government was aware of them, but that the governments need to pay much greater attention to the kinds of abuses that we’ve seen in Iraq, for example.

We are deeply concerned about some of the stories coming out of Iran. In large measure, in reaction, we think, to the response to the elections back in June, there have been abuses committed within the detention facilities and elsewhere that we are deeply concerned about. And then the example that I used of a piece of legislation in Uganda which would not only criminalize homosexuality but attach the death penalty to it. We have expressed our concerns directly, indirectly, and we will continue to do so. The bill has not gone through the Ugandan legislature, but it has a lot of public support by various groups, including religious leaders in Uganda. And we view it as a very serious potential violation of human rights.

So it is clear that across the world this is a new frontier in the minds of many people about how we protect the LGBT community, but it is at the top of our list because we see many instances where there is a very serious assault on the physical safety and an increasing effort to marginalize people. And we think it’s important for the United States to stand against that and to enlist others to join us in doing so.

Change Comes to the State Department

Four months after taking office as Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is making some much needed changes to the Department's biased policies regarding LGBT diplomats in matters of partner and family benefits.

Under the old system, the partners and families of LGBT employees working overseas were not allowed the same travel, medical benefits, or even the basic protections that the spouses of straight employees were afforded. It was so bad that LGBT partners weren't even included in emergency evacuations of Government employees and their families if one was ordered!

Clinton was asked about these policies, which were fully supported by her predecessor, during her confirmation hearing and gave a vaguely supportive answer about needing to take a hard look at this while noting that other countries had moved forward in that direction.

Now, the Secretary of State is ready to move the United States forward as well:

In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are "unfair and must end," as they harm U.S. diplomacy.

"Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad," she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers," she says.

"At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do," Clinton says.

I'm glad to see that at least one person in the Obama Administration is doing something about LGBT Rights, even on a small scale. It does make you wonder what things would have been like if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination last year. Would she, as President, be dragging her feet on issues of LGBT equality like President Obama is?

Clinton on LGBT Rights at State Department

GayPolitics has an article on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent confirmation hearing, in which Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin raised the issue of LGBT rights in the State department.

Feingold: ...There’s widespread recognition of the need to build a more robust and effective diplomatic and development corps. And as a part of that effort, it, of course, makes sense to consider ways to address challenges faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, particularly relating to domestic partner benefits and State Department policies that make it difficult for the partners of foreign service officers to travel and live at overseas posts. What would you do as secretary of state to address these concerns? Will you support changes to existing personnel policy in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and USAID receive equal benefits and support?

Clinton: Senator, this issue was brought to my attention during the transition. I’ve asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy. As I understand it, but don’t hold me to it because I don’t have the full briefing material, but my understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit. And we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward.

First off, I'm very glad Senator Feingold, one of the most progressive members of the Senate, raised the issue with the (presumed) future Secretary of State.

Clinton's rather vague non-answer does at least acknowledge that other nations are ahead of us on this issue and implies that a change is needed. I do wish she'd been more direct in rejecting this blatant discrimination. I'm hopeful, though, that once she's Secretary of State the policy, which outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has supported, will be thrown out.

Clinton Yay, Gates Nay

I have mixed feelings about the announcement of President-elect Obama's National Security team today. On the one hand, I'm beyond thrilled that he picked Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his Secretary of State. I think she's an excellent choice and will be a strong force for a return to real diplomacy and rebuilding America's standing in the world.

But to say I'm troubled by his choice to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense would be an understatement. Gates is on the record as opposing the Iraq withdrawal plan that Obama campaigned on so the decision to keep him on at Defense seems odd if the President-elect really does intend to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation has an excellent piece on the choice that should be read. Here are a few of the very strong points she makes:

Obama may believe that Gates will give him the cover and continuity he needs to carry out his planned withdrawal from Iraq. But so could many others, including Republicans like Chuck Hagel, who, at least, opposed the Iraq war. By keeping Gates on Obama worsens the Democratic image on national security--- sending the message that even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military. And even more troubling for our future security, Gates has sounded ominous notes about how more US troops can pacify Afghanistan. Speaking only days after a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the US was caught in a "downward spiral" there, Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run." Extricating the US from one disastrous war to head into another will drain resources needed to fulfill Obama's hopes and promises for economic growth, health care, energy independence and crowd out other international initiatives.

All of this makes me nervous, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens over the first few month's of Obama's administration before I get too panicked. It's too bad that Gates doesn't have to be Confirmed for the job again, though, because I'd like to see some real debate on this nomination.

Meanwhile, CQPolitics has an article on the potential replacements to fill Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate. It seems like the most obvious choice is the State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who appears to be the most popular pick among those polled and would also eliminate a potential rival in the Democratic Primaries for Governor Paterson.

I'm still hoping that Governor Paterson will select a woman, though, and there are several excellent choices from among New York's Congressional Delegation. The article also mentions the possibility of a 'dark horse' surprise like Caroline Kennedy. In general, I'd prefer someone who has at least held elective office before but I have to admit that I've always greatly admired Caroline and would love to see her in the Senate.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

On a completely different topic, today is World AIDS Day and the 20th Anniversary of the first such day. If you can, please make a donation to help in the fight.

I'll be back later this evening to discuss today's Luke & Noah scenes on As the World Turns.

Books, Secretary of State Clinton?

First off, thanks to Darius for the book blog recommendations! I've already checked out a couple of them and I can't wait to take a look at the rest.

If anyone else would like to tip me off to a great book blog or any site involving literature, feel free!

I just finished reading Daniel Mendelsohn's collection of critical essays, How Beautiful It Is and How Easily It Can Be Broken. I have to say I really enjoyed it. Mendelsohn is a classicist, so many of the reviews either dealt directly with works that touched on the classical world (such as revivals of Medea, Oedipus Rex, or Aristophane's Frogs) or reflected on them in some way. I've studied the Classical world at the college level, but Mendelsohn's enthusiasm in these essays somehow makes it all come alive more than my Professor ever did.

Mendelsohn, who is gay, also has a section of reviews dealing with The Closet, which includes insightful essays on Henry James, Oscar Wilde, A.E. Housman, and the movie Brokeback Mountain, among others, and a section on War that included an incredible essay on Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War and the misrepresentation and re-interpretation of it and of the war itself by modern war hawks like Donald Kagan and Victor Hanson.

I really enjoyed the collection a lot and it's worth checking out.

I just bought a couple of new books the other day. I'm really excited for the upcoming Gus Van Sant movie Milk, so I picked up the biography of Harvey Milk, The Mayor of Castro Street by Randy Shilts. I've also always meant to read Shilts' definitive work about the AIDS crisis, And the Band Played On, so I bought that as well. I'm not sure which I'll end up reading first.

On an unrelated note, The Guardian is reporting that Senator Hillary Clinton has accepted President-elect Obama's offer to become Secretary of State! As far as I know, it hadn't been officially confirmed by either party that the offer had even been made in the first place, but the Guardian is usually a very reliable source.

I think Senator Clinton would be an excellent choice to be Secretary of State, so I'm hoping that this turns out to be true.

Daytime and Electoral Soaps

Hello again! I have to admit, I'm not even sure where to pick up after nearly eight months away from blogging.

I've had a few e-mails from people wondering why I hadn't written anything about Luke & Noah in such a long time. There have certainly been some ups and downs for the boys since last August and plenty of off-screen controversy as well, with the apparent No Kissing Allowed mandate having been in effect since last September and the press attention surrounding the campaign by Nuke fans to change it.

Okay, here's a basic summary of what's gone on since I last wrote. After their kiss, Noah tried to fight his feelings for awhile, but in the end he couldn't. Maddie, Noah's girlfriend, took the news rather well, all things considered, and left town for college. Noah's father, the Colonel, didn't see things quite the same way. He pretended to be accepting of his son's boyfriend long enough to lure the boys off on fishing trip with him, where he planned to kill Luke.

What we ended up with as a result was the first of what promises to be many plot devices to keep the boys from being intimate: Luke in a wheel chair.

Of course, Noah was by Luke's side the whole time and helped him regain the use of his legs, but around that time fans started noticing how odd it was that Luke & Noah were no longer kissing. After their ground breaking first kiss in August, they shared one more quick lip lock in September (which Colonel Mayer walked in on), but in spite of some nice romantic moments between the two, their lips just weren't coming together. Even the pivotal moment where Luke took his first post-paralysis steps into Noah's waiting arms was celebrated with a hug.

Still, it wasn't until the now infamous Mistletoe Incident that fans really started seeing red. At Christmas time, they boys found themselves all alone under the mistletoe and finally moved in for another kiss after a three month dry spell... only to have the camera pan up to the mistletoe before their mouths actually met.

ATWT claimed it was an 'artistic decision', but the fans weren't buying it. They retaliated by launching the Kiss Campaign, bombarding the Powers that Be with Hershey's Kisses to make their demand that Luke & Noah be allowed to kiss like any other couple on the soap.

In the months since, there have been several near misses, where the boys moved in for a kiss only to pull apart at the last second for one reason or another. There was also the Valentine's Day episode which featured 'What If' stories about several couples, imagining their lives together in different circumstances. Each couple's story ended with a kiss except for Nuke's. They had to settle for their usual hug.

As if things weren't bad enough, the show has finally hit upon the perfect solution to why two out and proud gay men who are completely in love with each other would refrain from showing physical affection: Ameera. The very name has come to represent all that is wrong with the treatment of daytime's only current gay characters.

You see, it turns out that Noah's evil father was generous to an Iraqi woman and her daughter. His support kept them safe and when it stopped (because of the whole going to prison for trying to kill his gay son's boyfriend thing, you know) the woman died and her daughter, Ameera, managed somehow to get all the way to Oakdale, where Noah had to save her from a return to war torn Iraq by marrying her.

Ta da! Now the boys can't kiss in public for a reason! The INS would send poor innocent Ameera back to Iraq. I guess all the show has to do is refrain from ever showing the boys alone together in private (which they seem to be doing) and the lack of kissing is totally logical!

There have been some good moments along the way, of course, like Noah becoming a part of the Snyder family and even moving to the Snyder farm, and Luke & Noah discussing what they want their first time to be like. But when second base is a pat on the shoulder, I think we've got a long wait before we get to any romantic bedroom scenes.

There was also a conflict with two drunken frat boy types who pulled Ameera into their car. Though the dreaded F Bomb was dropped (and, I'm sorry, I don't think the show should be so free with that word- they've used it twice since Luke came out- if they're not going to show a simple kiss between two guys in love), I was glad to see that rather than being victims Noah & especially Luke fought back and were holding their own and kicking some ass.

But all in all, the story is in a really bad place right now that has a lot of viewers tuning out. The show clearly knows that Nuke is an incredibly popular couple- Van Hansis was just signed to a new, multi-year contract as Luke and the show just won a GLAAD award, not to mention that they've received more press coverage over all of this than they have for anything in decades- but none of that is going to last much longer if this continues. There is a lot of talk about where the No Kissing rule comes from- the network, Procter & Gamble, the producers?- and the show itself denies that such a double standard is in place. The audience isn't stupid, though, and we're not going to settle for second class status for Luke & Noah any more than we would for ourselves.

So that's where things are on the Nuke front. If you're wondering about the other daytime soaps, don't bother. Still no glbt characters is sight outside of Oakdale.

I also got an e-mail recently asking me to weigh in on the question of the year: Hillary or Obama?

I'm tempted to say that it doesn't matter. Neither one is going to be a trailblazer for progressive change, not really. They're both very much a part of the establishment and we should all know by now that the only real change comes from the outside, from the people forcing the establishment to make just enough of a change to keep anything more radical at bay.

I do believe this, but I also know that after the last disastrous seven years, no one can ever really say that it doesn't matter who the President is. Change for the better has to be forced on them, but change for the worse is all too easily accomplished when the wrong person is in the Oval Office.

Clinton and Obama are very similar in their positions on a lot of issues, but I want to look specifically at glbt issues (big surprise, I know).

I can't quite get past the fact that Senator Obama invited not one but several openly anti-gay individuals to join him on a political tour in South Carolina. Yes, he added an openly gay pastor to the tour, but only after he was heavily criticized.

It is true that he's said he's in favor of civil unions and he did vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. But no Democrat considering a run for the Presidency would dare to vote for it, would they?

It all just makes me nervous about what he actually believes. I don't think for a second that he would be anywhere near as bad on glbt issues as Bush is or McCain would be, but I'm not at all convinced that he'd be open to positive change, either.

As a gay man, I can't quite forget the cop out that was Don't Ask Don't Tell and the slap in the face that was Bill Clinton's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act. But I'm not going to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for anything her husband did in office, any more than I'd hold Barack Obama accountable for something Michelle Obama did in her position at the University of Chicago.

Senator Clinton has spoken out about the failure of Don't Ask Don't Tell and has said she'd repeal the key part of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as being a union of one man and one woman.

Personally, my vote goes to Senator Clinton. I just think she's more of a known quantity than the freshman Senator from Illinois.

I also want to say that it annoys the hell out of me to see the pressure being brought to bear on her right now to drop out of the race. All this ridiculous talk about having it settled before the convention pisses me off because plenty of people haven't voted yet and to force Clinton out of the race would be to deny them their vote.

The whole system is ridiculous. We should have a national primary election, get it all over with in one day of voting. Then all the people would have their chance to be heard. It's so ridiculous that our primaries drag on for months and months, costing countless millions, and even so are settled before so many people can even cast their vote!