NYC: Foes and friends of marriage equality organize separate rallies

Just last night, the New York State Assembly approved a marriage equality bill by a tally of 89-52.

While the outcome wasn't surprising (the legislative body passed a similar bill in 2007), debate on the floor was impassioned - moving at times and infuriating at others - with the final vote improving on 2007's tally of 85 for and 61 against.

Of course, the true test will come if and when the State Senate introduces its own version of the bill since - despite a slight Democratic majority, Governor David Paterson's increased visibility on the bill, support from both US Senators from New York, AND backing from Senate Majority Leader Malcom Smith - it's uncertain if there are enough votes to pass it.

Surprisingly, in the face of the State Senate dragging its feet on the issue, there have been few public demonstrations or rallies to prod them in the right direction (compared to - say - the spate of press conferences and gatherings following the impact of the weddings that took place in San Francisco in 2004, or the couple of Join the Impact rallies in the wake of passage of Prop. 8 in California).

I had heard rumblings that a few organizations were doing something this weekend but couldn't find specific information... until yesterday. From a press release:

This Sunday, May 17, stars of Broadway and Television will come out to perform and rally in support of love, peace and marriage equality. Please join us from 5:00pm - 7:00pm ET on Sixth Avenue at 44th street in Manhattan as we let the sunshine in.
[NOTE: ENTRANCES TO RALLY AT: 45, 46, 47TH Street from THE WEST SIDE!!]

Yes, kiddies, bring your jazz-hands, because it will be a very Broadway event. As a matter of fact, the entire cast of HAIR will be on scene to sing "Let the Sunshine In" (will they get naked?) and Broadway luminaries such as Audra McDonald and Cheyenne Jackson will make appearances too. Oh, and Senator Tom Duane and Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell, sponsors of the marriage equality bills on each side of the legislature, will make impassioned speeches to those gathered. I hope there is a nice turn-out despite the last minute official announcement. It was put together by Broadway Impact and backed by the Empire State Pride Agenda, Marriage Equality New York, the Civil Rights Front and Broadway Cares / Equity Fights AIDS.

Of course, this is not the only marriage-related rally on Sunday.

A number of homophobic Hispanic evangelical preachers, led by State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., are urging clergy and parishioners to stand against same-sex marriage by demonstrating outside Governor Paterson's New York City offices earlier in the day.

That one is scheduled to begin at 1pm and take place at 633 Third Avenue (btwn. 40th & 41st Streets).

Diaz organized a similar rally in September but it was a big flop.
Still, Diaz has been trumpeting this march to anyone who will listen and, unlike past events he has organized, this one seems to be getting mainstream media play, so I expect a big turn out.

In 2004, Diaz drew an estimated 5,000 people to rally against marriage equality and in support of President Bush outside the Bronx Courthouse. At the time, national anti-gay organizations joined the call and pured resources into the event, busing parishioners and clergy from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. If Diaz gets the backing from national organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage, it wouldn't surprise me if the rally drew just as many people.

Back then, Diaz expressed anger in Spanish language media that the rally did not receive any mainstream media coverage. As far as I know the only English-language press coverage it received was from Gay City News. In terms of media presence, I have no doubt that he'll finally get his wish on Sunday.

If it's a large turn-out (say 5,000+ people) watch him beam on television on the nightly news. If it's a small to medium turn out (say 500 to 2,500), watch him beam anyway and inflate the numbers. In either case, I will be there to see how it goes down.

But don't be fooled! Diaz might draw a specific segment of the Hispanic community but he is on the losing end of history. Four recent polls indicate that Latinos in New York actually back marriage equality for same sex couples (check this out as well as this).

Related:

• Sunday: NYC Marriage Equality (Joe.My.God)

Rally in NYC tomorrow! Marriage equality in VT!

Last week it was Iowa's Supreme Court allowing same-sex couples the right to marry.

Today it was the Vermont legislature that shockingly and wonderfully defeated their Governor's veto of a bill granting equal marriage rights to Vermonters by an overwhelming vote (becoming the first state in the country to grant such rights through a legislative process and the fourth state that currently allows same-sex couples to marry in the US including Massachusetts, Connecticut and, of course, Iowa).

So what are we New Yorkers to do? Rally! Again! In support! Of course!

Last week, Civil Rights Front invited you to celebrate the victory in Iowa on Friday (Joe.My.God has got the goods here). Now they have been joined by Marriage Equality New York, The Power and The Wedding Party in urging you to rally TOMORROW WEDNESDAY APRIL 8TH in honor of the Vermont victory at the south side of Union Square from 6:30pm to 7:30pm.

In the meantime, Gay City News is reporting today that New York and New Jersey LGBT rights leaders Alan Van Capelle and Steven Goldstein are stepping up their calls to action for marriage equality in each state

In a statement from the Empire State Pride Agenda sent earlier today, Van Capelle stated that he was "embarrassed" for New York State and urged the state legislature not to be left behind:

We hope that our State Senate in New York will now look at three of the states that surround New York—Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Vermont—and realize that we are falling behind. Governor Paterson, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, every statewide official, the New York State Assembly, and a majority of New Yorkers already support passing a bill that would provide same-sex couples with the 1,324 rights and protections that come with a New York State marriage license.

His New Jersey counterpart, Steven Goldstein, Director of Garden State Equality, also expressed "embarrassment" and went a step further, stating that the legislative win in Vermont meant the end for arguments that 'civil unions' were the same as marriage rights for same sex couples:

Today’s enactment of a marriage equality law in Vermont marks the official end of the failed civil union era in America. Civil union laws now join the Edsel, New Coke and 8-Track Tapes in the dustbin of history’s failed inventions.

New Jersey’s separate and unequal civil union law is an abject embarrassment to the nearly nine million people who live in our progressive state. Vermont, the state that invented civil unions in 2000, passed a marriage equality law today because legislators have seen that civil unions did work – and will never work – to provide equality as marriage would.

Vermont understands, and so does the clear majority of New Jerseyans who support marriage equality:

Civil unions are to equality what AIG bonuses are to corporate integrity.

The time to act is now.

OMG! I love Steve Goldstein press releases!! Edson? New Coke?! 8-track Tapes!!! YES!!!

And I also love Karen Pike's photography, which is where I got the image above from today's dramatic events in VT. For the complete gallery go here.

Related:

• With victories, gay rights groups expand marriage push (New York Times, April 8, 2009)

NYC Pride March organizers do away with 'theme sections'

[UPDATE: The POC contingent will remain and will still be lined-up up front. This post has been updated here]

ORIGINAL POST: From an e-mail being sent out by Heritage of Pride (HOP) to potential participants at the 2009 NYC Pride March which is scheduled for June 28, 2009:

Another change for the 2009 Pride March, will be the Order of the March. In the past, all March groups and participants where divided into theme sections (i.e. the Religious Section, the College Section, the Women's Section). This year Heritage of Pride has decided to do away ordering the March by theme sections, and allow for a first-come-first-serve ordering. - By this we mean, those who register sooner, will be given priority in the March line-up; however, HOP reserves the right to exercise discretion when placing one group next to another; in addition, floats will continue to be spread out throughout the entire March route, although priority in the lineup will be given to those who register sooner.

Most people won't notice or care about the change but as someone who has marched as part of the People of Color contingent for years I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand there is a reason as to why certain contingents or 'theme sections' have historically marched ahead of others mostly having to do with the recognition by march organizers that women's groups, for example, deserved more visibility.

This was certainly the case with the People of Color contingent which has historically been placed second or third in the marching order since the 1990's thanks to the advocacy of the work of The Lesbian and Gay People of Color Steering Committee which was then led by Lidell Jackson.

The Committee took it upon themselves to sustain a level of involvement and cohesiveness in the march from what is sometimes a disparate array of LGBT POC organizations, a task that was handed over to The Audre Lorde Project in 1999. The Committee is no longer active but, to date, ALP has continued to handle involvement of LGBT POC organizations at the Heritage of Pride March.

But it is also true that, as the march grew and commercial interests trumped some of the activist spirit of past marches, it has also became blander with floats by major companies looking exactly the same (signs lettered with glitter, a drag queen lip-syncing to the latest Madonna single and a bevvy of go go boys bouncing to the beat).

The effect at recent marches has been a rush of excitement during the first hour or two followed by tedium as the corporate floats go on and on and on. The disbandment of theme sections by Heritage of Pride seems to be an attempt to shake up things a bit and push for an even mix between commercial floats and community organizations throughout the length of the march but I wonder if in the end it will end up diluting the cohesiveness and visibility of a People of Color contingent that year after year has proven to be among the most vibrant and inventive in terms of costumes and presentation (see photo above of Venezuela Gays United performing before the judges' stand at the 2006 march).

But it is also true that some POC organizations such as Primer Movimiento Peruano have been moving away from the POC contingent in recent years as they partner with commercial venues to be able to afford marching with larger floats even if it means not being up front.

It's a tough decision. Pride events, particularly in the bigger cities, have come under increasing criticism that they are no longer relevant, that they are too commercialized, that they are boring, that they are a relic of the past. But they can truly be transformative events for younger generations who might not have seen so much gayness out on the street or for people who have just come out even later in life.

In New York City the reality is that Pride events have increasingly lost audiences and participants as of late. Last year Gay City News reported on the meager numbers of people attending the pre-march Rally. And a polemic piece in The New York Observer in 2007 argued that part of the reason that the march has been in decline has been that moneyed gays have drifted away - partly because of the increase in participation from people of color.

But the increased participation of mostly younger people of color is exactly why the march is so important to me. As the Observer article argues, older white gay men might have moved on to private parties and circuit events feeling that gay pride is a quaint idea that is no longer relevant in their lives. As an older Latino gay man who has done long time work in the gay community I get it. There comes a point where you cringe every time you see one more rainbow flag and hear one more drag queen singing "I Will Survive" on top of a float. But I was once entranced by all the pageantry in a way that helped me to come to terms with my sexuality enabling me to claim my identity and the fact that you might be over the whole deal does not mean that the march doesn't have value for others.

Perhaps it's true and we are observing an irreversible decline in these kind of demonstrations. The disbanding of 'theme sections' at the HOP march certainly seems like the end of an era and I am sad to see the potential disbandment of a People of Color contingent, if that is what the changes mean. I'll be interested in seeing how it's actually worked out and if it actually serves the purpose of jump-starting a more consistently entertaining march from start to finish come June which I assume is HOP's ultimate goal.

Human Rights Campaign stands up for straight immigrant killed in gay bashing

Last night when I was updating the blog with the unfortunate news of José Sucuzhañay's passing, I spent some time looking for related news regarding today's scheduled vigils and I have to say that something that came up made me do a triple-take: The DC-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest gay rights organization in the country, announced that they would "participate" in the main vigil and released the following comments from HRC President Joe Solmonese:

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Sucuzhanay family during this tragedy. The attack on Jose Sucuzhanay was an act of senseless violence that, sadly, takes place all too often in this nation. HRC stands in solidarity with the groups that have put together Sunday’s vigil, march, and press conference, particularly the New York City Anti-Violence Project. We are pleased to lend our support to all the groups’ heroic efforts on behalf of vulnerable communities in New York City and across America.

I encourage all who care about equality and who dream of a nation free from hate violence to participate in Sunday’s events.

A nice gesture you might say. Yay for the gays you might say. Unprecedented, as far as I know, is what I say.

For some of us who have done work in on immigration rights over the last decade - with a focus on LGBT immigrant communities - some frustration has come from the fact that the national LGBT organizations have been less than willing to show leadership on immigration issues even as immigration laws have a tremendous impact on thousands of LGBT individuals living in the United States.

The Human Rights Campaign, in collaboration with Immigration Equality, has done some key work in DC to advance the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would allow citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration to the US (as married heterosexual couples do) but, other than UAFA, they have been notoriously slow to move on other immigration rights issues such as political asylum for LGBT individuals persecuted in other countries.

On that last point I particularly remember a January 2007 article by Doug Ireland at Gay City News in which he wrote about the woeful state of adequate legal representation in the US for LGBT immigrants seeking asylum for persecution based on sexual orientation in their home countries ("Since 9/11, a blind eye to persecution").

Doug, who has been a long time HRC critic, called HRC to ask about any recent actions by the agency on behalf of LGBT immigrants seeking political asylum and noted that an unnamed 'press spokesperson' simply responded "That's just not something we do" (Doug also got a similar response from someone at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force).

Online, HRC does have a link to what they call "International Rights & Immigration" issues but the content is skimpy and the only agency-specific action that they mention is "The Human Rights Campaign is working with its allies in Congress to amend current immigration law to cover same-sex relationships." Period.

True, the murder of José Sucuzhañay is not necessarily an immigration-rights case and HRC seems to be approaching it from the same angle as other LGBT rights organizations: Reportedly, it was an anti-gay hate-crime.

Nevertheless it is the first time I remember that the Human Rights Campaign has become this visibly involved with a case that is also so strongly tied to the immigration rights movement and the way that the Sucuzhañay murder has roiled immigrant communities in New York and elsewhere. Might it be a new paradigm for the national organizations as they try to make inroads with certain communities in the wake of the passage of Prop. 8 in California?

Or perhaps I am reading way too much into a single press statement and it simply reflects this divide between those who are approaching this murder from a anti-gay hate crime perspective and those who are approaching it from an anti-Latino hate crime / immigration rights perspective.

As I said before, there are opportunities to build some bridges here. But only if there are efforts to do so.

Previously:

• José O. Sucuzhañay has passed away (Dec. 14, 2008)
  
• Two Sunday vigils in response to Buswick hate crime (Dec. 11, 2008)
• Bushwick attack: Were anti-gay slurs shouted by assailants? Does it make it less of a heinous crime if the answer is 'no'? (Dec. 11, 2008)
• More on Bushwick attack against Ecuadorean brothers (Dec. 8, 2008)
• Breaking: Anti-gay, anti-Latino slurs shouted at Ecuadorean men during beating in Brooklyn (Dec. 8, 2008)

Update: The Gang of Four... no, Three... hm, Two... er, None?

Despite doing some huffing and puffing and threatening to introduce a statewide referendum to ban same-sex marriage in New York State last week, there has been no indication that the Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. - a New York State Senator - actually did such a thing.

The Reverend, a Democrat, is among the biggest homophobes in New York State politics and has used his stand on same-sex marriage and his opposition to abortion rights to endear himself to Senate Republicans over the years.

This year, as Senate Democrats gained the upper hand from Republicans by a slight margin, the Reverend saw an opportunity for a power-grab and joined three dissident senators who threatened to vote with Republicans on key issues unless their needs were met (according to Gay City News Diaz wanted "an assurance that either the same-sex marriage bill will not be brought to the Senate floor for a vote or that a statewide referendum be held on the question").

The so-called "Gang of Four" threatened to withhold support for Malcom Smith for majority leader come January demanding that Latino elected officials also be given prominent posts (three of the four dissidents were Latinos).

Within hours, though, the "Gang of Four" was just "Three" as Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate announced that he would back Smith after all (Monserrate, who has a great track record on LGBT, apparently received certain assurances from Smith in return so the whiplash switch wasn't purely altruistic).

Then on Friday came a potential shocker: Politics on the Hudson speculated that the next to abandon "The Gang" and back Smith would be Diaz himself ("'Gang of Three' meeting today").

That Diaz might abandon "The Gang" has been rumored since last week but news that he might actually back Smith? The same Diaz that issued a press release on Nov. 10 with a direct dig at Smith that read "my position as an ordained minister and a pastor will not allow me to support any would be leader that will bring gay marriage to the Senate floor"?

At least one [anonymous and GOP-leaning] blogger hypothesizes that this might mean that Smith has come to the conclusion that he will not have enough votes for a same-sex marriage bill as majority leader and might sacrifice a marriage vote for Diaz' backing - which would mean Diaz would have actually kept true to his stand even if he backs Smith.

Not sure I buy that scenario.

Still, as Elisabeth Benjamin reports today in The Daily Politics, Smith has accepted an invite to an annual Thanksgiving Day celebration staged by Diaz which will take place tomorrow.

Bizarrely, Senator-elect Pedro Espada - the third Latino in the original crew of four and the one least likely to make overtures to Smith at this moment - seems have agreed to support Diaz' same-sex marriage referendum as part of Diaz' conditions for remaining in the "Gang of Three."

I seem to remember that when Espada wasn't trying to be Diaz's BFF he was seeking LGBT support for his campaigns (the two were literally each other's nemesis for decades). Does this mean that if Diaz ends up splitting from "The Gang," Espada will drop his support for a referendum banning same-sex marriage?

Ah! New York State politics, don't ya love the stench of how things get done in the Empire State?

Previously:

• Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. will introduce anti-gay marriage referendum today (Nov. 18, 2008)

NYS: Revernd Ruben Diaz, Sr. will introduce anti-gay marriage referendum today

One of the striking things about yesterday's El Diario La Prensa editorial backing marriage rights for same-sex couples was their explicit rejection of efforts by New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. to derail any legislation granting same-sex couples the rights afforded to married couples or to sponsor bills that discriminate against same-sex couples (the Senator also happens to be an ordained minister).

From the editorial which I quoted in full yesterday:

Rev. Diaz and others are supposedly not for denying rights to gays and lesbians but believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. Yet, it’s this very discriminatory position that serves to exclude lesbian and gay couples from accessing rights, benefits and treatment that heterosexuals take for granted.

This use of religious beliefs to block basic civil rights undermines the separation of church and state in this nation.

In today's edition, El Diario La Prensa runs an interview with the not so good Reverend in which he once again spouts off his mouth on his favorite topic: The gays ("Reverend Diaz: Gay marriage goes to referendum" by Jose Acosta).

In it, Diaz announces that he will introduce a State Senate bill today pushing for a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage:

I do not think it is appropriate that a group of lawmakers are the ones to decide whether or not gay marriage is approved in New York. I, as a legislator, do not want to impose my will, and this is why I am asking that there be a referendum on the issue as was done in California, and that the 20 million inhabitants of the State of New York be the ones who decide in a democratic election

OMG, thank you for protecting the electorate from efforts to grant a much-discriminated minority equal rights, Senator! Makes you wonder if the Reverend would feel the same about it if he felt there was enough support for a legislative ban on same-sex marriages!

But how about that pesky separation of church and state? hm...

I am a pastor and cannot, with my vote, bring homosexual marriage to the State of New York. My dissent would come to an end if my colleagues support the bill I am submitting

Well, so much for that! At least he never ceases to disappoint... in a bad way, of course.

As for the chances of a referendum moving forward in New York State, here is how Paul Schindler puts it in last week's Gay City News:

Despite the press play that proposal got across the state and on some blog sites that usually show greater political acumen, the referendum idea is, in fact, a non-starter. New York voters do not currently have the right to initiate such ballot questions, and though Senate Republicans have at times flirted with passing a law to enable them to, they have not seriously advanced the concept, nor are the Assembly Democrats about to surrender their prerogatives in this way.

The only other way to put the question to the voters would be for the Legislature, in two successive sessions, to approve a constitutional amendment referendum. That approach, too, has no support among Democrats, in either the Assembly or the Senate.

Update:

• The Gang of Four... no, Three... hm, Two... er, None? (Nov. 24, 2008)

Related:

• The Center of Attention (Elizabeth Benjamin's The Daily Politics)

Previously:

• Anti-gay rally by Hispanic religious leaders is a flop (Sept. 8, 2008)

Coda: McGhee gets 22 to life in murder of Edgar Garzon

Today at the State Supreme Court in Queens, John L. McGhee was given a sentence of 22 years to life in prison in the 2001 murder of 35 year old Edgar Garzon, closing a painful chapter for his friends and family.

Above, photos from Eddie's life including his baptism (above left); his loving family (just below); Eddie as a child standing next to his mother Leonor (above right); and with the Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association crew (several photos at the bottom) hoisting a huge coffee bag with the yellow blue and red colors of the Colombian flag and dancing up a storm down the 5th Avenue Heritage of Pride Parade dressed in the coffee cup costumes he designed for the parade [click on image to make it larger].

An online article by Duncan Osborne posted late today at Gay City News reports that Leonor Garzon, Eddie's mom, addressed McGhee with the help of a translator:

"There is a deep wound in our hearts that will never heal; as you see Mr. McGhee, you have taken us from living a good life... Today, our companions are sadness and loneliness."

McGhee, to the end, maintained his innocence:

"I did not commit this crime," he said. "By locking me away for the rest of my life and leaving the real criminal out there, that may feel good, but that's not justice."

A jury has decided otherwise.

• Full story at "Edgar Garzon's murderer sentenced to at least 22 years".

Previously:
* September 11, 2008: McGhee guilty of 2nd degree murder in killing of Edgar Garzon
* July 17, 2008: Key witness vanishes as 2nd Eddie Garzon murder trial approaches
* September 5, 2007: Last night's vigil...
* September 2, 2007: Six years since the murder of Eddie Garzon...
* July 25, 2007: Judge Declares Mistrial in Eddie Garzon murder case
* July 13, 2007: Trial Begins in the Slaying of Edgar Garzon
* February 8, 2007: Michael J. Sandy and Edgar Garzon pre-trial hearings underway
* October 18, 2006: A Pansy for Edgar Garzon
* September 5, 2006: 5th Annual Memorial Mass and Vigil in honor of Eddie Garzon
* July 7, 2006: Gay City News on Eddie Garzon
* July 1, 2006: Armando Garzon talks to El Diario La Prensa
* June 30, 2006: New York Times: Stepping off plane, man is arrested in '01 murder
* Part 1: The Attack
* Part 2: COLEGA and Eddie Garzon
* Part 3: So what is, exactly, is a 'hate crime'? (and a prayer)
* Part 4: Eddie Garzon passes on
* Part 5: The Vigil
* Part 6: A Newsday Editorial
* Part 7: A parade of angels
* Part 8: Epilogue

Breaking News: McGhee guilty of 2nd degree murder in killing of Edgar Garzon

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Eddie Garzon. I'm not sure when the 35mm picture above was taken but it looks like the New York City harbor and it must have been close to the time at which the young Colombian man decided to move to the United States to seek new opportunities.

Of course, Eddie is no longer with us. On August 15th, 2001, as he walked home from spending a night at the gay bars of Roosevelt Avenue with friends, he was viciously attacked and left for dead in the dark of night on a peaceful tree-lined block lined with medium-sized apartment buildings. Eddie, who I knew as a friend, would never regain consciousness. He remained in a coma for two weeks and a half - and passed away on September 4th, 2001.

Originally, I was going to write about the memorial mass and vigil that his family organized on Sunday evening to observe the 7th anniversary of his passing (that's Leonor and Armando Garzon, right, during the vigil).

Amazingly, more than fifty people showed up - between friends of the family and those who knew Eddie, political leaders and those who had heard of his death but never met him.

It also turned out to be a cozier affair than the memorials of years past in part because Leonor let those present stand up and tell stories about her son which she said helped her to celebrate her son's life even if she was hearing some of these stories for the first time.

Movingly, at the end of the mass, Leonor turned to her husband and thanked him publicly, for being next to her for so many years, for giving her three such beautiful children and for giving her the joy of being a mother which had sustained her through tragic of circumstances.

In the most heartbreaking moment of the night, Armando stood up and, in a broken voice, thanked those of us who were present and said he had never been able to be as strong as his wife and that sometimes the thought of losing his son was too painful to even vocalize. They embraced each other to applause and tears before we all filed out and joined them in the candlelight vigil. I have more photos of the vigil here.

On 9/11 (2008), a guilty verdict: This morning I woke up to a live broadcast of some who lost loved ones at the World Trade Center reading the names of the lost. As with Eddie's murder, it has been seven years since the attacks and - while some have moved on - I couldn't help but to catch myself becoming emotional and, for lack of a better word, glad that the memorial was being broadcast live as a raw reminder of that awful September morning.

Following Eddie's murder and the 9/11 attacks one memory that remains indelible is that the weekly gay news publication Gay City News (then called LGNY) ran a special double-cover issue: News of Eddie's murder was on one side and a photo of openly gay NYFD chaplain Mychal Judge, who died in the 9/11 attacks, was on the other.

Among all publications, the team behind LGNY/GCN have assiduously, tenaciously followed the case of Eddie's murder over the years, so it was not a surprise that GCN reporter Duncan Osbourne was the first one to e-mail me today to tell me that a jury had just declared John L. McGhee guilty of murder in the 2nd degree earlier today (just as former GCN reporter Michael Meenan - then writing for The New York Times - tipped me off to McGhee's 2006 arrest).

You see, even as the Garzon family was observing the anniversary of their son's death on Sunday, a jury was deciding whether a man was guilty of his murder for the second time (a first trial ended when the judge declared a mistrial). Today, in surprisingly quick fashion, they declared him guilty (see this and this report from Gay City News)

In my posts about Eddie I have tried to be careful not to link up 9/11 and his murder to avoid insulting any family member who mourns those who died in the Twin Towers but today I am re-posting an October 3, 2001 Newsday editorial in its entirety (it's no longer available online):

Don't Let Jackson Heights Gay Murder Be Forgotten

Seven days before thousands of New Yorkers perished at the hands of suicide hijackers, Edgar Garzon met an equally senseless fate. He died from wounds sustained in a bias attack in Jackson Heights. He had been beaten into a coma with a baseball bat or lead pipe three weeks earlier - because he was gay.

The police, who are actively pursuing leads in the case, have not forgotten about Garzon. Let's hope no one else has either, especially public officials whose duty is to remind residents that brutally attacking people because of their sexual orientation is outrageous and unacceptable.

A Colombia native, Garzon settled in Queens' largest gay community in Jackson Heights. Some residents believe that the borough, no matter how tolerant of its wide diversity, is more susceptible to this kind of bias attack than a lot of people might assume.

In fact, another bias killing horrified the gay community 11 years before, when Julio Rivera was beaten to death a block away from where Garzon was attacked in mid-August. That high-profile murder helped galvanize the community and heighten its social and political influence, culminating this year with the opening of the borough's first two gay community centers – in Corona and Woodside - and an openly gay candidate for City Council, Jimmy Van Bramer, finishing second in the multi-candidate District 25 race.

For now, there's a $15,000 reward for information leading to Garzon's killers, including $10,000 from the city. Community leaders also hope to reschedule a town-hall meeting with police officials that was originally planned for Sept. 12, a day after the World Trade Center terror attack.

Gay residents' fear and anxiety are just as real today. So it's up to law enforcement and elected officials to put their minds at ease.

That says anything I could say much better than I ever could. The crime was at risk of being forgotten in the wake of 9/11 and it certainly was thanks to efforts from his family, community leaders, political leaders and police detectives that kept Eddie's memory in their hearts that today's verdict was possible.

Related:

• September 11, 2008: Quick murder verdict in 2001 Edgar Garzon slaying in Jackson Heights (Gay City News)
  

Previously:

• July 17, 2008: Key witness vanishes as 2nd Eddie Garzon murder trial approaches
  
• September 5, 2007: Last night's vigil...
  
• September 2, 2007: Six years since the murder of Eddie Garzon...
• July 25, 2007: Judge Declares Mistrial in Eddie Garzon murder case
  
• July 13, 2007: Trial Begins in the Slaying of Edgar Garzon
  
• February 8, 2007: Michael J. Sandy and Edgar Garzon pre-trial hearings underway
  
• October 18, 2006: A Pansy for Edgar Garzon
• September 5, 2006: 5th Annual Memorial Mass and Vigil in honor of Eddie Garzon
  
• July 7, 2006: Gay City News on Eddie Garzon
  
• July 1, 2006: Armando Garzon talks to El Diario La Prensa
• June 30, 2006: New York Times: Stepping off plane, man is arrested in '01 murder
• Part 1: The Attack
• Part 2: COLEGA and Eddie Garzon
• Part 3: So what is, exactly, is a 'hate crime'? (and a prayer)
• Part 4: Eddie Garzon passes on
• Part 5: The Vigil
• Part 6: A Newsday Editorial
• Part 7: A parade of angels
• Part 8: Epilogue

Key witness vanishes as 2nd Eddie Garzon murder trial approaches

Long time readers of this blog know that during the early days I tried to write down my recollections on finding that a friend had been assaulted on the streets of Queens in August of 2001 and subsequently passed away from the injuries a few days before 9/11. 35 year old Eddie Garzon had apparently been the victim of a brutal gay bashing.

Two years ago 38 year old John L. McGhee was arrested by police as he stepped out of a plane from London. He was charged in Garzon's murder and was taken to court.

Stunningly, despite testimony from a star witness who said he had been with McGhee on the night of the attack and observed the beating, the trial ended in a mistrial (it should be said, though, that by all accounts, witness Christopher Ricalde's testimony did contain some inconsistencies).

The Queens Distric Attorney's Office promised at the time to bring McGhee back to court for a second trial.

This week I spoke to a reporter from El Diario La Prensa who is writing an article on the new trial for this Sunday's paper. She also interviewed Eddie's parents.

But even as the new trial is slated to begin next month, I was stunned today when Duncan Osborne at Gay City News alerted me to an article just posted online ("Witness Lost in Gay Murder Case"). Osborbe reports that Ricalde can't be found and will probably not testify at the new trial.

Sharon Stapel, Executive Director the New York City Anti-Violence Project, told GCN that there was no way to predict the impact of the missing witness. "Obviously, at AVP we are happy that the district attorney's office is pursuing this case with all of the resources they've put behind it," she said.

But I can't help but feel angry that the Queens District Attorney's Office has lost track of what only could be considered as their star witness.

According to GCN, "Without Ricalde on the stand, a jury will hear [McGhee's attorney]'s original cross examination read from the transcript, but jurors will not see his potentially flawed testimony."

UPDATE: McGhee guilty of 2nd degree murder in killing of Edgar Garzon (Sept. 11, 2008)

Charles Ober gets New York Times endorsement for Tuesday's City Council special election

UPDATE: Unfortunately, Charlie did not emerge the victor ("Only 70 votes separate 2 candidates in City Council Race," Newsday, June 3, 2008)

As readers of the blog know, this Tuesday voters in Queens' 30th District (covering Ridgewood, Glendale and Middle Village) will elect for someone to replace disgraced Republican Councilmember Dennis Gallagher in a special election.

Readers also know that my friend Charles Ober is vying for the seat as a Democrat and an openly gay candidate in what is considered to be a conservative district. He has already been the focus of a vile homophobic and anonymous letter writing campaign to dissuade voters from voting in his favor.

Being gay, of course, does not automatically qualify you for the city council, but Charlie has certainly worked hard as a community leader in Queens for decades and he has certainly earned his right to vie for the seat. As a friend, I might be biased in my support, but some less biased observers also think he is the best candidate among the contenders.

The New York Times editorial board, for one, endorsed Ober yesterday:

Charles Ober [is] a financial executive and community activist. The fact that Mr. Ober is openly gay has drawn attention because of the district’s conservative leanings. But more important are his deep roots in the community and the years he has spent engaging his neighbors on problems like prostitution and graffiti. His energy and civic engagement would be a valuable addition in the City Council.

By all accounts the leading candidate is Democrat Elizabeth Crowley, the cousin of Congressman Joe Crowley, who happens to be the Queens Democratic Party boss. She has also shown not to be all that gay-friendly.

Back in April, Azi Paybarah of the New York Observer noted that Ober had won the endorsement of the Stonewall Democratic Club - the largest LGBT political club in the city - and that Crowley did not even show up at the endorsement meeting.

This in itself does not make her unfriendly to gays but more telling was her campaign's response when those anti-gay letters began to appear in voter's mailing boxes: The Crowley camp not only failed to repudiate the letters but insinuated that the Ober campaign might have made them up (On May 1st, Crowley campaign manager Michael Reich told the New York Daily News "It looks like they manufactured an issue and tried to get press on it").

Considering these developments and the fact that Ober might be poised to become the first openly gay candidate from Queens to be elected to the city council you might think that the only gay Democratic club in the borough might give him a ringing endorsement.

Alas, you might be wrong.

Gay City News reported that the Lesbian & Gay Democratic Club of Queens voted 19-0 in favor of endorsing Crowley over Ober. This despite the fact that Ober showed up at the endorsement meeting and completed a candidate's questionnaire and - big surprise! - Crowley did neither ("Gay Council Bid in Queens," May 15, 2008).

Pauline Park, also a friend, put it this way "It's really hypocritical and extraordinary that they would not endorse a qualified gay candidate especially when they endorsed a candidate who has no apparent qualification for public office at all except that she's the cousin of the county boss."

Then last week Crowley met with the editorial board of the Queens Tribune and came out against same-sex marriage ("Gay Dems' pick in Queens Opposes Gay Marriage," May 29, 2008).

This played into the paper's endorsement on Thursday which says, in part:

Charles Ober, a longtime civic and Democratic activist in his Ridgewood community who served the LGBT community for the past decade as the board president of the Queens Pride House, is a thoughtful candidate unafraid to tell voters how he feels on critical issues, regardless of the way the wind is blowing through any particular audience.

A spokesperson for the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens indicated that the club's endorsement was still secure in Crowley's hand. "It's surprising because she did send a representative to the club and she showed interest in getting our endorsement," he said, "I'm not going to try to minimize that."

He also added that "It doesn't make Charlie Ober any better of a candidate; we're not comfortable with Ober's relationship to our club," indicating that their endorsement (or lack of one) speaks to animosity against Ober and is not necessarily based on merit.

If you are someone who can cast a vote this Tuesday in the 30th district in Queens, I urge you to pull the lever for Ober. Show that Queens can elect a Councilmember based on his or her ability to serve the 30th District and not on who the Democratic Party boss - or the Gay and Lesbian Democratic Club of Queens - tells you to vote for.

Related:

• The Gay Tammany Hall of Queens (The Visible Vote, June 2, 208)

Previously:

• Homophobic campaign literature emerges in NYC council race (May 1, 2008) - includes VIDEO
• Charles Ober runs for City Council (March 21, 2008)

In this week's Gay City News...

Today's Gay City News has an article on the strength of the general support that Hillary Clinton enjoys in New York and California. I've been quoted in support of Barack Obama. Read on here.

New York's Gay City News endorses Barack Obama

From today's Gay City News editorial:

Given that the two Democratic contenders share a similar, generally friendly and supportive posture toward LGBT Americans, we ought to think about the message our choice sends about a fundamental question - what our politics should be all about. We are finding our place here and there at the table, but we have also spent much of our life on the outside. The nation needs to hear our views on how American politics can accommodate new voices in the mix.

Judged by that measure and taking full stock of how the Democratic nomination contest has unfolded, we believe the choice is clear.

Gay City News endorses Barack Obama.

Full editorial here.

Update: Tom and Emilo head north

As long as I'm doing some catch-up: Back on Nov. 20th the hubby and I (and our friends Pablo and Diana) made our way to the New Jersey wilderness to bid farewell to Tom and Emilio (check out the good-bye cards!). We ate, we drank, we kareoke'd and we played the maracas! And we were sad to say good-bye to the big guys even if we did promise to visit them in Toronto - their adopted home - next year (that's Tom, myself, the boo and Emilio in the pic above).

As I've written in the past, Tom and Emilio were forced to leave the United States because federal immigration policies discriminate against same-sex partners and do not recognize us as family even if New Jersey recently passed one of the most extensive same-sex civil union laws.

Among attendees was documentary producer Sebastian Cordoba (no, that's not his natural hair color) who has an OpEd piece in today's Gay City News on the issue of bi-national same-sex partners and immigration ("No Blue Skies for Bi-National Couples").

Sebastian is the director of "Through Thick and Thin," which highlights the plight of couples who face a similar quandary and features Tom and Emilio.

In the meantime, Tom and Emilio - who left the United States by car on Thursday, December 13th - have continued to share their experiences - including the uncertainties of arriving in a new city - through their individual blogs:

• Tom: Canadian Hope (English)
• Emilio: Esperanza en Canada (Spanish)

Most people don't realize the difficulty that these couples face as they seek to stay together. Some would go to the end of this earth to do so which certainly speaks to the bonds of love that others would seek to deny.

Here's hoping that Tom and Emilio find safe haven in Toronto and are finally able to love each other without the incredible stress and ups and downs of the past few years.

Updates: Sentences in Sandy murder, Cuban LGBT org defines purpose, political asylum news

Sentencing reached in murder of gay black man: In a case that we have followed in the past, three men have received sentences for their involvement in the death of Michael J. Sandy, a young man who was lured to an empty parking lot near a secluded Brooklyn beach and was killed when he tried to escape his attackers.

The New York Times says that the comlpex divergence in sentencing reflected "a confounding set of circumstances" while Gay City News points out that the ringleader could get out of jail in "as little as six years." A fourth man was previously sentenced last year when he pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the prosecution.

Nascent Cuban LGBT rights organization defines its purpose: In October we wrote of the birth of a gay rights organization in Cuba. Today, Bitacora Cubana says that the Cuban Movement for Homosexual Liberation met on Saturday to define its purpose and agreed to demand "legalization for sex-change surgeries and [the right] to change names; the court's recognition of same-sex couples; adoption rights and the recognition of matrimony and inheritance rights for LGBT individuals."

Political asylum: In political asylum news Arthur S. Leonard tells us of a brand new case in which a gay man who was born in Portugal but lived most of his life in Venezuela was denied asylum in the United States in a decision released by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on November 6th.

A key reason for the denial? The fact that the asylum seeker had entered the United States on various occasions and had returned to Venezuela without apparent fear of persecution - until he filed for asylum.

In the meantime Ven Messam (pictured above in a Wockner News Photo), a Jamaican gay man, was recently granted asylum thanks to the work of Columbia University's Law School students whose department provides pro-bono assistance as a way to provide hands-on experience for students. Lucky are those asylum applicants that receive such assistance.

A Jamaican lesbian was not as fortunate when she sought political asylum in the United Kingdom. The court's response? "Try not to act gay."

Updates: Gay Mexican denied US asylum, Alvaro Orozco, bi-national couples

Political asylum denied to Mexican gay man: In this week's Gay City News, Arthur Leonard describes the failed attempt by a Mexican gay man to gain political asylum in the United States based on sexual orientation.

Leonard writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in New York City, has ruled in an unpublished decision that the current level of anti-gay persecution in Mexico is not sufficient to justify granting a withholding of removal for a gay immigrant who claimed to fear persecution if returned to that nation."

But what strikes me, once again, is the mistakes made by the applicant in submitting his claim: 1. He applied after the statutory 1-year window of opportunity imposed by the US on asylum seekers and 2. He had no legal representation at the asylum hearing (he argued that his attorney failed to show up but my experience is that an applicant can ask for the interview to be postponed if his attorney is not present - though I'm not sure if this varies from court to court). The fact that he had not personally experienced past persecution while living in Mexico, though sometimes surmountable in an asylum claim if you present evidence, did not help his case.

Alvaro Orozco: Speaking of asylum, this time in Canada, there has been no better luck for Alvaro Orozco, the young man from Nicaragua that was ordered deported back in August after courts originally questioned whether he was truly gay. His attorneys tried to get a stay of removal earlier this month but the courts refused to grant it. A new order of deportation was handed down on October 4th.

Oh, Canada! But not all news from Canada have been as dire. Emilio and Tom, friends of mine whose bi-national immigration story I've featured here from time to time, can breathe a sight of relief: On October 11th they became permanent residents of Canada, or, as Tom put it on their blog "We finally made it after 20 months of waiting and Emilio is now officially safe from US tyranny!"

Understandably, they are looking forward to the move up north even though it will be sad to see them go (we promise a visit or two).

Tom and Emilio are featured in "Through Thick and Thick" so the news might be a spoiler of sorts if you haven't watched it. Below is a YouTube preview of the Sebastian Cordoba documentary. More on the issues faced by same-sex binational couple in the US at the Immigration Equality website here.


Oh, Argentina? Speaking of same-sex binational couples, former New York Blade editor and current blogger Chris Crain, who already changed his country of residence to Brazil in order to live with his Brazilian partner, Anderson, recently wrote on his blog that their next place of residence will be Argentina after options to remain in Brazil dried out. Ultimately, though, Chris says that, like Tom and Emilio, they might take a look at Canada as an option as well.

Tidbits: Michael J. Sandy, HIV & Latinos, Montel Williams, alien invasion

A few tidbits:

• Both Gay City News (here) and The New York Times (here) have stunning news from the Michael J. Sandy murder trial: One of the accused defendants says he is also gay in a trial that prosecutors have tagged as a hate crime against a gay man.
• Mike Lavers looks at the 9/11 announcement from the New York City Department of Health on the increasing HIV transmission rate among black and Latino "men who have sex with men" in New York.
• My friend Pauline Park (pictured above when we were both Heritage of Pride parade judges in 2004) will be on "The Montel Williams Show" this Thursday. This is what she has to say about the show:

The segment will include Susan Stanton's first television interview since she transitioned and was fired as city manager of Largo (a small city in Florida near Tampa). The show will also feature an interview with the father of a Duke University student who was informed that a transgendered woman would be moving into her dormitory on campus. The hour-long segment will conclude with an interview with a 12-year-old girl who was born male and a 26-year-old transman who recently began transitioning from female and with the mothers of both individuals.

I was invited to comment as a 'guest expert' sitting in the front row of the audience, and while I have not seen the edited version of the show that will be airing on Thursday, I thought Montel handled the interviews with sensitivity. The show airs from 1-2 p.m. on Channel 9 in New York City; check your local listings for air times in other cities.

It might all be a moot point though because, as few people know, the pod people might are already here: Disturbing news from Perú (h/t Towleroad)

Update: Clear Channel has dropped sponsorship of Carifest

[NOTE: Newsday has a poll on Power 105/Clear Channel's decision here] One of the biggest sponsors of this weekend's Carifest music festival has dropped their sponsorship:

Clear Channel, which owns Power 105 (WWPR/105.1 FM), quietly withdrew its support from the festival on Wednesday after receiving a call from The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (Glaad). Clear Channel did not issue a statement, but on Thursday a spokeswoman noted that Power 105 does not play Bounty Killer or Buju Banton. She declined to say, however, whether that's because of their lyrics or because reggae artists are not regularly featured on the hip-hop station.

- from "Power 105 pulls Carifest sponsorship" (Newsday, August 23, 2007)

Also:

• Today's Gay City News has an extensive article on the organizers of Saturday's protest, some criticism that the protest amounts to censorship and of a response to those charges from the UK's Peter Tatchell. Full article here.
• Poet and actor Emanuel Xavier has some things to say here.
• Jamaican lesbian poet and performer Staceyann Chin talks about the protest with blogger and political commentator Keith Boykin here.
• The NYC Parks Department has also spoken to the AP here.
  

Update: Judge declares mistrial in Eddie Garzon murder case

In last week´s Gay City News , Duncan Osbourne filed a follow-up story on the proceedings in a Queens courtroom where 39 year-old John McGhee stood accused of murdering a gay Colombian man, 35 year-old Edgar Garzon, in the streets of Jackson Heights in the Fall of 2001.

Last week Christopher Ricalde, a former friend of McGhee´s, took the stand as the prosecution´s star witness and vividly described how McGhee viciously beat up Garzon, causing his head to hit the ground repeatedly, which allegedly caused the massive brain injuries that left Garzon in a coma until his death days later.

Ultimately, McGhee´s attorney, Charles D. Abercombie was aparently successful in raising questions about Ricalde´s credibility:

While Osborne says in the article that the case had gone to the jury, he tells Queerty that the presiding judge declared a mistrial yesterday after the jury became deadlocked on the charges against McGhee.

Duncan tells us, through e-mail, that the Queens District Attorney´s Office has vowed to push for a second trial which might possibly come this fall.

• From the July 26th edition of Gay City News: "Mistrial Called in Garzon Murder"
  

Previously on Blabbeando:

• July 13, 2007: Trial Begins in the Slaying of Edgar Garzon
  
• February 8, 2007: Michael J. Sandy and Edgar Garzon pre-trial hearings underway
  
• October 18, 2006: A Pansy for Edgar Garzon
• September 5, 2006: 5th Annual Memorial Mass and Vigil in honor of Eddie Garzon
  
• July 7, 2006: Gay City News on Eddie Garzon
  
• July 1, 2006: Armando Garzon talks to El Diario La Prensa
• June 30, 2006: New York Times: Stepping off plane, man is arrested in '01 murder
  
• June 29, 2006: Eddie Garzon: After five years, an arrest
  
• Part 1: The Attack
• Part 2: COLEGA and Eddie Garzon
• Part 3: So what is, exactly, is a 'hate crime'? (and a prayer)
• Part 4: Eddie Garzon passes on
• Part 5: The Vigil
• Part 6: A Newsday Editorial
• Part 7: A parade of angels
• Part 8: Epilogue