Juan Manuel Benitez to NYS Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: "You can't throw a stone and then hide your hands"

It took a while but here is the translated and transcribed second part of the interview between "Pura Politica" host Juan Manuel Benitez and New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. that ran a week ago today on New York 1 Noticias.  Elements of this segment have been already been translated by Tony Varona and posted at Pam's House Blend ("Anti-gay NY State Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz grilled on NY1 Spanish channel").  This is a rawer translation, keeping intact some turns in phrasing as well as sudden changes from present to past tenses, as spoken by interviewer and interviewee during the broadcast - which might make it a little hard to read.  A couple of comments before posting the video:

• At the 6:40, in attempting to justify his opposition to the 1994 Gay Games in New York, Reverend Diaz invokes the name of basketball player Michael Jordan in arguing that Jordan was barred from entering other countries due to his HIV status.  The Reverend seems to be confusing Michael Jordan with Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Jr., who had announced he was HIV positive back in 1991.
• It's truly jaw-dropping to hear the Reverend claim he's just a single individual with some unpopular views and that he would have never, ever, mounted any effort to defeat any effort to advance LGBT-rights if only he'd been left alone.  As Benitez says, he has single-handedly made opposing LGBT-rights the main pillar of his political career. Never mind that he is not "just" a single individual: He is a State Senator with the power to influence thousands of people with a single vote.
• A few people online are already noted that at the end of the interview, at the 10:40 mark, the Reverend seems to admit that he used to be gay. "I used to be a homosexual", he seems to say before catching himself and talking about being a former drug addict. It's obviously an accidental slip of the tongue. I'm not sure what good it serves for people to use it to argue that the man must be a closeted bigot as some are doing already online. The man is a bigot, but those who keep waiting for a rent-boy to pop up and expose the Reverend as being gay will probably wait until the end of the world. Not that I would really want the Reverend to be on our team, even if he insists in this interview that he could very well become gay overnight if he put himself up to it.
• Apparently, as the Reverend has said before and says once again in this interview, he respects Blabbeando for its impartiality. I appreciate his sentiments but want to make clear that no economic exchanges were made in return for the free publicity (a joke, people, a joke).
• Finally, I might be biased on the issue, but I really cannot stop myself from admiring the amazing job Juan Manuel Benitez has done in digging at Diaz in this and previous interviews by being respectful, direct, persistent and insistent. In this, and other previous interviews, you can see that he gets under the Reverend's skin when Diaz begins to stutter and mumble at a momentary loss of words. It really cuts through his "I'm not a homophobe" façade and exposes him for whom he truly is.
• A couple of exchanges stand out as my favorites and they might not be the ones you suspect: The first one comes at the 6:03 mark when the Reverend is trying to portray himself as an innocent victim of attacks by the LGBT community.  In response, Benitez cuts straight through the Reverend's BS reminding him his whole political career has been about opposing LGBT rights. Benitez tells him: "You can't throw a stone and then hide your hands"
• The second comes at the 4:50 mark, when the Reverend tries to justify his boycott of El Diario La Prensa by saying that they never cover religious activities such as the Day of the Pastor or children's parades he has organized in the past. Benitez' response to the Reverend?: "Perhaps they only cover is what they consider to be newsworthy". You know, like first communions and such. Just priceless.

Anyway, enough comments, here is the video...

JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Senator, aren't you afraid that 10, 20, 30 years from now, when they make documentaries about this issue - an issue that is already unstoppable; each day there are more countries and more states that recognize marriages between couples of the same gender - you will be seen as one of those politicians you see in documentaries from the 1950's, 1960's, who opposed civil rights. That you will be seen as one of those politicians when history looks back?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: OK, there are several things I am going to say. First of all. Mayor Bloomberg and those people who dare - DARE! - to compare the suffering, the enslavement, the deportations, the assaults against the African-American community; from Africa, how they took them away from their families, brought them in ships, chained them up, sold them as slaves. People such as Mayor Bloomberg, who dare to compare that to the issue of the homosexual lifestyle, to compare the two is to disrespect - to abuse and disrespect - the black community. And black people - the black community - should not sustain... should respond and not allow the suffering and slavery of the black community to be used as a comparison to the lifestyle of the homosexual community. That is disrespectful to the black community.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Second: Those states that allow civil marriages [between same-sex partners] haven't done so because the people have voted for it. The people of each state - including California - each state where the people has been given the opportunity to vote, people have rejected it. Now, what has happened is that millionaires like Bloomberg come in, take a bunch of money, they buy out legislators and vote them in, and thus the legislature imposes it on the public.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: The end of racial segregation was also not decided by voters; instead it was by order of the Supreme Court and also by direct order of the president of the United States...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I'll say it again, I'll say it again; compare it to the Jews. The Jews won't allow anyone to make comparisons to their suffering and their...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But you have to admit that the homosexual community has also had their suffering and that they still suffer attacks by...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: As have we, the Puerto Ricans, the Hispanics, as we have had, the Hispanics, the Puerto Ricans...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: In other words, you do not deny they have suffered...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Just like fat people, just like... in this world, discrimination is massive. Ourselves as Hispanics, ourselves as Puerto Ricans, we felt it when we came to this country an we still experience it, wherever we are. But to compare that with the suffering and the civil rights of blacks... with the suffering of black slavery in the United States and the entire world... that is disrespectful to the back community.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But many in the homosexual community can also say that you have also been disrespectful on many occasions. [If there has been] a fundamental pillar in your career and your political life it's been your opposition to the homosexual community. Let's look at this: In 2003, you stood against the expansion of a high school for homosexual students with a lawsuit...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I don't think, I don't think public funds...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And in 1994, you complained against the staging of the "Gay Games" athletic event in New York City and you stated, at that time, "some of the gay and lesbian athletes could already be infected with AIDS" and you also said "children could also come to the conclusion that if there are so many gay and lesbian athletes, then there is nothing wrong about it, there are no risks". Don't you think that the homosexual community might feel hurt by these comments? And because the fundamental pillar of your political career has been as such.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: But hold on a second. Where are we living? We are living in America. We are living in the United States of America where there is freedom of expression, and freedom means that you might agree with something and I have the right to be in disagreement. Now, you'll take away my freedom to decide what I believe in and what I don't believe in?
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: One more time: You are banning the right of homosexual people to choose to marry the people they fall in love with.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, I'm saying... no, no... fall in love with whoever you want, my brother. You can fall in love with whomever, and have pleasure with whomever, and get involved with... What I'm teling you is that I don't approve of marriage and I won't vote for it with my vote. But... have pleasure with whomever you find, fall in love with whomever, I'm not telling you who to fall in love with.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: This freedom of expression, to say what you want to say, don't you extend it to El Diario La Prensa? You've been organizing a boycott based on the editorial content of El Diario La Prensa because they back same-sex marriage...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: And abortion, and abortion, because...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: So you want to silence El Diario La Prensa's freedom of expression.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, I want to be granted equality. I want to be granted equality.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And what is equality. Which is the equality.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Equality means that El Diario La Prensa doesn't cover any of our activities. They don't cover our children's parades...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: They did cover your rally from a couple of weeks back...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Nooooo, oh, man, it was just miniscule coverage. They don't cover the Day of the Pastor, they don't cover religious activities, they don't cover a thing. They only cover...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ:  Perhaps they only cover is what they consider to be newsworthy...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: So us... the Evangelical people don't have the right... We don't have to invest 50 cents to buy it. That doesn't... that doesn't... we are in America!
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You are taking away the freedom of expression from them.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Ah! So is it an attack... for... for... for us to inhibit our right to express our position. Give me equality, and let's say we'll be on even keel. I'm not saying 'Do not write about that'. What I'm saying is: Why is it that you write only about that side... and don't write about this side. Journalism should be impartial. Which is what I just told you about Blabbeando. Blabbeando. Look, what I said to you about Blabbeando, is that I respect Blabbeando because he's impartial in his writing...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Blabbeando is a blog you have mentioned on other occasions in this program... but each newspaper has their editorial track and their opinion track, and their editorial is their editorial. That's where the editors express their opinion.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: So we have no... / No, no... not their editorials, their entire content: They don't cover us and if they block us... in other words, journalism in America should be impartial. It should cover this and it should cover that. But if it's only going to cover one side...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But it would appear that you use these arguments are your liking but then turn them around when they are of no benefit to you...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Well, I live in America and I am nothing more than a single individual, I don't understand why so many people have a problem when I am a single individual; there are so many millionaires and so much press contributing in favor of homosexual marriage; why is it that I am the one who is being attacked now.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Because you know - once again, I repeat this to you - you have based a fundamental pillar in your career doing this. In other words, you can't throw a stone and then hide your hands.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: It's not because I've wanted to. Not me, not me, not me. It's themselves, and it brings us publicity - when they start attacking me. If they'd leave me alone, I wouldn't do a thing. I'm just stating my position.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You have said... you have said... you have made some comments that are... that many consider to be insults.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: They are not insults. What I am saying there, what I am saying there, first of all: When the Olympic games arrived, Michael Jordan was banned from leaving this country, and other countries over there - outside of the United States - banned Michael Jordan's entry because he had AIDS. And so, when they over there... yes... and I said, why do we have to permit entry to those who come here and those from here, our people, are prohibited from entering there. That's what I said...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: ...and that children would think there was nothing wrong with being homosexual...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I still say that, I still say that...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You still say that...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Of course!
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Do you then think... you do not deserve, then, those campaigns staged against you, don't you deserve them after saying... after making such comments about the homosexual community?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, what I am saying... I took the position that for me homosexuality - as a pastor, as a minister, biblically - should not be.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And I wanted to ask you, I have two questions, but we have to go quickly to end this segment. First, aren't you afraid to end up like those pastors who announced the end of the world last week - with all those tragedies that will occur if homosexual marriage is adopted - after observing that many countries throughout the world - those who warned that something would happen, that a tragedy would occur - that hasn't happened. Do you think you'll be left like those pastors who announced the end of the world?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I announce the end of the world.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: When?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Whenever God decides it's time...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Ah! Of course, that's how you hedge your bets!
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, no, no. It's just what the Bible says. According to the Bible, Lord Jesus Christ said that not even the angels sitting at...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But let me ask you. Do you not fear being left behind like those charlatan pastors who announce the end of the world as they did last week and, in the end, they have to backtrack because this world did not end?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Left behind as what? Are you calling me a charlatan because I oppose homosexual marriage?
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: No! Because I am telling you that you claim that if homosexual marriage is adopted all kind of awful things will happen to society - and that it's been legalized in other countries and none of that has happened - when you are basing it on an opinion but not on data or facts!
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: And why not spend that money on a more common system, ask for a referendum, and allow the 20 million residents of the State of New York to say whether they want it or not. Why impose it, by buying out Senate votes, buying out their minds and buying out their conscience.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And to end, Senator: You also released a press statement on Thursday in response to Mayor Bloomberg addressing the "homosexual lifestyle". "Why defend the homosexual lifestyle". Do you then believe that this is a "lifestyle" that can be chosen? Do you think that homosexuals wake up one morning and say "I am going to fall in love with someone of the same gender".
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I believe, I believe, I believe that it is, I believe, I believe that it's a homosexual behavior - because there are homosexuals who have changed their behavior...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And so, let me ask you: If it's a choice, by that same rule, you could wake up tomorrow... get up tomorrow and say "I am going to fall in love with a man".
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I could.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You think you can?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Yes, I could.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: In other words, you'd be capable of that.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I'm not sure if Id' be capable of it but it could happen.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: It could happen...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: It could happen that many people will get up tomorrow with an atrophied and different mind, and change things. I was... Me, when I became born again, when I arrived... Look, I left drugs behind.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But... are you comparing - one more time - something...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I left drugs behind. And my mind changed: One day I said "No more". I left drugs behind. And here I am.
JUAN MANEL BENITEZ: In other words, being homosexual is akin to being addicted to drugs...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Ah, it's that you all, you know, it's impossible. It isn't true...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But that's the comparison you just made!
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No. I am comparing what one can change from one day to another, change one's mind. I was telling you who I was. But you insist on looking for the turn of the screw and tomorrow the blogs will go crazy. "Look what he said!" "Look what he is comparing it to!" I am not saying that. What I am saying is, I used to be homo... [laughs] see? You have... I was, er, addicted to drugs. I left the armed forces with a vicious addiction to drugs and straight to the United States and I was deep into vice. One day, all of a sudden, I changed my mind and from then on, I wasn't anymore. What I am saying - but I wasn't born addicted to drugs. I wasn;t born addicted to drugs.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: That's where we'll leave it. Thank you so much for being here.

Openly gay NYC councilman, GMHC, GLAAD ask for removal of HIV prevention ads targeting gay men

Clip taken from a segment shown to NY1 viewers in Queens on Dec. 13, 2010 (Additional info: "New Health Department Initiative Facing Opposition").

If you've lived in NYC over the last few years, particularly if you are a smoker, you are probably highly aware of a series of increasingly graphic print and television campaigns the New York City Department of Health developed to discourage people from smoking and encourage smokers to quit.

In its first incarnation, you saw "Ronaldo Martinez" speak to the camera and talk about getting a cancerous growth removed from his throat and taking his ability to speak away without the help of a machine (surprisingly, I haven't been able to find the televised version of the ad anywhere except in a different version apparently appropriated by an anti-smoking agency in Australia of all places).

I'm not a cigarette smoker but that specific ad seemed to have a punch to it. Sure, I changed the channel every time it came on, but you could certainly understand the ad's plausibility when it comes to long-term cigarette smoking.

The ads made an immediate impact, specially among friends who smoked.  They called NYC's #311 help line and ordered the expensive smoking-cessation kits that the Department of Health offered on a limited basis.

Researchers called the campaign a "huge success", at least in its early stages.  But it's not clear to me whether they took into account that the Department of Health was initially offering access to nicotine patches for free nor the fact that the city was increasing taxes on cigarettes

Not that I'm complaining. As an infrequent cigar smoker, I can say that one of better legacies of the Bloomberg administration is having barred smoking in bars.  And, apparently, some statewide programs still offer free nicotine patch or gum "starter kits" (click here).

But then came the other ads. The ones that said that smoking would make you lose your fingers (I kid you not). Or give you brain tumors. Or promote cavities. And I personally thought they'd gone off their rocker and gone punch-happy on negative messaging. Truthfully, the more graphic and preposterous it got, the less effective I felt the campaign was.

They even tried to replicate the scare tactics - laughably some may say - with campaigns to stem consumption of sugary drinks and the way they make people fatter. Gross, yes. Effective? Eh...

Which brings us to...


I've long been a critic of the public health policies developed by the New York City Department of Health under the Bloomberg administration and their reliance on scare tactics. And yet, I am inclined to like this ad. Why?

Well, it's certainly graphic and gross. But it speaks to the potentially horrible side-effects of being HIV positive. Does it say that everyone with HIV will develop these symptoms? No. But the ad does strongly imply that people with HIV are at a higher risk of being at risk of these illnesses - which I believe does act as a forceful HIV-prevention message.

Now, call me when the NYC Department of Health starts running messages saying that people with HIV are more prone to cut off their fingers as a scare tactic but, if memory serves me well, just a couple of years ago HIV prevention advocates were bemoaning that HIV prevention messages portrayed people with HIV as being all happy-happy and ultra-healthy when the reality of living with HIV wasn't nearly as cheerful.

Interestingly, a few of Michael Bloomberg's most vociferous critics seem to be backing this campaign while a number of advocates and organizations are calling for the Department of Health to pull the ads.

As the leading video attests, openly gay New York City Councilmember Danny Dromm is asking for the ads to be removed immediately as does the  South Asian Lesbian and Gay Association (SALGA).

Tonight, they've been joined by the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) which released this statement. An excerpt:

Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), the nation's oldest HIV/AIDS prevention, care and advocacy provider, today joined the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nation's leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, to demand that the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene pull a sensationalistic and stigmatizing television public service announcement aimed at gay and bisexual men.

The PSA, which is intended to encourage condom usage among gay and bisexual men, claims that those with HIV face a higher risk of bone loss, dementia, and anal cancer.  While older adults living with HIV may be at greater risk of these conditions, the PSA creates a grim picture of what it is like to live with HIV that could further stigmatize HIV/AIDS, as well as gay and bisexual men.

"We know from our longstanding HIV prevention work that portraying gay and bisexual men as dispensing diseases is counterproductive,"  said Marjorie Hill, PhD, GMHC's Chief Executive Officer.  "Studies have shown that using scare tactics is not effective.  Including gay men's input, while recognizing their strength and resiliency, in the creation of HIV prevention education is effective.  Gay men are part of the prevention solution, not the problem."

Both GLAAD and GMHC have reached out to the department to demand that the commercial be pulled and to offer assistance with framing the conversation around HIV/AIDS more accurately.

"While it's extremely important that we continue to educate New Yorkers about HIV/AIDS prevention, the sensationalized nature of the commercial, including its tabloid-like fear tactics, misses the mark in fairly and accurately representing what it's like to live with HIV/AIDS," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. "It's our hope that the department will work with us to create a PSA that promotes safety and solutions, rather than stigma and stereotype."

The funny thing (as funny things go when discussing these issues) is that one of the top Bloomberg administration critics when it comes to HIV prevention seems to  be bending over-backwards not to say a bad thing about this.

Housing Works doesn't take sides at all but provides all the links to anyone wishing to defend the Bloomberg administration's side of things.

And that, my friends, is truly as bizarre as it gets.  As for the ad... do you think it's effective? Do you think it sucks?  I am inclined to like it but haven't yet made up my mind. What are your thoughts?

Update: Via my friend Michael Petrelis, Larry Kramer chimes in:

to the nyc dept of health:

thank you. it's about time. this ad is honest and true and scary, all of which it should be. hiv is scary and all attempts to curtail it via lily-livered nicey-nicey "prevention" tactics have failed. dr hill knows this and her remarks below, once again, show her to be living on another planet. and since when is GLAAD in the hiv-prevention business? god help us if it is. gmhc is bad enough.

can we finally get real here? we are in the 32nd year, more or less, of a plague.

ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE GAY MEN IN AMERICA IS HIV POSITIVE. AND FIFTY PER CENT OF US DON'T KNOW IT!

these are appalling statistics.

And dr hill and some dude at glaad is telling me that prevention efforts, as they are presently constituted, are working.

of course people have to get scared. i have said this since day one and i say it today. they need to be scared into using condoms. into getting tested, into being responsible human beings. nothing so far has been able to bring a sufficient result to these requirements. why can't anyone see that? why can't our oldest aids organization see that? to say as dr hill does below that "studies have shown that using scare tactics is not effective" is, i believe, an out and out lie. i have never seen such research. if it exists, then it is as irresponsible as dr. hill and mr/s glaad.

i see a lot of doctors regularly during the course of looking after my own health. every single one of them is telling me that they are seeing more and more young and usually white men who are educated and should know better, sero-converting.

and with all the hoopla over hiv negative people taking this new once-a-day truvada "miracle cure" just so they can have sex without a condom, is going to be a nightmare of the highest order. i firmly believe this.

just as i firmly believe that NO prevention efforts can be rendered with the sugar coating it has been receiving since 1981.

i congratulate the nyc board of health for finally getting real. i look forward to even more and scarier public service announcements.

larry kramer

Michael actually does not like the ad.  For his comments, go over to his blog.

Related:

• Why can't we create an HIV PSA that doesn't suck? (this is fyf)
• GLAAD & GMHC call on NYC to yank graphic new HIV prevention ad (Joe.My.God.)
• Thought police go after NYC Health Department anti-AIDS PSA (Mike Tidmus) 
• Black gay HIV/AIDS agency applauds graphic PSA (Rod2.0)
• NYC Department of Health Graphic PSA: "It's never just HIV" (Rod2.0)
• GMHC, GLAAD want graphic HIV-prevention ad pulled (Towleroad)
• NYC Health Department releases graphic HIV PSA (Towleroad)
• Analysis of NYC'sWrong-Headed HIV Ad, and a Call for Accountability (Trevorade)

My New York: High school confidential?

This sign was posted on the front doors of a public New York City high-school right across the street from my apartment building:

We value diversity and strive to create a safe space or all.  Discrimination against lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender youth, mentors, employees and foster/adoptive parents is prohibited.

I'm not sure when this campaign started. I certainly can't find it on the website of the city agency that created it (The NYC Administration for Children Services).  But I have to say that, living in Jackson Heights, I had to do a double take when I saw the poster.  It was there all day Friday and wasn't taken down all day long even as parents brought their children to school and teachers walked through those doors.

The long and short of it is that it made me think back of my days in high-school and how impossible something like this would have been at the time. Sometimes we LGBT rights advocates do not recognize it but things have certainly changed in our lifetime. Or, at the very least, my lifetime.

Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.'s response to the anti-gay attacks in the Bronx

I admit it. I was wrong. Yesterday I said the Reverend (and New York State Senator) Ruben Diaz, Sr. had yet to respond to the horrendous anti-gay attack that took place in the Bronx earlier this month and it turns out the Reverend had indeed put out a statement repudiating the crime.

You wouldn't know it, though, if you visited the Senator's official website which currently lists two top stories:

The first one challenges New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his support of marriage equality.

The second highlights the Senator's support for Bangladeshi Americans in denouncing "hate crimes" in the Bronx against their community.

Having checked there first, and not having found any statements decrying the attacks, I asked some Bronx LGBT advocates and they hadn't heard a thing from the Diaz camp either.

I should have asked his office directly or read the Spanish-language press.

On Sunday's edition of El Diario La Prensa published an article titled "Indignation at attacks against gays in the Bronx."

According to the paper, they received a press statement from the Reverend which said the following:

I am surprised by reports in the press about the depraved criminal acts committed by nine young men who tortured and robbed two adolescents and a man in an Osborne Place building in the Bronx. My prayers go with the victims and their relatives. Nobody deserves to be brutalized or victimized.

I am grateful to the Senator for speaking up. I truly am. Still, there is a couple of glaring omissions from the statement and at least one journalist noticed one of them.

From a column published yesterday in the New York Daily News authored by political reporter Bob Kappstater ("Bronx hangs its head in wake of heinous gay-bashing attack"):

State Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. is against gay marriage. That's his religious belief as a Pentecostal minister - and his right. But he could have been a bigger man when he issued a statement Saturday, condemning the attacks - but not once using the word gay [italics mine].

Some may say that people are stretching facts a bit too far to find any fault in the statement. But consider the fact that said statement is nowhere to be found on his official site under blog entries, news items or press releases.

In addition, it's striking that the Senator would deem fit to criticize Bloomberg on gay issues and never admit in his statement that the attacks in the Bronx were in any way related to homophobia.  More striking is the fact that ten days ago he was highlighting his work to combat hate crimes against Bangladeshi-Americans in the Bronx and that in his statement about the horrific homophobic crime in the Bronx he also holds off from mentioning the term "hate crime".

It's definitely not the kind of leadership in the Bronx that Gerson Borrero is calling for.

Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: Blame Michael Bloomberg for the lack of marriage equality in New York

OK, let me be a Debbie Downer today, on Pride Day, but I just have to post this fine example of the utter hypocrisy of homophobic Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., in the form of a 30-minute Spanish-language television interview that ran back on June 5th on New York 1 Noticias (posted in full, and translated by yours truly, above).

It's quite a far-ranging interview as Diaz is asked about his opposition to gays and gay rights over the last few decades. Pura Politica anchor, Juan Manuel Benitez, doesn't shy away from challenging Diaz on his views simply because he calls himself a preacher and, as Benitez keeps pressing, you see Diaz begin to lose it. At one point, as his own arguments are used to refute his positions, Diaz stops answering, and simply keeps repeating "I am a Pastor. I am a preacher. I am a believer in Jesus Christ, our redeemer and savior". Ask yourself the next time you see an anti-gay preacher spouting his or her views on CNN, if the network anchors even dare to respectfully challenge their bigotry in quite the same way that Benitez does in these clips.

Part of the interview, in which Diaz acknowleges having two gay brothers, made news last week after New York magazine's Daily Intel posted the info without attribution on June 23rd. That quickly got picked up by bloggers such as Joe.My.God, Rod2.0, BoyCulture and NGblog. But the interview goes further and includes one claim on which the Reverend and I agree: Without NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg stepping in and appealing a State Supreme court ruling, same-sex couples would have been able to marry long ago in New York State.

What follows are brief descriptions of each segment, followed by a full translated transcript. As an extra treat, I also have included a separate clip at the end in which Latino political pundit Gersón Borrero responds to the interview, calls Diaz "The Lucifer of the Senate" and provides a major bombshell which might explain why Diaz takes pain, during the interview, to argue that adultery is a lesser sin than homosexuality.

First segment available here: Diaz says that Senator Tom Duane is in his own dream world and lying to the people when he says that there are enough votes in the State Senate to pass the marriage bill.

Second segment available here: Diaz argues that Senators who remain undecided on the marriage bill feel ashamed of the gay community, says that his life will go on even if marriage equality happens in New York because he is used to "ups and downs", and admits that marriages between same-sex couples have no effect on his daily life.

Third segment available here: Diaz reiterates that homosexuality is a sin by quoting the Bible but then, when asked if the Bible also bans eating certain seafood, states "The Bible says many things" and can be used to justify just about everything; he argues that adultery is a lesser sin than homosexuality because it's about someone being at fault with a partner, whereas homosexuality is a fault against nature; and, to top it all off, Diaz says that having sex with a person of the same gender is like "having sexual relations with animals"; Oh! He also begins to lose it and to mumble his responses.

Fourth segment available here: Diaz says women who cannot have children have "an illness" and have a "failure" inside them whereas no two men can procreate as much as they try - and that this is the reason that infertile straight couples should be allowed to marry and gay couples should not; Diaz agrees with the statement that love has nothing to do with the reason why straight couples marry; and he argues that gays should be upset with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and not him since Bloomberg supported an appeal to a State Supreme Court ruling that granted gays the right to marry. In this segment, Diaz finally loses it, saying that there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the United States, adding "I AM the State and I AM the Church!"

Fifth segment available here: Diaz addresses his role in opposing the 1994 Gay Games and public funding for the Harvey Milk School; he likens his opposition to having gay athletes come to NYC to recent efforts to prevent people with the H1N1 virus come into the US (at the time, he claimed gay athletes might spread AIDS in the US); he momentarily stops answering questions by simply repeating "I am a Pastor. I am a preacher. I am a believer in Jesus Christ, our redeemer and savior"; he acknowledges he has two gay brothers but says he won't change his views just to accommodate them; he chastises former Vice President Dick Cheney for allegedly doing as much with his lesbian daughter'; and, finally, acknowledges that whatever his beliefs are, same-sex marriage might soon become law in New York State.

EXTRA: Gersón Borrero on the June 19th edition of Pura Politica, discusses the marriage equality bill and NY1 Noticias' interview with Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. - and reveals quite a bombshell about Diaz's stand on adultery during the previous show [direct link to clip here].

FULL TRANSLATED TRANSCRIPT

Intro: Juan Manuel Benitez (JMB) introduces a segment on where things stand with the marriage equality bill in the New York State Senate and a NY1 poll on which senators support or oppose te bill. He says that, of the four Latino senators, two support the bill and one (Monserrate) is undecided. He introduces Diaz as the only one that has announced his opposition and is asked to confirm his assertion that there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it.

It's the fourth anniversary of Pura Politica, so - before responding - Diaz sings happy birthday and then...

FIRST SEGMENT [watch it here] -
JMB: Senator [Tom] Duane is not... doesn't know how to count? Because he says that he does have the votes to pass this marriage equality law. You say 'no'.
RD: Well, it's not that Senator Duane doesn't know how to count. It's that he lives in a dream world and dreaming doesn't cost a thing. To dream... it is said that poor people live on 'hope', and dreaming is one of the benefits that God gave to humanity to - eh - let go of frustrations...
JMB: As we say, the math is more than complicated, but State Senator Duane says - Yes - that he has enough votes to pass the law. To this assertion you, Reverend, replied with a press release this week in which you said "If Senator Tom Duane has the sufficient votes in the Senate to pass the homosexual marriage law in the State of New York, he then should reveal the name of those senators who back the law. If not, shut up"... Why so much forcefulness in a press release like this?
RD: I don't understand when you say "forcefulness".
JMB: Forcefulness: "If not, shut up"...
RD: Yes, but I don't understand why you use that phrase.
JMB: Because the expression that you use is "Shut up", a pretty strong expression in English, as you well know.
RD: "Put up, or shut up", better said, call it like that, but, you cannot continue to play with people's minds, playing with the intelligence of the people, and say it. You have one thing or you don't have it. If you have it, why hide it? If you don't have it, you are lying to the people. And a legislator who lies to the people, I believe is a farce.

SECOND SEGMENT (watch it here) -
JMB: Let me read you another paragraph from that statement you released this week: It says "If there are Senators who do not want to give their names before voting for the homosexual marriage bill, they are giving a clear message to the gay community, and the entire state of New York, that these senators do not want the public to know, and that they feel ashamed to be publicly associated with the gay community" - Why do you think that someone might feel ashamed of being associated with the gay community.
RD: There is no other explanation! Better said, [if] I give you my word that I am with you, and if I say "I am with you, but don't say it to anyone else, don't give my name out", it's such an important matter in this American nation, such an important issue in the state of New York, when you give your word to someone, and say "I will be with you, but don't give my name". So, why don't you give your name? Does it make you feel ashamed? Is it that you don't want people to know? Or are you playing a little game... so, so... that legislator who says "I am undecided", ok, he's undecided. He who is undecided, it gives me the opportunity, there, to work with him. And it gives an opportunity to the enemies to go and work with him. He's undecided! Let me see... Now, he who says "I'm with you" and plays it publicly as if he is undecided, he is a hypocrite.
JMB: But let me... ah... ask you a question, Reverend, because imagine - it could happen - as it has happened in other states, now six states in the country - imagine that tomorrow you wake up and begin a new day and, that morning, you find out that the state of New York has passed the legislation that allows homosexual marriage. How would your life have changed on that day?
RD: It doesn't change because I am used to a life of ups and downs. And I was born an orphan and poor, and I brought up myself as an orphan in the streets from the age of nine, so I am used to a life of ups and downs. What I am saying is: If you, number one, there are 28 votes in favor. They are four needed, I need four to get 32...
JMB: But you are acknowledging to me that if, suddenly tomorrow, homosexuals can get married in the state of New York, your life wouldn't change; it wouldn't have direct consequences on your daily life.
RD: But why? Why would it have a day to day consequence? When my mother, when my mother, when my mother died...
JMB: So why... the opposition...
RD: when my dad died...
JMB: Why then the opposition to homosexual marriage?
RD: Aaaaah! That's THE question! Now you are asking THE question, not that my life is going to change...
JMB: Because definitely it's not something that will affect you directly.
RD: No, well, hm, no, well... In my religious beliefs, it affects me. In my religious principles, it affects me, in what I preach at church, it affects me. And it also would not have an effect because I would continue to preach the same thing, and I will continue believing the same thing. But, in my own view, I believe that God made a man and a woman and that he told them to get together and procreate - have sexual relations - and have children. And that is the purpose why God created Adam and Eve. And that is the mandate he gave. How will a man and a woman going to have sexual relations - eh - how will a man with a man will have sexual relations and will procreate children? That is an aberration in nature.

FOURTH SEGMENT [watch it here]:
JMB: Reverend, you participated a couple of weeks ago in a demonstration against these marriages. Let's take a look at some images from your intervention.
[Funny, they show a brief segment from one of my YouTube videos of Diaz riling up the crowd at the anti-gay rally that took place on May 17th]
JMB: Why once again, Reverend, the concept of 'evil' and 'sin' associated with homosexual unions.
RD: Because it's a sin.
JMB: It's a sin..
RD: Because God punishes it in the Bible, because God condemns it in the Bible, and because the Bible condemns it. It's a sin.
JMB: And where in the Bible is it condemned?
RD: Well, Romans 6... Romans, Romans, the Book of Romans, Chapter 1, Verse 26 and 27 says...
JMB: The Letter of Romans
RD: The Letter of Romans, of course, everyone can read it, and it says - practically - that when they threw away - and they had... and man changed the natural use of a woman, and became inflamed with lasciviousness, man with man, and, in the same way woman changed the natural use of a man, became inflamed with lasciviousness one with another, throwing the other one aside. God threw them out to a retrograde life. Better said, it's clear as can be: Man threw away the natural use of a woman and burned in lasciviousness, man with a man. I don't understand... I cannot give you more explanations. That is very clear in the Bible.
JMB: But also, you know that in the Bible there are prohibitions against many other things which are permitted in current society.
RD: Yes, of course.
JMB: Including Leviticus, in addition to calling an aberration what it's alleged to say about homosexual relationships, also says that it's an aberration to eat seafood, for example, crustaceans.
RD: The Bible says many things...
JMB: But there are many of those things which our society, nowadays, allows them and are legal, no?
RD: The Bible says a lot of things. You can look to justify anything that you want to do. In the same way that the Bible says certain things, you can also look for justification for whatever you want to do. Better said, I believe, the religion I preach, the religion in which I believe, teaches and believes not only that homosexuality is a sin, adultery, fornication...
JMB: So, now, for example, now that you mention adultery, for someone who has committed adultery, should it be legal for that person to be able to marry again after having committed adultery?... Do you think it should be penalized in any way in the civil laws of this country?
RD: Well, the problem with adultery is that you have one man committing an act of infidelity towards a woman. An act of infidelity! In homosexuality, it's an act against nature... better said, both are sins but they are very different sins. It's one sinning against the na-tu-re of God!
JMB: So you think that if being gay is a sin against nature, do you therefore think that homosexuality is a choice? Or is it simply...
RD: No, it's, it's like having sexual relations with animals, many people also want it...
JMB: So you think that having sexual relations - a man with a man or a woman with a woman - is like having sexual relations with an animal...
RD: They are acts against nature. They are actions AGAINST nature. It's not established by God's nature that things be that way. Natural things are those made by God. There are things that man changes - but not like this is - with God, but that is not against nature. Better said, God's nature is: God created them like this - MAN and WOMAN were created by God, male and female were created by God, and He said: Join together, fulfill each other and populate the earth. That's the Biblical mandate. Do you understand me?
JMB: So marriage, as you understand it, cannot be... it has to be a union that can... eh... or a union for procreation.
RD: For the procreation of children! hat is what God established! The procreation of children, to procreate children, eh, that is, that is the natural life of a man and a woman in what refers to the creation of God. A man with a man cannot create children, they can't be created by a woman with a woman. It's against nature!
JMB: And heterosexual marriages that cannot create children...?
RD: Look for any justification you want to find for the things that you want to do. The women that no longer can have children...
JMB: That's a marriage...
RD: Of course it's a marriage....

FOURTH SEGMENT [watch it here] -
JMB: Even if they cannot procreate.
RD: Yes but they cannot procreate, they cannot procreate, not because, not because - eh - God - not because they were born one way - they are made for - but they have an illness, they have an illness inside them which keeps them from procreating. They have a failure, they have inside them, that keeps them from procreating - that man or that woman. Better said, or they are sterile, they have a womb that cannot procreate, but it's not because... it's not, it's not, it's not like a homosexual. A homosexual is: That God made him so no matter what he does he cannot procreate.
JMB: So an union in marriage is not two people who love each other, it's not an union - as it has been during many years throughout history - that were economic unions, but simply a union to procreate. That's what marriage is.
RD: Of course! That's what marriage is!
JMB: That's what the law in the state of New York says?
RD: Of course! Look, let me tell you: The New York State Constitution prohibits marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. The Constitution. You... Many homosexuals are angry with me. Don't get angry with me. They should get angry with Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Because if they are not being allowed to marry today in New York, it's Bloomberg's fault because - in '95 - a judge authorized [gay] marriage here. It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg who wanted to run for president who decided "No, no! Let's appeal that decision."
JMB: But..
RD: So... Let me finish this. So, the judges of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York decided that [gay] marriage is illegal. Now, they want to change it, not because the court says so, but so 32 persons can change it.
JMB: But also, referring to your intervention in that manifestation: You were saying that they attempt to silence the voice of the church.
RD: Of course!
JMB: You know that in this country there is a separation of church and state. Better said, you are a Reverend on one hand but also a State Senator. You have to - ehm -
RD: And what does that mean, tell me, what...
JMB: You don't establish a separation between the church and state?
RB: I can't!
JMB: You can't?
RD: I can't.
JMB: So, you can't - eh - ...
RD: The Constitution doesn't say "a separation of church and state"
JMB: In this country there exists a separation between church and state
RD: NO! The constitution doesn't say it!
JMB: you think there shouldn't be a separation of church and state...
RD: No, no, no, no, listen to what I'm teling you, my friend, the Constitution does not say that there is a separation between church and state. I'll tell you what has happened: The nine judges of the Supreme Court interpret it in that way. But the Constitution doesn't say the separation... "there should be a separation of churches and state"... the Constitution of the United States does not say such thing. The judges of the Supreme Court interpret it this way, saying 'Congress shall not promote a religion, nor will it halt the free growth of the same' - that is what the Constitution says.
JMB: So, following your argument, there is no separation between church and state in the United States...
RD: There cannot be! Because I AM the State and I AM the Church.
JMB: And you told me...
RD: I AM the Church and I AM the State. I cannot separate me from myself.
JMB: So, would you propose, for example, a law that would penalize adultery in the State of New York?
RD: Well...
JMB: Since adultery is one of the commandments against the law of God?
RD: It's, it's, it's that it's a sin... It's law! It's law! [JMB: Would you penalize it, adultery?] It's that it IS penalized 'already' by law in the Constitution... the law says it - that adultery is punished!
JMB: How is it punished?
RD: Adultery... How is it punished?! Adultery, adultery is law, adulery is sin!
JMB: But in civil law, how is adultery penalized? How do you penalize a woman or a man in adultery...
RD: But wait, wait, wait! I am not asking for jail time or the penalization of homosexuals; I am saying it should not be accepted, just as adultery should not be accepted. That's all I am saying. I'm not saying, throw them in jail.
JMB: Uhuh
RD: Now you are asking me why...it's... eh...
JMB: No, but you are basing your way of legislating depending on what it says or soesn't say in the Bible.
RD: What it says... no, no... what it says... no, no, no... what it says in the Constitution of the state of New York.
JMB: Well, you have mentioned the Bible to me...
RD: Of course!
JMB: ...as a reason not to legalize homosexual marriages.
RD: I am telling you that it's not only the Bible that condemns homosexuality but that the Constitution of the State of New York, for which I am here to protect, also rejects it.
JMB: Before going to a commercial break, I have to remind you that this past May 27th, the California Supreme Court decided no to invalidate the referendum known as Proposition 8. This means that homosexual marriage is no longer legal in California. At the same time it decided not to invalidate homosexual marriages that have been celebrated during the past few months in this state, after the same tribunal legalized them last year. The only judge that opposed giving recognition to Proposition 8 was the only Latino judge in that tribunal, Carlos Moreno, who until last week also was listed as a possible magistrate to the Supreme Court of the country. Better say, gay marriage is legal in California only for a few people, for those who got married during the last few months...

FIFTH SEGMENT [watch iton here] -
JMB: And let me, because many think that you have based your political career on this topic, the topic of opposition to homosexuals. It includes, it is said, because I haven't been able to find the Spanish-language column that you wrote in 1994, you wrote a column about the Gay Games that were going to be celebrated here in the city of New York and you said: "It might be that some of the gay and lesbian athletes are already infected with AIDS and go back home with the virus." And you said that children could determine that, if there were so many gay and lesbian athletes,there was nothing wrong [with it] nor any risk. This is something you said in the year '94 and it created quite a stir. And in 2003 you also were opposed to giving additional funding to a high-school, the Harvey Milk School, which is dedicated specially to students who have had trouble at their school, or at home for the fact of being homosexual. You said that it took away finding from Latino students but, when it came down to it, Latino and African-American students were the majority in that school...
RD: ...GAY! The majority were homosexual. Better said, both situations give me the reason. Number one, the gays - OLYMPIC games for gays and lesbians - WHY! What do they have that is so special! There are olympic games for the deaf, for the mute, for those who limp, for the dismembered, for the elderly...
JMB: But you made it seem as if all of them had AIDS.
RD: Well, yes, because back then, Magic Johnson came out with AIDS and Magic Johnson was denied entry in another country.
JMB: Uhhum.
RD: Because he had AIDS at that same time,so we were telling everyone - all those who were there - "Come in!" - at that time when things were difficult with AIDS and we didn't know - "Come in!" without having been checked. Better said, that is... that is... like now in Mexico. Why now in Mexico, when now you have that fever, everyone stops going to Mexico, and everyone begins to use protection - eh, eh - the same thing! You know! A catastrophe is happening. Why are we going to bring everyone here without checking. That's one thing... Number two: The homosexual school. Why a school with public funds for homosexual kids. Why not fr the cleft-lipped? And why not for the fat people? And where are the... the, the, the, the Latinos? Look at my district, they are in pigsties, they don't even have food, they don't have some disgusting 'toilets', why for a school - with public funding - for gays.
JMB: Reverend, don't you think that...
RD: No, no! You asked!
JMB: Yes, yes.
RD: - for gays, with air conditioning, with good technology, with the best equipment, with all the best things- for GAYS - specially, That is... it's... 'come on!' - please! So, I oppose it and they say I'm homosexual, 'I mean', that I am - eh - 'homophobic'. Because I am opposed to this. Noo!
JMB: But many think, Reverend, and you could be in agreement, that you have based your political career on this issue.
RD: I am a Pastor! I am a Pastor!
JMB: ...and that if homosexual marriages were approved in New York, you would lose your main political argument.
RD: I don't know!! I am a Pastor! I never - uhm. I am a Pastor. I am a preacher. I am a believer in Jesus Christ, our redeemer and savior.
JMB: Do you think that homosexuals...So, homosexuality is an illness? It's a choice?
RD: I am a preacher, I am a Pentecostal pastor, in the Evangelical church, a believer in my Lord and Savior...
JMB: But you are also a State Senator in Albany... You are a legislator...
RD: Of course!
JMB: A civil function...
RD: And the Constitution of the State says that it is illegal, homosexual mariage, so what am I to do?
JMB: Reverend. Do you think that if you had... Or let me ask the question in a different way - because you publicly recognized that you had two homosexual brothers.
RD: I do have them, yes.
JMB: It doesn't make you change your opinion, absolutely, the fact of having two homosexual brothers?
RD: So, just because my brother is an adulterer, a sinner, a thief, a drug addict, be whoever he'll be, it means I haveto change my position before the fact to acommodate him? No. That's what Vice President Dick Chaney did! Accomodating - because his daughter is a lesbian - accomodating so his daughter can belong. You can't do that! What is bad is bad. If one does a bad thing, it's bad. I care for you, I accept you, you are my brother, you are my friend, you are my neighbor, I love you, how can I help, we are there with you, but I cannot accept the sin... I cannot accept what you are doing. I cannot say it's a good thing.
JMB: So you do not see that - in the future - your position will evolve, because a couple of weeks ago we had Assemblymember Nelson Castro from the Bronx who is alos opposed to homosexual marriage - and, off-camera - he recognized that sooner or later homosexual marriage will be a fact in the State of New York, as it is in many countries of the world and also in other states of the country.
RD: Sooner or later, whatever happens, the pastor... the Biblical principles that once were, there it says - the world goes by and happens - but the will of God, the word of God, remains forever. Things can happen, everything happens, but the word of God is the same yesterday, today, and for every century.
JMB: And we could have discussed many other things but we didn't havethe time. We only had half an hour. Things, of course, change, and "Pura Politica" will be extended to a full hour beginning next week. It's a gift on our fourth anniversary. Today, as the Reverend said, we turn four years of "Pura Politica" - many thanks, Reverend, for having joined us. This fourth anniversary would not have been possible without your trust. As always, thanks for your attention. I'm Juan Manuel Benitez. Until the next one.


EXTRA: Gersón Borrero (GB) on the June 19th edition of Pura Politica, discusses the marriage equality bill and NY1 Noticias' interview with Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. - and reveals quite a bombshell about Diaz's stand on adultery during the show [link to clip here]. Remember that the interview with Diaz happened before Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate shocked the political establishment in NYS by defecting to the Republican wing of the Senate and that the interview with Borrero happened after the move.

GB: And, on the other hand, for example, Pedro Espada: The fact that he wants to bring to - what is the heart of the Senate - a debate. You will have individuals, who have a homosexual partnership, the right of those persons to be treated as equal.
JMB: Yes, but Gerson, you and I know, first thing: You and I know that Republicans, during all the years they have been in the chamber, they also have not been characterized for giving much power to Latinos. And, secondly, it's that Pedro Espada. Jr., YES: He says he will bring the homosexual marriage bill up for a vote, but he knows he still lacks the voters...
GB: But the point is, Juan Manuel Benitez, that the issue can be debated openly. So that itcan't be hidden anymore, the Lucifer of the Senate, Ruben Diaz, who is a hypochrite. So much so that you had him as a guest, and you also asked about what is - certain little things he didn't speak about: Infidelity! You know he left on his own will. He wasn't loyal to his own wife. Let him come to say it again because I saw that interview he gave. That HYPOCRITE, who always spends his time harrassing homosexual couples and speaking about lesbians, don't let him... he has two [gay] brothers, which he admitted to you. But nevertheless I think he has a little bit of a latent homosexual, did you hear me?
JMB: Well, Gerson said it, I didn't.
GB: Yes, I said it!

The day after: Latinos and La Hillary

Look at the picture above. One of them is running for the presidency of the United States and, if you guessed it was the Charytin look-alike, you get a prize!

Why, yes! That's Hillary Clinton - looking tanner than I have ever seen her - and her adopted familia! Not that wrapping yourself around a whole Mexican-American familia doesn't help anyone get some votes, mind you, but still a bit cringe-worthy to yours truly who 'gets' the concept of familia and Latinos but still think it's a crass move by la Hillary (specially with that orange skin tone).

It also screams - at least to me - that all Latinos are alike when - also at least to me - the image pitches a Mexican-American / California type of Latino familia that fails to reflect other Latino communities. Particularly in the North East. Not that Mexican-American's are not part of the United States Latino community but it does seem as if the campaign feels that as long as they include some Latino faces on their campaign materials - regardless of their ethnicity or national background - we will all respond equally to the pitch (Note to the Clinton campaign: Ask New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on how to pitch to the Latinos, as masterful as he was at it during his mayoral campaigns).

Today everyone's talking about Latino voters and how they came through big time for Clinton in New York and California.

A more nuanced view by Robert Lovato over at The Huffington Post shows that, despite the fact that Latinos did go big for Clinton, nationwide they also reflected the general pro-Barack Obama trend of the past couple of weeks:

"Obama succeeded in dropping Clinton's Latino advantage from 4-1 - 68% to 17% according to a CNN poll conducted last week- to 3-2 last night," he says, "And in almost every Latino-heavy state that voted Super Tuesday, Obama received more than the 26 percent of the Latino vote he got in Nevada just 2 weeks ago."

Call it spin but it certainly matches the overall national trend.

By all accounts, the Democratic race for the presidential nomination is too close to call with some saying that Obama won both the top number of states and the top number of delegates last night and others saying that the upcoming primaries and caucuses bode well for Obama.

Me thinks that, when it comes to the Latino vote and if it proves to be the deciding factor, we will have to wait until Texas in March.

One thing that I agree with is that the Obama camp needs to step up it's Latino outreach and pronto. They might be surprised by how many of us out there might be willing to help out.

I mean, the latest Gallup poll has Clinton opening up the lead (h/t Andrew Sullivan).

Previously:

• Obama on the black-brown divide and immigration (Jan. 31, 2008)
• From and undecided Latino gay voter: Barack Obama and LGBT rights (Jan. 28, 2008)
  

Breaking News: Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves Republican Party

I guess it's a breaking news day! Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to leave the Republican Party and become independent. So says The Politicker. First time I've really thought he might be running for president after all the rumors.

Latino LGBT Pride in NYC: 1998

Continuing our look at Latino LGBT organizing in New York through some of the photos I've taken through the years...

copyrighted photo - to post, please ask for permission: blabbeando@gmail.com

1st ever Bronx LGBT Pride Parade, July 10th, 1998: Yes, Virginia, there once was a pride march down the Grand Concourse Avenue in the Bronx.

Here we have the Puerto Rican Initiative to Develop Empowerment (P.R.I.D.E.) - which was founded in 1995 - joining other organizations on that fateful day. The march would not have been possible without the economic or political support of then-Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer (who would later be defeated in the mayoral race that led to the coronation of current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg). Alas, the pride march only lasted a couple of years.

On that first parade there were nearly no people watching on the sidewalks and it probably caught those who were walking-by by surprise. But it nevertheless was a victory for LGBT leaders in the Bronx (like Marisol Santiago, Lisa Winters and Crystal Paris) who wanted some visibility for the community in the neighborhood.

Last year Bronx Pride was reborn in a different guise. It is no longer a pride march, instead organizers have come up with a health fair / outing at a park kinda thingie.

As a matter of fact this year's event took place today! I hope it went well! I also hope that it was free of some of the controversies of last year involving the organizers and current (Evangelical) Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion (who is rumored to be a future mayoral contender once Mike Bloomberg is termed out of office).

Out for NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn

On Wednesday, June 20th, the New York City Council will be hosting its annual LGBT Pride celebration at the council chambers. It's the second year in which the proceedings will be overseen by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the first gay person (or woman) to hold the seat.

Christine, a former dynamo LGBT rights activist turned political maverick, has quickly ascended in the local political ranks and has long been rumored to be mulling a run for the Mayor's Office in 2009 after current Mayor Michael Bloomberg is set to leave office due to term limits.

A cover page profile and interview in Thursday's Gay City News gives an overview of some of Christine's major accomplishments as Council Speaker and also gives voice to some people in the community who express dismay at some of the compromises she has made for what they argue is political expediency. But reporter and GCN Editor-in-Chief Paul Schindler does a good job in distilling the realities of political activism vs. the political process and comes out with a fairly balanced and ultimately glowing profile.

I too have been critical of Christine in the past, particularly of her alliance with some of the least progressive Democratic party leaders in Queens, but as Council Speaker she has been pretty tremendous, including her latest effort to push campaign finance reform that would reduce the influence of business interests in city races.

A day before the Council pride celebration, on June 19th, I will be joining well over 100 of the city's LGBT leaders in hosting a fundraiser for Christine with tickets ranging from $35 to $100 for those of you who might want to join us.

Although host committee members are listed in their individual capacity, they include a diverse array of community leaders including Michael Adams, ED of Services and Advocacy for LGBT Elders (SAGE); Richard Burns, ED at the LGBT Community Center; Gerard Cabrera of the Out People of Color Political Action Club (OutPOCPAC); Daryl Cochrane of the Human Rights Campaign and GMHC; transgender advocate Carrie Davis; Latino Commission on AIDS ED Dennis deLeon; NYS Senator Thomas K. Duane; People of Color in Crisis ED Gary English; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ED Matt Foreman; Assemblywoman Deborah Glick; Councilmember Rosie Mendez; Gay City News columnist and Brooklyn's Lambda Independent Democrats' Christopher Murray; ACT UP member and Gay USA co-host Ann Northrop; Assemblymember Daniel J. O'Donnell; Gay Men of African Descent ED Tokes Osubu; Lambda Independent Democrats' Gary Parker; New York City Anti-Violence Project ED Clarence Patton; Gay Officers Action League's Vivian Rodriguez; Stonewall Democrats of New York Tom Schuler; Queens Public Library's James Van Bramer; Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS' Tom Viola; Stonewall Democrats of New York's Jon Winkleman; Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson; and actor BD Wong, among many others.

It's actually a pretty impressive list and shows that, well ahead of a possible 2009 mayoral run, the Speaker enjoys wide support from the New York City LGBT political establishment should she chose to make a run for it.

My New York: Tell Mayor Bloomberg to allow PRIDEfest in Chelsea!

As you might have heard elsewhere, in trying to move the site of their annual LGBT Pride Festival to accommodate increasing crowds and secure a more welcoming environment, New York City's Heritage of Pride has ran smack into Mayor Mike Bloomberg's sreet event policies and the New York City Police Department's regulations on street event permits.

The City has decided that in moving the event from the narrow streets of the West Village to the wider 8th Avenue in the Chelsea district and by changing the date of the PRIDEfest from the day of the actual Pride March to a week earlier, HOP has created a "new" event and, as such, will tax police department resources.

The result? A permit has been denied and Heritage of Pride has been forced to cancel this year's festival.

BUT they would like for the community to express themselves loudly and demand that a permit be granted immediately for next year's event. More information on their site including a sample letter that you can send to local political leaders, including Mayor Bloomberg.

Other views: Blogger Frank León Roberts has another take.

A political experience

On Thursday, I called the Mayor's Office of Special Events and inquired about a message that had been left on my office voice mail. I was then told that I was among a group of gay leaders being invited to have breakfast with Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Gracie Mansion yesterday morning and they needed to know if I was attending. A bit shocked, I said yes before asking for details. I hung up and then quickly proceeded to find out just why and who had put me on the list. After all, I had endorsed Fernando Ferrer in the last Mayoral race.

It wasn't necessarily my affiliation with OutPOCPAC, because I contacted their leadership and they didn't know a thing about the meeting. So the other alternatives were that the Mayor's office noticed my essay earlier this month in Gay City News on funding for LGBT communities of color or, perhaps, that Council Speaker Christine Quinn might have suggested my name. A call back to the Mayor's Office confirmed that the meeting had been called by both the Mayor and the Speaker and that my name was among the Speaker's suggested invitees (though, aparently the Mayor's Office had final say on the list).

I wanted to know if I'd be there with friends so the next logical step was to reach out to Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, an agency on whose Board of Directors I served for five years until mid-2005. That's when things got complicated.

Yesterday, Gay City News published this late breaking report on the meeting. Today, the New York Post has this take on it. Aparently, while the Mayor's Office was insisting that an invitation had been extended to the Pride Agenda, the caveat was that it's Executive Director was not welcome to the event. I don't see how the Mayor's Office can claim that banning the director of the largest and most powerful lesbian and gay advocacy organization in New York State is anything but disrespectful, but they stayed on point claiming that the Pride Agenda was the one playing politics.

To Alan's credit, he never asked me not to attend the Mayor's breakfast, but did ask for support in letting the Mayor's Office know that banning him from the event was wrong. Friends, on the other hand, were pushing me to attend so that there would be at least a Latino voice at the table. By late Thursday, I called the Mayor's Office once more, in light of the developments, and said that I had to withdraw my RSVP unless things changed. They said they would keep my name on the list just in case I changed my mind. I spent the evening thinking about it some more and had yet another brief conversation with Alan late Thursday night. Based on that call, I changed my mind again and woke up early Friday morning to make my way to Gracie Mansion.

Now, the meeting itself was billed as a "legislative" breakfast to discuss strategies to achieve civil marriage rights for gays. As it turns out, a number of the invited guests were legislative experts from LGBT law associations who truly moved the dialogue into a very productive session, at least potentially. I say potentially, because the true measure of its success will depend on what the Mayor and his office do in the next months and years regarding the proposed political and legislative strategies.

Gay City News reports that Richard Burns of the LGBT Center, Matt Foreman of the City's Human Rights Commission and fellow Commissioner Jonathan Capehart, Log Cabin Republican Christopher Taylor, Gary English of People in Color in Crisis and yours truly were among the attendees. I also saw Phyllis Steinberg of NYC Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and Ron Zacchi of Marriage Equality - New York. A woman representing Stonewall Staten Islan was there as well but I didn't catch her name. Queens Democratic District Leader Danny Dromm was also invited but he works as a high school teacher and aparently could not attend due to his professional responsibilities.

The Mayor and Ms. Quinn, who sat side by side, were at turns gracious and funny, stern, pragmatic and to the point. But, as the meeting was off-the-record, I will abstain from describing details of what was said by others. I will say that I was glad to be there if only because issues related to the right to marry for same-sex couples and how it plays in minority communities was part of the discussion. I also took the opportunity, once the main strategy session was over, to raise awareness among the top level mayoral staff members of the April 15th rally in memory of Rashawn Brazell in Brooklyn and asked for the Mayor - through his aides - to make an appearance (the Mayor had already left by then).

I will also say that even if Gay City News is reporting that the issue of the Pride Agenda not bring at the table "did not rise to the level of a major issue during the meeting," the point was indeed brought to the table and several of those present, including myself, took time to talk about the Pride Agenda's indispensable work on the marriage issue and on how their abscence left a huge hole at the table.

As GCN reports, it might might have been a positive first step, but unless the Pride Agenda is engaged in future strategy sessions, it might be bound to fail. I am hoping that the Mayor's Office buries the hatchet, stops playing politics on this issue and truly engages the Pride Agenda, which means not blocking its Executive Director from the table.

The last thing I will say is that I am truly grateful to Council Speaker Christine Quinn for suggesting my name to the Mayor's Office. The invite truly surprised me and I will thank her personally the next time I see her.