Dominican Republic: Diplomats boycott event after husband of gay U.S. Ambassador is asked not to attend

Bob Satawake and his husband James "Wally" Brewster as photographed by Dominican magazine Ritmo Social.

Just as it seemed a diplomatic row might have been averted last week when the Dominican Republic expressed full support for out U.S. ambassador James "Wally" Brewster and denounced its own ambassador to the Vatican for publicly criticizing a meeting Brewster held with LGBT advocates, a brand new diplomatic controversy has emerged over Brewster's marriage to Bob Satawake.

As last week's controversy was playing out, reports have emerged that an earlier kerfuffle erupted over a cancelled January 22nd diplomatic event in honor of Dominican Republic president Danilo Medina.

Organized by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the gathering was meant to be a private opportunity for diplomats and their spouses to honor the President but, as Acento reported yesterday, the Dean himself raised objections about extending an invitation to Ambassador Brewster's husband and made a personal call to ask the Ambassador for his understanding and consideration.

From a private letter sent to all diplomats after questions were raised about the decision as translated from Spanish:

1. Reasons why the partner of the U.S. Ambassador was not invited to the Diplomatic Cocktail in honor of the President of the Dominican Republic: The partner of the U.S. Ambassador is not accredited as a "wife" but, instead, as a "dependent" of the Ambassador. In the Constitution of the Dominican Republic, same sex marriages are not recognized. Thus the Dominican authorities cannot officially recognize him as his "wife."

2. This explains why he was not invited to accompany the Ambassador.

3. It would be incorrect and in some ways offensive to the entire Diplomatic Body to go against the Constitution and, worse yet, in front of the President of the Republic and in the presence of representatives from all the Diplomatic Missions accredited by the Dominican Republic.

4. The Dean of the Diplomatic Corps has spoken to the U.S. Ambassador regarding this impasse and has asked for his understanding regarding this question, particularly about its delicate nature as he well knows.  We expect the Ambassador to accept this calmly and with due consideration. The use of prudence would insure a proper way to handle this issue. 

5. This does not imply any prejudice in the understanding, respect and tolerance the Colleagues from the Diplomatic Corps have towards the U.S. Ambassador, Mr. James W. Brewster.

6. An authority from the Foreign Affairs Ministry called on Saturday, January 18th, to express that the "Foreign Affairs Ministry" has no objection regarding to the attendance of the partner of the U.S. Ambassador. Naturally, the responsibility then falls on the Diplomatic Body.

7. Later, speaking to an authority from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, it was acknowledged that the largest obstacle still remained: The fundamental question raised by the Constitution. The Dean reaffirmed that it would be completely wrong for the Heads of the Missions to go against the Constitution in front of the President. The ministerial authority immediately recognized the severity of the circumstance and how local media might make an issue out of it.

Archbishop Okolo with Dominican Republic President Danilo Medina.

The letter was signed by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps which happens to be the new envoy from the Vatican to the Dominican Republic Archbishop Jude Thaddeus Okolo originally from the African republic of Chad.

In October, Bishop Okolo replaced Polish Archbishop Josef Wesolowski after he escaped the Dominican Republic fleeing sexual abuse allegations.

The Dominican Foreign Affairs Ministry was not the only one who expressed having no issue with showing Ambassador Brewster the respect of treating his husband as his spouse. As Acento reports, "several diplomats refused to attend and the event had to be suspended."

The Foreign Affairs Ministry was also the government entity that stepped up last week when the Dominican ambassador to the Vatican criticized Ambassador Brewster and expressed full support for the U.S. Ambassador.

U.K. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Steven M. Fisher.

Update (Feb. 20th, 2014): When Acento broke the news about the cancellation of the diplomatic meeting on Tuesday several conservative religious leaders immediately tried to spin the story by applauding diplomats for allegedly taking a "principled" stand against same-sex marriage and staying away from the event.

Unfortunately for them whoever is leaking internal diplomatic letters to Acento responded by disclosing a letter Steven M. Fisher wrote to Archbishop Okole in response to the reasons given for not inviting Mr. Satawake to the event:

His Excellency, I am writing to you regarding the e-mail you sent on January 20th of 2014 regarding the "reasons why the partner of the U.S. Ambassador was not invited to the cocktail organized by the diplomatic corps in honor of the president to the Dominican Republic." 

I regret the very difficult situation in which this decision has placed me when it comes to my participation in the cocktail reception. I believe this decision unjustly discriminates against a member of the Diplomatic Corps in a way that is unjustifiable. Additionally, it is my understanding that these issues should have been discussed by the Diplomatic Corps with enough time for each ambassador to give their point of view.

I reiterate the suggestion I made via e-mail on January 18th to modify the invitation so it equally includes everyone.

In the case the decision remains the same by not treating everyone equally or shows disrespect for someone's civil status, I am afraid I unfortunately won't be able to participate in the cocktail.

In other words, Vatican envoy Jude Thaddeus Okolo was not only advised that the Dominican Foreign Affairs Ministry in representation of the government had no issue with inviting Mr. Satawake to the event but other diplomats clearly warned him they would stay away if he insisted in discriminating against him.

Don't blame the gays for this diplomatic fiasco. Blame the new Vatican envoy to the Dominican Republic and conservatives from the Dominican Republic who insist on treating the U.S. ambassador and his husband with such disrespect.

Reactions:

• Meanwhile in Santo Domingo: Ambassador Brewster's husband not invited 'cuz he's not a "wife" (DiploPundit, Feb. 21, 2014)
• Global LGBT recap: Culture War Claims More Victims (Religion Dispatches, Feb. 20, 2014)

Previously:

• Diplomatic row brewing over U.S. Ambassador's decision to meet with LGBT Dominican leaders (Feb. 14, 2014) 
• Gay U.S. Ambassador and husband meet Dominican LGBT advocates (Feb. 11, 2014)
• Dominican cardinal uses the word "faggot" to refer to gay U.S. ambassador nominee (July 2, 2013)
• Cardinal calls Dominican gays "maricones" (Oct. 30, 2007)

Diplomatic row brewing over U.S. Ambassador's decision to meet with Dominican LGBT leaders

Ambassador James "Wally" Brewster with his husband Bob Satawake at the U.S. embassy quarters in the Dominican Republic as photographed by Ritmo Social and shared on Twitter.

A diplomatic row might be brewing over a meeting held this Tuesday by openly gay U.S. ambassador James "Wally" Brewster and his husband Bob Satawake with several Dominican LGBT leaders just a month after the new U.S. ambassador took office.

Messages and photos of the meeting were shared through the embassy's official social media accounts but no official statement has been posted on the embassy's website:

Post by Embajada USA - Santo Domingo.

Embajador Brewster y Bob Satawake se reunieron hoy con líderes de la comunidad LGBT en el país donde conversaron sobre los retos en #rd
— EmbajadaUSAenRD (@EmbajadaUSAenRD) February 11, 2014

"Ambassador Brewster and Bob Satawake met today with leaders of the country's LGBT community and discussed the challenges in DR"

Based on our report, the Washington Blade reached out to the embassy on Wednesday but they did not reply. And now we might have a reason.

Victor Grimaldi

Yesterday Dominican newspapers reported that the Dominican Republic Ambassador to the Vatican Victor Grimaldi sent an open letter to the Pope criticizing Brewster for the meeting.

In the letter to Pope Francis Grimaldi points out that a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved just four years ago with what he says was 99 percent of Dominican's approval and then takes a swipe at Brewster's marriage:

Just when the State Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes that marriage is between a man and a woman here comes the new United States ambassador - "married" with a man - to meet with a gay and transsexual collective that has confronted the Catholic church and alleges that the Dominican Republic is a secular state. 

A campaign to attack Cardinal Nicolás de Jesús López Ródriguez on these and other issues has existed for quite a while as they see the Archbishop from Santo Domingo as the head that needs to be dethroned.

The good Cardinal, of course, is the homophobe who has repeatedly referred to gay and lesbian Dominicans as "maricones" (faggots) over the years and used that same word when joking about Brewster's nomination in front of a number of reporters last year.  He has since toned down his language and there are reports that a few weeks ago he asked church goers to respect the ambassador.

Brewster, on the other hand, has avoided any direct mention of the Cardinal.

Those who were present at Tuesday's meeting do say that the topic came up and that the ambassador personally thanked them for defending his nomination last year in light of the attacks.

"The pair of diplomats [Brewster and his husband] thanked the collective for the June 2013 campaign to defend him from the rejection expressed by some sectors opposed to his nomination as the country's ambassador" says a statement from the transgender-rights organization TRANSSA.

Grimaldi's letter to Pope Francis apparently drew strong private rebuke from José Manuel Trullols, the Dominican Republic's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In a second letter sent to the press and published today Grimaldi says that the government official contacted him in what Grimaldi characterized as an attempt to intimidate him:

Excellent Minister: You have never called me on the phone before. And you threatened me for a letter I addressed to Pope Francis.

After today's call I warn you that christian-phobia is a type of religious persecution contrary to the liberty enshrined in our Constitution, which I swore to defend and obey. 

I reject your threats, even if I am sacrificed like John the Baptist for simply because as an Ambassador [to the Vatican] I obey the Constitution and as a christian I follow the freedom of thought.

It's not the first time that Grimaldi has used his Vatican credentials to vehemently defend the Cardinal.  In December he wrote another public letter to the Pope slamming Peruvian Nobel Prize winner Mario Vargas Llosa for calling on the Vatican to remove the Cardinal from his position.

Vargas Llosa, taking note of moderate statements made recently by the new Pope, called on the Vatican leader to remove "stone age" representatives of the church such as the Dominican and Peruvian cardinals.

The Cardinal's popularity in the Dominican Republic has taken a beating in recent years with people questioning his role in a still expanding sexual abuse scandal and, more recently, being caught on camera last week calling a Jesuit priest "shameless" and a left wing radical for daring to help needy undocumented Haitian immigrants [the Dominican Republic is currently embroiled in a debate on Haitian citizenship after the Dominican Supreme Court retroactively stripped children of undocumented Haitian immigrants of their citizenship even if they were born in the Dominican Republic].

Dominican citizens have taken to Twitter to demand the Cardinal be removed from his post using the hashtag #destituciondelcardenalrd.

Among the LGBT advocates who attended the meeting on Tuesday are Leonardo Sánchez of Amigos Siempre Amigos, Chris King of TRANSSA, Reverend Wilkin Lara from the ICM Church in the Dominican Republic, transgender rights activist Nairobi Castillo, and LGBT-rights activists Marianela Carvajal. Francis Taylor and Harold Jimenez.

Update #1: Asked today by Dominican media about Grimaldi's letters and accusations of a plot against the Cardinal, Ambassador Brewster said "I don't usually respond to false accusations."

Also, at least one Dominican paper - El Ortodoxo - is asking Grimaldi to resign as a result of his attack against the U.S. Ambassador.

Update #2: The Dominican government through the Foreign Affairs Ministry has released a statement that says that Grimaldi has not been authorized to speak about ambassador Brewster in the name of the government and says the statements made in the letters are purely personal in nature. They also expressed support for the U.S. ambassador:

The Dominican government recognizes the work that ambassador James B. Brewster on an wide array of issues related to the bilateral agenda.

Update #3: The Dominican Republic Foreign Affairs Ministry has tweeted their statement distancing the government from Grimaldi's comments.
Reaction to Grimaldi
RELATED:

• Scandal reveals Dominican Republic greenhorn diplomacy (Dominican Today, Feb. 17, 2014)  

PREVIOUSLY

• Gay U.S. Ambassador and husband meet Dominican LGBT advocates (Feb. 11, 2014)
• Dominican cardinal uses the word "faggot" to refer to gay U.S. ambassador nominee (July 2, 2013)
• Cardinal calls Dominican gays "maricones" (Oct. 30, 2007)

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)

Barack Obama on LGBT families

I have been struggling with returning to a more frequent blogging schedule. Most of it is work related stuff that keeps me from writing as much as I would like. But that's life.

It's been a while since I wrote about Barack Obama and the presidential race. I just checked past posts to see when I first mentioned the Democratic presidential candidate and I was surprised to see that it goes back to March of 2007 - loooong before his momentum-changing January caucus win in Iowa.

That all seems so long ago now and I still remember the general reaction from friends involved in politics in New York when I'd tell them I preferred Obama over Hillary Clinton. The general reaction seemed to be a mix of pity and concern for preferring someone who OBVIOUSLY had no chance in getting the Democratic nomination (I remember a friend telling me that he respected my political conviction but that sometimes in politics one had to be pragmatic and go with a winner).

Then came LGBT Latinos for Obama at a time when the argument was that few Latinos would vote for a black man and Sergio Bendixen, a pollster working then for the Clinton campaign, whispering to the New Yorker magazine that "...the Hispanic voter--and I want to say this very carefully--has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

Well, guess who Bendixen is working for now. Enough said.

Now, there's been a lot of blabbering about Obama becoming a centrist politician and of sacrificing his true political nature but, for some of us who have followed him even before Iowa, his recent positioning on issues have not been a surprise and actually reflect some consistency, except - perhaps - on FISA.

On LGBT rights some will still not forgive him for the Donnie McClurkin drama from last year despite the fact that McCain has lurched way right on LGBT issues flip-flippity-flopping on DOMA and adoption rights for same sex couples - trying to appease those on the extreme homophobic right who would love to see the gays stoned and tarred. And despite that Obama has been close to stellar on his support for the LGBT rights.

Anyway, as the presidential election enters the silly season (if these were the primaries and John McCain was a Democrat he'd long ago been asked to leave the race as desperate and insubstantial as his campaign is becoming), I wanted to bring your attention to a pretty amazing statement released by the Obama campaign earlier today.

Barack Obama on LGBT families:

In light of the recent and offensive statements by McCain on the right of same-sex couples to adopt, Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, wrote the following to the Obama campaign:

As a lesbian mother and the executive director of Family Equality Council, the national organization working to ensure equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families by building community, changing hearts and minds and advancing social justice for all families, I know how hard parents work to raise happy, healthy children. Regardless of their sexual orientations and gender identities, regardless of how many parents or caregivers are present in a family, all parents begin each day with their children at the forefront of their thoughts. On behalf of diverse families, I ask for your plan to recognize, respect, protect and celebrate all of the loving families you seek to represent... These families want to know how your administration will address their needs. What policies and positions will you take to make sure that all loving families are recognized, respected, protected and celebrated? How will you lead all families to a brighter future?

This afternoon the Obama campaign posted excerpts from a response from Barack Obama himself which reads as follows:

While we live in a nation that is enriched by a vast array of diverse traditions, cultures and histories, it is our commonality that most defines us. The desire to build a life with a loved one, to provide for a family and to have children who will grow and thrive -- these are desires that all people share, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. My own experience has taught me this lesson well. I was born to a single mother, my devoted grandparents helped raise me, and then I married the woman of my dreams and had two beautiful daughters.

and

We know that the cost of the American dream must never come at the expense of the American family. For decades we’ve had politicians in Washington who talk about family values, but we haven’t had policies that value families. Instead, it’s harder for working parents to make a living while raising their kids. It's even harder to get a break.

That's why I'll double spending on quality after-school programs - so that you can know your kids are safe and secure. And that's why I'll expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers; to let parents participate in school activities with their kids; and to cover elderly care. And we'll finally put federal support behind state efforts to provide paid family and medical leave. We'll require employers to provide seven paid sick days each year. We'll enforce laws that prohibit caregiver discrimination. And we'll encourage flexible work schedules to better balance work and parenting for mothers and fathers. That's the change that working families need.

and

We have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. That’s why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That’s why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that’s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws.

I’ll be a president that stands up for American families – all of them.

My expressed support for Obama has nothing to do with a cult of personality or the so-called Obama-mania that opponents use to disqualify support for the man (as a matter iof fact, I avoided some recent 'Gays for Obama' gatherings in the city because they seemed to much about rah-rah which I wasn't interested in).

I loathe false hopes and I am always weary of predicting who will win, specially when it comes to political campaigns. But this presidential race offers such an opportunity to do the right thing. Vote for Obama!

BTW, today and a bit late to the game, the DC-based Human Rights Campaign announced that they will officially endorse Obama this week.

• Related: Sen. Obama responds to Jenifer Chrisler's questions on family policy (Family Equality Council blog, August 5th, 2008)

Al Sharpton's Lesbian Sister

Back on August 18, when I blogged about Kanye West's thoughts about homophobia in hip-hop and rap music, you might have missed my comments on a meeting that I attended at which the Reverend Al Sharpton introduced an anti-homophobia initiative aimed at the African-American community. At the meeting, the Reverend spoke movingly about one of his mentors, Bayard Rustin, and how Rustin - a close advisor to the Reverend Martin Luther King - was shunned by some black leaders for being gay.

Today in the mail I received the October 11th, 2005 issue of "The Advocate" and - in a feature about the Reverend's initiative - he also credits someone closer to him for his interest in launching the initiative: His sister.

"My sister is gay. I understood the pain of having to lead a double life in the system [since] we grew up in a church. She is gay, and she fought that perception in church while she embraced it in her private life," says Sharpton in the article.

The article also says that the Reverend's desicion to march in a gay pride parade for the first time ever (see photo above taken at this year's Heritage of Pride march in NYC) was part of this initiative, though I don't remember seeing any anti-homophobia flyers being passed around and, at the time, it seemed more of a political move to deny other local political candidates his endorsement.

I also just blogged about Keith Boykin and Jasmyne Cannick's effort to confront the black church and its hypocrisy on gays. So it might seem a natural fit for the Reverend to join forces with these African-American leaders in challenging the black church. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in the works:

"Soon after word of Sharpton's initiative spread," says The Advocate, "Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the Washington, DC-based gay group Human Rights Campaign, flew to the Big Apple to strategize with Sharpton. 'We're going to be among the financial sponsors, but we're also working with him to get in touch with people doing similar things around the country,' Knox sais. And Sharpton's voice garners great attention. 'We're glad he's raising it on our behalf,' Knox says. HRC is contribuiting $5,000 in the initiative's projected $50,000 start up costs.'"

Now, I have met Harry and admire the work he has done, particularly while he was working at Freedom to Marry. But one of the fears I heard when word went out about the Reverend's interest in fighting homophobia in African-American communities was that his interest would be co-opted by the larger national LGBT advocay organizations (who have proved so ineffective in reaching out and working with minority LGBT activists and organizations).

Here's hoping that something can still come out of it.