IGF CultureWatch

Though it's gotten very little attention in the gay press, an important case affecting the lives of gays and lesbians is now pending in the Supreme Court. The case challenges the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's unusually strict gun-control law, which bans handguns and effectively prevents people from possessing firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

A brief filed in the case, on which I offered some counsel, argues that the law is especially harmful to gay Americans. The brief joins a large coalition of groups, including the National Rifle Association, arguing for individual rights under the Second Amendment.

The brief was filed on behalf of Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL). Pink Pistols is an international group formed a few years ago with the basic mission of advocating gun ownership and training in the proper use of firearms by gay people. GLIL is a libertarian gay group that consistently defends individual rights.

The gay gun-rights brief argues that the D.C. gun-control law violates the Second Amendment, long the forgotten and some say most "embarrassing" part of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Many people have long argued that the reference to "a well-regulated militia" means that the right is limited to citizens serving collectively in a modern-day military force, like the National Guard. Under this interpretation, the amendment would not protect any individual right to bear arms outside the militia context, meaning that the government can entirely ban private gun ownership, even guns needed for self-defense in the home.

However, as even many liberal scholars now acknowledge, that interpretation makes little sense of the text and history of the amendment and of the Bill of Rights generally, which contains a series of individual rights.

The gay gun-rights brief adds an important perspective to this argument. It makes several points about the connection between firearms, gay rights, and the practical self-defense needs of gay Americans.

First, the brief argues that the right keep and bear arms is especially instrumental for a population at once subject to pervasive hate violence and inadequate police protection.

From 1995 to 2005, according to the FBI, more than 13,000 incidents of anti-gay hate violence were reported by law enforcement agencies. When you consider that fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported, it is certain that even this number seriously underestimates the problem.

Worse still, gays are often afraid to report anti-gay crimes. There is a sorry history of hostile or skeptical police response, public disclosure of the victim's sexual orientation, and even physical abuse by the police themselves. Investigative bias and lack of police training further complicate the picture. The upshot is that gays must be responsible for their own defense; they cannot rely solely on law enforcement for it.

Anti-gay hate crimes share several other characteristics that make the use of firearms for self-defense especially significant. Such crimes are unusually brutal, often involving multiple and vicious attacks. They are highly likely to involve multiple assailants. Attackers often themselves use guns, making anything short of a like defense almost completely ineffective.

Surprisingly, almost one-third of anti-gay bias crimes occur in the home, the precise location where the D.C. gun law forbids the effective possession of firearms for self-protection.

It's true that gun possession does not guarantee protection from violent crime. The gun may be incompetently used, for example. But where the Constitution itself protects an individual right, it is not for the government to say the citizen may not enjoy the right simply because she may not make effective use of it.

Second, the gay gun-rights brief points out that unless the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, gay Americans are effectively disqualified from any exercise of the right. That's because under the current prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, the government may entirely exclude gays and lesbians from military service ("the militia").

If the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of a state's citizens to possess arms within a militia, and if gays may be excluded from that militia, then the Second Amendment is a dead letter for gay Americans. They have no rights on the subject the government is bound to respect.

I do not own a gun. Frankly, I don't much like them and have never felt I needed one for protection. But for many other gay people, especially the ones living on the margins of life in crime-prone or anti-gay areas, owning a gun is one important part of a comprehensive plan for protecting life and property.

Gun ownership might at the very least give them peace of mind. And widespread knowledge that many gays are packing might give their would-be attackers second thoughts. Gun rights are gay rights.

Most adults have figured out that everything is not about them. But some leading international LGBT rights activists based in the U.S. can hardly focus on our great, multifaceted global struggle without making it about their grievances against America. Take Paula Ettelbrick. Please.

Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), is quoted in the March 29 Bay Area Reporter justifying her silence on the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 by saying, "Who is the U.S. to issue a report on every other government in the world on its human rights activities, especially in light of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib?"

If only the perfectly virtuous were fit to report on human rights practices, there would be no reporting. But since Ettelbrick gives the impression that the reports are simply an extension of President Bush, let's look at the State Department's description of those who did the work: "This information-gathering can be hazardous, and US Foreign Service Officers regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuse, monitor elections, and come to the aid of individuals at risk...."

The work of hundreds of foreign service officers should not be reduced to a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush. My main impression from the LGBT- and HIV/AIDS-related excerpts is of the bravery and determination of LGBT people around the world in the face of often brutal repression-people who endure incredible suffering yet refuse to be victims. It is quite humbling. I see no need to interrupt it for a commercial denouncing America.

Scott Long, director of the LGBT Rights Program at Human Rights Watch (HRW), sent a culling from the State Department reports to activists around the world in early March, noting that "the usefulness of this will very much depend on how much or little credibility the US's own human rights record leaves its reporting in your own country or community." In a March 16 email to blogger Michael Petrelis, he wrote, "We are not going to web-post the compilation we have done without being in a position to perform a critique of its comprehensiveness and accuracy...." It is unclear why they can't simply post a disclaimer.

In a March 14 email, Long insisted "that we ... recognize the structures of power in which we are implicated...." On March 29 I accused him of post-colonial Western guilt. Long replied on March 30, "No, Rick, 'structures of power' are a fact ... and there are people who suffer and die because of them. I am sitting here in Geneva, as it happens, but surrounded by LGBT activists from the South-Argentina, Brazil, South Africa-and when I read this exchange aloud to them they alternate between anger and hilarity at the US's incomprehension of its actions and its reputation now in the world, not in some colonial past...."

Notice how glibly I am turned into a mere stand-in for the United States. Is this supposed to show how much more sophisticated people are in Geneva? If I thought things were fine in my country I would not have become an activist. My refusal to pander does not blind me to the faults of the Bush Administration; but why are only Westerners expected to recite their nations' sins?

The left loves to dwell on Western oppression without acknowledging Western reforms, which range from Britain's prohibition of the slave trade two centuries ago to the creation of global human rights structures. Treating the West as the root of all oppression infantilizes others in the world by denying their own responsibility, and gives comfort to despots like Robert Mugabe, who routinely deflects criticism with denunciations of Britain.

In his March 30 email, Long notes that the State Department's concern about homophobia in (say) Uganda means nothing to gay Ugandans when the U.S. simultaneously uses the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to fund "evangelical churches that promote that homophobia and create a climate of violence that has endangered quite a few lives." Fair point, but I didn't say that anyone should be grateful to America. I said that the State Department reports should be recognized as a tool-not the only tool, and not perfect, but valuable nonetheless.

Consider some context. In a March 23 speech before the UN Human Rights Council, Hillel Neuer of UN Watch said, "This Council has, after all, done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel ... The entire rest of the world-millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries-continue to go ignored." The Council president responded by condemning Neuer's remarks, despite having thanked many others for testimony filled with slanders.

Six decades after the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Council repeatedly attacks one besieged democracy while refusing to scrutinize the likes of Iran, Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea. One-sided guilt-mongering by Western leftists makes them complicit in this travesty and subordinates the global LGBT struggle to other disputes.

Petrelis blogged on March 8, "I grieve for my community and how it doesn't demand consistent quality gay advocacy on crucial global gay rights abuses from our paid advocates." The answer, as Petrelis has demonstrated, is twofold: more scrutiny and more independent organizing. This is your movement; don't be a silent partner.

Franklin Kameny was, as they say, a pioneer of the early days of the modern gay civil rights movement. Before even the Stonewall riot in New York in 1969, in days when 49 of 50 states banned sodomy (and meant it), when the police routinely raided gay bars and arrested patrons for dancing together or for no reason at all, when the America Psychiatric Association still considered homosexuality a mental disorder, when homosexuality was a disqualification from any federal employment, when the FBI was busy monitoring and harassing nascent gay political groups, Kameny was leading the very first demonstrations of homosexuals in front of the White House and generally giving the government hell for its anti-gay policies.

Now an octogenarian, Kameny has kept almost all of his letters and other documents and pictures from those days - from the early 1960's on. That's very fortunate for anyone interested in the history of the movement. What's worrisome, however, is that none of this precious material has yet found a permanent and safe home in a library or other collection where it can be made available to researchers and, most importantly, be preserved for posterity. An effort is underway to change that.

Some of Kameny's archives have now been collected at a website called "The Kameny Papers", set up run and by Charles Francis. Francis is raising money for the effort to preserve this original source material.

The website is worth a visit if you have any interest in the subject at all. The pictures, including marvelous color photos of the original 1965 White House pickets, can be accessed by clicking the "Memorabilia" tab to the left on the home page of the website.

Much more interesting and often heart-breaking, however, is the material under the tab "Correspondence," also to the left on the home page. These materials have been photocopied and are presented in their original form. Some highlights:

* In 1961, Kameny founded the Mattachine Society in Washington, D.C., an association devoted to ending discrimination against gays. He wrote polite letters to members of Congress introducing himself, explaining the purposes of the Society, and offering to meet with them. Rep. Paul C. Jones (D-MO) responded by scribbling the following note on the letter and returning it to Kameny: "I am unalterably opposed to your proposal and cannot see how any person in his right mind can condone the practices which you would justify. Please do not contaminate my mail with such filthy trash."

* Rep. Charles Chamberlain (R-MI), who now has a federal building named after him in Grand Rapids, responded to the same letter from Kameny with this: "Your letter of August 28 has been received, and in reply may I state unequivocally that in all my six years of service in the United States Congress I have not received such a revolting communication."

* A letter from the APA in 1963, ten years before it would remove homosexuality from its list of disorders, refusing even to meet with Kameny's group or to "publicize your meetings."

* Vice President Hubert Humphrey writing to Kameny in 1965 that federal civil rights laws are not "relevant to the problems of homosexuals."

* A 1962 letter to an employee of the Library of Congress (!) informing him that the library had "received a report concerning you," asking whether he had performed a homosexual act, whether he was attracted to other men, whether he had been in bed with men, and whether he "enjoyed embracing them." The letter concludes, "I am quite shook-up over this matter" and requests an interview with the employee as soon as possible. I can only imagine how terrified the employee must have been.

* A 1962 letter from Kameny to Attorney General Robert Kennedy asking him to "halt immediately" the FBI's investigation and infiltration of Mattachine and the interrogation of its members.

* A memorandum from the FBI (headed by J. Edgar Hoover at the time) urging that the Attorney General not respond to Kameny's letter and justifying its harrassment of Mattachine as part of the investigation of "crimes perpetrated by sex deviates," as homosexuals were commonly called at the time. Alas, large parts of the memo are blacked out.

* A 1973 memo from Kameny to his supporters describing the sequence of events that led the APA to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders or, in his words, "'curing' us all, instantaneously, en masse, in one fell swoop, by semantics and by vote, rather than by therapy."

There's much more on the website.

Let's hope the whole archives will be publicly available soon. You can help make that happen by donating to the effort. To do that, contact Francis at ccfrancis@aol.com.