Dave Roberts

With a gay councilman a lesbian district attorney, a newly independent assemblyman who supports marriage equality and a straight U.S. congressman with a 100 percent score from the Human Rights Campaign, local LGBT political coverage has understandably focused on the race for San Diego mayor. While there is no doubt that electing an openly gay or lesbian mayor would be historic, it’s not clear what policy victory it would herald. Democrats have been sharing power on the City Council for some time, and since Mayor Sanders’ support of marriage equality, LGBT issues haven’t been exactly languishing in a drawer in City Hall.

San Diego County is a different story. No resolutions in support of DADT repeal or marriage equality – though there is a policy to support the repeal of birthright citizenship. No Human Relations Commission to bring such issues to the board. Oversight of the CalFresh program recognized nationally as a model of what NOT to do.

These are just a few of the reasons the LGBT and progressive communities need to pay attention to Dave Roberts’ bid to replace retiring District 3 supervisor, Pam Slater-Price. Roberts would be the first openly gay man elected to the board. He would be the first new face on the board in more than 16 years. Though the election is technically non-partisan, he would be the first Democrat in more than 20 years. Even District 4, which includes most of the City, continues to elect Republican Supervisor Ron Roberts despite a registration advantage for Democrats.

“County supervisor” may not sound as sexy as “mayor”, but it is actually a more powerful position by political metrics. Each county supervisor is one of only five people controlling the strings, rather than one of ten (nine councilmembers and the mayor). With 3,769,191 residents, the County population is nearly three times that of the City. The budget, $4.86 billion, dwarfs the City’s $2.71 billion.

That budget funds services crucial to the LGBT community. Federal and state healthcare dollars for the otherwise uninsured come in the form of County Medical Services (CMS). For LGBT youth disowned by their parents, and adults who can’t access insurance from their same-sex partner, these programs provide critical support. Or at least they could.

The offices of the district attorney and sheriff are also run by the County, which becomes important when determining whether violent acts against our community are prosecuted as hate crimes, and whether acts of civil disobedience are prosecuted at all. Counties also perform numerous administrative functions, including issuing marriage licenses.

Roberts has a number of things in his favor in what is sure to be a tight race. He has post-partisan appeal, with endorsements from leading LGBT and straight Democrats, independent icon Donna Frye, and retiring Supervisor Slater-Price, a Republican. His biography includes private sector and governmental experience relevant to many of the counties important functions.

If we’ve learned anything from electing LGBT officials, it’s that having a seat at the table changes more than one vote. It softens opposition by putting the face of a colleague on our issues. It serves as a focal point for coalition building, and can bring silent supporters out of the closet. It provides an access point for new ideas – in this case anything in the past 20 years. Putting Roberts on the board could do much more than make 5-0 votes 4-1. It could get the LGBT community off the menu and on the invite list in San Diego County government.

Most Americans think of April 15 as tax day. But for baseball fans, it’s Jackie Robinson Day, a celebration of the man who 65 years ago broke baseball’s color barrier. The players all wear number 42, and stadiums around the country have pre-game events.

The announcers appropriately recapped Robinson’s accomplishments. As an athlete, he was the first UCLA Bruin to letter in four sports, and a NCAA long jump champion. As a player, he remains one of the best second basemen in history, having won the Rookie of the Year Award (at 28), a Most Valuable Player Award, a batting title and the sabermetrics crowd. His “wins above replacement” (WAR) was best in the league twice, in the top 10 six times (according to ESPN). As a man, he underwent a court martial for not accepting segregation while in the military (he was later given an honorable discharge), and gracefully heard all manner of racial slurs for playing the game as well as any white man, and better than most.

Too often, baseball promotes the Jackie Robinson story as a victory of Major League Baseball achieving integration. Fortunately, Sunday night, one of announcers caught himself, suggesting “perhaps we shouldn’t be too proud of just treating people equally.” Perhaps you should not.

Jackie Robinson deserved the adulation he continues to receive, and probably more. But baseball? Not so much. Major League Baseball (MLB) is committed to profit, not equality, and it wanted the African American market. As a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption, there was no real risk that fans would leave in droves over the long term. The risk was to the players, like Jackie Robinson.

MLB’s notable lack of an openly gay player is an even better argument against a commitment to equality. Statistically, and simply realistically, there must be multiple gay baseball players. The roster of players on the DL (Down Low, not Disabled List) may not be known to Commissioner Bud Selig, but it’s hardly unknowable. In many ways, adding a gay player today would be easier than adding Robinson in 1947.

Robinson’s debut, of course, was not an accident. It was a well-orchestrated effort between MLB and the Dodgers, choosing Robinson for what he could do off the field more than on it. If Selig made it clear that it was time for an out baseball player, he wouldn’t even have the problem of choosing from outside the league – he would just have to support a courageous current player.

It’s so intuitive, in fact, that one wonders why it hasn’t happened. With half the country supporting marriage equality, the risk seems small, but MLB whiffs at even small chances to show tolerance. Pitcher Carl Pavano was recently the victim of alleged blackmail by a jilted lover from a gay relationship. In a world of It Gets Better videos, Pavano, or the Twins, or baseball could have signaled that there is nothing wrong with being gay. In a league that can make rules on facial hair and perform random urine tests, exerting that sort of message control would seem easy.

Unfortunately, MLB is still fighting for ratings based on an antiquated notion of machismo and how it sells. Despite the efforts of athlete activists like Hudson Taylor and John Amaechi, owners seem worried that the first sport to have a gay player will lose market share to the others. So perhaps it’s time for another approach. Imagine the difference if there were an LGBT owner, who could make it clear that his or her team wanted diversity.

Imagine the coverage if MLB tried to keep them out. The Padres are for sale. Now all we need is a billionaire. Paging Bruce Bastian.

Spoiler Alert: If you don’t want to know more about The Hunger Games, read no further. You should probably stay in your house and turn off your phone and computer, too.

The Hunger Games has a little something for everyone. The sci-fi crowd gets a post-apocalyptic planet with both high-tech hovercrafts and pre-industrial foraging. Romantics get a heroine deciding between two suitors, but who, unlike Bella Swan (Twilight), could also make it on her own. Action buffs get a battle royale that makes WrestleMania obsolete, pitting two children from each of 12 districts in a fight to the death.

The politically aware? We get the most. Even Suzanne Collins, the author, admits that The Hunger Games is an allegory of how oppressive regimes use entertainment to control the masses. The novel evokes the past, with the name of the country, Panem, coming from the Latin for the “bread and circuses” of ancient Rome. It is set in a future North America, after both an apocalypse and the “The Dark Days”, when the poorer Districts including the now defunct 13 tried to overthrow the oppressive Capitol.

Yet there are uncomfortable analogies to the present, particularly between the political and economic “haves” and “have nots.” Call them the 1 percent or the military industrial complex, the “haves” may occupy Wall Street skyscrapers and suburban mansions rather than a Capitol, (a few of the males were recently spotted at Augusta National) but they have tributes just the same. Usually, the entertainment is minority groups fighting with each other, but too often the tribute really is a child, sometimes in a hoodie in Florida.

Any artifice that in-fighting among minority groups isn’t arranged and dubiously nurtured was destroyed by the Human Rights Campaign’s release earlier this month of documents from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Their internal memos document a clear and specific strategy to drive a wedge between the LGBT community and the African American and Latino communities.

Ironically, NOM thinks they are part of the powerful upper class diffusing the power of the LGBT community and communities of color with further division. In many ways, however, religious interests are just another group of have-nots who are battling at the pleasure of the real economic power brokers. Like the denizens of District 2, they get a few extra scraps for helping with enforcement, but they’ll never get an invite to the party. As Thomas Frank noted in What’s the Matter with Kansas? there has been a concerted effort to convince social conservatives to subjugate their own economic interests to a war between “average Americans” and “liberal elites.”

Whether Trayvon Martins killing was racially motivated remains to be proven, but it would be far from the first time communities of color have been pitted against each other. Blaming Latinos for African American job losses was almost a parlor game for Southern conservatives, who gleefully watch their candidates survive in increasingly diverse communities. These same inter-minority battles are seen throughout the country, where potential allies argue just enough to let the current power brokers win elections.

When underserved and underrepresented communities fight, the only winners are those trying to hold on to power. As in the arena, the answer is coalition building – deciding to fight the system instead of each other. That requires setting aside some differences and looking for truths – like the fact that aversion to same-sex marriage isn’t racial, it’s religious. Outreach to faith communities will do far more for LGBT rights than bashing other communities who are fighting for their own freedoms. Similarly, the un- and under-employed must realize that wartime tax cuts for the wealthy and fast and loose financiers are more to blame for job losses than undocumented immigrants.

As she shepherds her District 12 charges to their annual slaughter in The Hunger Games, pink-haired Capitolite Effie Trinkett tells them “may the odds be ever in your favor.“ It’s not true for them, or us, at the moment. But if we continue to look for common ground, and refuse to be wedged apart, we might start taking a few hands from the house.

Last week started with a Monday mayoral forum at the Old Globe Theatre, where three Republican candidates cozied up to an audience of non-profit volunteers, while the lone Democratic candidate phoned in.

The most contentious moment was Assemblyman Fletcher’s closing argument, where his attacks on Councilman Carl DeMaio felt awkward in an otherwise positive event.

By the time of Wednesday’s forum at The LGBT Center, Fletcher had become an Independent; and contrast was now name of the mayoral game. While DeMaio and Fletcher attacked each other’s LGBT records, Filner played to the crowd’s sense of humor as well as its likely political leanings. Bonnie Dumanis held her ground.

For those who missed either or both of the debates – or left confused, here is a recap …

DeMaio vs. Fletcher

Fletcher threw down the gauntlet at the Monday debate during his closing statement, accusing DeMaio of altering his talking points to suit whatever audience he’s speaking to. DeMaio struck back Wednesday, glancing at Fletcher and suggesting that SOMEONE had put out a hit piece on DeMaio’s sexuality. Fletcher countered by citing DeMaio’s attack on him for supporting the FAIR Education Act, a point he hammered home all night, asking DeMaio whether he would have supported SB-48.

Councilmember Carl DeMaio

Even at The LGBT Center, DeMaio put fiscal reform over LGBT issues, saying the best thing he could do for San Diego’s LGBT community was to be the best mayor he could be.

Best Moment: DeMaio had never seemed more real than Monday, when he discussed how his own adolescence made homelessness a core issue to him. He also gets kudos for keeping it together Wednesday, where members of his own community heckled and booed him. Even those who question his vision would have a hard time indicting his toughness.

Worst Moment: Telling your staff, from the stage, to call your next event and explain your tardiness seems rude, not indulgent.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis

San Diego’s most popular politician always comes across as pleasant and competent. She’d be a runaway choice for city manager – unfortunately for Dumanis, we don’t have a city manager – but she doesn’t always show the strong leadership San Diegans seem to want in a mayor.

Best Moment: Her closing statements. When Dumanis tells you how long she’s worked for San Diego, and what it means to her, it’s hard not to see her hands as the safest place for America’s Finest City.

Worst Moment: At the Old Globe debate, the moderators asked for a four-word answer. DeMaio, Fletcher, and Filner all complied. Dumanis went for about 30 more. That made her answer seem less clear, not more.

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher

Whether a Republican or an Independent, Fletcher enjoys the power to connect in a way that stirs the heart (and a dislike for DeMaio that raises eyebrows).

Best Moment: Fletcher talking about service. By discussing Iraq, his children, and his commitment to San Diego, Fletcher can bring a crowd to tears and to their feet like no other candidate in this, or perhaps any, race.

Worst Moment: Fletcher seemed to get the short end of every exchange of pleasantries with Rep. Filner. By the end of Wednesday’s forum, he seemed two feet shorter, and ready to take any of a variety of jobs that Filner might offer in his administration.

Rep. Bob Filner

Many wonder why Filner isn’t campaigning more. Turns out he has a job. His opponents should hope congressional votes keep him phoning it in, because Filner in person is a dangerous presence to his opponents.

Best Moment: With comments about his opponent’s party switch and numerous job offers, Filner seemed to make Fletcher shrink in front of our eyes Wednesday, doing it in a way DeMaio must envy.

Worst Moment: When you’re the oldest candidate in the race, getting confused about your own stance on issues doesn’t play well – nor does swearing. Grumpy Old Men is a funny movie, but a bad political statement.

The word automaton has been with us since the 17th century, but you rarely hear it save at a robotics exhibit. Until, that is, it glommed on to Mitt Romney in his failed 2008 presidential campaign and his current repeat performance. Yet as derogatory as “soulless automaton” sounds, it is far too nice a thing to say about the former governor.

For comparison, let’s look at America’s best known, if fictional, soulless automaton: Star Trek’s Lt. Cmdr. Data. There are surely superficial similarities. Neither can tell a joke nor relate to people. Both are tiresome in their own way, Data with his Pinocchio-like desire to be a “real boy” and Mitt with his inability to hide – I mean justify – I mean humanize – his wealth. They have similarly immobile hair.

Sadly, the similarities end at the surface. Data was driven only by underlying programming to protect human life and his oath to the Federation. Nuanced positions on the prime directive were difficult; flip-flops were unthinkable, except in the surprisingly frequent circumstance that his programming was malfunctioning. Through seven seasons and four movies, Data was comforting in his predictability, as an automaton should be.

Romney, on the other hand, seems to update his core programming more often that Windows. Romney 2002 said, “All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference.” Romney 2008 rejected same-sex marriage, a change maintained in the 2012 model. For the record, that does not make him a stronger advocate for LGBT rights than Sen. Ted Kennedy, as Romney 2002 once claimed. That Romney was also for an individual mandate in Massachusetts healthcare, which would be a model for the nation, until it was inconvenient in the Republican primary.

If Data said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard,” you could pretty much take it to the bank. Or wherever you have a deposit box in a futuristic moneyless society. But Romney 2008 recanted that promise of Romney 2002, and the pro-life stance part of Romney 2012’s “severe conservatism.” Is he no longer devoted to his word? Dedicated? Both? What words would assure Americans that this was a core stance that wouldn’t change.

Actually, Mittens is more like Data’s evil twin brother, Lore, an android whose emotions chip made him more human. So human, in fact, that his ambition ran away with him, leading him to do anything to accumulate power, including harming those he loved. Romney 2012 will clearly say anything it takes to get the Republican nomination. What would he do to win the general? Selling us out to a Crystalline Entity seems a real possibility.

Mitt’s father, Gov. George Romney, rued saying that he had been “brainwashed” about the Vietnam War. For Mitt, admitting to brainwashing, or at least a reboot, might be the best way to explain the various Romney models. It would play better than his alleged stem cell conversion, and be more believable than some of his other historical fiction.

As a gay man, I’d feel a whole lot better if Mitt Romney were an automaton, so at least I’d know if I were a targeted constituency or targeted as a scapegoat. Naturally, I’d prefer one of the older versions, say Romney 1994 or 2002. If I can’t get that programming, perhaps he could be just a touch more like Data. When new situations forced him to disobey orders, Data usually tried to lock himself in the brig. I’d be happy if Mitt could just lock in one position. I’m just not sure how he’ll convince me when he does.

Repealing the unconstitutional Proposition 8 may not be on the California ballot in 2012, but history may still see this as the “Year of Marriage Equality”. So far, we know that six states: Washington, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina and New Hampshire will all be making important decisions about same-sex marriage this year. Throw in New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie vetoed pro-equality legislation in February, and the marriage decisions made this year will affect more people than Proposition 8.

It’s not only the numbers that matter. The variety of ways in which the issue of same-sex marriage is being approached offer a real chance to set precedents and change the conversation. Below is a summary, highlighting the old quotes and the new realities.

“Only Democrats support marriage equality.” San Diegans know this isn’t true, thanks to fair-minded Republicans like Mayor Sanders, District Attorney Dumanis, Assemblymember Fletcher and Councilmember DeMaio. New Hampshire may be learning the same lesson. The state legislators who legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 were voted out in the Republican landslide of 2010. Despite veto-proof majorities in both houses, and numerous threats, New Hampshire has yet to repeal marriage equality. The polls show that Granite Staters want to preserve same-sex marriage; further inaction will prove that more Republicans realize that the long arc of history bends toward LGBT equality.

“No state has defeated a same-sex marriage ban.” Sure, we’ve won when poorly written initiatives also attacked straight domestic partners, but the fact remains that a “straight”-up gay marriage ban has never lost at the ballot box. Minnesota could change all that in 2012, where independent-minded voters (they elected Jesse “The Governing Body” Ventura) and a helpful ballot rule (a non-vote is a “No” vote on any submitted ballot) tilt the needle toward defeat. North Carolina will be tougher territory, but is far from a lost cause.

“Marriage equality can’t win at the ballot box.” Minnesota and North Carolina are important, but wins there just keep intolerance from becoming law, and won’t lead to legalized same-sex marriage. Washington and Maryland could be the first time the voters of a state endorsed their legislators’ votes for marriage equality. The last time a legislative decision went to the ballot box was Question 1 in Maine, where loving, committed same-sex families suffered another heart-breaking loss.

And we’re back to Maine. Three years after voters used the “people’s veto” to overturn same-sex marriage legislation, Equality Maine is putting marriage equality back on the ballot. Not to block a ban. Not to allow a legislative or court decision. To ask voters to simply say “yes” on marriage equality. I’d tell you how this goes historically, but a ballot initiative in favor of marriage equality is unprecedented, much less overturning a voter decision from only three years earlier.

Recent polls show equality winning in Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and Maine. Lest we get too excited, early polls also showed Question 1 and Proposition 8 going down to defeat. That doesn’t mean 2012 can’t be an historic year for marriage equality. It just means we can’t be complacent. The fact that Prop. 8 isn’t on the ballot this year doesn’t mean that our time and treasure aren’t needed. Pick a state, and donate. It’s about equality. It’s about our LGBT brothers and sisters from other states. And if it’s about your own wedding, Washington is a lot closer than Iowa.

Susana Martinez, the Latina Republican governor of New Mexico, needed a new do. Her stylist, a gay man upset by her support of laws against same-sex marriage, refused her service. Is he an activist? Or is he simply as intolerant as she?

This was the conundrum posed by a talk-radio host who subscribed affirmatively to the latter proposition.

Let’s break it down by asking if there is any difference between a hairdresser who won’t service a conservative customer, and an apartment owner who won’t rent to gays? The latter scenario is clearly unlawful in California, while the former is an arguable legal matter.

In our gut, we believe that there are more fundamental differences than those spelled out in statute. But LGBT causes have lost arguments about fundamental, yes even inalienable, rights and freedoms frequently enough to cause us to dig deeper than the instinctual conclusion.

Drilling down to the first deeper level, we find our first basic difference: the distinction between a position and a person. The governor formed her stance on same-sex marriage. She can change it as easily as her hair color. And she could change it back again. LGBTs don’t have that option – we are born this way. For those who might try to cover it up, the dye never quite takes.

To a certain extent, then, going uncoifed is a consequence of the governor’s choice, and different than treating someone differently based on her or his very nature.

Unfortunately, that only gets us so far. Our apartment owner could simply say he has no problems with gays or lesbians per se, but he doesn’t rent to LGBT rights progressives. Suddenly his actions have the protection of a “consequence of choice”, but the effect on the LGBT community is little different, with the exception of GOProud members, who may have found a new home.

In California, there would be a legal difference, as LGBT people are a protected class, and Gov. Martinez is not. In too many states, unfortunately, the apartment owner’s practice isn’t only acceptable to talk-radio hosts; it’s acceptable under the law. So we can’t rely on legalities to universally distinguish the actions of the stylist versus the governor.

Could the difference lie in the product or service? Most people would consider housing closer to a basic need than a particular hair stylist, so maybe the latter shouldn’t have the same rules.

Unfortunately, “victory” by way of the “basic need” argument is a booby-trap. “Let’s say you’re right,” a rightwing talk-show host might say. “Housing is too important – can’t discriminate there; that means there are instances when I can treat gays and lesbians differently!”

The same applies to the idea that different rules apply to the governor because she is a public figure. Her former stylist has certainly gained notoriety, so can he be treated differently now? When this news cycle is over, is he back to being a private citizen? If the governor steps down, does he have to do her hair then?

The stylist was likely well within the law to “reserve the right to refuse service” to the governor; it brought attention to her views. But actions like his are ready fodder for our opponents to use against arguments for equality. By the time his story becomes a talking point against same-sex marriage, and it will, he will have become the “gay stylist who didn’t respect the governor’s right to free speech but says he has the right to redefine marriage.” It’s not accurate, but the explanation is too long for a sound bite world, and in politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.

With the primary election for mayor of San Diego less than four months away, 10News and SurveyUSA commissioned another poll of the 2012 San Diego mayoral race. Of 511 likely San Diego voters surveyed Jan. 30–Feb. 3, the candidates stand thus: Councilmember Carl DeMaio 25 percent; Rep. Bob Filner 24 percent; District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis 14 percent; Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher 13 percent; undecided 13 percent, with a margin of error of 4.4 percent.

If you’ve been following the race, the results won’t rock your world. Compared to a similar poll in September, Fletcher and undecided are the big movers, with the former gaining and the latter losing 3 percent.

In other non-news, Dumanis has lost 2 points, Filner has lost one and DeMaio hasn’t budged.

Static results may be boring most of the time, but given the events since the last poll, they are actually quite informative. Comprehensive Pension Reform made the ballot for June. Fletcher bested his competition in fundraising, notably from donors who weren’t him. Filner took heat for not doing much. There were finally forums where all four candidates participated. So what does the continued status quo mean?

DeMaio has his support locked in. If good press on pension reform didn’t help him, it’s hard to imagine what could. His numbers will likely stay static until the election, when he could outperform his polling given the voters who will come out to vote “yes” on pension reform and the conservative lean of primaries. His support has the highest floor, and the lowest ceiling.

If you buy the reports that he has yet to engage, Filner must love these results – do nothing and make the general? While it is sad that he is only taking 38 percent of Democrats, Bob Filner has a huge opportunity. Should he effectively reach the 25 percent of Democrats supporting “undecided” or “other,” or the 37 percent supporting a Republican, he could buff those numbers up nicely. Add in the support he will undoubtedly get from unions and those energized against pension reform, and Filner could be the one candidate who has an admittedly long shot at wrapping this up in the primary.

This does not mean that Dumanis and Fletcher are out of the picture. The least surprising thing in San Diego politics would be if one of them drops out, instantly making the other a contender by uniting the middle. Even if both stay on the ballot, the large number of undecided voters mean November isn’t out of reach.

The algebra student in all of us wants to divvy undecided voters equally between the candidates, or by the current proportion of decided voters. That works when undecided voters are unengaged voters. But when undecided voters simply don’t like their options, they tend to break in one direction, often toward the momentum and against the incumbent. It’s why incumbents aren’t happy until they hit 50 percent; even a 48 percent to 42 percent lead means 52 percent of people know they don’t want to vote for you.

The most likely beneficiary of an “undecided” surge is Fletcher. Dumanis and Filner have track records that span decades, and DeMaio has been largely defined by his pension initiative. Fletcher is still introducing himself to voters, and now has the funds to get his message out. With a little momentum he could easily take the bulk of the undecideds and approach the 25 percent share of Filner and DeMaio.

Dumanis, however, could benefit from a common bet on the general election: DeMaio can’t beat Filner. Republican voters who believe that might look to a known quantity with cross party appeal, aka Dumanis. Give her most of the undecideds and a few wary DeMaio voters and she’s suddenly a force.

For the moment, however, the biggest force in the mayoral election is inertia. Barring a scandal or a candidate dropping out, expect the numbers to resist change for a few more months. But don’t be surprised if the undecideds unite to push Fletcher or Dumanis toward the top as June 5 approaches.

From contraception to same-sex marriage, the past two weeks have been a bit of a whirlwind in progressive politics on a variety of levels. Rather than the wins and losses, I’d like to take on a few potentially dangerous myths before they fester into facts.

President Obama planned to force religious entities to fund contraception for their employees.

I was raised Catholic, and if I owned a business, I would consider health insurance part of the compensation package to my employees. How they used it wouldn’t be my Catholic company “paying” for anything but service rendered; it would fall under “letting people decide how to spend their earnings.” As that is a direct quote from most arguments to cut taxes, I would have thought at least one free market promoting tea party pundit might point it out. Instead, they perpetuated a disingenuous interpretation to score political points against President Obama.

Claiming that companies have a right to deny health interventions in conflict with their religious beliefs may work for conservatives on contraception, but they won’t like where the argument goes. Do companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses have to cover blood transfusions? Would a Mormon purchased plan bill the patient directly for coffee in the hospital? Don’t forget other forms of compensation. Can my 401k contain stock in conglomerates that make condoms? Can I use my salary to buy them? Or, am I stuck with what is on the shelf at the company store?

It would be better to put a Pride flag on private, not public, land.

When the Hillcrest Pride Flag project was discussed at last weeks Uptown Planners meeting, a number of people expressed a concern that it could become a source of controversy and lawsuits, like the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Thankfully, the majority of Uptown Planners didn’t buy this argument and endorsed the Hillcrest Pride Flag project, but it will probably come up again unless we dispense with the controversy now.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from enacting a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” There is no such prohibition on establishment of tolerance and diversity. Indeed, America has typically moved in the direction of both, if in fitful stops and starts. Marking the trail are memorials to leaders and organizations that moved us forward, all on public land. Whatever one’s view on the Mount Soledad cross, it is at least arguably a religious symbol, and it has nothing to do with a Pride flag.

Nor, by the way, will the Hillcrest Pride Flag make straight people feel unwelcome. The LGBT community is only the most recent of a number of groups, including Jesse Jackson’s “Rainbow Coalition,” who have used the rainbow to symbolize tolerance and diversity. Most of the straight people who live in Hillcrest came for the diversity and openness that define our community, which includes LGBT San Diegans and straight allies. A 65 foot high Pride flag might make intolerant people avoid Hillcrest, which is their loss, because we’d welcome the opportunity to show them who we are.

President Obama needs time to evolve on same-sex marriage.

As Washington state legalized same-sex marriage and Prop. 8 was again found unconstitutional, President Obama’s surrogates were again dispatched to remind the LGBT community that he was evolving on the issue, supposedly differentiating his position from the Republican contenders in substance, if not text. Yet rarely has a news cycle so starkly demonstrated just how quickly this president can change his mind. After months of heralding the danger of Citizens United and undisclosed political donations, he suddenly needed to level the playing field by accepting help from (but not coordinating with) a Super PAC. When Catholics decried his decision on contraception, he found a compromise in days. Clearly, when dollars and swing voters are on the line, the man can turn on a dime.

President Obama’s first term has been nothing short of historic for the LGBT community and I plan to vote for him again, but the “evolving” trope needs to go.

AIDS Walk and Run has traditionally been San Diego County’s single largest fundraiser for the fight against HIV/AIDS. Imagine that after walking, or sponsoring a friend, the AIDS Walk brain trust revealed that they would no longer give money to The San Diego LGBT Center or Family Health Centers, because a homophobic congressperson, lets say Rep. Michele Bachmann, launched an investigation into those organizations because they give out condoms, alleging that they encourage people to have sex and possibly spread HIV. How would you feel? Confused? Angry? Betrayed?

That should give you an idea of how progressive supporters of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure felt last Tuesday. After 30 years of funding a wide variety of organizations that fight breast cancer, Komen reported that they would no longer financially support Planned Parenthood, a critical provider of breast cancer screening and women’s health services, particularly for poor women and underserved communities. The given reason: A policy prevented the distribution of funds to organizations under investigation. Planned Parenthood, it turns out, is the subject of an investigation (read witch hunt) by Rep. Cliff Stearns, who believes they are using federal money to fund abortion.

Apparently the geniuses who thought this would fly didn’t know about the Internet. By Wednesday, the truth was out; the policy was new, and pushed through after the investigation against Planned Parenthood was started. The charge seemed to have been led by new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, who had vowed to end abortion in Georgia during her failed gubernatorial campaign. Facebook was atwitter with information and calls to defund Komen and support Planned Parenthood. Within 48 hours, New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomburg had pledged $250,000 to Planned Parenthood, over a third of what they stood to lose.

By Friday, Komen had reversed their decision, promising to “fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood.” This was allowed by amending their policy to ensure that delegitimizing investigations were “criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.” So we can all kiss and make up, and get back to fighting breast cancer, right? Not by a long shot, particularly in the LGBT community.

The spotlight shown on Komen’s pink ribbons reveal a streak of deep conservative red that should serve as a warning. Nancy Brinker, friend of Susan G. Komen and founder of her eponymous organization, was a major fundraiser for George W. Bush. In addition to her stance against abortion, Karen Handel is a flip-flopper who could teach Mitt Romney something. In her 2010 Republican primary for governor of Georgia, Handel ran against gay marriage and adoption, which played well until it was discovered that she had once been a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and signed a questionnaire supporting civil unions.

If Komen’s leaders don’t give you pause, their policies still should. The policy on investigations may have been revised, but Komen announced plans to restrict funding to organizations that don’t perform mammograms. Never mind that Komen’s recommendations disagree with the United States Preventative Services Task Force, or that Planned Parenthood performs breast exams on women who might otherwise not have access to basic breast cancer screening. Since Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform mammograms, next year’s funding is still in jeopardy. Clearly, Komen intends to continue targeting the LGBT community’s strongest ally on reproductive health and privacy issues. Could lesbian health organizations be next?