.
The beautiful and cute folks of the Viet LGBT Alliance really didn’t want me to use that title – a cheerful and generous lot, they want the parade to go well and don’t want anyone boycotting it. Still, looking outside, it COULD rain. And how can they not love Barbara Streisand:
The Viet LGBT Alliance feels they are winning “the battle of public opinion,” even though they lost their court case yesterday against the so-called “Vietnamese-American Federation of Southern California,” whose homophobic core consists of Little Saigon’s “Interfaith Alliance.” Probably not for long will things stay this way. Quite a generation gap was apparent at the hearing, with hunched-over pinched-face pastors on one side of the room and bright-eyed boys and girls on the other.
It was depressing to see that I knew the two lawyers representing the bigots – both of them Garden Grove politicians – former “Democratic” councilman Mark Rosen and pro-tem/Dovinh-spouse Dina Nguyen. Anything for money? Or do Mark and Dina hate fags as well (like their Mayor Bruce Broadwater?) Perhaps Exhibit E holds a clue.
Garden Grove’s anti-gay legal dream team.
In the most memorable moment of the hearing, Judge Geoffrey Glass hissed that he was outraged by the defense’s inclusion of “Exhibit E,” which turned out to be (just as I suspected) a series of garish photos of gyrating men in G-strings, probably from some Castro Street bacchanalia, as irrelevant to Little Saigon’s past gay celebrations as could be imagined. “Apparently you hope this will disgust me and affect my judgment,” growled the Judge, “instead I’m disgusted that you tried that tactic.” (I paraphrase from memory.)
Nice, Mark.
Classy, Dina.
But that was the closest we got to thinking we might win. Judge Glass, who laboriously reasons his way to a decision with closed eyes, crooked neck, and furrowed brow like he is feeling his way through a migraine, just did not find our main argument – that the application to be included in the parade constituted a contract which should not be broken – to be a compelling one.
Maybe I should back up a little, in case you’re just tuning in…
Le Van Duyet, the great gay general honored by Tet. How harshly would he deal with these cranky old Interfaith pastors, you think?
All the way to 18th-century GAY General Le Van Duyet, founder of the Nguyen dynasty (and ancestor of Dina), whose heroic memory is HONORED BY THE TET FESTIVAL? No, although that’s pretty damn ironic, and as the Bolsavik snarks, there’s “No word yet on whether the gay general is banned” from this year’s parade.
No. What I meant was, let’s go back just a few years to when the Viet LGBT’s first started participating in the parade. That’s when it was being run by the City of Westminster, so they couldn’t legally be excluded.
Remember how I said THEY DON’T WANT A BOYCOTT, they don’t like boycotts? Well you know who does love boycotts? The homophobic “Interfaith Alliance,” that’s who! Each time the gays were included, the Interfaith Alliance ran around with a long list of ALL the people and businesses that would boycott the parade if the gays were included. And you know who always ended up boycotting the parade? NOBODY BUT THE SILLY INTERFAITH ALLIANCE.
This year, the City of Westminster is too broke to put on the parade, so the anti-gay Vietnamese-American Federation, along with the Interfaith Alliance, offered to take it off their hands, and no disagreements were heard. Privately funded, they are free to legally discriminate, and there’s not much we can do about it.
The parade’s organizing committee is now headed by Neil Xuan Nghia Nguyen, a pompous blowhard who goes about telling the world that he “represents five hundred thousand Vietnamese-Americans” even though only a tiny fraction of that number ever voted for him (as head of the “Federation.”)
As VietStar‘s Trong Doan reminded everyone at today’s press conference, when the Federation came to the council asking to run the parade, ten people spoke in favor, nobody spoke against, and the community didn’t take much notice. You see? It’s just like the rest of the world out here OUTSIDE OF LITTLE SAIGON – when the people aren’t paying attention, BAD SHIT HAPPENS!
Well, Are The Viet LGBTs Delusional When They Say They’re “Winning?”
That is to say, when they put a brave face on things and claim they’re “winning in the court of public opinion,” are they being a bunch of gay, Vietnamese-American Charlie Sheens?
Not at all.
Letters of support, and complaint, have poured in from groups and sponsors, many of whom say they will back out of next year’s parade if this exclusion continues – that includes the parade’s largest sponsor, Elmore Toyota. (The best solution for the future would be for the City to put on the parade using private donations – this is being looked into.)
Bolsavic tells us “The board of the Vietnamese-American Chamber of Commerce, which represents 1,500 Viet business owners, also voted unanimously to send a letter to parade organizers in support of the LGBT group.” And Greg Diamond, always keen to protect the Democratic Party from my righteous lashings, hastens to inform me that even THEY sent in this letter … um … today.
We’ve already reported the stunning story of the Garden Grove School District pulling out, at the urging of trustee Bao Nguyen. As we’ve mentioned, the LGBTs are not encouraging boycotts, but they understand the legal situation a school district finds itself in regarding discrimination, as well as the amazing sight of a Republican-dominated Board (in Garden Grove for Christ’s sake) taking a move in favor of gays. We still hope the charismatic and trilingual Bao will show up and join us on Sunday morning! (see below)
And the United Viet Students Association have invited the LGBTs to march with THEM.
Yes, our Gay Viet Friends Are Gonna March Anyway!
And you’re invited to join with them. From their Facebook event page:
PEACEFUL AND OPEN HEARTS PARTICIPATION AT THE PARADE
PARADE GATHERING PLACE:
This is NOT a protest. This is a peaceful participation in a community event.Dr. Natalie Newton, my new hero
Sun Feb 10
8:30am, gather and await further instructions and rainbow flags.
9200 Bolsa Ave (Phuoc Loc Tho / Asian Garden Mall)
www.vietlgbt.orgPlease look for our red balloons, yellow t-shirts for human rights, and signs.
Sincerely, our gratitude comes without saying, as it goes without saying. In the next few days, we savor in the community support that we have garnered, all the friends and collaborators that we have worked with in the fight, and look forward to a joyous TET SEASON. It’s time to celebrate the victories that we have won in our communities and our new family in this campaign.
Peace as always,
Natalie
And all you politicians…
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (who used to never miss the parade, although now it’s no longer in her district), Congressman Alan Lowenthal, and State Senator Lou Correa, have all decided not to attend. I submit, humbly, that’s not much. I mean, how much do you think about people you’re not seeing? I really think they’d only be missed by the small overlap of parade nerds who are also political nerds. Has Loretta even released a statement about this? I haven’t seen it. How much cooler would it be if they showed up Sunday morning to support our gay brothers and sisters? I believe I will harass them about this, having at one time or another snagged most of their cell phone numbers.
I’m happy to say I’ve already gotten to the best Santa Ana Councilmembers, who were originally planning to attend, then decided to boycott due to the discrimination, but will now be there WITH the gays waving rainbow flags! The great Mayor Pro-Tem Sal Tinajero, who’s as proud as punch of his own gay son, was the first to enthusiastically accept our invite, and he says he’s gonna drag along Michele Martinez, David Benavides, and anyone else he can grab hold of.
And glamorous Diana Lee Carey, brand new Westminster councilwoman and heroine of the 405 freeway, has been planning for this for months, and has a brand new, gorgeous Vietnamese áo dài. In her frustration and disgust at the discrimination she decided to march in her áo dài wearing a Black Arm Band. I just got hold of her and let her know that the Viet LGBTs would very much appreciate it if a couple of them could march WITH her. Diana says SURE, she’d be honored … but ONLY if they wear áo dàis like her!
[Update – Diana writes in: “People keep telling me Vietnamese homophobia is cultural. Well, foot-binding was cultural too, but we evolved away from that.” And then later: “can’t sleep. Thinking about all my friends and relatives killed in the war so the Vietnamese could be free…Sad…tears…”
And then in the morning: “Please add that I am gratified by the support the majority of the Vietnamese community has shown this group.”]
I sure wish I could be there, but I work Sunday mornings playing organ in a Fullerton church. The rest of you all go and report back to me. Even if it rains!
May the sun shine while the lgbt is marching and may the rain come down in buckets on dina nguyen to hopefully wash away her sins… [specific catalogue of Dina’s “sins” deleted, but you can find them on plenty of the other local blogs. Anyway Jose’s point is that she’s not in a position to set herself up as morally superior to anyone. – Vern.]
Vern,
While I understand the imagery of an elected official riding in a parade with an arm band or small LGBT Pride flag, I am not sure it sends the right message to the organizers. They gain legitimacy with the participation of elected officials. While I would prefer they add strong PUBLIC condemnation of the organizers to their absence, the fact of their absence sends the message the organizers need to hear. “That they do not, and will not, condone their behavior and that it is so abhorrent that they will have nothing to do with this important community and cultural event.
Elected officials who attend and show some form of solidarity by wearing a small symbol of support will not get a pass from me. Now if they participate by adding members of the Viet LGBT coalition to their entry, or adding a large sign, in English or Vietnamese, expressing support and condemning discrimination, that might equal a withdrawal.
This issue is now far larger than the participation of the LGBT contingent in the Parade. It is now a matter of principle. THere is a solid line when it comes to support for equality and opposition to discrimination and bigotry. Public officials can only ride on one side or the other. Straddling the line, or looking for area’s of grey, is simply unacceptable.
I hear you Chris — and I also hear the position that Vern, Tinajero, and others are taking. I don’t think that there’s a right answer here. Presence is greater complicity than absence, but presence is also greater resistance than absence. The real “principle” at stake is to foster social change, both with resistance and by avoiding complicity. So long as people are seriously trying to serve one or the other end, I hope that we’ll quell talk of punishing them for a disagreement about tactics.
Now if the LGBT community came down strongly and solidly on one side or the other, I’d be very inclined to respect that — but it hasn’t. With respect, you don’t speak for the entire community. I think that condemning Tinajero or Carey for their acts of resistance is highly counterproductive. The LGBT community is, as Vern writes, winning the PR war here — and it looks like it will be a rout. What is to be gained is a change in the structure of future parades.
Personally, I think that a simple armband is a lot less effective than marching with people who carry rainbow symbols and signs and the like. What bothers me, I suppose, is your saying that marching with such people “might equal a withdrawal. Please, let’s leave ourselves open to accepting tactical disagreements without leaving others wondering whether their acts of opposition “might not be judged to have been strong enough and thus to have unacceptably “straddled the line.”
You can see what Tinajero has said, what Diana Carey has said — they should be beyond judgment for following through with their expressed plans. Their hearts are clearly in the right place and spiking allies over tactical disagreements is a foolish distraction. Come Sunday afternoon, tactical disagreements aside, we will all be focused on sending the right message to the organizers — or, by that point, we’ll be able to call them the “former organizers” and the “never again organizers,” while the Vietnamese community can “thank” them for raining on the parade that belongs to the community, not to them. This stupid act of theirs is going to be long remembered — and remembered as folly.
I would say the Viet LGBT community HAS come down strongly on the side of not boycotting, but also making it abundantly clear that you are standing with them. That means either standing WITH them literally, or bringing them along with you, along with their signs and flags.
I mean, seriously, I’ve been WITH these people for three days, and this is what they want. These are the ones who sued to be in, who held a press conference yesterday, who are borrowing my PA. Do I need to have them come on here? I think gays from outside the Viet gay community should respect their wishes.
I hope Chris can be there since I can’t. I’d like to hear his report.
My call is for everyone whose heart is in the right place to respect their allies disagreements about tactics. I say that to you and yours and I say that to Prevatt and Quimby. There’s no clearly right tactic here, only right intentions. Once Sunday morning is over and the time for tactics has passed, every one of us will be united and these jokers will never host this parade again. Eyes on the prize.
So Greg, are you suggesting that participation by elected officials in a parade that excludes Latino’s of African-Americans, or Asian-Americans by wearing black armbands would be okay? Quite frankly, I, as the only openly gay man in this conversation, do not see that as being acceptable.
I am sorry that after all of their efforts to challenge the overt discrimination against them, the LGBT Viet’s think that marching in protest under someone else’s banner will advance their desire for inclusion next year. That will not happen. All it does is encourage continued discrimination since, by their own admission, they can participate under someone else’s banner (until the organizers find a what to prohibit that too).
I think that black armbands alone is sort of weak. If the watching crowd realizes the significance of the black armbands, such that it puts the person wearing them in the position of paying a political price, then it’s less weak. But I think that people are talking about black armbands PLUS being accompanied by GLBTs, which I think is fine and you think “might be” fine.
You are the only openly gay man in this conversation, but you are not the only openly gay man in OC, nor the only one taking stances on this tactical decision. Vern says that he’s been in contact with the people behind yesterday’s court challenge; do you think he’s lying or do you think that what they have to say doesn’t matter? (To your credit, I doubt that you think either of them.)
I disagree with your analysis. The City of Westminster will not, I predict, give this group the right to run the parade next year; Diana Carey (she of the black armband) is on the City Council and will bring that issue to the fore. Being forced to march under someone else’s banner is obviously discriminatory; it will not be considered an acceptable long-term solution. The question is simply what particular form of protest to engage in tomorrow, given that the parade is going ahead. That’s not a litmus test. Putting pressure in the City Council that farmed out the parade to these yahoos, by contrast, is a litmus test.
If you get a unified statement from all LGBT groups agreeing that Vern’s friends who say “go there despite being unwanted” are wrong, I may well change my opinion. But I’m inclined to respect the tactical disagreements within the community. Why aren’t you?
Fortunately, in a diverse community such as the OC LGBT community, there is no one voice. Just as there is no one voice for the Vietnamese community, or any group. I believe firmly that participation provides legitimacy to the actions of the current parade organizers. You speak of what may happen in the future at the City Council level regarding who runs the festival. Sorry, but the City has no control over who the organizers are. They should change their permitting process to include compliance with the FEHA regulations regarding public accommodation to ensure that no groups are discriminated against in future events using public facilities. But to presume that two votes on the Westminster City Council can find a third is not enough assurance to complacently participate in this year’s event.
Because of the conflicting messages out there, we will unfortunately have confused elected officials not knowing what to do. I strongly believe that not participating is the stronger message. But if an elected or public official participates in this year’s parade, without making a clearly unambiguous and powerful statement in opposition to the LGBT discrimination by the organizers, they run the risk of being rightfully labeled as homophobic bigots.
Chris — they also run the risk of WRONGFULLY being labeled as homophobic bigots. If they are homophobic bigots, I’m happy for them to RIGHTFULLY get that label. If they’re not, then I hope that those inclined to label them as such WRONGFULLY will not do so — and I think that it’s incumbent on all of good will to help those who would label them separate the sheep from the goats.
All I hope from you is that you will attend to the intent of politicians and judge accordingly, even if in good faith they adopted a tactic with which you disagree.
” I, as the only openly gay man in this conversation, do not see that as being acceptable. ”
Well, then let’s make you not the only gay in the conversation. Come back in thirty minutes. I think you need to be arguing with the actual gays of the community, who WANT their countrymen and women to see the strong show of support they get. All this bickering and splitting of hairs is just going to whittle away at attendance.
Come back in thirty minutes, Chris.
Vern, I’ve been in this fight for almost 30 years. I am one of the earlier leaders in the LGBT community, and I have witnessed first hand the folly of the strategy of making weak and conciliatory statements when it comes to discrimination. I am speaking from experience, the Viet LGBT Alliance is not. From the moment they accepted the support of my past colleagues in LGBT activism Jeff LeTourneau, D.R. Heywood and others in this fight, they invited our advice.
It is their choice as to whether they learn from our experience or not. Hope is not a strategy, it’s an aspiration.
Chris, what is your response to the argument that the absence of pro-GLBTs political figures from the Tet parade will (1) not really be noticed by the public and to them extent it is noticed will just be misrepresented in such as way as to hurt GLBT-friendly politicians in the future — which is what the organizers want and what no one of good will should want — and (2) considered a victory by the organizers who want to set GLBTs apart from the culture?
I’m very aware that there’s a strong counterargument against complicity — but I don’t see your recognition that there’s also a strong argument against absence. I wonder if maybe politicians should march through the parade route from end to beginning as a protest. Probably too late to arrange.
Hello everyone,
This is Natalie, one of the main organizers of the Partnership of Viet LGBT Orgs. I’m a Vietnamese American lesbian who has lived and worked in Orange County since my childhood.
We have never asked anyone to boycott the parade for several reasons. Boycotting is exactly what the Tet Parade committee wants: they do not want us at the table in a public and collective Vietnamese American community event. Instead, we insist that we are ALREADY a part of what they claim is the “community.” So we ask community members to COME OUT and support us at the parade. We have always sent a message that our intention is to ADD to the parade, not take away. This is not true of the Interfaith Council, who sought to organize a boycott of the parade in 2010 if Viet LGBTs were allowed to join.
As for allies (non-Vietnamese Americans and/or non-LGBTs), if they want to boycott, it is their decision. We have never asked anyone to boycott as our preferred method of political statement.
As for elected officials, we have told them to do whatever they think is appropriate for whatever message that they want to send. We have NEVER asked anyone to boycott or not attend the parade, as stated above. We understand that participation in the parade sends many messages to their voters. Some elected officials have decided to not attend, explicitly because of LGBT exclusion (Bao Nguyen, Allen Lowenthal). Others politicians who have gone to many Viet Am community events do not attend, but do not say publicly or explicitly that they are not attending due to LGBT exclusion (Lou Correa, Janet Nguyen). Others do not attend, give unrelated reasons, but still say something to support LGBT inclusion (Loretta Sanchez). We leave it up to politicians to decide what is best for their political messaging to their voters and their personal opinions.
We will post a YouTube video of our press conference yesterday that addresses some of these questions later this evening. (Bilingual Vietnamese: search “Họp báo liên hội LGBT và giải đáp câu hỏi về diễn hành”
Peace
Natalie
That’s DOCTOR Newton, junior fellow in the Department of Anthropology at UCI.
Let the new generation try things their way for a while, Chris. For one thing, they’re coming from a cultural context you and I don’t know.
YOu know what seems really weak to me? People not coming BUT NOT MAKING A STATEMENT AS TO WHY THEY’RE NOT COMING – as Lou, Loretta and Janet seem to be doing. This looks like trying to not piss off either side, as if there were some kind of equivalence between us.
(Written before I saw that Jeff LeT. has jumped into the debate…)
What CP said,
Straddling the line, or looking for areas of grey, is simply unacceptable.
Well, I think we’re all on the same page. Diana will have not only a black armband but a couple of gay protesters marching along with her, with signs. Sal and his SA friends will be WITH the gays (whether they march or stay put, which is still being determined) waving rainbow flags.
Here is the organizer for the LGBT Viets, you should probably call him if you want to be sure you’re doing the right thing…. Hiu Nguyen, 714-495-8862.
The gay group meets just where I said – Asian Garden Mall, Sunday morning 8:30. I’m lending them a mike and sound system. They want as many supporters there as possible. YOU will know how to make clear you’re a supporter.
I knew there was something Lady Gaga in the back of my mind about this. Here she is in Arizona the year of SB 1070, explaining why, instead of boycotting the state as some liberals wished, she would instead go there and make bold statements against it:
Oh SHIT! All her cursing is muted out of this youtube. FUCK!!!!!!!!
rosen and nguyen,,,,those idiots cannot find the court house without a seeing eye dog..says something about the quality of the attorneys on the other side
No, it says more about the high standard required for an injunction.
huh.
Yes, I suppose that it is true that I am acting out of the same sort of automatized instinct as the drone bee stinging an invader to protect its queen. Or I could be legitimately proud that my party is standing up and speaking out in a reasonably timely manner, establishing an identity within for the inspection of OC voters even when doing so isn’t entirely safe.
Who can say which is true of me? Well, I had thought that I could, but….
Can’t both be true, friend? Yes they can…
It did take them a while though. Did this require debate and votes?
It’s so funny from my perspective to be accused of blind support of the Democratic Party by those outside of it and simultaneously of being far to willing to oppose party interest from those inside it.
I haven’t been particularly plugged in recently due to work. This looks to me (and I’m just guessing) to have been an action of the Chair and Executive Director, maybe in consultation with members of the GLBT and Vietnamese communities (probably either including Bao Nguyen or his allies); no votes. It seems both pretty timely and very welcome to me; makes me proud, no lie.
It was a fine statement. I wish it could have come a week or two earlier.
Beautiful piece. I will be there to support my lgbt friends and protect them from these bigot cowards.
And there’s another heart in the right place, not a “straddler.”
Which one of you altered my comment?
If you mean the comment there at the top of this post, no idea.
Now if Stanley wants to know which of us just trashed his comment attacking Vern, that was me.
“Now if Stanley wants to know which of us just trashed his comment attacking Vern, that was me”……… Hmmmmmm
What can you expect from the Jewish Media?
I’m approving this one just so people can see the kind of thing from Stanley that I usually delete (although the attack on Vern was more florid.) Stanley provides some good insights and contributions here, as well as the bad ones, which is why we keep him on a short leash rather than banning him outright. This is an example of why the leash.
Oh. If people were actually wondering, his first censored comment was a treatise blaming “the homosexuality” on a defective, self-destructive gene. And his second one was a fantasy about me, butt-plugs, and Tinajero, followed by manic all-caps laughter. That’s all you-all missed.
Fortunately, there are still some non Jewish controlled media http://newsantaana.com/2013/02/08/court-stops-gay-activists-from-hijacking-the-orange-county-tet-parade/comment-page-1/#comment-50817
It’s nice to know that you have a home, Stanislav.
I did. I changed it to “sins.” I decided I agreed with Greg, we don’t need to go on about people’s personal lives. Sins includes everything.
You can get into those details on the Liberal OC, or Pedroza’s blogs.
Really Vern? Putting Liberal OC in the same category as Pedroza. Not cool dude.
Well, only insofaras if people want to see Jose’s catalogue of Dina’s sins, they can frequently find it there, as recently as yesterday.
How many gay asians march in this thing?
No rain in the forecast, the rainbows always comes out, after, the clouds have parted and the sun shines. Seems almost fitting in some strange way, doesn’t it?
I hope that the parade goes well for everyone.
That perhaps there can be some good that comes form all of this. That perhaps in some twisted way those who seem bent on dehumanizing and division, can come together for the spirit of celebration and embrace all of the community as one.
Knowing first hand how fragile life is and how quickly it can be taken makes me more appreciative of it in my own. Having lost several friends to AIDS and having family in the LGBT community and history of trying to advance human Rights overall, has certainly given me a different perspective than most, especially when applied to the 2A community.
There is NO grey area, you either stand for human Rights or you’re against them.
Anyone who can’t see that needs to reexamine their basic core beliefs. If that goes back to their religious beliefs or their social beliefs, so be it. We live in a secular society, we all have to learn to deal with ideas and others Rights that may make us uncomfortable at times, deal with it!
If it’s about fear of the unknown, then address it and learn.
Ignorance nor fear are excuses for trying to diminish the Rights of others, or bully them, NEVER!
Thanks Carl.
Seriously vern if you’re going to alter my comment just delete it like pedroza does and pointing out dina nguyens “sins” in detail is important considering she constantly tries to pass herself off as some kind of moral person who has no morals. I can expect this kind of crap from that borebag greg diamond but not you. Shame on you vern.
There, is that better? I made it clear what I took out and why, but your gist remains.
So now one of the lgbt organizers is calling for Bob Tucker and his lover of 15 yrs to “Not Kiss” if they want to march in the parade. Thankfully, Alex Tung Hoa, another organizer has rebutted and has made clear that any such restriction is UNACCEPTABLE. Here are my comments to Alex and also the committee re the issue of boycotts and public official’s parade participation;
Alex
Allow me to applaud your assessment of the recent call for Bob and Quan to “behave” if they wish to participate in the parade. I have been troubled for several days by this mixed message as it appears in other forms as well. For example, it took a great deal of political courage for Loretta Sanchez, Alan Lowenthal, Lou Correa, David Benevides and Roman Renya (sp?) and others to pull out of the parade. To have the organizing committee then publicly say this is not a boycott or protest, does disservice to those who have sacrificed for this battle for justice. Additionally to organize for and win a battle at the GG School Dist which was absolutely about “BOYCOTTING” the parade while at the same time issuing the no boycott statement is again contradictory and problematic.
In the end, we have to address one of the most difficult facts of nature. Specifically, this call to restrict behavior is nothing more than “internalized homophobia.” As a 30yr lgbt activist I had a hard time coming to grips with the fact that we ALL possess such feelings, even the most militant of us. It may manifest itself in overt hostility and oppression, or it may be as simple as a gay male being uncomfortable with “butch” lesbians , drag queens, transsexuals or public displays of affection. This learned lesson, however hard to accept, has been a guiding principle in my life has helped me through several difficult choices over the years.
Thanks for showing up to offer this view, Jeff!
Hi Jeff. Have Lou and Loretta released any STATEMENTS about why they’re not coming? I can’t find them. Don’t you think they should?
I posted the statement I got via email from her Chief of Staff earlier this week. It mirrors closely what the Register reported. I know the Register also reported that Tammy Tran mad a statement on Senator Correa’s behalf. It seems that Loretta, Lou and Congressman Lowenthal have not issued “official Press Releases” on the matter. Unfortunate.
With all due respect, I disagree. No one of any gender ought to be making out at community parades. This simply is not the appropriate forum for such behavior.
Also, did any of the GLBT groups lift a finger to raise money to put on this parade? I have not read anywhere that they did. But now they want to essentially hijack the parade for their own purposes? That is not right.
I was at the parade a couple years ago and the GLBT groups all carried signs about gay marriage. I support gay marriage but again this parade should not be made a forum for such messages. It is supposed to be about the Lunar New Year, period.
All of this BS is going to hurt your community!
Pedroza, you poor, pitiful little man. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
First, to claim that a group which has participated in the Tet parade for the past three years is trying to hijack the parade is absurd.There would be no issue, and the entry of the Viet LGBT group would be just as important as any other entrant, had the organizers not hijacked the Tet parade to further their bigoted agenda.
Second, are your really trying to suggest that all entrants would need to raise money to pay for the event, beyond their entrance fee, in order to have their entry application approved? That would more than likely exclude 90% of the parade entries.
Excuse me, are you lecturing LGBT Vietnamese about the meaning of Tet? Bad form, even in the Year of the Snake. Can you back up your assertion about what is supposed to be? I wonder if you’ll be at the parade tomorrow to guard against the presentation of any anti-Communist — in other words, not “about the Lunar New Year” — messages, give what you say is “supposed to be.”
I guess that Art’s posting here means that Pulido is going to show up and march, without protesting.
No one should be making out while marching in a community parade regardless of their gender.
Should a parade then be welcome to bar anyone who poses a risk of violating your sensibilities in this respect, though, gay or straight?
I ask because that rules out pretty much anyone with lips. Or is your point that because some gays did it, it is therefore OK to ban all gay men? Because if so, my answer is that it might be safer to ban all men whatsoever, delicate sensibilities being what they are.
I think what Pedroza was saying was that GAY or STRAIGHT, nobody should be making out on a float at a family friendly community event. He’s right.
To be clear: I could make a carreer out of watching young vietnamese lesbians do it.
But, I digress, I asked earlier and noone bothered answering, how many disaffected Gay Asians are we talking about. I know one is too many but, were there sixty people precluded from marching, eighty? or eight? It would be interesting to learn.
And as I disclaimer, when I hear gay I don’t think vietnamese, I think Mexcican.
That was a joke.
“[N]obody should be making out on a float at a family friendly community event,” nameless? As a matter of etiquette, perhaps. (Perhaps not.) But we’re not in the realm of etiquette here — we’re in the realm of law. Do you want to enforce that sensibility with a law?
I thought the legal question was solved with a judges decision last week?
That regarding Plaintiffs’ meeting the high standard required for an injunction. The slower, longer-term suit for damages and possibly future injunctive relief, which need clear a lower bar, is yet to come. These are different legal questions.
I won’t be attending until such time that they are LGBT inclusive.
Then I will MAKE IT A POINT to attend and tell them why.
Ah, but will they FEEL the absence of the Shaw? (the way I do when I don’t see you for a few weeks)
Time and time again I see our friends in the LGBT world fail to make a simple distinction that would give them a win in court.
We all know that GENDER discrimination is not allowed by law. Transgenderism is a “gender identity” issue. It is not a “sexual partner” issue. There are some men who have a female gender identity, but prefer female partners, there are some men who have a female gender identity and prefer male partners. Which of these is to be denied or allowed? Which of these are “gay”?
In disallowing transgendered individuals to participate the organizers are discriminating against people based on their gender identity. This is a violation of the law. Thus any transgender organization can NOT be denied participation in the event as doing so is discrimination based on gender.
This is a 100% winning issue every time. But rather than “win” most LGBT organizations want to “win on the gay issue” when they can clearly win on the “gender” issue, and can’t clearly win on the “gay” issue. If the goal is to win, and participate, then they should resort to a strategy that allows them to win and participate. The fact that the the transgender issue will give them the win shouldn’t matter as they will participate and the anti-LGBT bigots will lose by their participating.
Time and time again the LGBT community fails to win because they focus on the fact that they need to win on the “gay” and fail to realize that the win on the “gender” is just as effective at silencing and hurting their critics. They will never get the anti forces to accept them, and getting a court to say “accept the gay” is not going to change their anti critics and suddenly make them more accepting. What will silence them is the simple fact that every time they fight, they will lose. They can’t win. And over time they will learn that they are in the minority, that they can never win, and they will STFU. And that is a win for the LBGT forces.
Once you accept that the bigots will never change and will always continue to be bigots and haters, and that you can participate on the gender issue and they can’t stop you from doing so, then you will always win, and over time the norm will be full participation and they won’t be able to stop you no mater what.
Now, I have explained this time and time again to the LGBT leaders I have met, and NONE seem to understand that a win is a win, they all want the win on their terms, and that’s not realistic (yet).
Thanks Los Al Fixer.
Greg? Jeff? Chris? Natalie?
Nutty? Or brilliant?
It’s actually not the case that gender discrimination is not allowed by law. Laws that discriminate on gender receive what is called “intermediate scrutiny” — I forget what terms they use, but it’s slightly less than the strict scrutiny applied to racial discrimination (and the like) and substantially more than the “rational basis” test that applies to laws when fundamental rights are not implicated at all or are applied against non-protected groups (such as, until recently, gays and lesbians.) I think that laws that discriminate on GLBT grounds should receive intermediate scrutiny — others say only “rational-plus” scrutiny as in several of Justice Kennedy’s decisions — because they are fundamentally laws discriminating on the basis of gender. Men but not women can marry women, etc. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC recently agreed with this idea, which is similar to what Ivler presents; other circuits push for GLBT rights on the “rational plus” argument. The point is, you don’t have to concentrate on the “T” to win. Secondary point — if you do, society can accommodate the “T” without accommodating the “GLB.” They don’t necessarily come as a package, in legal terms.
Regardless, I think that the claim that “this is a 100% winning issue ever time” is not borne out by the facts; I’d love to see how JMI supports this statement. Perhaps it should be true, but it ain’t. Given that, the rest of his argument does not follow as he thinks it should and I don’t think that GLBT groups are being inappropriate in not heeding his advice.
In 2003 California enacted AB 196, which clarifies that the definition of sex” in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) includes “a person’s actual or perceived sex, [including] a person’s identity or appearance, whether or not that identity or appearance is different from that traditionally associated with that person’s sex at birth.”
California, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Rhode Island explicitly protect transgender and transsexual people from employment discrimination.
and Title VII claims based on Gender Identity are now being heard and decided in favor of those who have gender dysphoria.
While I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on the Internet, The current trend in legal circles is that gender dysphoria is NOT a handicap or disability (as seem from the removal from the DSM-IV TR.as “Gender Identity Disorder” and the inclusion of gender dysphoria, which is not classified as a mental illness). In fact the NHS defines gender dysphoria as “a condition for which medical treatment is appropriate in some cases.” Please note that “medical; treatment” is not the same as “psychiatric treatment” as appropriate hormone therapy treatments are classified as “medical”.
While Mr. Diamond IS a legal eagle and can expound upon the current case law, I suspect that even he will be able to state that the trend is clearly to treat a persons chosen gender identity as separate from sexual preference (specific case law can be found in child custody proceedings as well as cases where couples remain married even after one of the partners has undergone transition to the opposite gender) and that a solid case can be made for inclusion of a group that represents the interests of the transgendered.
I stand by my statement that you can’t get bigots to change their ways (look at the teaparty types like Los Al’s Dean Grose and his latest Obama statements), but the you can successfully beat them at their game by making what works in the law work for you.
JMI — I wish I had the time right now to give you argument the attention it deserves, but I don’t. I don’t notice much in your comment with which I disagree, except that (1) I don’t think that transgender people would call their gender identity “chosen” (this is a similar problem that we used to have before the term “sexual preference” gave way to “sexual orientation”) and (2) I can’t actually expound on the current case law because I haven’t researched it. (I used to be very willing to do so before I went to law school and had some humility about giving out legal opinions beaten into me. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, I partially healed.)
Since when has Christianity represented the 4000 years of Vietnamese civilization? First the Christian missionaries came to spread homophobia in Latin America while destroying its culture, language and religions. Then, they came to the Philippines to do the same in the Philippines, then they came to Vietnam to burn temples, clear the way for the French. Then, they oppressed the Buddhists, outlawed birth control in Vietnam in the 1960s. Now they hijack the Vietnamese American community, brainwash them with the Bible and try to exclude Vietnamese gays who have been around in Vietnam for longer than Christianity?
If there is one group who should be excluded from the parade for not being culturally Vietnamese, guess who?
If you can read Vietnamese, read up the Christian horrific crimes against Vietnamese traditions and culture in this website: http://www.sachhiem.net
No worries. The LGBT’s are not the problem, the flag is not the problem. Most of the community wouldn’t even recognize the LGBT flag even if they saw it, because it looks like the Buddhist flag. This should tell you that the LGBT has not spent much time in the Vietnamese community to educate it about LGBT causes. To all of a sudden crash it to change a traditional message in the Tet parade and accusing that community of discrimination is not the way to educate and to gain understanding for Viet LGBT.
Gays are well loved and respected in the Vietnamese community. There are many gays in the Vietnamese community and there has not been incidents where they are discriminated by the Vietnamese community (gay bashing, gays receiving bad press, denial of service, etc). In fact, the Vietnamese community has had gay pageants which were very well received and thousands of Vietnamese came each time. They also have many gay performers who are well loved by the community and have performed in many community events.
I don’t think Tucker’s kissing is much an issue. It’s the timeliness for costumes with crotches and nipples showing and the message about AIDS and HIV. Remember, 1st amendment rights are not absolute when they infringe on the 1st amendment right of another person. Just because the LGBT has a 1st amendment right doesn’t mean that the parade organizer’s 1st amendment right is cancelled. The 1st step in fighting for your 1st amendment right is to know that others also have 1st amendment rights. This way, you’ll know when to go to court and fight for your rights. Let me share a quote from the LA times. I think this person is right on point.
James Klein at 1:53 PM February 8, 2013
As a lifelong citizen of Westminster, CA, I am a neighbor of Vietnamese people. The buzzwords of the last decade have largely been tolerance and diversity. The Vietnamese are a relatively new minority ethnic group in California- they have had a solid voice and presence for as long or less than the gay rights movement. It is unfair to hijack their voice as they attempt to celebrate their cultural and ethnic heritage for the sake of another minority group which celebrates a different non-ethnic identity and shared struggle. Simply because there is an LGBT community within the Vietnamese community does not mean that a parade celebrating a specific ethnic cultural heritage should also be a celebration of LGBT culture. Should all parades be LGBT parades? There have been distinctive LGBT/ Gay Pride parades for many years. If it were a black power march, would African American LGBT people be allowed to make it an LGBT parade? No, because the black power movement, and the African American civil rights movements, both had distinct shared histories and strugles, stemming from a shared cultural-ethnic heritage. In what way does putting political pressure on an ethnic cultural group to include an unrelated group and cause in their cultural celebration parade imply tolerance or diversity? Mixing up these causes is an intellectually and ethically weak move, not a true issue of civil rights.
back to me..
All my gay friends, especially the Viet LGBT, don’t get upset because things didn’t go your way this time. You didn’t take the gradually merging approached. You took the all in or nothing approach and that’s how it rolls. You should approach Attorney/Council woman Dina Nguyen to assist the Vietnamese LGBT to formally form a group so that they would have frequent educational and outreach events in the Vietnamese community. I know that she would not turn you down. Just because she represented the Parade organizer’s right to decide the theme of their parade doesn’t mean that she does not want you have a voice and a forum of your own. You need to do this so that you would have a forum of your own and not have to borrow other people’s forum. In time, you can join the Tet parade as yourselves with your flags and leave all the other issues (health, mental, discrimination) to your own forum. A much nicer way for you to appear within the community. Do you really want to educate about AIDS in the Tet Parade? The message would be sad, unclear and confusing. Not something a traditional Vietnamese would start out the new year with (Traditionally, people don’t talk about anything negative during Tet, i.e. sickness, death, problems, etc.-just as you’d want to avoid talking about divorces on Valentines Day). A TV or radio show is better served for this subject. Also remember that HIV and AIDS issues are universal and not limited to the LGBT community. I also have to keep to the theme of the parades when I attend not just the Tet Parade but also other parades like the ones in Santa Ana and Anaheim. Some politicians rudely intrude upon the themes of parades by campaigning in the parades. That’s just bad taste and self-serving. I don’t know who has been consulting with you regarding your causes. Robert Tucker, you need to contact Dina Nguyen to start working on a Viet LGBT association. Waiting till Tet to walk in the parade is not enough to educate the public. If you don’t take your causes seriously and invest time into it, then the result would be minimal. Crashing the parade and trying to disrupt the parade this Sunday militantly is not a solution either.
FYI: In Little Saigon, the number of Vietnamese youths being in the closet because they are afraid of being bullied is not as high as in other community… Vietnamese Gays and lesbian youths are more accepted by their peers in the Garden Grove and Westminster School Districts, and Vietnamese youths, overall, appear to be more open towards one another’s sexual orientation. This is what I observed when I visited the high schools in these two districts.
Your argument about a gradually merging approach in interesting, but probably uninformed. If a group has been participating in a parade for three years, they are not crashing the parade when they apply to join for the fourth year.
Before a flame war begins, I’m with you on this Chris.
Having said that, Isn’t this a lot like a breakfast group that eats at Denny’s for three years. Then one day Denny’s closes.
Later one of the members decides to host a breakfast at his home. But someone is not invited (for whatever reason, including maybe sexuality).
Does the excluded person have a right to attend, probably not, it sucks. But, thats the reality.
No, it’s not much like that at all. Instructive failure, though! If the parade were taking place in Dina Nguyen’s home, there would be no lawsuit.
Unless Dovinh chose to sue for divorce on the grounds of a parade going through his house.
“If a group has been participating in a parade for three years”…….. Hmmmmmm
Please be advised Privatski that your defense by insinuating the waiver and estoppel is denied based on the substantial change in the structural grounds of the event from public to private.
Therefore, the prior Viet LGBT participation is frivolous.
Suggestion:
Viet LGBT’s start the group formally and get going with your events. Next year, the LGBT should enter the Tet parade honoring Le Van Duyet. That would make more sense (historic and traditional).
Mainstream mentors, you need to advise the Viet LGBT that it is crucial to your cause that they be active starting NOW. They will have to put al ot of efforts into it.
Best idea here.
Good for you that you do censuring!
Otherwise, I would take yours, Diamond’s and Privatski’s crapola straight to the compost.
Interesting, that the people who exclude others are bitching about being excluded against.
How does Le Van Duyet have anything to do with the gay issue? Why every issue has to relate to some Vietnam past when most Vietnamese American citizens are born and/or raised in the US? I would only hope that the greater community would stop having these clearly unsophisticated and non-Americanized speak on behalf of the Viet-American community. It appears that the ring leaders are most likely late comers to the US and use their knowledge of Vietnam to suppress Viet-Americans in the name of being Vietnamese.
I think where we are now, in the clearing smoke, is,
1. Making sure the bigots of the Federation and Interfaith Alliance have nothing to do with running next year’s, or any future, Tet Parade. I understand the solution being discussed (as long as Westminster is as broke as it is) is for the city to run it, using private donations, such as from LGBT-friendly Elmore Toyota and the 1500 businesses represented by the LGBT-friendly Viet-Am Chamber of Commerce.
2. Judging how each politician dealt with this situation. I’ll have a post up about this next.
For my money, the best pro-LGBT theater I’ve heard of (reported by Prevatt on Twitter and Facebook) was from Jose Solorio. Apparently he had a car, GOT OUT of his car to join the LGBT demonstration, and let his car go on without him, so that when they announced him as his car passed by he WASN’T THERE.
I know the hardcore boycotters are gonna give Diana Carey grief for marching with a rainbow flag when they think she should have withdrawn. And I will defend her. I know that she met with the same Viet LGBTs I met with and this is what they asked her to do. And on top of that she’s been on the front lines this whole time fighting the bigots. Right in the lions’ den. So mess with her, guys, you’re messing with me!
No need Vern. I just wrote my post about which politicians were there – and which ones apparently boycotted the event. http://newsantaana.com/2013/02/09/santa-ana-council-members-to-march-with-gay-activists-at-the-tet-parade/
Of note – the entire Santa Ana City Council was not there, not even Mayor Pulido who earlier this week told me he would be there.
Also, I was by the grandstand. I did not see any gay activists. Were they set up elsewhere? They certainly weren’t in the parade.
What does the fact you’ve written something have to do with whether or not I write something? We’re on the opposite sides.
I”m not in a race on this anyway, I’ve got two more timely things to work on first.
By the way, thanks for confirming that you thought Pulido was gonna be there. That is So. Fucking. Hilarious.
LOL, just read Art’s article, sounds like he got just about EVERYTHING WRONG. But at least he bashed the gays JUST IN CASE Pulido needed him to.
“Apparently Jose Solorio had a car, GOT OUT of his car to join the LGBT demonstration, and let his car go on without him, so that when they announced him as his car passed by he WASN’T THERE”………. Hmmmmmmm
Wow…. Solorio as Houdini.
He did same shtick in the Sacramento!
Vern,
You have to give the man props for this:
“Wow…. Solorio as Houdini.
He did same shtick in the Sacramento!”
That was pretty good. No that was spot on.
Heh… I approved it, didn’t I?
And so props go to U2. How’s that for twitteresqe?
“Heh… I approved it, didn’t I?”………. Hmmmmm
No!…….. my creator did by giving me my unalienable rights.
But, I have nominated you for the Pulitzer any way.
That’s because the dishonorable judge Glass is a racist bigot anti-semit. Much of Orange County Superior Court is exceedingly corrupt & justice obstructionists. They are unfit to serve a heterogeneous public and tend to justify discrimination, as is typical for low brow GOP.
I think that Judge Glass has retired. I also think that he is Jewish.
He was retired, and then he supported Orange County Superior Court with judicial vacancies via pro tem judgeship. He was permanently removed in early 2023 due to racist comments to a Jewish defendant that were captured on official court transcripts. Therefore, you would be wholly incorrect.
He’s a racist bigot from Virginia who defended racism as he aligned with the racist in court so much so that he argued her case for her, repeatedly obstructed justice & tampered with a witness in open court. Superior Court of California County of Orange is no more a courthouse than Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey. That’s what a deeply corrupt county does, destroys all appearances of respect.
Making racist comments to an individual Jew does not mean that one isn’t Jewish; Yiddish itself is filled with them. But I’ll admit that I don’t know his religion and you can come up with more definitive evidence — or not.
I can say that Judge Glass was at the bottom of the totem pole within the OC bench, where his main function was reputed to be making attorneys less likely to paper judges because if they did so they might get him. (The other judge in this category was Derek Hunt, but I actually liked Judge Hunt and argued before him several times. I just had to remember not to put my hand in my pocket, but as idiosyncrasies go that’s pretty mild.)
You make a lot of statements in your the first sentence of your last paragraph about which I have no direct knowledge so I can’t offer an opinion. I’m not going to engage your penultimate sentence — all I will say is that the parking is similarly expensive. Your last sentence, I agree with.