Emil Guillermo: Simon Tam's fight to reappropriate "The Slants" seems more uphill than ever
July 29, 2015 8:55 PM

Simon Tam isn't giving up. 

But he admits he was taken aback when an unnecessarily harsh amicus brief by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association was filed this week against his efforts to trademark his rock band's name, "The Slants."  

SimonTam.jpg

"I was completely surprised, especially since NAPABA and its members have been supporting our work for nearly five years," Tam said in an email to me. "And in my last exchanges with NAPABA president George Chen, he noted strong interest and wide support from NAPABA members. That was in May--the next thing you know, I received a copy of their press release and amicus brief disparaging our social justice work."

If you haven't been following the Portland, Oregon dance rock band's six-year fight to reappropriate for the good what some consider a slur, the case was given a reprieve in April. Tam was granted the chance to bring the matter to the full Federal Circuit court in October. 

Tam believes it's a First Amendment issue and challenges a section in trademark law, known as the Lanham Act, that denies the trademarking of disparaging words and phrases.

NAPABA's brief argues that Tam's First Amendment rights aren't compromised as he continues to be able to use the name despite an official trademark. 

But it gets complicated. If the government registers a disparaging mark like "The Slants," NAPABA believes it could actually implicate the government in an act of racism similar to when property owners were able to record racially restrictive covenants in county deed systems.

Overall, NAPABA sees trademarking "The Slants" name a "dangerous extension" of the First Amendment:

"Mr. Tam cannot wield his First Amendment rights as a sword to compel the Government to aid him in spreading racial epithets to every concert hall and record store in the nation or to enrich him in the process," the NAPABA brief said. "While Mr. Tam's use of this racial slur may be well-intended--to the extent the use of a slur can ever be so--if the Patent and Trademark Office cannot refuse to register Mr. Tam's disparaging mark, there will be no viewpoint-neutral way for it to refuse to register racially disparaging marks with far more malignant intent."

In other words, good guys like Tam may be fine. But what about the "not-so-good guys"?

What if some KKK-like group wanted to trademark its stylish hoods with the eyelets? Or come close to the moniker "KKK"--all to promote its unadulterated racism? (Apparently, the KKK was protected by the trademark office as a historical society. Just try to infringe on them.)

Or what if Daniel Snyder insists on the continued use of an established slur as the name of the Washington football team?

As a First Amendment absolutist, I have no problem with everyone having the right to his or her own speech. It just means one had better be prepared for the hell fury of debate. 

That's as American as it gets.

Don't shut down or censure anybody. Just open up the floodgates and allow for more speech. Subject everyone to their own worst critics. A free debate would likely have economic consequences that could force an entity that insists on using a slur to "do the right thing" and change a truly disparaging name.

That's how it should happen in an ideal democracy.

But we don't live in such a world.

I know it looks like that unmentionable football team and "The Slants" are ironically on the same side of Amendment No. 1. 

But I see a difference. 

Snyder is white, and not exactly a Native American trying to "take back the name." Or change it, or "reappropriate" it for the good of anything but his pocket book. Native Americans are loud and vocal against Snyder and his team name. And I've been on record against it since my talk-radio days in Washington, DC in the early '90s.

Simon Tam and "The Slants" are Asian American, trying to reappropriate the slur. For the last six years, a majority of the community that knows the activism of the group and what they're about has been behind them. 

Makes sense to me. But that's not how the law works.

If The First Amendment argument is a winner for Tam, it's a winner for Snyder.

And that's an unacceptable result that even Tam recognizes puts him in a bit of a pickle.

When I talked to Tam in April, we discussed how the October appeal may not be a good thing for the band if it puts Tam and the Washington football team on the same side. Can the government really honor Tam's trademark request and refuse Snyder? 

"At this point, it might be difficult to do so," Tam admitted when I communicated with him this week. "Had NAPABA or the other groups talked about creating space for a culturally competent [solution], this may have been possible. Unfortunately, the court is limiting arguments to simply discuss whether or not the law, Section 2(a), violates the First Amendment. That's more of an all-or-nothing approach. However, through its commentary, the federal judges could have more detailed analysis of the issues. But again, NAPABA's brief pretty much sealed in the Trademark Office's argument of not allowing any seemingly disparaging remarks, whether or not they actually are disparaging."

Tam isn't giving up. He has always seen it as our community's fight to expand what he calls freedom of speech for the marginalized.

"The law hasn't been updated in almost 30 years and quite a bit has changed then, including the Appeal Board's unprecedented decision to order a full panel hearing, so anything is possible," Tam said. "Even if we lose, we still have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court."

Tam's a rock and roller. But he knows it's not over until the folks in the black robes have their say.

*     *     *
Emil Guillermo is an independent journalist/commentator. 
Updates at www.amok.com. Follow Emil on Twitter, and like his Facebook page.
The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent AALDEF's views or policies.


Posted by:Emil Guillermo | 0 comments

Emil Guillermo: Breaking News: NY Times/CBS poll on race doesn't care much about Asian Americans or Latinos
July 24, 2015 11:35 AM

If we want a new race conversation, we'd better start with a better approach to race polling.

Earth to everyone. It's not a black and white world anymore. Especially not in the U.S. So why are polls on race, in their execution and their findings, still mired in a polarizing black/white paradigm? 

The world is too nuanced for just black and white answers. There are others in the mix, and large groups of others, like Asians and Hispanics. And yet time and again, in many polls, these large groups are treated as if they aren't even in the conversation.

Case in point: Did you see that new New York Times/CBS poll on race relations?

These days the news anchor in my life isn't Walter Cronkite or Connie Chung. (No one cares all that much about the fall of Brian Williams or the ascendancy of Lester Holt. I do. But I'm a news nerd). No, the news anchor in my life is my iPhone, and on Thursday, this came blaring through: 

timespollrace.jpg
Breaking news? Really? Like an ISIS threat? No, just another race poll.

The story put out the alarm, "[N]early six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse."

And then just to make sure you knew this was really 5-alarm stuff: "By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good."

So now we know how low we've sunk. We're just back to the early 2000s.

All the poll really proves is that we tend to feel good when good things happen. 

And we tend to feel really, really bad when cops shoot black people and when a white racist shoots black churchgoers.

After nine people are killed in an historically black church in Charleston, after racially charged police violence in South Carolina, Baltimore, Staten Island, and Ferguson, I don't need a poll to tell me race relations are poor.

It's the reason I quickly read through the "things are terrible" story to see what Asian Americans thought. Or what Latinos thought. About anything.

I couldn't find much. Apparently, we don't count. 

Once again, the Times excluded our views on race. That's not the good kind of "exclusive." 

The guts of the poll reveals some Asian Americans were surveyed, about 4 percent. But not enough of a sample to say with any authority what Asian Americans think. 

Same with Latinos. Just 15 percent.

It's typical of the shortcomings of polls. Sure, there was a random sample of cell phone users. But to really get the opinions of Asians and Latinos, you need to oversample, and even poll in languages besides English.

Otherwise, it's just a poll on race in black and white--not in color. It's just part of the story. As a journalistic problem, this is similar to the Times relying just on official government sources in major stories involving the Middle East, as pointed out by Glenn Greenwald. (Coincidentally, it was the same problem with the way the Times reported on the Wen Ho Lee story).

This full partial poll on race is the kind of poll that makes you hate polls altogether. You may already barely tolerate political polls, but at least with candidates, it's simple enough. It's a horse race.

But where's the horse race on the poll on race? Today we hate each other, yesterday we loved each other? Does that really help? Does it feed or confirm stereotypes, or become a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy? 

I'd say a more nuanced poll that sampled broadly and were more inclusive of Asian American and Latino sentiments might show less concern about race, more concern about other things, like economic inequality.

But leaving us out, once again, reminds us that Asian American opinions don't really matter.

Maybe the Times felt guilty about sending out such an offensive alarm, as the bulletin ends with this note: "Respondents tended to have much sunnier views of race relations in their own communities."

But doesn't that vaguely sound like a sentimental yearning for the good old segregated days? 

That's how the bulletin ended, and now back to your sunny, carefree summer.

That is, until the real breaking news story of the day---the theatre shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The shooter, now identified as 59-year old John Russell Houser, may have been the angry white male, but he didn't discriminate. He seemed to shoot at everyone in that Lafayette movie house, leaving three dead and nine wounded as of Friday morning.

He also went to see "Trainwreck."

I wonder if he was offended by Amy Schumer's joke about her not having any pictures of black friends in her iPhone. She had one picture of a black waitress. 

There is one twitter account that could be Houser's. It bears a tweet from 2013, in which Houser praises one of the most rabid hate groups around, the Westboro Baptist Church. 

HouserTweet.jpg
The tweets ended back in 2013. 

Houser probably wasn't one of the whites who participated in the New York Times race poll. But you know there are many who share his sentiments out there. We don't need a poll to know that.

But in the end, we're right back in the same place we started.

There's just one question to ask, and it's not a poll question: Exactly what are we going to do to make it all better?

*     *     *
Emil Guillermo is an independent journalist/commentator. 
Updates at www.amok.com. Follow Emil on Twitter, and like his Facebook page.
The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent AALDEF's views or policies.


Posted by:Emil Guillermo | 0 comments

Emil Guillermo: 'Last F***able Day'? Asian Americans looking for a first one, as "Fresh Off the Boat" Snubbed for Emmy Awards
July 17, 2015 3:58 PM

Randall Park has had such a big year as the star of "The Interview" and as the comedic anchor of "Fresh Off the Boat." He even won a V3con award from the Asian American Journalists Association in Los Angeles this year for representing. 

But if he wants a shot at an Emmy, he'd better talk to Easter Xua. 

There's no success perm for Randall this year. But Xua may consider finally getting one. Until then, Randall will have to go straight.

successperm2.jpgAs far as my eyes can tell, as I gleaned the list, Xua has to be the most honored Asian American among the nominees for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Awards. 

He may even be the most nominated Asian American ever. 

How many Asian Americans have won seven Emmys and been nominated 36 times?

Thirty-six.

But you have to go practically to the bottom of the long list of categories and nominees to find his name.

Xua is a camera operator, Cinematographers Union Local 600, and he's nominated for no fewer than three Emmys this year.

It's not greed. He's just talented and in demand.  

The first of this year's nominations is for Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, Video Control For A Series. Xua is nominated for "Dancing with the Stars," episode 2009 (I believe it's the semi-finals). 

Xua was on camera to catch every last dip and spin.

It's a tough category though. He's up against Fred Shimizu, a two-time winner and 11-time nominee, who runs a camera on the "Late Show with David Letterman." (Show 4214 got nominated, which, of course, was so much better than Show 4213).

And then there's Terrance Ho, video control for "The Voice" Episode 718B. It takes some doing to synchronize all those spinning coach seats to get every last white tooth on camera.

For Ho, it's two nominations this year, eight overall in his career, and he's still looking for his first win.

And just to prove what an incestuous community Hollywood is, Ho is nominated for video control for the Oscars in the Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, Video Control for a Limited Series, Movie Or A Special. And that show also includes Xua on camera (his second nomination for the year). 

Xua adds a third nomination for camerawork for the "Kennedy Center Honors" in the same category.

But wait, like the Ginsu knife, there's more! 

Add one, maybe two more names. The 68th Annual Tony Awards got nominated in that very category, and lo and behold, there's Ka-Lai Wong, Senior Video Control, and Ernie Jew, on camera. Jew, I shall presume, is not Jewish but Asian American.

And that's where Asian Americans tend to show up in television. We're in deep. Behind the scenes.

Go up the list of nominees and you'll find Ai Nakata of "Mad Men" for Outstanding Hairstyling for a Single-Camera Series. Two nominations for Robert Lopez for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics.

I'm sorry for the Filipinos with Spanish surnames (it's the same problem in political polling) or married, non-hyphenated Asians who now are undetectably Asian in print, so I may have missed one or two of you. My apologies.

But the Asian names that were more obvious are sprinkled all throughout the list of nominees.

Garson Yu and Synderela Peng (great name) for Outstanding Main Titles for HBO's "Olive Kitteridge."

Kodai Yoshizawa for "The Knick," and Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup For a Series, Lmited Series, Movie or Special. Prosthetic? Did he fix all the noses and busts?

Makeup artist Mi Young for HBO's "Bessie" was in the non-prosthetic category.

Also nominated were Joseph Tsai for sound editing in "The Walking Dead" and visual effects artists Keith Hamakawa for "The Flash," Tracy Takahashi for "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.EL.D," and Tommy Tran for "American Horror Story."

And as you move up the list to picture editing you find Luyen Vu for "American Crime." And Billy Song, editor for the his work on "Inside Amy Schumer."

He's the editor of the segment, "The Last F***able Day."

It's ironic, of course, because many Asian American actors, both male and female are looking for their first "F***able Day."

When you're limited to working behind the scenes, at least in Schumer terms, you have zero "f***able days."

And when we're bottom heavy on the list of nominees, in the crafts, stereotypes develop. And star turns aren't our turns.

This year, I thought Randall Park and Constance Wu would have a shot to get some Emmy love. 

ConstanceRandall.jpg
"Fresh Off the Boat" had a chance for Best Comedy. I thought the pilot had great promise, but the weekly episodes rarely surpassed that level. Maybe when you're not on cable like many of the other nominees, the real edge of FOTB gets lost and it all seems homogenized. Not that the elements weren't there. It's just in execution, one wonders how much edgier and funnier the show would have been if it were more representative of Eddie Huang's urban hybrid/"black-ish" Asian perspective--and on cable?

Given the restraints, I like the show better when it's focused on Wu and Park in a modern Asian American "Father Knows Best."  I like it least when it aims to be the Asian American "Leave it to Beaver."

But look at the other series that got nominated. Only "Modern Family" and "Parks and Rec" were network shows. I think "P&R" is funny, but academy voters seemed to be willing to award it for the grand finale. "Modern Family" has become a staple. But aside from me wanting to look at Julie Bowen (nominated just as supporting actress, and not lead actress), the show's gotten a tad stale.

All the other shows nominated have a cable edge that make "FOTB" seem bland. "Louie" is my favorite and even featured an Asian American shopkeeper in one episode. But it's barely a comedy, more like an art film masquerading as sitcom. "FOTB" has a built-in edge as the only prime-time sitcom with a window into the Asian American soul. But it seems more into showing off our universality, hence the blandness. More subtitled humor to differentiate from the rest, please.

For me, Randall and Constance have become the real reason to watch. So I'm disappointed that Emmy nominators couldn't squeeze them in the supporting category. It's a crowded field, but Randall and Constance did some breakthrough work this year. 
 
It may be enough that the show got a second season. But I hope the show takes a few more risks while it still has the chance. If it does, there's no reason why it can't break through and garner Emmy gold next year.

If it doesn't, well, at least we still have our 36-time nominee Easter Xua.

*     *     *
Emil Guillermo is an independent journalist/commentator. 
Updates at www.amok.com. Follow Emil on Twitter, and like his Facebook page.
The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent AALDEF's views or policies.


Posted by:Emil Guillermo | 0 comments

Emil Guillermo: Let's end this civil war on affirmative action among Asian Americans
July 8, 2015 8:46 AM

This may be the best time ever for Asian Americans to realize what's really in their best interest. 

And though it may surprise you, it could actually be this thing called "affirmative action."

It sure isn't suing Harvard for discrimination. 

In fact, the U.S. Education Department has done that coalition of more than 60 Asian American groups a favor by dismissing its complaint alleging that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants.

The reason? Another suit against Harvard was filed already in Boston federal court by conservative Edward Blum.

You remember Blum. He's the guy who advertised for the perfect victim of college admissions, as if he were trying to find a mail-order bride.

Blum, a serial anti-affirmative action fighter, has already recruited a number of willing Asian Americans who responded to websites that asked, "Were You Denied Admission to Harvard? It may be because you're the wrong race."

He's now got a group of Asian Americans to use as human shields as he prepares for battle in court.

I don't know which is more distasteful: a white conservative elite using and manipulating Asian Americans to end affirmative action? 

Or angry, short-sighted Asian Americans who feel rejection from Harvard is a form of racial discrimination at the hands of this evil affirmative action?

Coalition organizer Yukong Zhao told reporters that despite the dismissal of his case, he's not giving up: "We will continue to pursue equal rights for Asian American students."

I admire Zhao's spirit. 

I just disagree with his reading of the situation.

And I hope the dismissal gives him and other members of the coalition some time to realize just who exactly has the best interests of Asian Americans in mind.

It's certainly not Eddie Blum.

When the news broke about the dismissal, I was coincidentally talking with Jennifer Lee, a Korean American and a sociology professor at University of California at Irvine. She's co-authored with Min Zhou a new book called, "The Asian American Achievement Paradox." 

It actually declaws all the Tiger Mom talk and elevates the discussion on the "Model Minority Myth."

But Lee also has some thoughts on affirmative action.

JenniferLeeonTavis.jpgJennifer Lee, UC-Irvine sociology professor & co-author of "The Asian America Achievement Paradox," appears on The Tavis Smiley Show.

She said when she speaks in public, the thing that upsets Asian Americans--Chinese Americans in particular--is the idea that affirmative action could actually help them. 

"They're not thinking about that," she said. "Obviously, we need it because we don't have the institutional advantages that we think we do."

I played devil's advocate. "Yet people can't get beyond their self-interest," I said. What else can the straight A, perfect score Asian conclude but that race played a part in keeping the numbers of Asian admits to Harvard low?


"They think it's in their self-interest to fight affirmative action," Lee said. "But [it is] only in a very narrow way, without thinking of their broader life course."

In other words, after you graduate from your elite school and the stereotype of Asian Americans as lacking in leadership hits you in the workplace and keeps you from management promotions, you'll surely be singing a different tune.

"Asian Americans should be supportive of policies like affirmative action because we will need them," Lee said.

Yeah, but what if one didn't get into Harvard and the crimson bruise to the ego doesn't fade away. (Not me, I got in. I have other bruises.)

Whenever I've talked to admissions officers at Harvard, they've always denied using "affirmative action." Instead, they claim to use the holistic approach, considering factors such as what an applicant has overcome in his or her life. 
 
Affirmative action sometimes gets generalized as the use of race in admissions. But in a holistic process, race is just one of many factors that end up in the mix. And it's not necessarily the key one.

In that sense, even if you take race out of an admission equation, it may not give you what you think you want. 

For some Asian Americans, there's a belief that race-blind admissions would result in more Asian American admissions.

"I think there's a misconception that if race is not considered, more Asian Americans would be offered admissions in places like Harvard, and I would argue that's not the case at all," Lee said.

She said it probably would give more advantages to others with privilege, such as the child of a legacy or those from underserved geographical areas.

"So if we think of Asian Americans [as being] hurt by affirmative action, then that's not the case," Lee said. "What you're doing is redistributing other kinds of factors so that white students [in the majority] are most likely to benefit."

And that's why the dismissal of the U.S. Education Department complaint is probably a good result. Blum got there first. But even Blum is redundant of the Fisher v. University of Texas case, first decided by the high court in 2013. With the Supreme Court agreeing to revisit Fisher next year, it could derail Blum's latest challenge against Harvard. 

No wonder that Harvard's lawyers have asked for a stay of the Blum lawsuit. It all could be hot air. 

So all combatants should use the time wisely to pause and think.

That means you, members of the 60 community groups in the coalition.

Do you really want Ed Blum to lead you to his promised land?

Or maybe it's time to realize that the broad group of Asian Americans, who have steadfastly supported affirmative action and taken a united stand against the efforts to end it, really do have the entire community's best long-term interests at heart.

*     *     *
Emil Guillermo is an independent journalist/commentator. 
Updates at www.amok.com. Follow Emil on Twitter, and like his Facebook page.
The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent AALDEF's views or policies.



Posted by:Emil Guillermo | 2 comments

Emil Guillermo: Victory for same-sex marriage must lead to broader focus on LGBTQ discrimination
June 29, 2015 11:08 AM

Korean American Ryan Garner-Carpenter, 27, walked down Market Street at SF Pride, a new man of options.

Ask him what he's into and he'll say leather and whips. 

But if he was into all things bondage before last week, now he can add something new--the right to marry.

Ryan.JPG

For gay Asian Americans like Ryan, this right is now protected by the Constitution.

And he has this man to thank.
 
Obergefell-SF.jpg

Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the historic case that made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, was riding high as the honored guest at Sunday's San Francisco Pride parade. 

The celebratory weekend began early for Obergefell on Friday when the Supreme Court delivered its historic 5-4 decision. It was punctuated by a congratulatory call from President Obama.

"Not only have you been a great example for people," the president said to Obergefell, "but you also brought about a lasting change in this country, and that's pretty rare when that happens."

Let's hope it lasts.

Obergefell challenged Ohio's same-sex marriage ban and went to Maryland to get married. But when he returned to his home state, Ohio still didn't honor his marriage. 

The Supreme Court fixed that by saying that the right to marry applies everywhere in the U.S.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling on same-sex marriage made reference to Loving v. Virginia--the 1967 ruling that lifted all bans on interracial marriage. It played a key part in his decision.

"A first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy," Kennedy said. "This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause."

The other half of the argument was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 

But it was the liberty argument that sealed the deal.

NYU Law professor Kenji Yoshino called it one of the things that was really clever about the Kennedy opinion.

"He could have gone on equality grounds, but he primarily rested on liberty grounds," said Yoshino to CNN's Anderson Cooper. "If you go on equality grounds, you can either level up or level down. You can say we're not issuing marriage licenses to anyone, or we're issuing them to everyone. Once you say there's a fundamental right, as Kennedy did in his majority opinion, you can't level down anymore."

Yoshino said challenges to the ruling were unlikely to prevail, and that calls for constitutional amendments were  "utopian arguments." He also said that proposed statutes to protect religion from its conflicts with gay marriage won't work either, given the precedent established by Kennedy's decision.

In many ways, the plight of Obergefell was not much different from that of Asian Americans at the turn of the 20th century, when anti-miscegenation laws were bigoted responses to prevent marriage to whites. These laws forced many Asian Americans to cross state lines to marry. It wasn't until 1967 that the Loving case made interracial marriage legal in all 50 states. 

Just as the old laws on race and marriage wreaked havoc on the personal histories of my extended Filipino family, my cousin Pauline experienced the history of same-sex marriage firsthand.

In 2003, Pauline "married" her spouse, Jill Togawa, in San Francisco, when civil unions were seen as the solution of the day. Was it a wedding? It sure looked like it to me. 

It was the height of the really bigoted rhetoric about same-sex marriage. 

As a public service, I suggested that people go to a gay or lesbian wedding to understand what it was all about.  

In 2003, I wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: "If you're blessed to experience one, as I was to attend my cousin Pauline's, all you notice is the love. And then you can see for yourself how hateful, intolerant and discriminatory this madness over marriage really is."

But Pauline wasn't done. 

In 2004 in San Francisco, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom took a stand, and despite little support from national political groups--gay or straight--the city allowed legal marriages to take place. Pauline and Jill got married again. 

In 2008, when California recognized the right to marry, Pauline and Jill married a third time. 

But then they moved to Hawaii, where marriage was illegal. 

In 2010, Pauline and Jill decided to become one of the plaintiffs to challenge Hawaii's law. But that was derailed when the legislature acted and same-sex marriage was ultimately made legal in 2013.

When the Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case, it was still early in the morning.

"I just felt a sense of peace," she told me from Honolulu when I called her.

The San Francisco parade was a slightly more raucous. 

Whenever news coincides with Pride as it did in 2013, when the appeal of Prop. 8 failed and weddings resumed in California, it's always a bit more electric. 

parade2.JPG

This year, there were more than 200 marching units, with Asian Americans well represented, especially among employee groups of the biggest high-tech firms in the world, such as Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. 

tech3.jpg

Most of the marchers were young, and considering how millennials are less likely to be married these days, it's hard to imagine if the marriage fight really resonated.

Outforce.jpg

But they shouldn't confuse marriage rights with full equality. The fight for same-sex marriage was just one small part of a more comprehensive fight for equal rights for the LGBTQ community.

In states like Tennessee, discrimination in jobs and housing can still occur against LGBTQ people. While at least 22 states have some laws that protect against discrimination, the vast majority of states do not.

And so the party ends.

But the fight for justice never does.

*     *     *
All photos by Emil Guillermo.
Emil Guillermo is an independent journalist/commentator. 
Updates at www.amok.com. Follow Emil on Twitter, and like his Facebook page.
The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent AALDEF's views or policies.



Posted by:Emil Guillermo | 0 comments