New site for bi Latino men
14
Day of Decision actions planned
ARTS
11
21
James Broughton
The
www.ebar.com
Serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities since 1971
Vol. 43 • No. 24 • June 13-19, 2013
SF Pride: No honor for Manning Alleged attack highlights T hate crime concerns by James Patterson
he same week that gay Army private Bradley Manning faced a military judge in his court-martial at Fort
Meade, Maryland, 3,000 miles away a judge of a different sort, the San Francisco Pride board of directors, met and affirmed its earlier decision: there will be no official honor for the whistle-blower at this year’s parade.
by Seth Hemmelgarn
A
man has denied hate crime allegations after an alleged attack in San Francisco’s Mission district last week, as city officials work to address concerns over such incidents, especially against transgender people. According to court documents, Eric G. Olarte, 32 of San Francisco, pleaded not guilty June 5 in San Francisco Superior Court to counts of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and battery. The felony counts carry allegations that his actions were motivated by the victim’s sex or sexual orientation, which Olarte denied, the records say. Judge Monica Wiley ordered Olarte to stay away from the victim and the site of the incident, which is at Mission and 18th streets. According to Bay City News, which first reported on the case, the incident occurred at about 2:35 a.m. June 3. In a phone interview, Assistant District Attorney Victor Hwang said that Olarte and another man had been coming from Cava 22 on 22nd Street when they encountered the 33-year-old victim. Hwang said that according to police, “a number of homophobic epithets” were used. As he recalled, those included the word “maricon,” which is Spanish for “faggot.” He said Olarte punched and kicked the victim, who he said was “attacked from behind.” The victim “self-identifies as a drag queen” and uses male pronouns, Hwang said. Video from inside the building where the incident occurred “appears to show somebody being punched several times” while the person was outside on the ground, Hwang said. From the footage, “you can’t really see who’s on the ground,” he said, but the video shows the victim entering the building’s lobby shortly afterward. Deputy Public Defender Christopher Hite said in an interview that the victim started the incident. Hite said he wouldn’t talk about “discussions I’ve had with my client,” but based on the documents he has, “I think something was said” to the victim that the victim “felt was inappropriate,” or that amounted to “teasing.” He declined to share what Olarte said to the victim, but he said the victim “got upset” and “physically assaulted” Olarte, “which started the incident.” “My client defended himself, and the other individual jumped in to help my client,” he said. It got to the point where Olarte “felt he should” pull the other man off the victim, “which I think See page 12 >>
Supervisor David Campos speaks in support of reinstating Bradley Manning as a San Francisco Pride parade grand marshal during a press conference June 7 while awaiting the decision of the Pride board of directors. Rick Gerharter
The San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee board’s statement, released at around 6:30 p.m. Friday, June 7, was brief and unsigned. “None of the three main options we received from the community forum on May 31 garnered a consensus majority,” the statement read. Manning, 25, who has confessed to leaking 700,000 classified government documents to WikiLeaks, was initially named a parade grand marshal in late April. But the board quickly rescinded the honor and later said that he was not eligible for community grand marshal because he is not local. Supporters of Manning have held demonstrations, crowded a Pride board meeting, and packed a community forum last month, all with the hopes of seeing Manning reinstated as a grand marshal. But the Pride board has not budged. “I, for one, feel totally jerked around,” said Lisa Geduldig, an early and vocal critic of the Pride board’s actions concerning Manning. Last week’s statement seemed to signal an end to the board’s involvement with the Manning controversy, saying in essence that the show will go on. “... San Francisco Pride will continue to produce this year’s Pride celebration to enSee page 9 >>
Advocates await Supreme Court decisions analysis by Lisa Keen
T
he United States Supreme Court will release decisions any day now in two high-profile cases involving marriage and same-sex couples. Historically, the court has favored releasing its most controversial decisions on the last day of its session, which would be in late June. In past years, the court released four of its last six gay-related decisions on the last day of the session. While most mainstream media are reporting on the cases as if the court will decide whether gay couples can get married, the stakes are really much higher for LGBT people. The bottom line issue in both cases is whether gay people can have equal protection under the law. Whatever the court rules, it will have enormous impact on the legal and political well-being of LGBT people in every arena for decades to come. [See related story, page 14.] The first opinion likely to be released will concern California’s Proposition 8 – an amendment to the state constitution, approved by voters in 2008, to prohibit the state from issuing or recognizing as valid marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry. The second opinion, United States. v. Windsor, asks whether a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. Most experts predict that, if the court can clamber over some procedural obstacles to
Rudy K. Lawidjaja
Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the federal Defense of Marriage Act case, spoke to reporters following oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in late March. Decisions in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases are expected this month.
both cases, it will strike down both Prop 8 and a part of DOMA. But there are many variations on how all this might play out. For instance, in the Prop 8 case, it’s possible, notes veteran lesbian law activist Nan Hunter (blogging at http://www.hunterofjustice.com), that the court will find that Yes on 8 has standing but that the court doesn’t want to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of Prop 8. If
{ FIRST OF TWO SECTIONS }
that happened, wrote Hunter, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision remains intact and is binding on all nine of the 9th Circuit states. One of the more limited outcomes would likely happen if the court rules Yes on 8 proponents did not have legal standing to appeal the lower court decisions. The California Supreme See page 15 >>