One.

Linda Kellen Biegel & Mel Green at an Equality Works fundraiser in May. First time we'd seen each other in years! Click through to the Flickr page to see the C4Per complaint & my reply to it. As of this writing, the complainer has no photos or contacts in Flickr -- looks like she got a Flickr account only to register her Stapletongue-inspired C4Per whine.

I’ve been aware for several days of Linda Kellen Biegel’s (Celtic Diva’s) effort to raise funds to pay for a records request that the Palin administration,with its much vaunted commitment to (pretended) transparency is wanting to charge an arm & a leg for.  The importance of the work Linda is doing with this records request is only underscored by Palin & supporters latest attacks on Linda & other progressive Alaska bloggers.  Most recently, another notch in Palin’s bedpost of victimhood:  the latest screed from Palin mouthpiece Meghan Stapleton claiming that Linda’s satirical photoshop of rightwing talk radio host Eddie Burke as a babe in arms to Mama Palin is a “descecration” of Palin’s “iconic” mother & child relationship with her son Trig. (I don’t know if Stapleton is Catholic, but really: Sarah & Trig Palin are not, in fact, Mary & Jesus.) Read Gryphen’s summary at Immoral Minority of this absurdity which is now being picked up by national media.

• Update: See AKMuckraker’s recounting of events on Huffington Post.
• 2nd update: Shannyn Moore also has a fine acount of events.

Why do the Palin people not get this political humor that visually demonstrates Burke’s too-tight relationship with the governor?  Because it’s that too-tight relationship that Linda’s records request is intended to expose.  And they’ll do whatever they can, no matter how ridiculous, to try to put a stop to it.

So I went to Linda’s site & donated some of my hard-earned cash to the records request “government transparency for a huge cost” fee.  Please do so too.  Here’s the FAQ telling you more about the records request & how to donate.

Two.

It was my privilege to finally meet Shannyn Moore a few minutes after she finished testifying in support of the Anchorage equal rights ordinance on the third night of public testimony (June 17).

I heeded AKMuckraker’s request and added my support to send Shannyn Moore to Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh in August.  Click through to add your support too! You can be sure that if Shannyn can go, she’ll bring back what she learns in service to a better Alaska.  You can read Shannyn’s blog here.

Three.

A check of my blog stats shows that yesterday someone had visited an old post from last October called Sarah Palin & intermittent Gunderson syndrome.  I couldn’t remember what it was about so visited it myself.  Oooh, funny: a collection of satirical videos from the Palin’s vice-presidential campaign that will be especially enjoyed by fans of the Coen Brothers’ movie “Fargo.”  I discovered that on porting this post from an older blog site, the code for the embedded YouTube videos had dissappeared. I’ve readded, & also included links to their original home pages on YouTube in case this happens again.  Enjoy!

Related posts:

1. Palin's Hong Kong adventure…
2. Questions about the Palins' tax returns
3. A word about our friends

Support Equality Works!

Usually Friday nights for me are home nights. After all, that’s the night “Battlestar Galactica” is on!  Except that… “Battlestar Galactica” is over [sigh].  But [brightening up] at least I have the DVDs!

Okay, well, that’s the night “Dollhouse” is on!  Except that… “Dollhouse” had its season finale last week [sigh].  But [brightening up] — we got the happy news yesterday that Fox had renewed it for a second 13-episode season!  Yeaaaaay!

Still, what now am I to do with a Friday night?

Tiffany McClain of Equality Works

Last night it was to go to a fundraiser for Equality Works, the coalition that’s working to end discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, & transfolk in Anchorage.  That includes making sure we’re heard when the Anchorage Assembly takes public testimony on June 9 on the ordinance introduced last Tuesday that will, if passed, ban employment, housing, public accomodations, & other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation or veteran status.

Tiffany McClain, Brittany Goodnight, & Ryan Lawton, raising funds for Equality Works

I was a little worried as I drove there, because there were only 6 people, including me & two of the organizers, had RSVPed “yes” to the Facebook invitation for the fundraiser.  But I need not have worried: when I got there (as Linda Kellen Biegel has already blogged at Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis), the street was already lined with cars, & the backyard barbecue/party was already in full swing.

My first impression — besides that there were sure a lot of people there! — was, Whoa! everyone is so young! Please, take no  offense at that; take it from the perspective of me, a 50-year-old whose strong years as an activist ended nearly two decades ago, when burnout & the private concerns of family life & personal goals led me to kinda fade out of the public LGBT activist scene.  Which explains why most of the people there (unless they happened to have caught Channel 11 News last Wednesday night) had no idea who I was.  Or if they did, like Equality Works’ Tiffany McClain, only by way of recent occasional emails.

Linda Kellen Biegel & Mel Green

The big exception to that was Linda Kellen Biegel.  Linda is well-known in Alaska & beyond as the prominent progressive political blogger Celtic Diva of Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis.  But back in the day, the early 1990s, I knew her as Linda Kellen, a member of the local folk/rock band Sky is Blu, which amongst other things performed in at least a couple or so of the annual women’s show Celebration of Change, in which I also performed.  And if you don’t already know, let me tell you: Linda is one fine damn singer.

Linda Kellen Biegel (Celtic Diva) & Mel Green

As Linda described this past Thursday in a post about her experiences during the 1992-93 equal rights ordinance battle,

I was in the folk/rock band “Sky Is Blu,” whose members were either LGBT or LGBT-friendly.  We ended up playing many gigs for LGBT events and for six years, I felt privileged to be involved in this wonderful, close-knit community.

It was in that context that I knew Linda.  But while I’ve been following her blog since last August, I hadn’t seen her in years.  I can’t say what a delight it was to hang out with her last night, catching up, but mainly talking about how important this ordinance is & what we could to ensure its success.

(Go & read Linda’s post about 1992-93 in full.  There you’ll find that, in the poisonous atmosphere created by the likes of the “Reverend” Jerry Prevo in their fight to prevent equal rights protections for LGBT folk, it’s not just the LGBT folk who take this hits, but also our nongay friends & allies.  But will that stop people like Linda from standing with us this time around?  Nope, didn’t think so.)

Tiffany McClain & Linda Kellen Biegel

The other high points of the evening for me were meeting Tiffany McClain & some of the other people who are working hard behind the scenes at Equality Works.  It’s wonderful to see the vital, fresh energy being poured into this effort — & their willing, hard work made me feel a whole lot better at sticking with my own self-knowledge: I cannot, any more, do the kind of work that I was doing in the ’80s & early ’90s.  I’m a writer: what I can do best for this effort is to write.  Like I’m doing now.

We asked them what they’d like us to tell supporters of the ordinance about Equality Works & the June 9 Assembly meeting, at which the Assembly will take public testimony on the ordinance.  What they said:

Turn out! Even if you don’t plan to testify, we still want to see you there.  And we’d like to see you there in blue — blue dresses, blue shirts, blue sweatshirts — let’s have a sea of blue around the first floor of the Loussac Library that Tuesday evening.

And support Equality Works with your time & your money. There’s a donation form on their website which you can print out & send in with your donation.

Bent Alaska has more suggestions on how you can help to pass the ordinance.

Also from Bent Alaska,

Share your story
Are you an LGBT person who believes that you have been discriminated against by an employer, landlord, or business? Have you ever been told to stay closeted on the job? Are you a straight ally or family member who has felt the sting of public harassment or discrimination because of your friends or relatives, or because you were perceived as being “too masculine” or “too feminine”? There is no better time than at the public hearing on June 9 to share these stories with the people in a position to make a difference. If you can participate, please e-mail Tiffany McClain.

Although I hope you’ll keep reading my blog, Bent Alaska remains your best single online source for news about the ordinance, with periodic news roundups on the ordinance, as well as other news for the LGBT community in Anchorage & statewide. Thanks to E. Ross and Stacy, who work together to put out Bent Alaska & the Alaska GLBT News email list.

Related posts:

1. Equality Works optimistic on gaining equal protection (press release)
2. Equality Works Sets the Record Straight
3. Three things I did at lunchtime

On Channel 11 News

It was a surprise to me: around 10:30 or so this morning I got a call at work, on my direct line, from someone identifying himself as a reporter. I’m not entirely unused to getting calls from reporters — faculty in my department are often asked to comment on this or that issue in the news — but those calls usually come to our main office line, not to my direct extension.

Turns out it was Corey Allen-Young of KTVA Channel 11 News. With the introduction in the Anchorage Assembly last night of an ordinance which would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc. on the basis of sexual orientation, Channel 11 was interested in talking with people who had actually experienced discrimination. Mr. Allen-Young had seen a comment I made on the blog of Assemblymember Patrick Flynn yesterday, in which I had made reference to having experienced discrimination for being a lesbian. Though I signed myself there as “Mel Green” rather than by my full name, with a little detective work Mr. Allen-Young had managed to track me down at my workplace a the university. Although my instance of discrimination had taken place quite awhile ago — in 1984, 25 years go — Mr. Allen-Young was still interested in talking with me.

So it is that I came to be on Channel 11 News tonight — the first time I’ve ever been interviewed for TV news. So pardon me if I go on about it a little (later) — it’s a new experience for me.

Here’s the interview, from KTVA’s website:

Tip o’ the nib to Katie, who found it online first.

More to say later.  Meanwhile, consider making a donation to Equality Works, which is working to end discrimination in Anchorage on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Related posts:

1. Channel 11 interview, part 2 (the full story)
2. Identity Reports & One in Ten — now online!
3. Against discrimination in Anchorage

Mel & Rozz, 2006

Good news from Maine Wednesday: its legislature passed, & its governor signed, a law making it legal for same-sex couples to marry.  This makes Maine the 5th state in the U.S., after Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, & Iowa, to grant the same civil rights & responsibilities of marriage granted to heterosexual couples, to lesbian & gay couples.  On the same day New Hampshire’s legislature passed a similar bill, which is awaiting its governor’s action.

Good news indeed; so why was it simultaneously making me feel a bit blue? Fact is, I always feel some ambivalence anymore when I heard news about same-sex marriage, regardless of whether it’s good or bad.  Maybe I always will.

(Which isn’t to say I won’t stand up for it.)

But why?  I was feeling enough of the blues on Wednesday, that I decided to write more about it.

More than a decade ago, my friends Jay Brause & Gene Dugan were amongst the first in the nation to challenge the unquestioned custom of refusing marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples.  Exact details elude me — it was a long time ago — but lucky for me: online sources are kind.  Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (incidentally one of the best websites on religion out there) has a great summary of the events (& there’s some other sources below).  Basically, Jay & Gene applied for a marriage license in Alaska in 1994, were denied, & took it to court.  In February 1998, Judge Peter Michalski of Anchorage Superior Court issued a decision in their favor, ordering the State of Alaska to show a compelling reason why heterosexuals should be granted special rights to marry that were denied to gay men & lesbians.  The State of Alaska appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, & meantime the Alaska Legislature acted to prevent same-sex marriage, placing on the November 1998 ballot a measure — Ballot Measure 2 — which would, if passed, amend the state constitution to define marriage as being “between a man and a women.”  Similar stuff was going on in Hawaii at the same time.

Jay Brause, Gene Dugan, Fred Hillman, & Les Baird at Alaska Gay & Lesbian Resource Center, 1982

Enter the personal history part of the story.

Personal #1 is that I’d known Jay & Gene since first arriving in Alaska in August 1982, in fact shared a house with them & our “landlady” Sami & her three kids, until Sami remarried & we moved to our own separate households.  They were (& are, despite distance) my  my very good friends, & they were also — especially Jay — guys I worked very closely with on the activist front of working for equal rights for lesbians/gays in Alaska. At the time of our meeting, Jay was executive director of the Alaska Gay & Lesbian Resource Center (now known as Identity, Inc.), & he coaxed me (without too much difficulty) to join its board of directors as secretary.  We later worked together, along with a whole lotta other people, on two important studies of Alaska’s lesbian/gay population, One in 10: A Profile of Alaska’s Lesbian & Gay Community (Anchorage, AK: Identity, Inc., 1986) & Green & Brause, Identity Reports: Sexual Orientation Bias in Alaska (Anchorage, AK: Identity, Inc., 1989). Meanwhile, Gene was doing the work that led to the creation of the theatre company Out North, beginning with his bringing to Alaska the play “My Blue Heaven” about two lesbian homesteaders. They worked together for years at Out North, Gene as artistic director & Jay as managing director, until their departure from Alaska in 2006.

Mel & JJ on backpacking trip to Williwaw Lakes, Chugach State Park, 1997

By the time the marriage stuff rolled around in 1994, we didn’t see quite so much of each other.  This was thanks in part to my general burnout on matters political, organizational, & activist-oriented; in part to my pursuit of an MFA degree at University of Alaska Anchorage; & in part due to Personal #2, which was the relationship I’d formed in 1993 with my partner, Rozz.

The establishment, after many long years of living alone & single, of a relationship & family life became even more a factor after December 1996, which was when Rozz’s nephew JJ (as he was then known) came to live with us: age 9, his life to that date one of abuse, neglect, & a succession of foster & group homes.  He came to us violent, striking out at us preemptively before we could hurt him, as he was sure we would do — after all, everyone else in his life had.

It was a rough time.  I’m talking rough.  This was a boy who had been at the very least witness to sexual abuse of one of his siblings, if not a victim of it himself; & had most definitely been victim of physical & emotional abuse & neglect.  And for many long months in his fear of more of the same, he took it out on us.  I had never lived with abuse before — an abuse that I reckon was not him abusing me, but was his father reaching through him — as JJ used to say, “[My father] is in my head.”  It messed me up so badly, it took months to for me a wordworker to fnd words for it:

Cycle

the man in the head of the boy
the father of memory
the father who could pitch
his sons into the wall
the man who used their sister
for his “needs”
who sold them back for
four hundred dollars
in an Oklahoma City
KFC

the man in the head of the boy
the man in the boy’s fist
in his kicking feet his butting head
his spit on my face his biting teeth
in the bruise yellow and purple and green
on my arm the blood beneath my skin

the hurt that cannot speak

[August 4–November 14, 1997; rev. 11/18/97]

But now jump ahead to 1998.  Judge Michalski has made his ruling in Jay’s & Gene’s case.  The Legislature in reaction has done its thing.  Ballot Measure 2 is on the ballot for November: a measure that will, if passed, enshrine in the very basis of our society, our state constitution, the belief of the body politic that the close intimate relationship & commitment of two women with each other, or two men with each other, isn’t worth a bloody damn thing.

I was barely aware of any of this.  Because in spite of everything — in spite of completing my MFA, in spite of us having successfully gotten through the difficult first year of JJ’s life with us, of JJ giving up his violence & learning to trust us — in spite of all that, Rozz’s & my relationship came apart.

Jesse & his dog Sweetheart, resting up during a backpacking trip up Powerline Pass, June 2004

I won’t go into all the details of that here.  I’m doing it & have done it elsewhere, much of it in private where it will stay. Suffice it to say that we came back together again a year later, we talked it all out, we came to understand that our breakup or breach came about due to the incredible pressures that came with taking on a very hurt child, we forgave each other, we continued to raise the boy, & the boy, now a young man at 21, is — oh damn, just a very very fine young man, who even as I write is well on his way to an independent life doing just what he wants to do.  (Meantime, I’m taking care of his dog Sweetheart.)

At the time I didn’t know things would turn out that way.  At the time I only knew I felt a deep sense of betrayal because it all came so unexpectedly.  One day we met a new friend — I’ll just call her D — & a month later, Rozz was gone, & JJ with her, & I was just a 160-pounds-or-so mass of confusion, grief, anger, & dumbfoundedness.  (A month or so later: I was a 140-pounds-or-so mass of the same, having lost my appetite on what I dubbed at the time the Official Grief & Dumbfoundedness Weight Loss Program. I’ve got better ways of taking off the excess nowadays, thanks.)

And so my life through most of 1998 from the late spring on was one of trying to make sense of it all, & put my life back together after it had been tossed into the air & scattered like a game of 52-card-pickup.  I felt that all the meanings of my life, of my life together with Rozz, had been summarily & unilaterally flushed down the toilet.  I was scraped down to bedrock, & didn’t have the emotional reserves to give much attention to the Ballot Measure 2 & the battle for marriage equality.

And yet it did come up.  Because, you see, the pain I was feeling was pretty damn illustrative of the whole point. Do you feel that kind of anguish for the loss of a relationship when it means (as our enemies would like to have it) absolutely nothing?  Of course not.

And you know what? The people in my life — not just the lesbians & gay men, not just my family members & friends, but my coworkers too — they knew it. They treated me accordingly.  Just after I voted against Ballot Measure 2 that November, I wrote to some friends:

I’ve gotta say, though, that what indicates to me changes toward the good for lesbians & gays…which will be present regardless of the votes outcome…are present every day in my life, and have especially been present for me this last nasty year, as all my coworkers, family, friends have treated me with the same love & respect & concern in my hard times as they would have treated any nongay person going through the same nasty shit. Just as a matter of course.

Just as a matter of course. No aren’t we so very special for being so knee-jerk-liberal compassionate to this poor sad second-class citizen.  Just simple care & compassion because they knew that I was worth something, & that my relationship was every bit as valuable to me, as their own relationships were to them.

Tell me, Jesus: who has followed your way more closely: my coworkers, who treated me with compassion during a devastating period of my life, or the Alaska Family Coalition, financed mainly by out-of-state interests that worked so hard to make discrimination against people like me part of Alaska’s foundational document — & telling lies in the process?

From an Alaskans for Civil Rights/No on 2  press release dated October 31, 1998:

False and misleading information fills the Alaska Family Coalition display ad published in today’s Anchorage Daily News. The ad claims that the decision of an Alaskan judge found Alaska’s marriage law unconstitutional and would “replace…Alaska’s existing marriage law” and that the NO on 2 campaign’s claims to the contrary are “completely false.”

In fact, it is currently illegal for same-sex couples to be married in Alaska and this will not be changed by the defeat of Ballot Measure 2….

… “Yes on 2″ fliers also claim if the measure is defeated, young children will be introduced to homosexual doctrine at an early age and schools will be required to teach that homosexual relationships are “normal” and equal to traditional marriage….

Another lie. Apparently to the Alaska Family Coalition, family values & let’s tell another lie are tantamount to synonyms.

And was it really the Alaska Family Coalition, or was it rather the Coalition of a Few Conservative Alaska Figureheads Funded Mainly by Interests from Out-of-State who Might Have a Sister Living in North Pole or a Nephew Who Served in the Air Force in Alaska for a Couple of Years but Probably Not Even That? The press release goes on to say:

Alaskan Public Offices Commission (APOC) reports filed by both campaigns on October 27 reveal that the Alaska Family Coalition has raised more than $637,000 while the Alaskans for Civil Rights/NO on 2! campaign has received just under $190,000 in donations.

Dan Carter, treasurer of Alaskans for Civil Rights/No on 2, explains further in a letter to Alaska newspapers dated October 30, 1998:

But the amount raised is only part of the story. Who and where it comes from is the real news in this report. While Alaskans for Civil Rights has received $35 from Outside gay/lesbian organizations ($25 from the Philadelphia Task Force and $10 from Pride, Inc. from Macon, GA), the proponents of this unnecessary measure were receiving almost $560,000 from Outside groups trying to rewrite Alaska’s constitution. When you look at how much money each side has raised from INDIVIDUAL ALASKANS, the financial reports are even more revealing. For every dollar raised by the NO on 2 campaign, 89 cents has come from individual Alaskans. On the other hand, for each dollar raised by the so-called Alaska Family Coalition, less than 9 cents has come from individuals living in Alaska. That’s the real issue in this campaign. Why should Outsiders determine if Alaska’s constitution should be amended? What is their agenda?

But that’s just some of the info that arrived in my email inbox.  More personally, as the debate leading up raged on in the media, some of it inevitably showed up on the radio that I listened to at work every day. Probably KSKA, then, Anchorage public radio. There was a call-in program about Ballot Measure 2, & some self-defined Christian brought up an argument about “family orientation.” I couldn’t hold back. As I later described to friends in an email:

I called up and talked about how this boy, JJ (I didn’t name him), had been the product of one of these much-vaunted heterosexual unions, had been severely sexually, emotionally, physically abused and neglected by his heterosexual father and his heterosexual mother…and the only reason he had a chance now was because we, two lesbians, had brought him into our family.

And you know, even with all that has happened since, it’s still true.

So to damnation to all you self-righteous “family values” advocates whose dictionary definition of family is so far from reality.

Jesse's graduation, West High, May 2006

And you know, even with all that has happened in the ten & a half years since, up until this very day, it’s still true: though I have no legal relationship, & never have had a legal relationship, with the boy once know as JJ who is now the young man Jesse — I am more a mother to him than his heterosexual biological mother is or has ever been, excepting only that she gave birth to him & he carries her (as well as his abusive father’s) genes.  (Though I credit her with caring more for him than his father, & staying in touch with him in ways he’s okay with, whereas his father he outright hates.) And furthermore, it was Rozz & me, two lesbians, whose bond of love & commitment despite its lack of sanction by our fellow citizens made it possible for Jesse to have a life of possibility & love, rather than life that would likely be no more than a repetition of the same cycle of abuse that had brought him to us in the first place.

So much for the superiority of opposite-sex marriage.

Which isn’t to say that opposite-sex marriage is inferior either. I am the child of heterosexual parents, whose love for & commitment to each other & to their family has been just as powerful a foundation for my life, as mine & Rozz’s has been for Jesse’s.  Marriage equality — get it?  Some relationships suck, some are marvelous.  Sexual orientation does not on its own make for one or the other.  It takes the individuals involved, their love, their committment, their elbow grease.

Be that as it may, on November 3, 1998, Ballot Measure passed by a 2 to 1 vote. With the vote half-counted, the Anchorage Daily News reported the following day:

The campaigns working for and against passage of the amendment steered around the thorny question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong.

But some voters saw the question as a referendum on homosexuality itself.

And in an email to friends, I commented:

And the majority rules, so therefore homosexuality is wrong? Of course not. Because us lesbians & gay men, dykes & faggots, queers, lezzies, homos — whatever else we may not know about ourselves, we do know this: Who We Are, from the inside, in regards to our sexuality. The meanings of our lives, from the center of our lives. Not defined, not prescribed or proscribed or whatever by the homophobic jerks or the plain dumb ignoramuses.

But it wasn’t just me or other lesbians & gay men who remained integrally human, regardless of the votes of ignorance or hatred. It was also many, so many, of our nongay families, friends, & coworkers:

Today I still go into work and find Bob, Jan, Nancy, Cassie, Sharon, Krista, Larry, Lisa — people, all of them heterosexual, who know me and who are not influenced in their feelings about me by this so-called “referendum on homosexuality.” They are still the people who watched my love for Rozz blossom & grow, saw the bite marks on my arm when JJ was terrorizing us, saw the results of her betrayal of me, all my pain. I have not changed as a result of this vote, nor have they.

So much for definitions applied externally. So much for the right winger denotation of “homosexuality.”

But you see now, I think, the reason for my ambivalence about same-sex marriage made clear. So much of my response to the events of 1998 arose out of the dilemmas of my own personal situation.  Not matter how much I might philosophize about the difference between enacted law & real reality, a part of me was deeply upset & angry that Ballot Measure 2 passed.  But another part of me was cynical about it all.  How could I help but be cynical, when D, the new girlfriend of Rozz who just scant weeks before had to my knowledge been my lifelong partner, somehow set herself up as some sort of spokesperson for marriage equality, & even finagled Rozz into appearing with her on Herb Shainlin’s radio show to tell Anchorage all about it?  I was self-preserving enough to avoid their radio appearance (I stuck with my normal radio station KSKA instead) — but yeah, of course it disturbed me.  Of course it affected my feelings.

But see, that’s the thing, all over again.  The demand for marriage equality isn’t a demand for people to believe that our (lesbian/gay) relationships are perfect, to require they be free of mistakes, breakups, divorces.  Marriage equality, get it?  The demand is simply to recognize in law the reality that already is fact in the substance of our beings: our relationships count to us, as much as yours do to you.  Yet in our relationships we will struggle just as much as our nongay neighbors with communication, commitment, love, all the stuff that makes up marriage.  When our rights are honored, no doubt we’ll be a good match for heterosexuals in our divorce rates, too. (Though I’d like to hope for better.)

But the law as it stands in Alaska &, at this writing, 43 other states, puts extra obstacles in our way at the outset: discouraging our commitments, treating our care for one another with contempt, destabilizing our families & our ability to take care of our children, making life harder.

How amazing, then, that so many of our relationships last out the years — as indeed with Jay & Gene, who met in 1978 at the Alaska Gay Community Center (as it was then called)  & are still together 31 years later.

The happy family, 2006: Mel, Rozz, Jesse (playing w/ Photobooth)

Fast forward again, then, to 2009, the present day. A lot of water under the bridge, both in the continuing fight for marriage & other forms of social equality, & in my personal life.  As already stated, Rozz & I returned to one another (only a year after our separation), talked a lot, worked it out, reestablished our relationship, & saw Jesse through the rest of his childhood, into his early adulthood.  What’s that, you say?  Family values?  Yes.

But as I’ve alluded to elsewhere, our relationship is changing once again, & we can no longer be called partners.  The stresses & pressures now are quite a bit different.  That’s for another post, or many, who knows: the upshot is that my partner Rozz, who I always understood to be a woman & a lesbian, decided last year to finally honor an understanding long in the making: not a she, but a he: an FTM, female-to-male transsexual, a transman.  Which has just a tiny bearing on me, since I’m still… well… a lesbian.  And more on that in later posts, perhaps.  But even more a difficulty for me: that Rozz — or rather, Ptery (pronounced like Terry) — has chosen, at least for now, to live his life off the grid, from the land, out of a backpack & tent, & not in Alaska.

So now Maine, now New Hampshire.  Before that, Vermont, Iowa.  A few months ago, California won, & lost again with Prop. 8. Before that, Massachusetts.  And I look at it all, & I’m of two minds: the one, rejoicing for those like me whose relationships are finally being honored in law as they are in our hearts.  And the other, in sorrow for my own loss.

Mel at Anchorage protest of California's Prop 8, 15 Nov 2008

But marriage equality, get it?  My loss is special, special to me; but no more special — nor any less — than is the loss experienced by anyone who suffers a breakup or divorce.  It is a private sorrow (though I speak of it publicly), that proceeds out of private lives, private choices.  It is not directly the fault of public institutions like marriage, even if those institutions exclude me. (Though that exclusion might well have been a factor contributing to our difficulties.)

And so despite the ambivalence born of my private sorrow, I will celebrate every advance that leads to the public recognition & honoring of any relationship between two (or even more!) consenting adults.

Go Maine!  Go New Hampshire!

* * *

Marriage is a public institution that grants certain rights & privileges, & also responsibilities, to people who have chosen to bond with one another in private relationships. Jay’s & Gene’s case in Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics was based in part on Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy.   And so in his judgment in February 1998, Judge Michalski wrote:

The relevant question is not whether same-sex marriage is so rooted in our traditions that it is a fundamental right, but whether the freedom to choose one’s own life partner is so rooted in our traditions.

Judge Michalski ruled that the Alaska Constitution, as it then stood, upheld our private freedom to choose our own life partners, whether we chose partners of the same or of opposite sex.

Ballot Measure 2 maintained that right for some people, but stripped it away for others.

We claim it still.  Nor are we alone.  From the Anchorage Daily News story on Ballot Measure 2′s passage published November 4, 1998:

Julie Stephens, a married mother of two, said she mulled the question over a lot and discussed it with her husband. In the end, she decided to vote against the amendment.

“People should be allowed to marry who they want to marry,” she said. “Times change.”

And sometimes they don’t.

That little flourish from ADN, more than anything, really riled me up.  And sometimes they don’t?!!!  I commented in email to friends:

And yet, in spite of the vote, they have. The ballot box does not measure the hearts of the people I work with, or my family, or my friends, or the families & friends & acquaintances of innumerable lesbians & gay men, who as the result of us coming out, as the result of their willingness to grapple in their own souls with the meaning of Difference, found themselves capable of still caring about us, of loving us *for* our Difference, even, not just in spite of it.

The changes that have happened have still happened. Regardless of the vote. The meanings are deep underneath, in our lives.

And that’s why ultimately we will achieve our goal of marriage equality, as well as other equal rights under the law.  Not just because of our own efforts, but because of the good hearts of our nongay friends and families, who recognize just as Julie Stephens did that it is indeed our right, everyone’s right, to choose their own life partners.  Who recognize that even with our differences, we are fundamentally the same in our humanity, no matter the propaganda that seeks to dehumanize us as degenerates or (in Wayne Anthony Ross’ 2009 update of his 1993 terminology) lima beans.

Remember that in the next weeks & months & years.  Yeah, we’ve still got a long way to go.  But how far we’ve come. Have heart.

* * *

I know you didn’t ask for it, but thanks all the same to Jay Brause & Gene Dugan for your efforts to establish marriage equality under the law not only for yourselves, but for all gay men & lesbians in Alaska &, ultimately, the U.S.  And also to all those in Alaska & elsewhere who have fought for those rights, & have voted for them.

I know you didn’t ask for it, but thanks all the same to my colleagues & coworkers, past & present, at the Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage, who did me & continue to do me the great service of treating me, simply, as a human being, as a friend, as a colleague.  Hey, folks: that’s what it’s all about.  May anyone who reads this blog take a lesson from you.

Mel & Ptery, Spokane, Apr 2009 (my brother Dave in the background)

And Rozz who is now Ptery, you’ll read this at some point, I’m sure.  Sorrow blah blah — we’ve come through so many times together, good & bad, easy & hard, & we are family & love & deep deep friendship to one another regardless of cis/trans, or whether we live in the same place, or however our relationship is shaped.  Thanks for coming to Spokane to see my dad with me, & thanks for being an ever-presence in my life.  I love you.

* * *

Further reading on Brause & Dugan v. Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics and Ballot Measure 2:

Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562 CI, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Superior Court, Feb. 27, 1998).

The original ruling by Anchorage Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski; ruled that Alaska’s marriage laws violated the state constitutional right to privacy and the fundamental right to marry, and constituted sex discrimination. Also available through the Freedom to Marry website, which also provides a list as of 1998 (I think) of Alaska statutes pertaining to married people in Alaska — i.e., the specific ways in which same-sex couples, not permitted to marry, are discriminated against by the Alaska Constitution as amended by passage of Ballot Measure 2.

Ruskin, Liz. (4 Nov 1998). “Gay marriage ban approved.” Anchorage Daily News.

ADN’s day-after report on passage of the Ballot Measure 2. Rachel D’Oro and Lisa Demer also contributed to the story.  I will attempt to forgive the rhetorical flourishes that pissed me off at the time.

Alaska Constitution, Article I, Section 25 (1998) — “Marriage.”

Ballot Measure 2 passed by a vote of 152,965 in favor, 71,631 against in the election of November 3, 1998. States that: “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.”

Clarkson, Kevin G.; Coolidge, David Orgon; & Duncan, William C. (Dec 1999). “The Alaska Marriage Amendment: The People’s Choice on the Last Frontier.” 16 Alaska Law Review 213.

Law review article examining the history & constitutionality of the marriage amendment.  Authors were all supporters of the amendment.

Molsberry, Ken. (26 Apr 2009). “1997-1998: Brause & Dugan v. Alaska.” The Freedom to Marry: Rites & Rights. Retrieved 7 May 2009. [Note 9 May 2011: individual article no longer available online.]

Puts Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics in the context of the overall history of the fight for marriage equality.

Molsberry, Ken. (26 Apr 2009). “1998-1999: Constitutional amendments.” The Freedom to Marry: Rites & Rights. Retrieved 7 May 2009. [Note 9 May 2011: individual article no longer available online.]

Covers the passage of constitutional amendments in both Alaska & Hawaii, the first states to enshrine discrimination against gay & lesbian couples into their state constitutions.

Robinson, B.A. (10 Sep 2007). “Same-sex marriage in Alaska.” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 7 May 2009.

A basic summary of the events leading to the passage of Ballot Measure 2 and its immediate (legal) aftermath.

Related posts:

1. Q & A: What happens when you click "Volunteer" at the Alaskans for Parental Rights website?
2. Divorce, financially interdependent partner style
3. Prop 8 again

We fought the good fight, people, and we WON!

The lima beans of the state are dancing. And so, I bet, are Alaska Natives, women who’ve suffered from domestic abuse & other violence, and all of the friends and allies of all of us.

Who next will Palin nominate to continue her neverending circus?

Not much more I have time to add at this point, except:

Booyah!

More on the day’s events later, from home, when I have time.

Related posts:

1. Anti-WAR letter: Opposing Wayne Anthony Ross
2. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
3. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"

• Fairbanks Daily News-Miner — “Reject Ross: Nominee for top legal post is wrong man for the job” (April 16)

The ADN is doesn’t really like him, but is quite a bit more week-kneed:

• Anchorage Daily News — “Our view: Hurtful bigotry” (April 15)

Both base much of their argument on WAR’s antigay bigotry , with neither of them convinced that he can fairly act on the behalf of the LGBTQ* Alaskans.  That’s great — because we “lima beans” aren’t convinced, either.

But there’s plenty else to oppose him on too.

I’m interested to learn what the Juneau Empire might say.  After all, thanks to Palin’s refusal to abide by Alaska Statutes on the appointment of former state senator Kim Elton’s replacement, Juneau has been without representation in the Alaska Senate for quite awhile now — and Wayne Anthony Ross played an instrumental role in the latest iteration of Palin’s revolving-door fiasco.

My sympathies to the people of Juneau.  You deserve better.

So do the rest of us, also too. Step number one: reject Ross.

* LGBTQ: That’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, & queer, for those who aren’t quite so familiar with our alphabet soup.

Related posts:

1. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
2. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"
3. WAR's antigay letter to the Alaska Bar Association, 1993

This is the full PDF that was provided to Steve, which included Mr. Ross’ response to the creation of an ad hoc group called Lawyers Against Discrimination chaired by John Suddock. The group was formed to attempt to prevent repeal of an ordinance, which had recently passed in the Anchorage Assembly, that prohibited the Municipality of Anchorage and municipal contractors from employment discrimination on the basis of “sexual preference.”  It was a big messy battle in Anchorage in late 1992/early 1993 in Anchorage. The ordinance was ultimately repealed. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (or preference) remains legal in Anchorage, as in the rest of the state.

The attached Acrobat .pdf document is page 7 of the May-June 1993 of the Alaska Bar Rag, a publication of the Alaska Bar Association.  The content under the general heading of Anchorage debates gay rights ordinance includes:

• John Suddock’s announcement of the formation of Lawyers Against Discrimination;
• Wayne Anthony Ross’ responding letter (which starts with Mr. Ross sneering at the group’s acronym LAD), written on March 19, 1993; and
• a response to Mr. Ross’ letter by Jeffrey M. Feldman, a member of the group.

A portion of the page including only Mr. Ross’ letter was posted earlier today at Progressive Alaska; a commenter there asked someone for a PDF of the entire page including Mr. Feldman’s response — that’s what I’m responding to with this post.  (I saw a copy earlier at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, I think, but I can’t find it right now, so I’m just doing it  myself).

Please note that the page is wider than letter-size, so if you want to print it out, you’ll need to adjust your printer somehow.

Alaska Bar Rag, May-June 1993, page 7

Bent Alaska has posted a transcription of Mr. Ross’ letter (though not John Suddock’s or Jeffrey Feldman’s stuff, so read it in the PDF). Here’s what Mr. Ross had to say:

Dear LAD: (LAD??? Intentional, on your part? Or merely a Freudian slip?)

I received your letter of 23 February 1993 regarding the Anchorage homosexual rights ordinance. While I am not surprised to see some of the names on your letterhead, I am most disappointed in other names thereon. I had more respect for some of you than I do now.

I am in favor of repeal of the measure. I see nothing involving civil rights in this matter. We all, heterosexual or homosexual, have certain rights. This bill seems to give extra rights to a group whose lifestyle was a crime only a few years ago, and whose beliefs are certainly immoral in the eyes of anyone with some semblance of intelligence and moral character.

It is a shame that you folks don’t have some causes you could become involved in that are of benefit to society in general. Instead, you support degenerates. No wonder the legal profession is treated with less respect than we wish.

If, as you apparently believe, morality is not based on long-standing God-given and God-instilled principles, but is something that changes from time to time based on public perception of right and wrong, then that is even more reason for you to allow this referendum to go to a vote of the people. After all, isn’t it your position that public morality is based upon whatever the public decides?

None of you has done anything publicly (to my knowledge) to attempt to protect the millions of lives of innocent children killed each year through abortion, yet you collectively contribute $5,000 to the cause of sexual perversion. It is quite disheartening to me to see my fellow members of our honorable profession display such a lack of proper priorities.

Wayne Anthony Ross

Nowadays, instead of being immoral, degenerates, and alleged practitioners of sexual perversion, we’re just… well… lima beans. Which Wayne Anthony Ross hates.

Related posts:

1. Against discrimination in Anchorage
2. Alaska newspaper editorials against WAR
3. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW

This post, I’ll let Rena Delbridge of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner explain it:

Gov. Sarah Palin is not complying with state law to fill a Senate vacancy by submitting three names at once, according to a legal memo.

Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow told a reporter Tuesday that Wayne Anthony Ross, the governor’s recent appointment to attorney general, had checked off on her process.

Ross, who has not been confirmed by the Legislature, told Rhonda McBride, a KTUU reporter, that he approved Palin’s process.

In other words, a process which does not follow Alaska Statutes — in this case AS 15.40.320, 15.40.330, and 15.40.350 (see the legal opinion of Pam Finley of Legal Affairs, Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency) — was vetted & okayed by the guy who Palin wants to serve as the head of Alaska’s biggest law firm, the Alaska Department of Law.

I’ll say that again: the would-be head honcho attorney of the entire state said that a process which does not comply with Alaska law was a process that the governor was okay to follow.  What were those scores in the bar surveys on Ross’s legal competence, again?

Not that Ross apparently cares about following the rule of law to begin with, as I earlier discussed:

“It seems to me the most important thing that can be done by the Senate is not argue with legal or illegal but to appoint somebody to represent Juneau,” said Ross, whose own appointment is up for a confirmation vote by the Legislature tomorrow.

Enter Rep. Jay Ramras.  He’s a Republican state representative from Fairbanks who is also chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Ramras presided last week over the House Judiciary hearings on whether or not to confirm Wayne Anthony Ross (aka WAR) to be Alaska’s Attorney General.  Here’s what he said today to the News-Miner:

“The murmurs around the building is that his confirmation is in jeopardy, but at this point I still intend to be a yes vote for him,” Ramras said.

“But I think this foretells the larger-than-life relationship that he is going to have with the governor and with the state,” he said. “We’re in for a colorful, bumpy ride. We won’t necessarily be coloring within the lines… There will be more of this to come.”

Pretty scary.  As I wrote in my reader comments on that story at the News-Miner website:

Representative Ramras: the lines you’re willing to stop “coloring within” here are the lines of Alaska state law. And yet you will vote for the appointment to be Alaska’s chief law enforcement officer, & head of its largest law firm, someone who thinks that legal vs. illegal is OPTIONAL?!!!

It’s disheartening to learn that the chair of the House Judiciary Committee seems to care no more about the rule of law than does the nominee himself.

Let’s hope the Legislature votes tomorrow in such a way that there won’t, in fact, be “more of this to come.”

But this is Alaska under Palinocracy.  So even if WAR goes down… there’s not too much doubt the circus will continue.

Update 7:25 PM: Andrew Halcro has an excellent analysis of the Juneau appointment fiasco.  Read it.

Related posts:

1. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
2. Alaska newspaper editorials against WAR
3. WAR's antigay letter to the Alaska Bar Association, 1993

His middling scores on the Alaska Bar Association surveys when he applied for seats on the Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are not simply statistics, but indicative of the opinion those of his colleagues in the bar who have had direct professional experience with him have for his professional competence, integrity, fairness, judicial temperament, suitability for the position, and overall performance. Obviously candidates for Attorney General are not judged according to the same standards as used by the Alaska Judicial Council — but perhaps they should be.

Today WAR himself offers further proof, in his public statement about the current standoff between Sarah Palin and Democrats in the Alaska State Senate over the appointment of a state senator for Juneau. Shannyn Moore has a good summation of the order of events here: essentially, Palin is attempting to bypass Alaska Statutes in how the replacement for former state senator Kim Elton (who has gone to work for the Obama Administration in the Dept. of the Interior) should be appointed.

This morning, this announcement, as reported by Sean Cockerham in the Anchorage Daily News politics blog:

State Senate Democrats are refusing to vote on the three names that Gov. Sarah Palin forwarded as appointees for the open Senate seat. They obtained a legal opinion this morning saying it is illegal for Palin to submit more than one name.

“There is nothing for us to vote on, there is no appointment,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat. “The governor has taken an unusual course which is outside the law and leaves us no choice but to ignore what she‘s done.”

(The legal opinion is here.)

Wayne Anthony Ross’ response:

“It seems to me the most important thing that can be done by the Senate is not argue with legal or illegal but to appoint somebody to represent Juneau,” said Ross, whose own appointment is up for a confirmation vote by the Legislature tomorrow.

Great. Palin’s Attorney General nominee doesn’t even care about the rule of law.

Not that she does, either.

Related posts:

1. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"
2. Alaska newspaper editorials against WAR
3. Still trying to quash the Troopergate investigation

Update, April 15, 9:10 PM: Just discovered I had the spelling of a name wrong: it’s not “Paige Hodgson,” but “Paige Hodson.”  My apologies: I was going by ear only, & found an internet reference that “confirmed” my mistaken spelling.  Separate post about her coming in the next couple of days, regardless of what happens with WAR’s confirmation vote.

Dear Senator/Representative:

I am writing on my own behalf to express my opposition to Wayne Anthony Ross as Alaska Attorney General. Amongst other things, this letter provides substantiation for one of the claims made in public testimony by Paige Hodgson Hodson during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 8 about Mr. Ross’ opinions about domestic violence.

I oppose Mr. Ross’ confirmation on several grounds:

• His biased and even misogynistic attitudes with regard to domestic violence, sexual violence, and violence against women and children, about which I have more to say below.
• His antigay attitudes, as expressed in his calling lesbians and gays “degenerates” in a letter to the Alaska Bar Association in 1992. In his House Judiciary Committee testimony last week, he compared lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual/transgender Alaskans to “lima beans,” a vegetable he “hates” but would still “represent” if he was hired to be the advocate for “United Vegetable Growers.” His un-apt and tortured analogy brings no reassurance to those of us who have already suffered the brunt of his antigay slanders.
• His longstanding opposition to Alaska Native sovereignty and subsistence rights, about which representatives of the Alaska Native community have testified.
• His lackadaisical attitude with regard to possible ethical violations by the Governor, as shown in his replies to Rep. Jay Ramras’ questions on Friday in the House Judiciary Committee (regarding Gov. Palin’s wearing of Arctic Cat gear, regarding her possible book tour, regarding other ethics-related questions). As has been pointed out by others, part of the Attorney General’s job is to advise the Governor on questions of executive ethics. Mr. Ross’ answers indicate he will more likely simply turn a blind eye.
• His qualifications as a practitioner of law. His middling scores on the Alaska Bar Association surveys when he applied for seats on the Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are not simply statistics, but indicative of the opinion those of his colleagues in the bar who have had direct professional experience with him have for his professional competence, integrity, fairness, judicial temperament, suitability for the position, and overall performance. Obviously candidates for Attorney General are not judged according to the same standards as used by the Alaska Judicial Council — but perhaps they should be. In any event, his mediocre scores are instructive. Further evidence of Mr. Ross’ capabilities as an attorney — particularly, I would say, with regard to temperament, and hence his ability to work productively with others — can be found in last Wednesday’s public testimony by Vic Vitale, a retired attorney who reported having tried many cases against Mr. Ross. Mr. Vitale described Mr. Ross as “ill prepared in court,” “bombastic,” and “very rigid,” and said that in his experience Mr. Ross “doesn’t give credence to contrary arguments.” The picture which begins to emerge is that of someone who has closed his mind and does not permit contrary evidence to sway him. Is this the person who should be appointed to direct the state’s largest law firm?

I want now to go into further discussion of his views about violence against women and children.

By way of background, I am an 18-year staff member of the Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage, where I am responsible for the preparation and layout of research documents, including our quarterly, the Alaska Justice Forum (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/). I’m also responsible for the design and maintenance of the by-now extensive Justice Center website. As such, I am very familiar with the groundbreaking research conducted in recent years by the Justice Center’s Dr. André Rosay and his research partners on sexual violence and violence against women in Alaska (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/vaw/index.html), and in fact helped to prepare most of the materials which Dr. Rosay presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he testified there on March 25 (http://uaajusticecenter.blogspot.com/2009/03/dr-rosay-presents-violence-against.html).

My familiarity with Dr. Rosay’s research findings made me all the more alarmed when I heard the testimony at last week’s Senate and House Judiciary Committee hearings on Mr. Ross’ appointment. I mean not only the public testimony of Leah Burton to the House Judiciary Committee on the statements about spousal rape and domestic violence which Mr. Ross is alleged to have made at a DADS group meeting in the early 1990s — testimony I personally find credible — but also the public testimony last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee of Paige Hodgson Hodson, who discussed comments made by Mr. Ross at a panel discussion a few years ago at University of Alaska Anchorage. According to Ms. Hodgson Hodson, Mr. Ross, who was one of the panel presenters, remarked that domestic abuse was on the rise because the equal rights movement “emasculated men” and caused them in turn to beat their wives. He further insinuated that women lied about domestic violence in order to gain advantage in child custody cases. On questioning by the committee, Ms. Hodgson Hodson stated that she had asked the university to set up the panel discussion, and that it was organized by Dr. Sharon Araji. Dr. Araji was at that time a sociology professor at UAA but has since joined the faculty of University of Colorado in Denver. In an attempt to verify the testimony, I wrote to Dr. Araji last week, and today received an email in reply, in which Dr. Araji wrote:

Yes, he was on the panel that was a community workshop. Andre [Rosay] and Pam [Kelley] are well aware of this workshop as [the] Justice [Center] also participated in it. I think it was Fall of 2005 — it was in conjunction with the PBS documentary “Breaking the Silence”. This was about children’s experiences when they were given to abusive parents in contested custody battles. I don’t remember what Wayne’s words were exactly, but his attitude was quite cavalier and placed the blame anywhere but on the abusive husbands/partners.

Research on the UAA website confirms that the event, cosponsored by the UAA Sociology Department and the Justice Center, was held on the UAA campus on October 14, 2005 in advance of KAKM’s broadcast of “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories” the following week. The event included a showing of the documentary, followed by a panel discussion and discussion with the audience. Justice Center faculty member Pamela Kelley, J.D. was among the panelists, along with Dr. Araji and Mr. Ross. I spoke with Professor Kelley this afternoon about the panel. Like Dr. Araji, she has no recollection of a specific remark by Mr. Ross about the equal rights movement “emasculating men,” but she indicated that Mr. Ross’ comments on the panel were much as both Paige Hodgson Hodson and Dr. Araji characterized them, “hook line and sinker” taking an extremist “dads’ rights” position that excused abusive men from any responsibility for domestic violence and abuse, and alleging that accusations of such crimes were generally fabricated in order to gain advantage in divorce or child custody battles — regardless of evidence to the contrary.

This should come as no surprise to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others who heard Mr. Ross’ testimony last Wednesday, April 8, because many of his statements there echoed such opinions — for example, Mr. Ross contended that Office of Children’s Services workers, who are tasked with protecting children from abuse, are actually trying to remove children from families in order to “get money from the legislature” or that at least some people are accused of child abuse “just because they offended an OCS worker.” Of course there are men who prove to be innocent of charges of abuse and domestic and sexual violence brought against them. But Mr. Ross, who claimed in his testimony that “all my clients are innocent” (by implication, even those who were found guilty in court), appears to have a strong bias against even entertaining the possibility of guilt on the part of a husband, boyfriend, or father accused of these serious crimes, regardless of the evidence. Mr. Ross also showed considerable ignorance of the facts regarding sexual violence in the state — for example, that Alaska has the dubious distinction of having the highest rates of sexual assault in the nation. “I’ve heard that,” he told the committee, “and I have no way to verify if that’s correct.” (Committee members, of course, had received ample proof just two weeks before when Dr. Rosay presented UAA research to them.) Asked by Sen. Lesil McGuire “how you intend to tackle and educate yourself” about these issues, Mr. Ross evaded the question, telling the committee how after his few days on the job so far, he now knew “where the men’s room was” and was learning how to use the state email system, commenting that “learning new things” was part of the fun of the job. Once again the word “cavalier” comes to mind.

Is someone with such a proven bias qualified to take on the role of Alaska’s chief law enforcement officer, and head of the department charged with prosecuting these crimes? Research shows that less than 30 percent of founded cases of sexual violence cases reported to the Alaska State Troopers actually result in a conviction (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/25/1-2springsummer2008/b_attrition.html). Might we not expect conviction rates for founded cases to go down even further under an Attorney General who, biased to believe all the accused to be innocent regardless of evidence, might well pressure the district attorneys under his supervision to “pull their punches”?

Mr. Ross claims that he can fairly represent and protect the rights of all Alaskans, including all of those he has shown enmity, disregard, and contempt toward throughout his long career. I am not so confident.

I urge you to vote against Mr. Ross’ confirmation as Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Melissa S. Green

Updates

April 15, 11:30 PM

More about Paige Hodson: She was a founder of Alaska Moms for Custodial Justice and helped to gain passage in 2004, I believe, of a law which protects abused children from being placed in the custody of the abusive parent — which reportedly won unanimous passage in both houses of the Alaska Legislature.

My letter/blog has now been excerpted or reprinted in full at:

• Think Alaska (excerpt)
• Bent Alaska
• Progressive Alaska

It was also quoted in the story “Temperament” by Krestia DeGeorge, Anchorage Press, April 15, 2009.

Related posts:

1. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"
2. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
3. WAR goes down! 23 yeas, 35 nays!