Discrimination At Work Hurts. A Letter from a Reader in NYS. Can You Help?

This is a letter I received from one of my readers:

Robert F. Strait  January 2 at 5:50pm Report

Heres my story:
I'd been dealing with alot of crap the past 2 years plus.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Sexual Harassment at my job.

I was hired by a company back in December 2005; the company makes air-conditioning units for 'PUBLIC Transit Subway Cars.'

 I started out assembling cables. Did different jobs while there. I was well crossed trained. My reviews were very good. I was a team player, friendly, hard worker, worked overtime, went places for the company, mowed the lawn, and painted the walls and floors. I would buy pizza, coffee & donuts for my co-workers.
Some of the employees knew me from outside of work, before I even started working there.... So they knew I was 'gay'.
I did not wear my sexuality on my sleeve and I wasn’t ashamed either. I didn’t care if my co-workers knew I was gay. I didn’t come out and say, I’m here, I’m queer, get used to it. 

 I was there to do a job, a job I got paid for doing. 

My trouble started after co-workers began telling newer employees I was 'gay' that was when a female co-worker, exposed herself and grabbed me.

She grabbed my crotch. She felt me up. I was embarrassed. I knew she had done this to others, for I had seen her many times before.

 I told my co-workers and bosses. I was told, it was just who she was. 

While leaving work one day, she was in her car behind me in the parking lot, leaving. I looked in my rear-view mirror and she had lifted her shirt to expose her chest.
It seemed like no one cared that she was like this. For employees were afraid to complain and get fired. Employees afraid of retaliation, like I am facing now. 

I told my co-workers and bosses. They told me to pick my battles wisely. This female worker continued to do things like this until one day, I got fired.

 A witness said this female had been acting this way for the past 5 years or so.
While she was acting out, my co-workers started to call me names. My name of Robert, soon would become Roberta, along with Homo, Queer boy, Tinkerbelle. Soon everyone knew I was gay.

 I still continued to do my job. My partner did get a job there also. He faced some of the same things as I did.

After months, I had enough. After telling my bosses and nothing stopped. I went to 'New York State Division Of Human Rights' and filed a complaint. I went to NYSDHR for help without having to have a lawyer. This was June 2008.
It wasn’t long after I filed my complaint, my co-workers started in on me harder.

Everyday it seemed someone was calling me names. My supervisor told employees, I made a complaint. And now I was the bad guy. I was no longer liked. For me speaking up, it caused me to be hated. Not only did people dislike me for being gay, but now for being a tattle tale.

There was no confidentiality there, by management or employees. No one stood up for their rights. I ended up pulling my back out back in March'08 and it started to hurt again in Aug '08. I went out on Workman’s Comp.
While I was out on Workman's Comp, NYSDHR found probable cause after an investigation.

In Jan '09, NYSDHR sent a letter, stating they found probable cause to go to court. A couple days later, I was fired.

I filed a 2ND complaint with NYSDR for retaliation. As the months went by, a court date was set for April '09. 

NYSDHR assigned me a lawyer to handle the court date. A week before the court date, my former employer wanted to settle out of court. From June '08 till April '09, my former employer didn’t offer to settle my matter in anyway, except tell confidential information to my co-workers. 

I became so disliked!  My once work friends, now wouldn’t talk to me.

After NYSDHR lawyer and I talked, we decided to settle out of court to save face/jobs of my witnesses and myself.

My partner still worked for this company. His treatment got worse. Graffiti was spray painted on the outside of the bldg. Jan, 2009. Also anti gay remarks. Chewing tobacco was spit on his work bench. By me filing a complaint, it caused him trouble. He ended up quitting because of that. 

He couldn’t deal any longer. Our former employer even admitted to NYS Department of Labor, my partner quit due to a hostile work environment. 

My gut feeling was to go to court. It wasn’t about money; it was the principle of the matter.
NYSDHR lawyer said it would be better to settle and move on. My former employer (owner) signed the agreement to settle. 90 days to pay the settlement amount, along with compliance to NYSDHR and offer training of harassment and discrimination.

I never talked about the agreement or the amount that was to be paid. Then on the 89thday, one day before the company was to pay. They filed a lawsuit against me in Court for assumed breach of contract.

They stated that I was telling people about my settlement agreement. I did not speak to anyone regarding the stipulations of the agreement. 

This was in July 09. This was another way of retaliation to get back at me.
Plus when my former employer filed court papers, it became public information. Court & County papers are open to the public. So anyone can read and find out what the agreement said. This treatment has caused me to be open now, willing to share my story. Since my former employer
submitted all the papers of the agreement July 6Th 2009, to the County Clerk’s office. It’s available under the Freedom of Information Act.

I ended up hiring a lawyer to defend myself. Knowing I did not breach the agreement.

After 3 months of doing nothing on my case, I questioned him; he told me if I pushed him, I’d have to find another lawyer. I fired the lawyer. He took my case because he said it was easy and the money would add up. It was never about money. I stand behind my principals.

NYSDHR stepped back in. They filed a motion to intervene. Since it is a State Agency, they should have the right to hold a compliance hearing. If a Judge was to let this case go ahead, then what propose would NYSDHR serve? I went to NYSDHR so this case wouldn’t go to court.

 A Judge was assigned to the case in July 09. In April 2010, he asked to be dismissed from the case!

During the time from July '09, till April 2010, not much happened on the case. NYSDHR did get to intervene. 

While all this is going on with me, my partner filed a complaint with NYSDHR against our former employer. During a fact finding conference with the former employer, their lawyer, NYSDHR, myself (as a witness) and my partner.
Within the 1st 5 minutes. Their lawyer asked NYSDHR if no probable cause was found, could they sue.

My partner and I felt intimidated. My partner didn’t want to have to deal with the same stuff as I did, so he withdraws his complaint. Intimidation? Yes it was. Our former employer can’t take responsibility for their or actions of their employees. I’m still waiting. To see if justice will be served. What good is NYSDHR? If they can’t enforce NYS laws. 

I can’t believe that because I filed a complaint, my life has been affected in such a bad way.
I received a letter from First Deputy Commissioner stating that my ex employer filed for bankruptcy. No truth has come of this as of yet. It has been said that my former employer wants to sue me, because they said I made up the whole bankruptcy story, even knowing it came from NYS.

July, 20th 2010. Judge Mulvey dismissed the case and sent it back to NYSDHR, to hold a Compliance Hearing. To investigate who breached the contract. 

NYSDHR scheduled a compliance hearing for Nov, 8th. 2010 then got pushed back to Dec, 15th. A hearing was held. My former employer had 2 witnesses state they heard me talking about the agreement/settlement. Yet both witnesses did not write a statement, it was written by The Human Resources person. The owners step daughter.

The NYSDHR lawyer presented a copy of the agreement, that my former employer filed July, 6th. Showing the whole Stipulations of Settlement, if they wanted confidentiality then would have not allowed the Courts Clerk Office to scan without a private clause added. 

After the hearing, the Judge and the Lawyer for NYSDHR said they both had their positions cut; my case would be passed onto someone else.

These actions were clearly retaliation for complaining about sexual orientation, discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Now I believe I need to stand up, speak up loud and clear. In hopes others wouldn’t have to be treated the same way as I have been. I am willing to speak so others could learn from what this is done to me.
It’s important to have a voice. Discrimination has to stop.

 I will testify before Congress. I want to leave all this behind me and move on. 

But since this lawsuit, it has made me want to become an advocate for Human Rights, Equality for all, to help stop 'Discrimination.' I am reaching out to all of you, for your help in this matter.
I am not weak; they can-not break me. For I can handle the truth.

Any help you could offer, I would appreciate it.
My hometown newspaper won't even look into this; my former employer labels me as disgruntled! I want Justice and Equality for All. Am I asking for too much?

After I received this post from Robert, This is what I ask of him:
What help do you need? Do you want your full name published?
His response:
Feel free to edit anything you feel needs it.
I am fine with my name being published, after all it's my story and it's what has happened to me. I don't mind sharing if it can help others.
I am still waiting for NYSDHR to see what the next step is.
Either my former employer can pay up or the Commissioner can reopen the whole case.

If this whole mess can happen to me, it can happen to others.
I've asked Lambda Legal for help, they don't take on private cases.

I filed a complaint with NYS Attorney General, only to be told, they only investigate civil rights cases that effect many people not just one person.

So I guess i'm lost as what to do, besides keep telling my little story and see where it gets me.

Robert F. Strait

Navy investigating raunchy videos made aboard nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

BY NINA MANDELL

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Kinter/AP

The USS Enterprise is set to deploy later this month.

AP

Capt. Owen Honors

A series of raunchy videos featuring gay slurs, female sailors taking showers and references to bestiality has a Navy officer in hot water.

The videos, which were made between 2006 and 2007 and shown on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise, were released to The Virginian-Pilot shortly before the carrier was set to take off with the alleged producer of the videos – Captain Owen Honors – in charge.

The videos include two female sailors standing in a shipboard shower stall pretending to watch each other – before Honors joins them. Another reportedly shows sailors pretending to masturbate and refers to one group one board the ship as a gay slur.

Most disturbing to many of the sailors, who reportedly complained to senior Navy officials and later the newspaper, was that when Honors produced the videos, he was the commanding officer's deputy.

"They were [his] project," one former Enterprise sailor told The Virginian-Pilot. "He was the one coming up with scripts and the jokes. He was the one planning it."

MSNBC.com reported that while the Navy was aware of the videos, it did little more than tell the officers in charge to "knock it off."

Honors, meanwhile, recognized early on that some of his underlings weren't as comfortable with the content.

"Over the years I've gotten several complaints about inappropriate materials in these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels," he reportedly said on the videos. "This evening, all of you bleeding hearts... why don't just go ahead and hug yourself for the next 20 minutes or so, because there's a really good chance you're gonna be offended."

The videos, according to a statement released to the newspaper Friday, were just meant to focus "the crew's attention to specific issues such as port visits, traffic safety, water conservation, ship cleanliness, etc."

But after the videos became public, the Navy launched an investigation into videos, MSNBC reported Sunday.

"The videos created onboard USS Enterprise in 2006-2007 and written about in The Virginian-Pilot article on Saturday, January 1, 2011, are clearly inappropriate," the Navy told MSNBC in a written statement.

It's unclear whether or not the ship, which is set to deploy this month, will still be under Honors' command.  That has many of the sailors who complained about the videos, feeling extremely uneasy.

"When the ship pulls away from that pier, he's it," one officer told the Pilot. "To me, that's scary."

nmandell@nydailynews.com

Below Report from CNN

Any Hopes for gay-rights gains shift Now to the Courts

Gay-rights activists, acknowledging they will lose momentum for their agenda in Congress when Republicans assume control of the House this week, are pinning their hopes for further gains in 2011 on a series of incremental measures and a host of federal court cases.

Last month’s historic repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military signaled an expanding political acceptance of fuller integration of gays into American life. Yet activists and observers caution against expecting anything as dramatic from the next Congress.

For instance, a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, is virtually out of the question in the near future because of the GOP’s rise to power in the House, advocates said.

“It’s frustrating. The repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was a tremendous victory, but there’s a great deal more to be done,’’ said Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group.

Smaller steps may be possible without congressional approval, however. Rights groups plan to push President Obama’s administration to make regulatory changes, such as reversing a 27-year-old ban on gay men donating blood and requiring that federal contractors not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of GOP members who support gay rights, said party leaders have already told him that the economy will take center stage as the new Congress is sworn in Wednesday, forcing major social issues into the background.

Cooper, whose group filed the lawsuit that helped lead to the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, said he is focusing on smaller-bore provisions that might appeal to the economic sensibilities of Republicans, such as legislation that would affect taxes on health benefits for same-sex partners and spouses.

“If we can stick to what unites us, we’re going to be OK,’’ he said.

The retrenching comes after two years of relatively steady progress. In addition to the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, Congress passed a hate-crime bill in 2009 that included protections for gays and lesbians. Obama issued a memorandum extending limited benefits to federal employees with same-sex spouses, such as sick leave to care for them. And in 2010, the US Census recorded same-sex married couples for the first time.

Advocates had hoped to continue racking up milestones with at least two pieces of legislation on Capitol Hill: one granting gays and lesbians protection from discrimination in the workplace and another overturning the Defense of Marriage Act.

Americans for Truth, an Illinois-based advocacy group for heterosexual marriage, is hailing the new Republican majority control in the House as a huge victory that it hopes will put the brakes on further progress toward what it calls “taxpayer-funded homosexuality.’’

“My hunch is the Republicans will try to avoid these issues; they won’t allow them to progress,’’ said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth.

Gay marriage is now legal in five states, including Massachusetts, and in the District of Columbia. But because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government cannot grant them benefits and protections available to heterosexual couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns, take advantage of estate tax breaks, and receive spousal benefits offered by Social Security, such as survivor compensation.

Focus will once again turn to the courts, where rulings against the military’s ban on openly gay servicemembers had helped create a favorable political environment for repeal. There are five lawsuits pending across the country that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, including two key cases in Massachusetts.

One, filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley, alleges that the Defense of Marriage Act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples when it comes to federal funding programs.

“Treating people differently is unfair, and frankly it’s a disadvantage to the government,’’ Coakley said in an interview last week. The law “forces Massachusetts to keep two sets of books.’’

In the other Massachusetts case, 19 plaintiffs allege that the Defense of Marriage Act harms them financially by denying them the same benefits that traditional married couples receive.

Among them are Bridgewater residents Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, who married in 2004 but pay roughly $1,000 more each year for health insurance than a heterosexual married couple. The US Postal Service, where Gill works, won’t allow her to add Letourneau to her family health plan because of the Defense of Marriage Act, so she has to buy a separate policy.

Jamaica Plain residents Betty Jo Green and Jo Ann Whitehead, who also married in 2004, are denied $1,200 per year in additional Social Security benefits they would receive if they were a heterosexual couple.

“It really does feel like we’re second-class citizens,’’ Whitehead said last week.

In both cases, US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor last summer, saying that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it interferes with states’ right to define marriage. The federal government is appealing and is scheduled to lay out its reasoning this month in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where formal arguments are expected this summer.

The other cases challenging the act have been filed in Connecticut, New York, and California. Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which filed the multiplaintiff case in Massachusetts and the one in Connecticut, said that while the cases wend their way through the judicial system, gay-rights advocates should continue pushing Obama for changes.

“I think it’s really important that we not let the administration get a pass,’’ said Lee Swislow, executive director of GLAD. “There are things that can happen without the courts or without Congress.’’

But it’s unclear how much further the president is willing or able to go on gay rights. Obama, before leaving for vacation in Hawaii, said his views on gay marriage are “constantly evolving,’’ but he said he still doesn’t support it. Obama said he believes that civil unions offer the same benefits and protections.

Political analysts said that with Obama facing reelection in 2012, it could be risky for him to go further.

“I think that the risk assessment is going to be driven by the base,’’ said Jennifer Duffy, senior analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “How badly do they need the base? Is the base enthusiastic and with him? If they have to fire up that base, then [the Defense of Marriage Act] is one issue that could help.’’

Public opinion has been shifting toward expanding gay-marriage rights, with support increasing from 37 percent in 2009 to 42 percent last year, according to surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. At the same time, opposition dipped below 50 percent for the first time, to 48 percent.

“The public is ready to accept full equality,’’ said Richard Socarides, who was senior advisor to President Clinton on gay civil rights and who last month became president of Equality Matters, a new advocacy group in Washington. “But we have to bring policy makers along.’’

by: By Donovan Slack
Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter@DonovanSlack. 

Is Obama's Homophobic Ambassador Gunning for His Job?

When President Obama appointed Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to serve as U.S. ambassador to China in 2009, political strategists deemed it a cunning political move. Enlisting Hunstman, a fast-rising GOP star, would surely preclude him from launching a 2012 presidential bid. Or so they thought... 

This week, Newsweek's McKay Coppins advances the notion that Huntsman will run in 2012. It's a highly speculative piece and some are already pouring cold wateron it. Nevertheless, it relies on two reported moments. First, the interview Huntsman gives to Coppins.

"You know, I’m really focused on what we’re doing in our current position,” Huntsman says. “But we won’t do this forever, and I think we may have one final run left in our bones.” Coppins then presses him on 2012 and Huntsman "declines to comment." To Coppins that was a "winking response" or "about as close to a hat-in-ring announcement as you’ll get from a sitting member of the incumbent’s administration." 

Secondly, Huntsman insiders tell Coppins that the former Utah governor has been meeting with "several former political advisers in Washington and Salt Lake City to discuss a potential [2012] campaign." And that's a wrap.

Obviously, Coppins isn't laying out enough facts to make an airtight case—but is his story plausible?

• No: This Just Doesn't Make Sense, writes James Fallows at The Atlantic:

Political speculation is fun, and we do a lot of it (a) because so many weird things do happen, and (b) there's so little penalty for being proven wrong. But before Newsweek gave this such splashy display, they might have asked: does this pass the "are you kidding" test? To me, it does not...

Huntsman is part of the Obama administration. He is right in the middle of dealings with America's most important foreign-policy partner/challenge. So in the GOP Primaries, how exactly is he going to out-anti-Obama anyone else in the field, given that he has served Obama (and, yes, the country) so loyally? The retorts from all the other Republicans are almost too easy. "If Ambassssadorrr Huntsman is so concerned about the Obama threat to America, then why,...?"

• Actually, It Does Make Sense, counters Taylor Marsh:

Republicans know Barack Obama is vulnerable in ‘12, but they’ve got no one in their roster right now who can come close to doing the job. There’s an opening, with whoever it is that takes on Obama needing to be a heavyweight in order to win. Ambassador Huntsman fits that description, plus has the resume and stature that the gang of Tea Party politicians trying to grab for the lowest rung simply cannot match.

• Still, You Can't Let a Good Headline Go to Waste, writes Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress:

“The Manchurian Candidate” is an excellent headline for an article about the hypothetical presidential campaign of an ambassador to China. So on those grounds alone I think you have to run with the story. Second, I do think that if you look at the history of Republican presidential nominees there’s something to be said for getting in the game and running even if the time isn’tright. Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and John McCain all ran and lost before they got the nomination. 

• This Would Be Tough for Huntsman to Pull Off, notes Michael Shear at The New York Times:

His path to the nomination is by no means certain. He would have to contend with Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who – like Mr. Huntsman – is Mormon, and would likely try to tap into a similar network of supporters and donors. And the kind of argument that Mr. Huntsman would likely make to Republican voters is not dissimilar to the argument that would come from other Republican governors like Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota or Mike Huckabee of Arkansas or Mitch Daniels of Indiana: that he has the management experience necessary for the job.

By JOHN HUDSON  
www.theatlanticwire.com

In the Boondocks of Utah City, New Clubs for Gay Students

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Eric Hamren of the Utah Pride Center trains student organizers. Last January, nine high schools in Utah had active Gay-Straight Alliances; last month, 32 did.

By ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: January 1, 201

Some disapproving classmates called members of the new club “Satanists.” Another asked one of the girls involved, “Do you have a disease?”

But at three local high schools here this fall, dozens of gay students and their supporters finally convened the first Gay-Straight Alliances in the history of this conservative, largely Mormon city. It was a turning point here and for the state, where administrators, teachers and even the Legislature have tried for years to block support groups for gay youths, calling them everything from inappropriate to immoral.

The new alliances in St. George were part of a drastic rise this fall in the number of clubs statewide, reflecting new activism by gay and lesbian students, an organizing drive by a gay rights group and the intervention of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has threatened to sue districts that put up arbitrary hurdles. Last January, only 9 high schools in Utah had active Gay-Straight Alliances; by last month, the number had reached 32.

The alliances must still work around a 2007 state law that was expressly intended to stifle them by requiring parental permission to join and barring any discussions of sexuality or contraception, even to prevent diseases.

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, a conservative family group, promoted the law. Its authors expected, she said, that requiring parental permission would deter some children from joining the alliances and that restricting topics for discussion would mean that “there’s not a lot of purpose in being there, and the clubs end up being pretty small.”

“I just don’t think these clubs are appropriate in schools,” Ms. Ruzicka said. “You can talk about providing support, but you’re also creating a gay recruiting tool.”

But members of the new clubs said they were undaunted by the restrictions, which they said showed a misunderstanding of what the alliances meant for students who had often lived with fear and shame — at home and at school.

Kate Hanson, a 15-year-old bisexual sophomore at Snow Canyon High School, said that having the alliance “helps you realize that there are others like you and there are people who support you.”

“I was so excited when I heard we could have a G.S.A.,” she said. “I just thought it would be a fun club.”

With the increase in alliances, Utah is joining a growing national movement to provide friendly meeting places in schools for students who have often felt like misfits, clubs where gay youths and their supporters can socialize, speak out against discrimination and sponsor events like the Day of Silence in honor of bullied students.

Since the first club was formed in Massachusetts in 1988, by a gay boy and a straight girl with same-sex parents who were tired of being stigmatized, the organizations have spread to most of the country, reaching more than 4,000 high schools and even a handful of middle schools by 2008. The clubs are surging anew after recent publicized suicides of gay teenagers, said Eliza Byard, director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Networkin New York.

The struggles of the alliances in Utah are known to advocates around the country. In 1997, when Salt Lake City school officials discovered that they could not single out alliances for a ban, they took the extraordinary step of outlawing all extracurricular clubs in district schools.

That move drew national attention and helped spur the creation of new alliances in other states, said Carolyn Laub, director of the GSA Network, a group based in California that provides leadership training.

The Salt Lake district eventually backed down, but as of last January, only nine clubs were active in the state, six of those in the capital.

Publicity about the breakthrough in St. George, an isolated city in the red-bluff desert of southwest Utah, has inspired students in other parts of the state, and by last month at least 32 clubs were operating, said Eric Hamren of the Utah Pride Center in Salt Lake City. He spent last spring and summer locating and training student organizers, finding some of them at the annual Queer Prom that his organization puts on for gay and lesbian students around the state.

But resistance continues. Some schools are still imposing legally shaky barriers, like requiring the unanimous approval of student officers or prohibiting activities that violate “community morals,” said Darcy Goddard, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Utah.

As she did in St. George last year, Ms. Goddard has warned officials that such policies may violate the federal Equal Access Act— a law passed by Congress in the 1980s, mainly to protect Bible study groups in schools, that has become a prime tool for protecting Gay-Straight Alliances from arbitrary hurdles.

In 2007, conservative groups pushed through the state Student Clubs Act, still on the books, that was aimed at the alliances and reflected what rights groups called misleading stereotypes.

The law requires parental permission for participation in all school clubs and says organizations can be barred to “protect the physical, emotional, psychological or moral well-being of students and faculty.”

Students say the law reflects misconceptions about both homosexuality and the alliances, which in many cases are led by straight girls who want to support gay friends or siblings. The club at Dixie High School here, for example, is led by Bethany Coyle, a senior who describes herself as straight and a supporter of equal rights. She said that one vice principal had asked if the club would recruit homosexuals and that students had scrawled epithets on a sign-up sheet, scaring off some potential members.

A teacher advising one of the new clubs in St. George said that he opened each of the weekly meetings with a reminder of the forbidden topics of discussion, but that it was proving irrelevant. The students, he said, seemed more interested in making friends and planning events.

Jason Osmanski, a 17-year-old junior who was a driving force behind the new alliance at Snow Canyon High School and now serves as its president, said that while members sometimes shared stories of harassment, they did not need to discuss sexuality at the meetings.

If the students’ legal right to a club seems firmly established, antigay feelings in the community persist. Alliance members in St. George were disheartened by school board elections this fall, when several candidates spoke out against the groups, saying they hoped parents would refuse to give their permission for students to join.

The students say that they are ready to adapt to any reasonable conditions, and that they will persevere
.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 2, 2011, on page A13 of the New York edition.

Jake Shears/Scissor Sisters' “I’m proud to be that. I know what it’s like to be a teenager, and what it’s like to come out

Jake Shears created a spoof profile on a rent boy  

 

Jake Shears, the lead signer of the Scissor Sisters has spoken out against homophobic bullying but also his pride at being a role model for gay teens.

In an interview published by ContactMusic, he said: “I’m proud to be that. I know what it’s like to be a teenager, and what it’s like to come out, and the difficulties of it all. And how it feels to be in school and be bullied.

“When I read about suicides and gay teenagers it’s so tragic. I don’t think teenagers realise that it actually does get better. The minute you’re done with high school your life gets better.

“If I’m the go-to for new gays, and if I can be someone that gay teenagers can look at as someone who’s happy and who has made a good life for himself, then that’s great.

“I had people like that for me when I was growing up, and it was very important.”

The Scissor Sisters front man added: “My advice would be to just stick to who you are. There are sacrifices you have to make, there are crosses that you have to bear. You’re always going to be portrayed in a certain way, you’re always going to be pigeon-holed. That’s the price that you’re going to pay.

“But it’s a price that’s worth it. It’s a responsibility. So that would be my advice – remain exactly who you are.”

Earlier in the year, Jake Shears engaged in some canny viral marketing for the band’s new album with a spoof advertisement on a leading gay male escort website.
by PinkNews.co.uk Staff Writer 

Entrapment and then Murder..Now Cover up? FOLLOW UP: DeFarra Gaymon, Bank CEO, Murdered by vice cop?

In the official account of the killing of Atlanta bank executive DeFarra Gaymon in a Newark park, the dead man is cast as an aggressor caught in a sexual act who threatened to kill a Sheriff's Office detective.

Familiar Pattern in Newark Park Slay

Cop’s story on DeFarra Gaymon’s killing fits dubious New Jersey “aggressive cruiser” theme

  

 As Edward Esposito, a detective in the Essex County Sheriff’s Office, tells the story, he made an arrest in Newark’s Branch Brook Park last July 16 and went back into the park to find his lost handcuffs while his partner secured the suspect.

Esposito was bending down to get the handcuffs when DeFarra Gaymon, the chief executive of an Atlanta bank, approached him. Gaymon, 48, “was engaged in a sex act at the time,” according to a statement by the Essex County prosecutor’s office.

Esposito, then 29, identified himself and attempted to arrest Gaymon, who fled. A chase ensued. At its end, Esposito claimed, Gaymon threatened to kill him and lunged for him. Esposito shot and killed Gaymon.

This tale of aggressive men who are cruising in New Jersey parks grabbing undercover officers is one that detectives in the Essex County Sheriff’s Office have told many times before.

And there are some good reasons to doubt them.

Following the killing, Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s statewide gay lobbying group, made an open records request to the sheriff’s office seeking documents that alleged “sexual conduct” in Essex County parks from 2005 to mid-2010.

The Sheriff’s Office released records on 167 arrests or investigations in 14 parks, with 148 of those arrests or investigations occurring in Branch Brook Park or South Mountain Reservation, which is located in West Orange, Maplewood, and Millburn. Of those 148, 130 were arrests for lewdness or criminal sexual contact of men who may have been cruising for sex or, in some cases, were observed having sex with other men.

A consistent theme in the 130 reports by plainclothes officers involved in what were clearly organized stings was that they were walking through a park when a man, without any prompting from the officer, exposed himself or grabbed the officer’s crotch.

In a 2005 complaint concerning an arrest in South Mountain Reservation, the officer wrote that the suspect “approached the undersigned and engaged in small conversation. The suspect then grabbed the undersigned’s crotch area, then began to walk away stating to undersigned ‘Come On.’”

A 2007 record on an arrest in that park reads, “Then with out warning or saying a single word, [the defendant] leaned back and grabbed the undersigned groin area, causing pain and discomfort.”

A report on a 2010 arrest in Branch Brook Park states the defendant “stopped in front of me less than a foot away (facing me). [The defendant] asked ‘Do you have a big dick?’ As [the defendant] was speaking he grabbed my penis with his right hand and squeezed it.”

A 2007 report on a arrest in Branch Brook Park has the defendant asking in Spanish, “Do You Want Me To Suck Your Dick?,” and continues, “At the time Detective advised him that he was not into that. The suspect then grabbed Detective hand and asked him to walk with him. Detective pulled his hand back, and the suspect then became aggressive by grabbing for the crotch area of Detective causing Detective to jump back.”

To believe these assertions, one would have to believe that nearly every time a man made an unwelcome advance by exposing himself or groping another man in these two parks, that man just happened to do it in front of or to a plainclothes officer. That is unlikely at best, and that same issue arose in a 2004 lewdness arrest of a gay man in the New Jersey section of the Palisades Interstate Park, which is not patrolled by the Essex County Sheriff’s Office.

In the Palisades case, the plainclothes officer, Thomas Rossi, testified that he had busted roughly 100 men for lewdness in the park since 2002. Rossi claimed the men exposed themselves without any prompting. The man testified that Rossi repeatedly urged him to expose himself. A number of other men who were busted in the park also told Gay City News they were urged to expose themselves by police.

After a conviction in the Palisades case, an appellate court reversed the decision, writing that the “Defendant presented a persuasive attack on Rossi’s credibility, raising serious doubts about whether it was believable that a police officer could have had almost a hundred men approach him, pull out their genitals and start masturbating without any enticement by the officer at all.”

The Essex County Sheriff’s Office appears to have a similar problem. Officers may be urging men in cruising spots to expose themselves or touch the officers and arresting them when they do so. That trick may explain why Gaymon fought with Esposito, assuming that part of the detective’s story is true.

The gay man Rossi arrested testified that he told the police officer, “You entrapped me, you entrapped me” when the detective displayed his badge. While he did not resist, his anger was palpable during the trial and when discussing the case with Gay City News.

Edel Gambe, another gay man arrested by Rossi in 2004, told Gay City News in 2005 that he initially thought Rossi and his partner, Wayne Zelna, were police, but then doubted that as they became more forceful. Gambe tried to protect himself.

“I thought they might be trying to gay-bash me,” Gambe said. “They started punching and kicking... I started screaming for help right away.”

Gambe was charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer, two counts of resisting arrest, lewdness, and attempted escape. He pleaded guilty to lewdness and resisting arrest, and received a lighter sentence than most of the men arrested in that park.

“When you’re innocent, it’s not a good deal,” said Gambe, who remained very angry about the case months after it ended. “I got this better deal because I’m innocent, and the prosecutor knows that.”

Eleven arrest reports had aggravated assault or resisting arrest charges among the 96 lewdness or criminal sexual contact reports over the five-year period in South Mountain Reservation. Five lewdness or criminal sexual contact reports out of 34 in Branch Brook Park over that time had aggravated assault or resisting arrest charges.

The men who were charged with resisting arrest typically fled or flailed their arms to avoid being handcuffed, while the men charged with aggravated assault fought with police.

Ultimately, the records do not support any firm conclusions about what took place between Esposito and Gaymon, but they raise questions and suggest some answers.

“There are some very suspicious patterns in these arrests, and they also heighten concerns about DeFarra Gaymon’s encounter with the Essex County sheriff that ended in his death,” said William K. Dobbs, an attorney and a longtime gay activist.

The Essex County Sheriff’s Office and the Essex County prosecutor’s office did not respond to a detailed email seeking comment. Garden State Equality also did not respond to multiple phone calls or emails seeking commentary.

BY DUNCAN OSBORNE

Adamfoxie:

This tragic story is one of sadness and bemusement when one looks at a Police Department bent on enforcing either old sex laws or imaginary ones. When you send homophobe cops inside parks looking for sex, cops carrying a gun and either conflicting feelings or hateful ones about who they are or what they are supposed to be looking for an arrest: A mix for disaster, just like the one that happened to Defarra Gaymon.  

If We gave the Essex County Sheriff's Office every benefit of doubt, there still the stink test and this case stinks to high heaven! To presuppose that these cops arresting these guys are cruising the park for sex, can arrest 100 guys and 100 percent of the time you had 100 guys that drop their pants and grab the cops crouch..stinks!!!!!! By the law of averages alone it makes no SENSE.

I invite readers to research this case on this site or any other, public records, anything..and follow this case, so there would be a resolution to that is NOT just, yes not just, because we can not make Mr. Gaymon whole,  He is dead and so is his reputation...but at least we can a throw a light at events like that; So Police Departments, wether they are in NY or NJ or Florida or any other state, will get out of the sex enforcement  business. So we can eliminate the jobs of law enforcement, that instead of law they enforce perjury and lies..and all for what?

Adam