NEWSBYJAY BRENEMAN

Last month, we learned of very disturbing news from Ghana. The diverse west-African nation of 24-million people had plunged head-on into the murky waters of extreme homophobia, quickly closing the gap with Uganda and Nigeria, where ever-escalating oppression of LGBT has become vogue.

Thankfully, nations like Rwanda and South Africa continue to advance equality and justice, but the momentum in other countries —such as Ghana— seems to be quickly treading in a dangerous direction.

What is so scary about this situation is not necessarily the cultural tensions by those who are confused by or afraid of homosexuality; rather, it is the increasing politicization of homophobia, and the culturally and politically influential leaders of the country wielding fear and hate as a weapon.

Not unlike other countries around the world, Ghana has on its books loosely-worded laws prohibiting homosexual sex, but it was not until this past decade —after a surge of evangelicalism and fundamentalism— that the scapegoating of LGBT Ghanaians really began to rise.

Compounding the issue is a justifiable strengthening of a post-colonial Pan-African identity, one that seeks to establish social and economic practices based upon the countless cultural and ethnic histories and values shared by Ghanaians and other African peoples. This shift from Western influence is not a bad thing; I speak more to the point that the very history and perception of Western colonial and economic oppression is used as an excuse to subjugate LGBT (or perceived) community members, while shedding cultural or constitutional values of human rights and dignities.

As the number two discount retail chain in the U.S. with over $67 billion in annual sales, and intent on conquering Canada's retail market, Target Corp. undoubtedly wields significant socio-economic influence.

Recognizing this influence, Target regularly donates to good causes, encourages volunteerism among their employees, and boasts a generous and open work atmosphere (though their overseas record is less than spotless).

But as you might remember from last year, Target's name became synonymous with more than just shopping deals, having gained notoriety for their continued support of anti-LGBT politicians across the country; this after significant public outrage over their whopping $150,000 in cash donations to one hate-promoting group in Minnesota (nothing to twist here, WSJ).

All this in the name of seeking bigger breaks and business-friendliness from state politicians. (I guess a growth of $3 billion in sales in the past two years isn't friendly enough).

As a young soldier, I remember wearing the patch of the 2nd Infantry Division on my shoulder with a sense of pride and honor; even today it takes considerable space on a plaque in my home that displays the military awards and insignia that I have earned and worn over the years.

I can still roll off the Division motto —the gallant unit the patch represents— with the same sense of vigor in which I had repeated countless times back then. "Second to none!"

These days, I also see the same patch in the pictures of U.S. soldiers proudly displaying the bloodied bodies of the innocent and unarmed Afghani civilians that they maliciously slaughtered. Part of the self-dubbed "Kill Team," this platoon of young infantry men devised countless strategies to murder civilians then set it up as a legitimate attack.

They were proud of having killed so many out in the open and with impunity.

Last November, an Idaho court dismissed criminal charges against two men who were accused of raping a woman, due to the very specific and discriminatory wording in the state's rape statute.

At the time, subsection 7 of Idaho Code 18-6101 defined rape of a woman by deceit and concealment as unlawful if the she is penetrated after being tricked into believing that the perpetrator is her husband. The language of the law failed to include scenarios where rape by deceit occurred outside of marriage -- in the recent case, another man impersonated the woman's boyfriend. Thanks to one word in the law, a woman was denied the chance for justice, and must bear her injuries without fair legal recourse.

Shortly after this story broke on Change.org, thousands circulated and signed our petition urging Idaho legislators to correct this broken law, and the legislators listened.

Though it is sickening that such a case had to happen to bring about legal changes, it is heartening that such a change did occur in a relatively quick manner and without objection. On March 3rd, Idaho Governor "Butch" Otter signed Senate Bill 1014, which added more inclusive language to the rape statue.

One of the  major stories to come out of the 2010 elections was the unique role that corporate spending played in helping certain candidates. Perhaps no company stepped in more trouble than retail giant Target, which angered thousands of consumers by supporting a host of anti-gay candidates, from failed Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer to Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Roy Blunt.

After Target's political contributions came to light, LGBT activists and straight allies began organizing. Tens of thousands of emails went to Target's headquarters urging them to get out of politics, and numerous Facebook pages launched to protest the company. One of the most successful has been "Money I Would Have Spent at Target," which is keeping a running tab of all money that people would have spent at Target, if it wasn't for the company's anti-gay political agenda. The page has tracked close to $1 million that consumers spent elsewhere.

Change.org had a chance to catch up to the page's founder, and get some input on what's motivating consumers to keep their dollars away from Target, and whether it's having any impact.

In early 2007 — not long after winning reelection — Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced legislation that received a great deal of bipartisan support from her colleagues: The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 (GAPA). Indeed, gang violence became one of the main issues in her 2006 campaign.

Thanks to having had 44 cosponsors (including some of the most influential senators) from both sides of the aisle, the bill passed the Senate with unanimous support. However, its sister bill in the House garnered miniscule acceptance and practically died on arrival. Not wanting to give up, Feinstein tweaked the bill and reintroduced the legislation early in 2009, but wound up losing an astoning amount of support from her fellow senators, while no one in the House even bothered to introduce the legislation.

At the end of every 2-year session of Congress, bills that have not become law are cleared from the books, and legislators must reintroduce the bill and start again. Keep in mind, that the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) starts in a matter of weeks, and it is likely that Feinstein will reintroduce the legislation this January.

If made law, GAPA will widen the definition of gang activity, add new laws to the books,  increase the role of the Federal government in enforcement and prosecution, and impose harsher penalties and sentencing for juvenile offenses. Such measures will increase the amount of youth arrested and imprisoned, do nothing about enforcing current laws, and expand the government costs and debt burden upon every American.

The "prevention" part of GAPA pales in comparison to the punitive measures, and is nowhere near enough to facilitate or bolster the evidence-proven programs meant to solve or alleviate the root causes of youth violence for any major city, let alone the nation.

Born in the 1970s and 80s, there now exists an overhyped "tough-on-crime" political narrative that fails to prevent youth delinquency, while exposing juveniles to greater hardship and violence. Researchers and law enforcement experts frequently cite the rising prison populations and costs, the staggering overrpresentation of minorities in the courts and penal system, high recidivism rates, and a continued national youth crime problem,  as causally related to the misdirected approaches, out-of-control policies, and excessive punitive measures of the past three decades. GAPA is one of such policies.

A better course of action

There are two reasons for the waning support for Feinstein's GAPA, with the first being the associated costs (something cringed at by conservative lawmakers), and the second being the introduction of competitive legislation known as "The Youth PROMISE Act," or simply YPA.

The rising bipartisan support for YPA is directly proportional to the loss of support for GAPA; this competition exists because of the vastly different approaches the two bills have in regard to youth violence and gang activity, including the affect on government resources and tax dollars.

The intent of YPA is for the reduction of youth crime and delinquency — including recidivism rates — while reducing the financial and resource burdens at all levels of government through evidence-based methods and comprehensive community involvement. GAPA's emphasis on reactionary and suppressive approaches certainly run counter to the prevention and intervention framework of YPA.

Any support for this competing legislation (GAPA) will negatively affect the chances that YPA will make it through the committee process and become law.

Senator Feinstein currently sits on the powerful Judiciary Commttee, the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, and Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, as well as the Appropriations Committee. Were she to drop GAPA and lend her full support behind YPA, it will be on its way to becoming the positive and effective policy long past due.

Given the significant problem that gang violence poses for her state of California, not to mention the political boost that being "tough on crime" grants someone in public office, Feinstein's position is an excusable one. However, now is the perfect time for the senator to let GAPA whither away, as California — and certainly the entire nation — needs her full support and leadership on the Youth PROMISE Act of 2011.

---

GOT A TIP FOR US? Is there a story or campaign in your area that we'd want to know about? E-mail us at humanrightstips@change.org. Please also follow Change.org's Human Rights page on Facebook and Twitter. Photo credit: Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Hope. Change. Repeal. Snafu?

In a nation where equality is a driving force, and "support the troops" is a resurging mantra, it's a wonder that the very political party that the voting public swept into power two years ago has failed time and again in translating a combination of the two into a successful agenda.

Is it incompetence? Is it lack of true concern? Or is it purposeful political calculation? Given the recent attempts in repealing the discriminatory policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), I imagine my fellow veterans and servicemembers can readily characterize the recent developments as nothing more than SNAFU: Situation Normal, All F'd Up.

Time and again, repeal of DADT has gone nowhere. The results of yesterday's Senate vote seem no different, as proponents failed to repeal the 17-year-old policy even after having attached it to a defense authorization bill, normally a sure-fire way of getting anything through. The fact that they have continuously gone nowhere with their pledge, the Democratic leadership — even as a majority power — is demonstrably ate-up.

This weekend, December 4th, 5th and 6th, youth organizers and advocates from around the country are converging upon Washington D.C. to urge our legislators to set aside petty partisanship and secure our children's future.

Hosted by the organization Community Justice Network for Youth (CJNY), these community leaders and young people are calling upon Congress to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, and to pass the Youth PROMISE Act immediately.

Why now?

Violent crime among our nation's youth—particularly in impoverished communities—continues to plague our country. The historical methods of combating this epidemic have failed, and have even added to the problems faced by young people, their families, their communities, and our economy:

Good ol' Maine ... mountainous forests, a long rugged coast line, friendly people, and cycle-friendly roadways (just watch out for the moose).

I have traveled throughout much of the state, and it ranks high among my favorite places east of the Mississippi River, but there's a chance it may top that list: the Senate is set to vote on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), and Maine's two senators, Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins, are key to its success.

Having vowed to bring the measure to the Senate floor as part of the annual Department of Defense Authorization bill this month (much the same way DADT  became law 17 years ago), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is still seeking the 60 votes needed to secure its passage.

While it is likely that most Democratic senators will support the measure, the bill will need at least two Republican votes to break Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) promised filibuster. Currently, support from a number of other senators — including a few Democrats (here's looking at you, Sen. Mark Pryor) —is still up in the air. Among them, are Kit Bond (R-MO), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

Complicating this matter even further is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) commitment to block all Democratic legislation that does not fit his specific agenda, as stated in a recent letter reportedly signed by every Republican in the Senate, including Collins and Snowe.

Victory! Idaho has passed legislation to close this legal loophole. Now, women will be able to press charges against their rapists regardless of marital status. Thanks to the over 5,000 Change.org members who took action!

A recent court ruling gave rapists something to be thankful for: the state of Idaho is on their side, so long as they are not married to their victim.

Last summer, a woman in southwestern Idaho became the victim of her boyfriend's deceit, who tricked her into having sex with a stranger. After reporting this crime to the police, both men were arrested and subsequently indicted by a grand jury on charges of rape and conspiracy to commit rape.

Last week, both men were set free and all charges were dismissed, thanks to very specific wording in Idaho's rape law. Bound by this law, the judge had no other choice.

According to subsection 7 of Idaho Code 18-6101, rape of a woman by deceit and concealment is only unlawful if she believes the perpetrator is her husband. End of subject.

Perhaps for fear of condoning premarital sex, Idaho lawmakers excluded a woman's protection against rape that is committed by someone pretending to be her unmarried partner. It is truly sad when such legal flaws become known in such a manner, and we must wonder whether the flaw was intentional or an honest mistake. Either way, the state of Idaho has joined these two men in their assault against this woman, thanks to one simple word.

Idaho lawmakers must fix this serious problem, and extend the protections against rape to include unmarried people as well. They must revise the state rape law to recognize that deceiving a person into sex is rape, regardless of marital status.

By correcting this injustice, the two men that committed this act (and future perpetrators) will have to answer for their crime.

Photo credit: jstephenconn

GOT A TIP FOR US? Is there a story or campaign in your area that we'd want to know about? E-mail us at womensrightstips@change.org. Please also follow Change.org's Women's Rights page on Facebook and Twitter.