Bumhole of the Month: Hollywood Publicist Howard Bragman

Enquiring minds want to know why openly gay Hollywood publicist Howard Bragman is representing at least one homophobic business owner, hotelier Doug Manchester. Has Howard "The Fagman" Bragman overdosed on poppers or is the recession really that bad that he has to work for his oppressors in order to pay his mortgage?

Manchester, who owns two Hyatt Hotel properties in San Diego, donated $125,000 to the successful just-say-no-to-gay-marriage Proposition 8 campaign, which was approved by California voters in November 2008. (It is important to note that the Hyatt Corporation is said to have an excellent record when it comes to the rights of sexual minorities, according to Human Rights Campaign, a leading lesbitrangay lobby group in Washington, DC.)

In July 2008, Californians Against Hate, headed by Laguna Beach activist Fred Karger, co-launched a very successful boycott of Manchester's businesses with Unite Here! Local 30, since Manchester also has a terrible record on labor issues.

The world famous El Coyote Mexican Cafe in Los Angeles was also added to the gay community's shit list after the manager gave $100 to a Yes on 8 group. Many people boycotted the restaurant and patrons were often greeted by angry protesters.

Most of the world found out about Bragman's association with homophobe Manchester in a May 8, 2009, Michael Stetz column published in the San Diego Tribune. Oddly, the only quote from Bragman in the column is: "I understand what he [Manchester] did and why he did it." Wow, could we be any more vague than that? Spoken like a true publicist!

According to information in the Stetz column, none of which has been confirmed, Manchester is offering money to LGBT groups and $100,000 in conference rooms for them to hold events. Manchester has repeatedly refused to rectify his problems with labor unions, so I cannot fathom that any deserving LGBT group (or individual) would now go to his properties and take advantage of these so-called free rooms.

Perhaps Bragman needs his meds adjusted because his current representation of gay-hater Manchester is a far cry from Bragman's own words in a November 2008 column published in The Huffington Post. At the time, Bragman wrote, "So am I really under some obligation to give El Coyote money that may eventually be given to groups that oppose my civil rights? I think not. I will guac elsewhere." [Lie #1]

In the same column, Bragman writes, "But unlike El Coyote and other 'Yes on 8' supporters, I am willing to stand by and own my political beliefs -- even when they may cause me economic harm." [Lie #2]

He ends his column with: ". . . don't expect to see me sipping a margarita at El Coyote. I will not fund my own demise and I won't go where I'm not wanted." [Lie #3; any more lies, Howard, and your nose will be bigger than Pinocchio's!]

After reading his forceful column in support of gay marriage, gay rights, but opposing those who oppress us, why on earth is Bragman now defending Manchester's actions? The $125,000 donation from the hotelier to Yes on 8 is way more than the mere $100 from the El Coyote manager. (If I scratch my head any longer trying to figure all this out, I may draw blood and won't be able to finish this column.)

I realize this is harsh, but Bragman brings the word "whoremonger" to an entirely new level! There's no better way to define the award-winning Bragman (APLA and GLAAD) who comes across as a staunch gay rights activist but then just six months later is getting a paycheck from a man who oppresses sexual minorities. "Whoremonger" can also be used to define former President Bill Clinton who refused to honour the gay rights/labor movement boycott by recently appearing at a function (for money) at one of Manchester's hotels.

What Bragman has failed to realize, according to Karger, is that Manchester's $125,000 donation was basically seed money for Yes on 8 in the early stages of the signature process. Without that seed money from Manchester (and from Terry Caster, owner of A-1 Self Storage), "There probably would not have been a Prop 8 and same-sex marriage would still be the law in California," Karger said.

Karger told Crusader's Corner that others in the LGBT community that he has recently talked with do not want to accept Manchester's offer of money.

"It is a very sad situation that Bragman has created. On one hand you have so many LGBT organizations that are in need of money, but they do not want to cross the picket line and accept his offer of free conference rooms for events at the boycotted hotel. It's a cruel strategy to try and divide the gay community like he is doing. That's very surprising for anyone who has an ounce of self-respect."

According to Wikipedia, Bragman resides in Los Angeles with his male partner, a horse trainer, which is a very good thing now that Bragman is most certainly a horse's ass!

California's Proposition 8: The Aftermath

Here's an e-mail I sent today (December 17, 2008) to Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez:

Dear Steve,

I am the activist formerly known as Andrew Exler who overturned Disneyland's ban on same-sex dancing in the 1980s. I legally changed my name to Crusader more than a decade ago since the media often refers to me as a "civil rights crusader."

Your recent columns regarding Prop 8 have been excellent and have greatly encouraged dialogue between both sides of this controversial issue.

Yes, lesbigays should have the right to legally marry (forget about civil unions which are insulting and are not the same as real marriage, the same between men and women). Personally, I am totally anti-marriage (gay or straight), but I support it for those who want it.

Yes, people are free to donate to the political cause or candidate of their choice, and also have the right to speak out for or against those political causes and candidates.

Yes, consumers have a right to not do business with individuals or businesses for any reason whatsoever; it's called the free enterprise system.

No, people who donate to candidates or political causes do not have a right to hide their true occupations on the donation paperwork. After spending about ten hours of volunteer research for one No on 8 organization, I discovered numerous contributors to Yes on 8 (in the $25,000 range) were not really "housewives" or "retired," but actually owned small or large businesses and in fact had a real occupation.

State law requires donors to list their true occupation/business, yet I am convinced that there is definitely a pattern of Yes on 8 donors intentionally keeping that information secret, which violates the law, is dishonest and unethical. What and who are these folks hiding from?

The bottom line is that I'm more concerned about large contributors to Yes on 8 that hide behind occupations of "housewife" or "retired" than a small $100 contribution from a self-admitted Mormon restaurant worker.

Just the same, people have a right to protest and boycott El Coyote (or any other business) if that is what they want to do. A small amount of their tips and money spent at the restaurant did end up in the Yes on 8 side, so the protesters make a valid point. I just feel energies are better spent to expose and boycott the huge corporate donors to Yes on 8, which is a hateful and discriminatory law.

In the same light, if people are upset that Apple (and other corporations and individuals) donated large amounts to No on 8, then those people don't have to do business with Apple. They can also refuse to purchase or rent movies with Brad Pitt or directed by Steven Spielberg (both who are said to have donated $100,000 each to No on 8).

Quite frankly, I'm really sick of the religious zealots who say that they love lesbigays, they aren't bigots, they aren't homophobic, etc. It is an oxymoron to love people and then take steps to violate the basic rights of sexual minorities (or anyone else).

Crusader
Palm Springs, CA
(760) 799-xxxx (direct line) [redacted for blog post]
http://crusading4u.googlepages.com/

Calilesbigays Can Now Marry

(May 15, 2008) In a surprise ruling, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in California today. In a nutshell, the gist of the 172-page decision is found on page 120:

"Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs."The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Ronald George with Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno concurring.

"Although I agree with the majority's conclusion, I have to disagree with its path," Santa Ana civil rights attorney Ron Talmo told Crusader's Corner.

"I believe that a prohibition on same sex marriages is best analyzed as gender discrimination. The Court's distinction of the race cases made no sense. Equally burdening two groups on the basis of their gender is still gender discrimination. I fear the ramifications of that analysis in other civil rights areas. On the plus side, the Court's error on that point required them to address the sexual orientation classification issue. Here the majority concluded that sexual orientation discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny review. This is probably the more important conclusion than the broad view of marriage as a fundamental right conclusion."

Talmo is the attorney who successfully argued before the California Supremes that ladies' day discounts violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 1985). He also was victorious in convincing a conservative Orange County jury that Disneyland violated the rights of two young gay men who were ejected from The Gayest Place on Earth after disco dancing together at the Tomorrowland Terrace in 1980.

Gay Marriage Ban May Return in November

According to their website, a group calling itself Protect Marriage is waiting for the California Secretary of State to qualify Proposition 22 for the November 2008 Primary Election. That constitutional amendment seeks to legally define marriage in California as between a man and a woman.

"The Constitutional Amendment cannot pass," West Hollywood city council member John Duran told Crusader's Corner. "It is worth each of us giving everything we have to hold the court decision."

Duran, a longtime civil rights lawyer said that if the amendment passes, the only recourse is in federal court, which will be disastrous. "The US Supremes will not give us a favorable decision, so the federal courts will not protect us," he said.

Crusader's Corner recommends that people supportive of marital equality for everyone donate money to Human Rights Campaign California Marriage PAC.

Personally, I feel that marriage is highly overrated, but if lesbigays want to have the same rights, responsibilities, and heartache that their straight counterparts currently enjoy, so be it.

Today's gay marriage ruling was surprising to me because the California Supremes (with Chief Ronald George at the helm) ruled in favour of Boy Scouts of America's oppressive policies in two 1998 court rulings: one involving gay Eagle Scout Timothy Curran; the other dealing with two twin Boy Scout brothers (Michael and William Randall) who happen to be atheists.