Pride & Opinions

I remember when I was an undergrad that during GLBT pride week, or whatever it was called, that culminated in the Queer Union dance, there was always a sidewalk chalking that highlighted prominent GLBT figures throughout history. Though there was some question about individual people’s inclusion and whether those people were “really” gay, it was always provocative to be forced to rethink traditional historical narratives about family and important figures. Ramon’s Gay Life Blog at About.com has a good link to a Short History of Gay Rights, and here’s a good place to start:

Gay history. How far we’ve come given where we started.

“In 1779, Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that would mandate castration for gay men and mutilation of nose cartilage for gay women,” About.com Civil Liberties Guide Tom Head explains. “But that’s not the scary part. Here’s the scary part: Jefferson was considered a liberal. At the time, the most common penalty on the books was death.”

Today, some 224 years later, we must continue to demand gay equality. We must. LGBT teens make up 33% all teen suicides. Gays and lesbians are still targets of hate crimes. If my partner were severally ill, I would have no legal right to make medical decision or transfer my pension in the case of my death. The list of things I consider natural rights seems endless,. Yet I pause to celebrate how far we’ve come. I must, in hope of a brighter future.

A little learning’s never a bad thing.

GLBT, GLBT History

GLBT, GLBT History

I always think of the PTA as the bastion of stay at home moms in all their stereotypes, but the Family Equality Council blog has a different take - they say that LGBT parents should join the PTA not only to create connections with other parents but also to increase diversity and inclusiveness throughout the school:

It’s particularly important that LGBTQ parents get and stay active in groups like the Parent Teacher Assocation (PTA). PTA activities often set the tone for the school culture. Parents build relationships with other parents and teachers through shared work and efforts to improve the schools, and therefore get invested in each other and each others’ families.

Being involved in the PTA should first be about improving the educational experience of a child’s life, but in the case of LGBTQ parents, involvement doubles as a way to make the school safer and more inclusive of diverse family types.

I admit, I hadn’t really thought of this angle, but it’s a good tip, especially since study after study indicates that hatred and discrimination decrease with actual contact to people who are different from oneself. What do you all think - would you join the PTA to increase diversity in your child’s school?

GLBT Families, GLBT, PTA

GLBT Families, GLBT, PTA

When I got married in 2004, my sister was my honor attendant, and did me the gigantic favor of wearing probably the only dress of her adult life. What I didn’t know, when asking her to do me this gigantic favor, was that my wedding fell on the weekend of the Minneapolis Gay Pride Parade. This was good for my sister, I guess, because our wedding was downtown in the same area as the parade, so there was quite the party. But it was one hell of a weekend, and not exactly un-busy, even though she wasn’t the one getting married!

If you’re trying to get things settled for your summer, Ramon’s Gay Life Blog at About.com has a good round-up of both the 2008 Gay Pride Dates and also the 2008 Black Gay Pride Dates, which definitely deserves more attention. As Ramon points out,

In many instances, LGBT people are thought of and referenced as one homogeneous community and not as the diverse cultures within it. Gay and lesbian people come from a variety of backgrounds and ethnic groups. One could say some of us represent a culture within a culture. These differences can pose unique challenges when addressing individual needs. And often times many LGBT people feel they better relate to same-gender-loving individuals in their own ethnic groups.

One example is African-American LGBT people, whose unique needs prompted the creation of a number of black LGBT prides in major cities throughout the country. These pride celebrations for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender African-Americans are growing in numbers and are usually scheduled during the same time of year as traditional gay pride parades.

Whatever your culture or persuasion, there’s a parade for you this coming June - find it!

GLBT, Gay Rights, Gay Pride, 2008 Pride Parades

GLBT, Gay Rights, Gay Pride, 2008 Pride Parades

Sorry for that impromptu little vacation last week. I promise to keep this here blog updated for the foreseeable future.

So, I know that the Oscars were a while ago, and that most people are over and done with them. But if you weren’t paying attention, you might have missed the best GLBT news to come out of them, which is that the documentary Freeheld won an Oscar. What’s Freeheld, you ask? 365gay.com says this:

(Hollywood, California) A documentary film on the struggle by New Jersey police officer Laurel Hester’s struggle to have her domestic partner recognized as her next of kin has won an Academy Award.

“Freeheld: The Laurel Hester Story” was directed and produced by filmmaker Cynthia Wade. The award was presented Sunday night at the 80th Annual Academy Awards, held at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles.

“We are thrilled that this powerful film, one that has the potential to change hearts and minds concerning fairness for gay couples, has been honored,” said Neil Giuliano president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “We congratulate Cynthia Wade on her achievement and say ’bravo’ to the Academy for their selection.”

Hester had been a lieutenant with the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office. Diagnosed with terminal cancer she was forced to retire. In late 2005, as the disease progressed she appealed to the Ocean County, New Jersey freeholders to give her same-sex partner her death benefits.

Although New Jersey recognized same-sex couples it left it up to local governments to determine if benefits should be offered the partners of employees.

After listening to her request, and her concern that when she died her partner, Stacie Andree, might lose their home, with little discussion the freeholders rejected the request.

The story was picked up across the country and as pressure mounted on freeholders she was allowed to make a second plea a month later. Filmmaker Wade traveled to Ocean County and chronicled the events that followed.

Too ill to appear in person Hester (pictured) appeared via video tape from her hospital room.

In a frail voice, and often gasping for air, Hester begged for recognition of her partnership with Andree.

“All I’m asking for is that you sign the resolution and that you make a change, a change for good, a change for righteousness and a change in the lives of so many people that have dedicated themselves to county government.”

After the moving tape was played a second vote was held and resolution passed.

A month later Hester died. (story)

“Freeheld: The Laurel Hester Story,” premiered last year at the Sundance Film Festival.

Wade said that she promised Hester she would submit the film for consideration for an Academy Award.

Garden State Equality which had lobbied freeholders on Hester’s behalf held an Oscar party in New Jersey to watch the awards presentation. Members let out a cheer when the award was presented to “Freeheld”.

Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein said the film should spur on state lawmakers to amend the civil union law to provide for full marriage for same-sex couples.

“Because of the failure of the civil union law, there are new Laurel Hesters all across New Jersey,” said Goldstein.

” Same-sex couples denied equal benefits by employers, struggling to make ends meet, struggling to maintain their dignity, in the face of a civil union law that segregates, discriminates and humiliates.”

Last week a government commission released a report saying the civil union law had failed to provide the same equality as marriage.

The Oscar win is a triumph, and a stark reminder about the necessity of protections for GLBT relationships, because the threat of discrimination is all too real. I’m glad for them, but sad Laurel Hester couldn’t get what she needed.

Link via Lez Keep it Real.

Freeheld, Oscars, GLBT, gay marriage

Freeheld, Oscars, GLBT, gay marriage

Perhaps because of the fact that the Democratic nomination for president this year is between a black man and a white woman, questions of identity politics seem much more prevalent in mainstream news coverage. Basically, they seek to ask the question - to what extent is having a phsyical representation of minority participation in government as important or more important than the policies that that person represents.

Earlier this year on an episode of The View, Kathy Griffin summed up one perspective when she said that voting for Condoleeza Rice as president (were she ever to run) would not be a pro-minority act, since although she is a black woman, the policies she supports are not pro-women themselves. Others made the argument, when John Edwards was still in the presdiential race, that his policies made him a better friend to minorities than the fact that both Obama and Clinton are actual members of minority groups.

Now, some GLBT groups are seeking to get into the representation game by actively seeking openly GLBT folks to serve in the next presidential administration, regardless of their political affiliation. As 365gay.com notes,

The Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute, the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Stonewall Democrats have formed The Presidential Appointments Project.

In a statement the groups said that the effort will be non-partisan. It is aimed at “growing the pool of openly LGBT professionals who would be qualified and ready to accept politically appointed positions in the next presidential administration.”

“Our goal is to make sure all Americans have an equal voice in their government,” said Chuck Wolfe, president of GLLI.

The Presidential Appointments Project will identify, recruit and vet openly LGBT applicants for thousands of executive branch positions that will be filled with political appointees after the next president is sworn in the organization said in the statement.

I think that this is an admirable goal, but that we shouldn’t substitute material representation for political change - if all the GLBT folks now in government as a result of this task force are there but don’t support programs to expand rights for Gay Families, it’s a step forward, but not a particularly big one. What do you think?

I tend to think of sexuality in pretty abstract terms, by which I mean that I’ve never really worried about what categories people fall into, and tend to fall in the camp of “let people define themselves however they like and I’ll deal with it,” since it doesn’t seem to affect me one way or the other. I don’t mean that in an apathetic way - I’m devoted to the cause of increasing inclusivity, but as a GLBT Ally who identifies as heterosexual, it’s never seemed to be my place to tell others how they should or shouldn’t define their sexuality.

So I found this article at Ramone’s Fay life Blog about “fearing” bisexuality to be interesting. He asks,

The bisexual man: a confused player that can’t be completely trusted by other men or women since neither can fulfill his complete desires. The bisexual woman: a sexually liberal confidant eager to share her desires with multiple partners of choice. These: perceptions that run rampant among skeptics who consider bisexuality a phase (or as a permission slip for infidelity) and not a position of sexual moderatism.

Ironically, bi misconceptions don’t go both ways (at least not equally). The men are easily seen as hosts of mistrust and the women: mavens of straight male fantasy. Are bisexual women more readily accepted than bi men? Why are bisexual women so often reduced to sex? Why is the bisexual man seen as having an insatiable sexual appetite?

His roundup of different reader reactions to bisexuality and its perceived stereotypes is interesting; I recommend reading the whole thing.

bisexuality, GLBT, stereotypes, bisexuality myths

bisexuality, GLBT, stereotypes, bisexuality myths

One of the most disturbing phenomena for me in dealing with teenagers is the frequency with which they use the word “gay” to describe things that are bad, and seem to have no self-consciousness about why this might be a bad choice. I’m constantly sort of horrified, because it seems to become way more prevalent in situations where you’re dealing with lots of kids at once, like at camps or other summer programs. I coach debate, so this is something I’ve definitely noticed - when you’re dealing with 4 kids, they tend to be pretty polite and circumspect, but when there are seventy of them? Watch out.

One of the easiest ways to combat this situation, however, is to talk with your kid, or the kids you’re with, about GLBT issues up front, so you don’t have to have the scary moment where one kid calls another kid “gay” and your impulse is to scream even though you know it’s the wrong reaction. That’s why I was glad to see that Mombian has a guest post up at Teens Today with Vanessa Van Petten that’s about talking with your teens about LGBT issues. As she says,

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people are more visible in today’s society than ever before. LGBT-rights issues are often in the news, and LGBT-headed families are taking an open, active part in local schools and communities. (Gay and lesbian families live in 99.3 percent of all counties in the U.S., according to the 2000 Census.)

Not only that, but as children reach their teens, some may themselves discover that they are LGBT, or at least wonder about it. For all these reasons, it is important to discuss with our children what it means to be LGBT, how to respond when meeting someone who is LGBT or who has LGBT parents, and how to be tolerant and respectful of others even if one doesn’t believe that being LGBT is morally right. If you need convincing that such knowledge is a necessity in our world today, read the Human Rights Campaign’s “A Few Facts” (PDF), a brief overview of the changing structure of U.S. families, children of LGBT parents, the impact of bullying and anti-LGBT name-calling at schools, and the early development of sexual orientation.

She says it’s not meant to be comprehensive, but I think it’s a good place to start.

GLBT Families, GLBT, Teenagers

GLBT Families, GLBT, Teenagers

I saw this article at the Family Equality Council Blog, and thought it would make a good follow up to my post earlier about assimilation, if nothing else than as a counter-point. Plus, it speaks to one of my favorite topics, which is the language used to describe various political functions.

As you know, Valentine’s Day (Today!) is also Freedom to Marry Day, which describes itself as a “gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide.” But they stress that, although allowing GLBT folks to get married is one of the aims, they’d prefer you not describe the political movement as one to “win gay marriage. Why? Simple. As Evan Wolfson, the executive director, explains,

Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win “gay marriage.” We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives.

Phrases such as “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” imply that same-sex couples are asking for something other than marriage. They imply that same-sex couples deserve something different or lesser than the security, protections, safety-net, and respect that married couples cherish. And they play into the right-wing’s fear-mongering that gay people are a threat to marriage, that equality and inclusion would somehow unacceptably “redefine” the law (in a country dedicated to those very values), and that “Defense of Marriage” is the answer to committed couples seeking to participate in a precious institution.

Marriage is not defined by who is excluded from it, and gay people are not the first to challenge its denial. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first court ruling striking down race restrictions on who could marry whom. In Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court held that “the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.” The court explained that “human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains”; when you are denied the freedom to marry the person precious and irreplaceable to you, it’s not like you can just catch the next one.

I think he makes a persuasive argument; do you?

GLBT, marriage, gay marriage, freedom to marry week, valentine’s day, marriage equality

GLBT, marriage, gay marriage, freedom to marry week, valentine’s day, marriage equality

In the past few years, as the debate about GLBT politics has shifted from ideological questions about whether GLBT people really are different to more practical concerns like marriage equality and tax burdens, a question has risen from formerly more radical folks: is assimiliation really the right path, or does it mean giving up on the right to be different and free that was the fight in the first place?

Clarence Patterson, the acting executive director of the New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, in an article called “The Endless Game Between Homophobes and Assimilationist Gays” on Alternet, says yes. I thought his opinion was particularly well stated, so here’s the bulk of it:

With respect to the marginalization of lesbians and gay men, when the layers of rhetoric around the oppression are peeled back, they reveal a similar strain of guilt/confusion/envy/repulsion among homophobes and heterosexists. At its root, anti-Queer sentiment is based in a visceral sense that what we do is wrong and distasteful. Our staunchest opponents do not care about nor are they compelled by how much we love each other, how successfully we raise our children, or how dutifully we pay our taxes, or how we serve the public good in numerous other ways. In the final analysis, they just think we’re nasty.

Anti-Queer arguments based in religion, culture and the creation of children are all smoke screens to cover up something that’s really very base: disgust. Trying to rationalize and cover up disgust with other excuses merely serves to justify the perpetuation of political, social and physical violence against Queer communities. But if we pay attention to the messages from the LGBTQQI movement — particularly the messages we send ourselves — it would appear that we have forgotten that our marginalization is based in others’ discomfort around our sexuality, and we’ve responded by not talking about our sexuality and instead talking about love.

Love isn’t the answer when Queers are being accused of recruiting, contaminating, enticing and luring more and more people into the mysteries and ecstasies of our sexual depravity. Love isn’t the answer when the media and public respond with hysteria that there are “men on the down-low” as though it’s a new, dangerous dynamic peculiar to only African-American men as opposed to all of the closeted masses. Love isn’t the answer when we’re accused of threatening the “institution” of marriage — an enterprise with a 50 percent success rate — or held partially responsible for bringing about terrorist attacks …

The answer is sexual freedom, in which self-expression and fluidity in sexuality is seen as enriching and valuable, not nasty.

This idea that professing love isn’t the right answer seems especially fitting given that it’s Valentine’s Day and everyone is focused on how just to profess their love the best. But Patterson goes on to argue that “We must not lose sight of the fact that the Queer struggle is rooted in exploding the strictures on sexual freedom in America. The fear of us is the fear of an America in which every adult is free to find sexual satisfaction with the consenting adult of their choice in whatever manner they choose. We would do well to remain clear about the motivations of our enemies when we go up against them — and respond by denying our nastiness, not just proclaiming our love. They certainly have not forgotten.”

What do you think? Is assimilation selling out? Is focusing on love instead of sex the wrong way to achieve acceptance?

GLBT, Homophobia, Assimilation

GLBT, Homophobia, Assimilation

Even if I don’t always like the people they’re supporting personally, it’s been my experience that the ACLU is generally on the right side of the freedom argument. And if they have to defend the KKK in order to make this argument, I am all down. Because this is ridiculous:

The ACLU sent a letter in November to the school board’s attorney on behalf of Gillman, asking for clarification as to whether a variety of symbols and slogans, such as the rainbow flag or “I support my gay friends,” would be allowed at the school.

The school district replied that it would not allow any expressions of support for gay rights at all because such speech would “likely be disruptive.” The district then said that such symbols and slogans were signs that students were part of a “secret/illegal organization.” according to the ACLU.

The ACLU became involved after Gillman and other students approached it saying there was atmosphere at the school in which students said they were routinely intimidated by school officials for things such as writing “gay pride” on their arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing.

I just can’t imagine a world in which students should be told what they should and should not write on their notebooks, assuming the things they write aren’t death threats or hate speech. But basically, Benjamin James Stevenson, the ACLU lawyer, summed it up better than I could when he said:

“Because the Supreme Court has held that students have a right to free speech at school unless that speech disrupts the educational process, many administrators think they can just slap the label ‘disruptive’ on anything they don’t like and get away with stomping on students’ First Amendment rights . . . The law doesn’t work that way . . .School should be a marketplace of ideas, where students share new ideas and learn about themselves and others. Just talking about gay rights or any other topic outside of class isn’t inherently disruptive.”

Is there even really a question about that?