Pride & Opinions

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?

What with all the focus on identity politics in this election season, it only makes sense that although neither of the candidates stirring up the constant discussions of race v. gender identify as GLBT, or really anything other than strictly heterosexual, there would be focus on GLBT voting patterns. I see it as part of the larger question about what the purpose of progressive voting is - what obligation to those folks who wish to vote progressively have to being realistic, and what expectation should underserved populations have at being catered to by mainstream candidates.

For GLBT folks, this is especially pronounced, since gays make up such a small portion of the overall population, and so much hatred is targeted at the notion of gay rights and gay families from the right. Should GLBT progressives suck it up and vote for the Democratic candidate without demanding much focus on GLBT issues because they’re so much better than the alternative, or is that asking too much? Some would say it is too much, and I totally understand that opinion.

Terrance at The Republic of T has an excellent post on this titled “Voting for Ourselves.” In it, he argues,

As gay man with a partner and a family, that comes in to very sharp focus. But as I look around I can’t help wondering why so few of us are doing he same, and why. Far be it from me to tell anyone else how to vote or who to vote for, but when buckets of gay dollars and hordes of gay volunteers touch down in Iowa, and a major gay organization appears to be deploying resources in New Hampshire, for a candidate who can’t even divorce herself from DOMA (and who may be “the least supportive� of the Democratic candidates [Via Queerty.]), I find myself wondering if the Republicans aren’t the only geniuses at persuading people to vote against their own interests.

Two major candidates have at least come out in favor of a full repeal of DOMA. That’s not support for marriage equality, but it’s a step towards removing a significant barrier to marriage equality. How, then, do we support a candidate who would leave most of that barrier in place, given the problems that “leaving it to the states� creates for our families?

It’s a good article. Read the whole thing.

What do you think? Is sacrificing the most progressive of your political opinions, or support for your identity group, worth the larger practical political goal? Or is it too much to ask?

GLBT, politics, primaries, progressive politics

GLBT, politics, primaries, progressive politics

Presidential Candidates’ stance on GLBT issues is of obvious importance to those following both the election and this blog, especially because of the magnified importance of GLBT voting blocs during primaries. According to the Bay Area Reporter Online, which provides an excellent summary of different positions,

What’s problematic for the LGBT community at this juncture in the presidential contest is that the gay vote – which has provided favored candidates with a significant and reliable voting bloc in the past – is the danger of being marginalized by record turnouts.

The Las Vegas Sun reported this week that more than 10 times the number of Democrats turned out for that party’s caucuses Saturday than attended four years ago. As many as one-third of the crowd were newly registered Democrats. Records were broken similarly in Iowa and New Hampshire for the Democrats and are expected in South Carolina’s Democratic primary Saturday.

Exit polls in the 2000 and 2004 general elections found about 4 percent of voters willing to self-identify as gay nationwide, and what few surveys that have been conducted, indicate that the vast majority of gays are already registered.

But while the gay vote may seem diminished with a large turnout in the general election, it gets magnified in primaries, said political poll analyst Murray Edelman. That’s because most of that gay vote – 77 percent in the 2004 general election – goes Democratic.

The gay vote impact is also magnified in many of the upcoming primary states, like California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, because of the tendency for many gays to live in or near major metropolitan areas and in states and cities with laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. A pre-election survey in 1996, for instance, found that about 8 percent of “likely voters” in California were gay. Census data shows that the states with the highest concentrations of same-sex partner households and the highest percentage of unmarried men and unmarried women include many of the February 5 primary states, including Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and Georgia.

And while history indicates that most LGBT people in the “Super Duper Tuesday” states will be voting for a Democrat, there are some indicators suggesting their choice is still not an easy decision. For some, the differences among the top-polling candidates – in both parties – are subtle distinctions.

Traditionally, it has been easier to mobilize people for hate rather than to mobilize in favor of change, so the increased turnout makes me optimistic. But read here to determine the often subtle differences between Democratic candidates.

Link via Mombian.

GLBT, Election 2008, Primaries, GLBT Policies

GLBT, Election 2008, Primaries, GLBT Policies

As a person who doesn’t identify as gay but is definitely interested in both becoming aware of an active in GLBT issues, one of the most profound questions I have to continually ask myself is how best to be an ally. In a thread designed to discuss the connections between different groups of feminists, Theriomorph writes,

People with privilege need to take responsibility for engaging other people with privilege in antiracist education and awareness. As I said elsewhere, it is not the responsibility of women of color to fix my broken white feminism.

So this is an open invitation to anyone who has been struggling with how to talk about this stuff, or who has suggestions for how to talk about this stuff, or who has ideas about concrete anti-racist behaviors, or anything else relating to the practice of antiracist feminism(s), to do so here.

So my question is, do you think this is a necessary process for allies with the GLBT movement? What questions should be being asked?

I think one potential avenue is discussed by Mombian in her article about family friendly policies. If non-GLBT people need to examine their “heterosexual privilege,” maybe one place to start is by widening the definition of what constitutes a legitimate family. As she points out, pushing for family friendly policies needs to be a place for making everyone’s family count, not just some:

I’ve written before about how the family-rights movement and the LGBT movement need to work together. It’s great that organizations like Moms Rising are pushing for more family-friendly policies. I searched in vain on their Web site to find any statement of support for the rights of LGBT workers and their families. Unless family-rights groups also work to ensure that all families—mine included—are recognized as such, they’ll still be leaving some of us out in the cold.

What other issues do you think are critical ones for allies to start from when examining heterosexual privilege?

Link to Creek Running North via Faux Real Tho.

GLBT, GLBT Rights, GLBT Families, GLBT Allies

GLBT, GLBT Rights, GLBT Families, GLBT Allies

I have this theory that most Democratic politicians are probably farther left on GLBT issues than they are public about in the press or in their votes. Part of this is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part, since the arguments against gay marriage and gay adoption and other such issues are just so bad that I can’t imagine that mostly ivy-league-educated politicians wouldn’t recognize their stupidity. But it’s also true that GLBT folks are one of the few minority groups (with the obese and illegal immigrants, I suppose) that it’s considered totally acceptable to throw under the bus during election season, which makes for some weirdly hypocritical stances that can’t possibly be true. Take John Edwards. He has Elizabeth Edwards admit that he’s uncomfortable with gay people and not for gay marriage, but he’s fine with gay civil unions and gay adoption and ending the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy.

Basically, I think that saying you’re ‘for civil unions’ is a way for Democrats to reach out to the left without alienating people too much in the middle (read: heterosexual white males older than 35, basically). If you compare this rhetoric to the campaign rhetoric of four years ago, it’s gone clearly farther left (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell wasn’t really a campaign issue, and most Democrats wouldn’t say that they were for civil unions or gay adoption) which means to me that this is a matter of rhetoric catching up with the reality that was there all along. Or people evolve and change as they’re around difference. Either way.

This isn’t to say that I agree with that strategy. I understand the necessity of getting elected, but I’m still tremendously uncomfortable with the prospect of exclusion for that end goal.

If my theory is correct, however, you can be pretty sure Al Gore isn’t running, since he’s coming out for full marriage equality, among other things:

Link to video via Gay Rights Watch.

GLBT rights, gay marriage, Al Gore, Election 2008

GLBT rights, gay marriage, Al Gore, Election 2008

Regardless of one’s opinion on the efficacy of reclaiming language, I think we can all get behind the idea of discouraging children from slinging homophobic insults. Hence, No Name-Calling week, an effort “sponsored by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and Simon and Schuster Children’s Publishing, in collaboration with nearly 50 national education and youth service organizations.” No Name-calling week is designed to use curriculum to help students understand not to call other children names, either for homophobic or other reasons. As 365gay.com notes,

The organizers provide schools with the tools and inspiration to launch an on-going dialogue about ways to eliminate bullying in their communities.
“No Name-Calling Week offers schools an opportunity to engage students about the importance of treating one another with respect,” said GLSEN spokesperson Dr. Eliza Byard.
“Unfortunately, far too many students experience the negative impact of name-calling, bullying and harassment. Through proactive educational interventions like No Name-Calling Week, schools can make a difference in the safety of all of their students.”

Whether you’re a teacher, parent, or just general friend to the GLBT and anti-bullying community, stopping name calling is a pretty universally good idea.

GLBT, bullying, homophobia, No Name-Calling Week

GLBT, bullying, homophobia, No Name-Calling Week

After writing this post, I found this follow up article that I think presents an interesting alternate perspective on the question of gays in the military. Despite the potential for advances in rights, in my opinion, war is still net bad, and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is bad no matter how many people flaunt it or slowly change the system. Mombian provides an incredibly powerful explanation of one of the downsides to this policy through an article that highlights the price - both financial and emotional - one family pays for daring to be a lesbian family in the military. As she explains,

The financial and practical hardships are tough, but the couple struggles most with the emotional ones. When Parker’s unit returned from Iraq, Lewis and the boys did not attend their homecoming parade. Parker will soon have a promotion ceremony, which for married officers involves their spouse and children. The boys will stay home with Lewis that day, unable to see their mother rewarded for her work and commitment. When Parker retires, her children will not see Lewis presented with a bouquet and a retirement certificate signed by the President of the United States like other spouses, a gesture of appreciation for her role in caring for the family during Parker’s years of service.

Parker and Lewis know a few other military same-sex couples with children, but not enough to form a support network in the shifting world of deployments and postings. In an email, Victor Maldonado of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says it is impossible to tell how many such families there are, for the law prevents them from identifying themselves.

Parker expresses the feelings of many LGBT service members when she asks “How do I fight for the rights of others when mine are so restricted? They’re taking convicted felons into the military, but I’m beneath a convicted felon.� The worst part is, she says, “Because of that, my kids have to suffer.�

The fact that Cheryl Parker and Donna Lewis are punished for the daring act of being a family is ridiculous, and the article does an excellent job of pointing out drawbacks and penalties for GLBT families that aren’t necessarily immediately apparent. If you have a family member or friend who needs convincing that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a terrible policy, this article is a good place to start in changing their mind.

GLBT, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, gays in the military, lesbian families

GLBT, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, gays in the military, lesbian families

A lot of the reasons that gay marriage gains are perceived as necessary is because of how many societal privileges are conferred upon those who are married - health insurance, tax breaks, estate rights, etc. The symbolic value is obviously important, but the material benefits are the reason why it’s not even a question that it’s a necessary step. Reciprocally, however, can marriage and civil union rights also increase GLBT gains in other areas? It’s a question that I hadn’t previously contemplated, but the wake of New Hampshire civil unions seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

Discussing photo opportunities with the Human Rights Campaign, Bay Windows outlines a number of ways that the GLBT community is now being felt throughout New Hampshire more specifically because of the marriage gains and increased political visibility throughout New Hampshire. As they argue,

Though brief, the exchange is symbolic of an unprecedented effort by the LGBT community to make its presence felt in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire during this presidential election cycle. In the Granite State, for instance, HRC for the first time opened a field office in Concord from which Gibson, a veteran New Hampshire political operative, corralled volunteers to hit the campaign trail and engage candidates on LGBT issues. The organization last summer also brought a panel of LGBT military veterans to the state to discuss the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that turned out a number of local politicos.

What other ways can the marriage debate help GLBT folks make other political gains?

Traditional wisdom says that wartime increases crackdowns on all oppressed groups - rape tends to happen more in wartime, and traditional gender roles are enforced as we run towards the masculine to protect and the feminine to comfort. But the current situation with the military might provide an interesting counterpoint to that argument - as the military gets stretched more and more to the limit, are ridiculous policies like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell getting pushed to the wayside?

For at least some people, the answer seems to be yes. As 365gay.com notes,

Even if no one is asking, Army Sgt. Darren Manzella has been telling anyone who’ll listen that he’s gay - without serious retribution so far from the military.
Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq and Kuwait, has admitted his sexual orientation in national media interviews and again on Tuesday in a Washington news conference.
“This is who I am. This is my life,” said Manzella, who received a combat medical badge for his service in Iraq. “It has never affected my job performance before. I don’t think it will make a difference now. And to be honest since then, I don’t see a difference because of my homosexuality.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Manzella’s case demonstrates the military is arbitrarily enforcing its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy now that the country is at war.

Even if it’s not a full action, it’s at least some hope that policies like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Will be forced to change. I’m not saying that makes it worth a war, but it’s good to know.

GLBT, gay rights, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

GLBT, gay rights, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell