Pride & Opinions

When I was a first year in college, I debated on a topic about Title VII, which is the part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On the affirmative (where you had to advocate increasing protection for more people against employment discrimination), we advocated the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, in its 1998 form, which, unfortunately, still hasn’t passed almost a decade later. But during these debates, people would constantly make the argument that GLBT people didn’t need to be protected from employment discrimination because, as a group, GLBT demographics - and gay men specifically - make a lot of money.

It’s obviously an offensive argument, and one that’s died out at least in some part in the last decade, but seeing this article made me think of that slight, and wonder at the positive possibilities of economic identity for GLBT folks as a whole.

In “Ten Money Questions for Chance Mitchell and Justin Nelson,” the first question Nina of Queercents asks is, “Why does the LGBT community need an economic identity?” I really enjoyed what Mitchell and Nelson, co-founders of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, had to say:

Whether we like it or not, money moves the world. Economics help create social change, not just with corporate leaders, but with local, state and federal governments. The LGBT community is estimated to have had a combined buying power of $660 billion dollars in 2007 and that number will grow to $835 billion dollars by 2010. As a point of reference, these numbers closely follow the buying power of the African American and Hispanic American communities. By leveraging the economic identity of the LGBT community through pocketbook advocacy, we have the ability to create significant change.

Just because Congress doesn’t want to formalize anti-discrimination laws doesn’t mean that poeple can’t do something, which gives me some hope. Mitchell and Nelson had this to say on that subject:

6. How can queer business owners leverage the economics of equality?
When legislators are looking at making decisions, the first people they look to are their constituents. Of their constituents, the first they look to are the business owners – how much revenue are these businesses bringing into the community; how many people are they employing; how many people receive their healthcare through these businesses. The LGBT community has always been very socially active and we have always owned businesses. What we haven’t done it leverage our positions as part of the small business engine that makes the American economy run. Only recently are people realizing that they can and should leverage their businesses to create change. Call your representatives – both state and federal. Make sure that they know what is important to you – not just on issues of importance to your business, but on issues of social concern.

Still not a reason not to pass a law, but a good interim set of steps, I think. The whole article is here.

GLBT, Finance, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce

GLBT, Finance, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce

Even though Super Tuesday is over, there are lots of primaries still to go before a winner in either party is decided (less true for the Republican party, I suppose, but true all the same). How will you know who to vote for if GLBT issues are relevant to you? Ramone’s Gay Life Blog on About.com has put together a handy summary of the candidates’ positions on GLBT issues, which is a good place to start if you’re trying to get educated. It’s not the most comprehensive site ever, but if you’re trying to get started figuring out who you want to vote for before the primaries, it’s an excellent place to start.

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

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

Today, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, is Blog for Choice Day, and I can’t think of a more fitting way of recognizing the day than participating by answering the question of why it’s important to vote pro-choice.

In some ways, abortion and reproductive rights are the most important issue to me when faced with the choice of choosing between candidates, and as I get older, the reasons that I support reproductive freedom get broader rather than narrower. I don’t just support the right to choose because of its fundamental connection to bodily autonomy, or to privacy. It’s also about poverty, and health care, and control over medical decision-making. And though many may not think it’s true directly, reproductive choice is definitely tied in with supporting GLBT causes of all sorts. As Mombian explains,

Coming out, far from reducing my concern with matters of male-female reproduction, only increased it. Being a lesbian is no guarantee against rape, or, more positively, the occasional consensual fling with a man. Even if lesbians were immune from such worries, however, I would be pro-choice because I think it boils down exactly that—choice.

No, sexual orientation is not a choice. We do choose, however, whether to live openly and honestly about our orientations. It’s a very fine line between limiting people’s choices about what they can do with their bodies reproductively and what they can do with them sexually. I can’t support choice in one without the other.

As family situations become more and more diverse, and as people seek to make more choices that are both mainstream but shunned, the prospect of reproductive choice becomes more and more important. As Mombian concludes, “There’s something wrong with an administration that wants to say I must carry a fetus to term if I conceive, but will not give me permission or wherewithal to raise that child in a legal relationship with the person I want, whom I know will be a responsible, loving parent. That’s why I vote pro-choice. Choice to love honestly; choice to bear willingly.”

Definitely true. And voting pro-choice is a necessary strategy to making sure that everyone gets to make that choice.

Blog for Choice, GLBT Rights, Roe v. Wade

Blog for Choice, GLBT Rights, Roe v. Wade

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

I am fascinated by the process through which language operates, especially language related to oppressed groups. Most of the time, I come down on the side of not using words designed to denigrate others - you won’t hear me say the word b**** to describe women, or those who are whiny or subservient or too agressive regardless of their biological sex, because it seems clear to me that the comparison is necessarily steeped in the idea that women, or attributes typically assigned to them, are lesser. Also, as the people I come into contact with change their language, it becomes sort of an interesting thought experiment to try to come up with epithets (to yell at other bad drivers, for instance) that aren’t derogatory to some group, which is actually relatively difficult.

The word “queer” provides an interesting counterpoint to this general proposition of mine, though. For fans of the reclamation of language, it’s the prime example of how language can come to mean different things than originally intended. The GLBT group at my alma mater is ‘Queer Union.’ Almost no one uses the word queer as a derogatory slur any longer, so does that get rid of the historical baggage? Not necessarily. As Ramone Johnson explains in “The Power of the ‘F’ Word,”

In a sense you could claim that the amelioration of the word queer, to opponents’ dismay, hadn’t been a failed experiment at all. At the time of my queer-is-ok spot, the word had been watered down into a sip of insignificance. Although some still find offense to the word, the overall impact is like being struck with a feather boa instead of a leather lash.
Yet, the regurgitation of a historically offensive word has not washed away the original offense (or the offender). Today, the bayonet called queer has just been replaced by another weapon of choice, the semi-automated fag. So, must the F-bomb be ameliorated as well? And what then will the run of the mill bigot conjure up to sling?

The idea that words cause backlash and a race to other, sometimes even more derogatory, terms, gives me pause. I’m not sure what the intrinsic value is to saying derogatory things about others. I understand the problems with censorship, but is it censorship to say that I choose not to use those words, and hope others will do the same? I’m certainly not going to argue for laws to ban them, but that’s not the only option. As Ramone concludes, in response to a question about whether someone should reclaim racial and gay slurs,

But now, as we speak, though not in person and despite our virtual distance as strangers, the possibility of you identifying as a “queer ni**ah” cripples my amiable pen—one that I’ve learned must change, must be an example, a mentor and a role model. My hope is that your identity rests as a “beautiful gay African-American man.” A man that has little use for ameliorated words. A man is so confident and so strong and so incredibly actualized that even the original offense of those ameliorated word have little impact. So, I say don’t ameliorate the words for use as your identity, let them burn in the char of hatred in which they were created.

I like that answer. The whole article is good.

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

Here are some articles I found interesting this week that you might want to take a look at, even though it’s not a full post here:

* Queercents: “How to REALLY Reduce the Expense and Environmental Impact of Parenting,” - I especially liked the discussion of how parenting co-ops both save money and ensure a GLBT-friendly learning environment for your child.
* Mombian: “That’s not a Grinch, It’s a Stressed Out Lesbian,” - A little older, but I thought the note that being a lesbian might exacerbate tensions during the holiday season was interesting.
* Republic of T: “The DOMA Test,” - Now that the New Hampshire primary is over, are there litmus test issues for the GLBT community?
* Feministe: “Minorities within Minorities within Minorities,” - a good roundup of intersectional perspectives on feminism, racism, and GLBT rights.

Have a good weekend!

GLBT, parenting, holidays, DOMA, primaries, politics, intersectionality

GLBT, parenting, holidays, DOMA, primaries, politics, intersectionality