That's the question this column by Wayne Besen brings up. Besen writes about his unpleasant experience dealing with PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) and discusses the recent non-incident that Executive Director Regina Griggs claimed happened just down the road form me in Arlington, Virginla"
PFOX recently outright faked a hate crime at the Arlington County Fair in Virginia. The unthinkable started on Aug. 28, after PFOX sent out a press release with the headline, "Gays Assault Ex-Gays At County Fair." According to the release:
"As happens every year, gay activists disrupted our booth activities. They screamed obscenities, threw our materials from the exhibit table to the ground, insisted we recognize their same-sex 'spouses,' demanded that PFOX leave, and hit a PFOX volunteer because he is ex-gay."
The website Ex-Gay Watch investigated the claims and found that a slight disagreement occurred between a woman and a male PFOX representative (much like what happened to me in Orlando.) However, Ex-Gay Watch's David Roberts contacted Jackie Abrams, Vice Chair of the Arlington County Fair. Abrams said that no physical altercation occurred, police were never called and no one was ejected from the fairgrounds, as PFOX had claimed."
I was in radio contact with the other board members during the Fair, and definitely would have known if the police had been summoned. It did not happen," Abrams said.
Jay Fisette, a member of the Arlington County Board, backed this version of events.
Updated: Here is a detailed news story from the Washington Blade.
How does an organization that claims on their website to "show families how to love their homosexual child unconditionally, and how to be a positive presence in their child's life" reconcile that high-minded mission with their leader fabricating a news release trying to attract sympathy and, most certainly, use their victim status to raise money.
Sadly, groups like this seem to have a nearly infinite ability to rationalize, justifying the means with the end, which is their bigotry toward the GLBT community and their goal of preventing social equality.
September 11, 2007
September 10, 2007
The 15th Edition of the ICP is Online
I hope you enjoyed the edition of the International Carnival of Pozitivities I posted here last month. If so, or if you missed it, the latest edition, the 15th, is up now at Living Mindfully With HIV.
The mission statement of the ICP is:
Welcome to the blog carnival for people living with HIV/AIDS around the world. This includes every human being on the planet Earth. The intent of this carnival is to provide an international forum for interaction among those of us who are living with HIV/AIDS and for their caregivers, family and/or friends or those who are involved in the fight to end this Worldwide pandemic.
I encourage you to check out the ICP, there are always some interesting contributions that are worth taking the time to enjoy.
The mission statement of the ICP is:
Welcome to the blog carnival for people living with HIV/AIDS around the world. This includes every human being on the planet Earth. The intent of this carnival is to provide an international forum for interaction among those of us who are living with HIV/AIDS and for their caregivers, family and/or friends or those who are involved in the fight to end this Worldwide pandemic.
I encourage you to check out the ICP, there are always some interesting contributions that are worth taking the time to enjoy.
"Gay Doesn't Mean Bad"
That should seem obvious to anyone who reads this blog even occasionally, but it is the title of an article in the Boise Weekly newspaper.
In just one week, Larry Craig has gone from a relatively unknown senator from Idaho to the catalyst for a national debate on morality and gay behavior.
Politicians, pundits, religious leaders and ordinary citizens have weighed in on the issue, with many condemning Craig for his behavior. And while few argue that his arrest in Minneapolis, guilty plea and subsequent cover-up go against Senate ethics rules, many have placed the emphasis on the question of Craig's sexuality.
"I do think the senator's resignation [is] sad in some ways because many people will perceive this as 'Oh my God, if he's gay, he has to resign,'" said Rep. Nicole LaFavour, a Boise Democrat and Idaho's only openly gay legislator. "When really they should be saying, 'God, the Senator has been dishonest with us, and he has voted badly on issues that affect so many, and he's been arrested.'"
"Most of us view this as more of an ethics and hypocrisy issue and a legal issue, than a sexual orientation issue," said Jody May-Chang, editor of PrideDepot.com, a Boise-based Web site for the gay community.
"For a social issue, it was embarrassing that he was caught doing what he was doing. That's not mainstream [gay] behavior," May-Chang said.
May-Chang said she worries that mainstream America will now think that it's normal for gay people to solicit sex in public.
"If you're openly gay with a sense of pride or a sense of respect, you don't have anonymous sex in a bathroom," May-Chang said.
"The people of Idaho really care far more about the integrity of issues than his sexual orientation," LaFavour said.
I hope that last statement is true, because that is the crux of the issue here. Senator Craig showed a disturbing lack of integrity, not by being gay, but by lying and soliciting sex in a public restroom.
Ironically, this situation is causing some backlash against GLBT people which is more befitting of his public policy views than what appears to be his lifestyle
In just one week, Larry Craig has gone from a relatively unknown senator from Idaho to the catalyst for a national debate on morality and gay behavior.
Politicians, pundits, religious leaders and ordinary citizens have weighed in on the issue, with many condemning Craig for his behavior. And while few argue that his arrest in Minneapolis, guilty plea and subsequent cover-up go against Senate ethics rules, many have placed the emphasis on the question of Craig's sexuality.
"I do think the senator's resignation [is] sad in some ways because many people will perceive this as 'Oh my God, if he's gay, he has to resign,'" said Rep. Nicole LaFavour, a Boise Democrat and Idaho's only openly gay legislator. "When really they should be saying, 'God, the Senator has been dishonest with us, and he has voted badly on issues that affect so many, and he's been arrested.'"
"Most of us view this as more of an ethics and hypocrisy issue and a legal issue, than a sexual orientation issue," said Jody May-Chang, editor of PrideDepot.com, a Boise-based Web site for the gay community.
"For a social issue, it was embarrassing that he was caught doing what he was doing. That's not mainstream [gay] behavior," May-Chang said.
May-Chang said she worries that mainstream America will now think that it's normal for gay people to solicit sex in public.
"If you're openly gay with a sense of pride or a sense of respect, you don't have anonymous sex in a bathroom," May-Chang said.
"The people of Idaho really care far more about the integrity of issues than his sexual orientation," LaFavour said.
I hope that last statement is true, because that is the crux of the issue here. Senator Craig showed a disturbing lack of integrity, not by being gay, but by lying and soliciting sex in a public restroom.
Ironically, this situation is causing some backlash against GLBT people which is more befitting of his public policy views than what appears to be his lifestyle
September 09, 2007
GLBT History Represented at the Smithsonian Museum
I thought this article from the Washington Post was interesting; GLBT activist history is officially part of the mainstream, being recognized as part of an exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC.
The obvious question gets the obvious answer: Of course Frank Kameny, a pioneer of the gay rights movement, had no inkling that the protest signs he carried more than 40 years ago would end up in the Smithsonian. But there they are, hand-lettered, with little stains from their staples discoloring the faded white cardboard. Two of them, plus three campaign buttons, are now in the same case as Joe Louis's boxing gloves, near the glass closet that holds Jackie Kennedy's inaugural gown and in the same shrinelike exhibit known as "Treasures of American History" that also has Thomas Jefferson's writing desk and the ruby-red slippers that Dorothy wore on her way to meet the Wizard.
It was a coincidence, but a fortunate one, that a man who trained as an astronomer, who earned a PhD from Harvard before he was fired by the government in 1957 for being gay, was honored amid rockets and planes and depictions of the solar system.
Check out the Post story to read more about Kameny's engagement and struggle in the battle for GLBT equality. His determination and preserverance is an example to activists today.
The obvious question gets the obvious answer: Of course Frank Kameny, a pioneer of the gay rights movement, had no inkling that the protest signs he carried more than 40 years ago would end up in the Smithsonian. But there they are, hand-lettered, with little stains from their staples discoloring the faded white cardboard. Two of them, plus three campaign buttons, are now in the same case as Joe Louis's boxing gloves, near the glass closet that holds Jackie Kennedy's inaugural gown and in the same shrinelike exhibit known as "Treasures of American History" that also has Thomas Jefferson's writing desk and the ruby-red slippers that Dorothy wore on her way to meet the Wizard.
It was a coincidence, but a fortunate one, that a man who trained as an astronomer, who earned a PhD from Harvard before he was fired by the government in 1957 for being gay, was honored amid rockets and planes and depictions of the solar system.
Check out the Post story to read more about Kameny's engagement and struggle in the battle for GLBT equality. His determination and preserverance is an example to activists today.
GLBT People CAN Believe In the Sanctity of Marriage
I ran across a refreshing essay in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel written by a young gay man who extols the virtues of marriage and wants to enjoy that blessing himself. I'm posting the entire article here in the hope that the views he expresses can resonate with my readers. God showed us in the Bible that words and traditions can matter and that they are available to all who believe in Him. Such should be the case in our society with marriage.
I have always dreamed of growing up and becoming a father. I fantasized about meeting that perfect someone, having kids, watching them grow up - the whole works. There is only one problem: I'm gay.
I have been told by the State of Wisconsin and a resounding majority of Americans that I am unfit for this dream. As became clear with the results of Wisconsin's referendum on the issue last year, marriage, according to most Wisconsinites, is restricted to the union of one man and one woman.
A common argument claims that marriage is an inherently religious institution. Thus, it is not the state's place to determine who can and who cannot be married. If this is the case, then all state and federal law should be altered to refer to civil unions, whether for homosexual or heterosexual couples. If marriage is a wholly religious concept, it has no place in the workings of the state.
But I think it would be a mistake to abandon the word. No one dreams of having a civil union. I am not even sure what a civil union is.
Like any other kid, I grew up with the image and concept of marriage. I saw married couples in movies and on TV, read about them in books and witnessed them in real life. All of my most admired adult role models, most notably my parents, were married.
I believe in the sanctity of marriage; in fact, it's a tradition I aspire to emulate. For me, marriage is more than just a word; it's the embodiment of an idea to which I am deeply loyal. Marriage sanctifies the love and commitment that form the basis of a strong, morally upright family.
"Civil union," by contrast, is a sterile and relatively meaningless term. Those who support civil unions and oppose gay marriage, including nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates, fail to understand that nobody views marriage in terms of government benefits.
Marriage is really about carrying on an honorable and meaningful tradition. The benefits are superfluous. The word is indispensable.
It is shameful that so many gay youth are presented with a false choice: Live an unsettled, promiscuous and risky life or repress natural feelings and follow an inevitably unfulfilling, heterosexual lifestyle.
It is sad and ironic that the same society that deems homosexuals unfit for commitment and family life condemns them for promiscuity and frivolity.
For nearly five years, from early adolescence until my sophomore year in high school, I lived with constant loneliness, guilt and anxiety. The first friend I told immediately began crying and told me he didn't know if we could be friends anymore.
It has taken nearly two years since then for me to fully come out. Perhaps one reason I found it so difficult was that there was no model to follow. I knew no gay people personally and saw only undeveloped stock characters in movies and on TV. Breaking with heterosexuality, it seemed, meant breaking with marriage and any hope of having a family.
I am not trying to convince opponents of gay marriage to drastically change their moral or religious beliefs, but I'm asking them to consider the enormous amount of pain and inner turmoil gay people have endured and to recognize that we share the same aspirations, goals and morals as most heterosexuals.
Promiscuity or repression should not be the only choice for gay teens and young adults. There could be a third way.
Society should embrace the word "marriage" wholeheartedly but make it more inclusive. Like interracial marriage, gay marriage would not harm the sanctity of marriage but expand its benefits, uniting Americans under a word and a tradition we all hold dear.
Jonathan Erwin-Frank graduated this year from Whitefish Bay High School and will attend Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania this fall. His e-mail address is JonathanFrank@gmail.com
I have always dreamed of growing up and becoming a father. I fantasized about meeting that perfect someone, having kids, watching them grow up - the whole works. There is only one problem: I'm gay.
I have been told by the State of Wisconsin and a resounding majority of Americans that I am unfit for this dream. As became clear with the results of Wisconsin's referendum on the issue last year, marriage, according to most Wisconsinites, is restricted to the union of one man and one woman.
A common argument claims that marriage is an inherently religious institution. Thus, it is not the state's place to determine who can and who cannot be married. If this is the case, then all state and federal law should be altered to refer to civil unions, whether for homosexual or heterosexual couples. If marriage is a wholly religious concept, it has no place in the workings of the state.
But I think it would be a mistake to abandon the word. No one dreams of having a civil union. I am not even sure what a civil union is.
Like any other kid, I grew up with the image and concept of marriage. I saw married couples in movies and on TV, read about them in books and witnessed them in real life. All of my most admired adult role models, most notably my parents, were married.
I believe in the sanctity of marriage; in fact, it's a tradition I aspire to emulate. For me, marriage is more than just a word; it's the embodiment of an idea to which I am deeply loyal. Marriage sanctifies the love and commitment that form the basis of a strong, morally upright family.
"Civil union," by contrast, is a sterile and relatively meaningless term. Those who support civil unions and oppose gay marriage, including nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates, fail to understand that nobody views marriage in terms of government benefits.
Marriage is really about carrying on an honorable and meaningful tradition. The benefits are superfluous. The word is indispensable.
It is shameful that so many gay youth are presented with a false choice: Live an unsettled, promiscuous and risky life or repress natural feelings and follow an inevitably unfulfilling, heterosexual lifestyle.
It is sad and ironic that the same society that deems homosexuals unfit for commitment and family life condemns them for promiscuity and frivolity.
For nearly five years, from early adolescence until my sophomore year in high school, I lived with constant loneliness, guilt and anxiety. The first friend I told immediately began crying and told me he didn't know if we could be friends anymore.
It has taken nearly two years since then for me to fully come out. Perhaps one reason I found it so difficult was that there was no model to follow. I knew no gay people personally and saw only undeveloped stock characters in movies and on TV. Breaking with heterosexuality, it seemed, meant breaking with marriage and any hope of having a family.
I am not trying to convince opponents of gay marriage to drastically change their moral or religious beliefs, but I'm asking them to consider the enormous amount of pain and inner turmoil gay people have endured and to recognize that we share the same aspirations, goals and morals as most heterosexuals.
Promiscuity or repression should not be the only choice for gay teens and young adults. There could be a third way.
Society should embrace the word "marriage" wholeheartedly but make it more inclusive. Like interracial marriage, gay marriage would not harm the sanctity of marriage but expand its benefits, uniting Americans under a word and a tradition we all hold dear.
Jonathan Erwin-Frank graduated this year from Whitefish Bay High School and will attend Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania this fall. His e-mail address is JonathanFrank@gmail.com
September 08, 2007
Will Iowa Marriage Ruling Actually Hurt the GLBT Cause?
That the question asked by this article from The Politico. The idea is that by placing the same-sex marriage in the forefront of political issues, that will galvanize the opposition and result in bad things happening regarding GLBT rights.
That appears to have been the case in most areas of the nation in 2004, when states that had initiatves to ban same-sex marriage showed a much stronger Republican turnout at the polls.
The 2006 midterm elections, by contrast, showed that when the gay marriage question is overshadowed by other issues — in that instance, the Iraq war and the rash of Republican scandals — Democrats can win big.
When that happens, gays tend to benefit. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to expand federal hate crimes protections to homosexuals earlier this year. And unlike recent GOP-controlled Congresses, this one is not planning to take up an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Across the country, newly Democratic state legislatures have passed bolder gay rights laws, with New Hampshire legalizing gay civil unions and Oregon adopting domestic partnerships for gay couples.
Even in culturally conservative Iowa, where Democrats took the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature last year for the first time since 1964, gays earlier this year won their first civil rights protections.
With the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses looming, last week’s dramatic gay marriage “victory” in Polk County threatens to halt such incremental gains for gay rights.
That appears to have been the case in most areas of the nation in 2004, when states that had initiatves to ban same-sex marriage showed a much stronger Republican turnout at the polls.
The 2006 midterm elections, by contrast, showed that when the gay marriage question is overshadowed by other issues — in that instance, the Iraq war and the rash of Republican scandals — Democrats can win big.
When that happens, gays tend to benefit. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to expand federal hate crimes protections to homosexuals earlier this year. And unlike recent GOP-controlled Congresses, this one is not planning to take up an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Across the country, newly Democratic state legislatures have passed bolder gay rights laws, with New Hampshire legalizing gay civil unions and Oregon adopting domestic partnerships for gay couples.
Even in culturally conservative Iowa, where Democrats took the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature last year for the first time since 1964, gays earlier this year won their first civil rights protections.
With the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses looming, last week’s dramatic gay marriage “victory” in Polk County threatens to halt such incremental gains for gay rights.
I understand that, but what is the alternative? Should GLBT activists simply not challenge the status quo and wait for politicians to push toward equality on their timetable?
No, they shouldn't. Understanding what happened in 2004, progressives in Iowa need to step up and not allow their elections to be overrun by social conservatives. Since it is reasonable to expect a strong pushback by the right, the left needs to match it.
The fight for equality is just that--a fight. It has become abundantly clear to me that the right will NOT back down, so it is incumbent upon those who believe in equal rights for everyone to match the right's resolve, tenacity, and energy. Don't be afraid to win a battle. Use a victory to energize the activists and strengthen the resolve.
September 07, 2007
Straight Allies Leading "Seven Straight Nights"
Straight allys across the nation are stepping up and leading groups in their home state to participate in the upcoming "Seven Straight Nights" event.
One of the just happens to be the First Lady of Wisconsin, Jessica Doyle:
Because of our LBGT community, Wisconsin is stronger and better. We are at our very best as a state when we are open, inclusive, and actively dedicated to equal rights for all.
She will be participating in a vigil at the Wisconsin state capitol in Madison.
John Bowen Brown is leading a candlelight vigil at the Arizona Superior Court building in Tuscon.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood (Article 1)." Members of the LGBT community were "born free and equal in dignity and rights." It is my goal to counteract misconceptions about same sex marriage, hold vigils in Arizona advocating for LGBT marriage rights, and make available academic research that provides accurate information about the LGBT community.
A husband and wife team, Mary Jude and Mark Hanks, have a unique perspective for straight allies. They will be leading a vigil at the Maine State House in Augusta.
We have two wonderful children whose biological mother is gay. She and her partner work closely with us to provide a loving and nurturing home to "our" children. Yes, the children have THREE Mommies and we want them to grow up understanding that love and respect is the basis of all relationships -- straight or gay -- and each individual must be valued and afforded the same rights under our laws.
Susan Craine has hunkered down to fight an uphill battle for GLBT equality in Greenville, South Carolina. She will be leading a candlelight vigil there next to City Hall.
Activism runs in my blood, starting with my grandmother fighting at a young age for a woman's right to vote, and my mother standing up and fighting for Civil Rights. Early on I have fought for the "under dog" so to speak. When I moved to Greenville, South Carolina, what can I say, I have run into one of the biggest challenges yet. The Buckle of the Bible Belt, need I say more?
Seven Straight Nights is co-sponsored by Atticus Circle and Soulforce. It will be held from October 7-13. Click here for more information.
One of the just happens to be the First Lady of Wisconsin, Jessica Doyle:
Because of our LBGT community, Wisconsin is stronger and better. We are at our very best as a state when we are open, inclusive, and actively dedicated to equal rights for all.
She will be participating in a vigil at the Wisconsin state capitol in Madison.
John Bowen Brown is leading a candlelight vigil at the Arizona Superior Court building in Tuscon.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood (Article 1)." Members of the LGBT community were "born free and equal in dignity and rights." It is my goal to counteract misconceptions about same sex marriage, hold vigils in Arizona advocating for LGBT marriage rights, and make available academic research that provides accurate information about the LGBT community.
A husband and wife team, Mary Jude and Mark Hanks, have a unique perspective for straight allies. They will be leading a vigil at the Maine State House in Augusta.
We have two wonderful children whose biological mother is gay. She and her partner work closely with us to provide a loving and nurturing home to "our" children. Yes, the children have THREE Mommies and we want them to grow up understanding that love and respect is the basis of all relationships -- straight or gay -- and each individual must be valued and afforded the same rights under our laws.
Susan Craine has hunkered down to fight an uphill battle for GLBT equality in Greenville, South Carolina. She will be leading a candlelight vigil there next to City Hall.
Activism runs in my blood, starting with my grandmother fighting at a young age for a woman's right to vote, and my mother standing up and fighting for Civil Rights. Early on I have fought for the "under dog" so to speak. When I moved to Greenville, South Carolina, what can I say, I have run into one of the biggest challenges yet. The Buckle of the Bible Belt, need I say more?
Seven Straight Nights is co-sponsored by Atticus Circle and Soulforce. It will be held from October 7-13. Click here for more information.
September 06, 2007
Right-Wing Hypocrisy at the Highest Level
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article up on Salon.com discussing one of the more obvious public displays we've seen of Republican right-wing hypocrisy: (Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip)
When Hugh Hewitt admitted that he wants Larry Craig to resign but does not want the adulterous, serial-prostitute-hiring David Vitter to do so, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn from many different corners -- on the ground that this inconsistency is obviously attributable both to anti-gay animus and rank political self-interest (Vitter's replacement would be chosen by a Democratic Governor, whereas Craig's would be chosen by a right-wing GOP Governor). Even some right-wing blogs noted the absurdity of that position: Hugh Hewitt wants Craig to resign immediately but David Vitter to stay on. Huh?"
Yet that contradictory and nakedly unprincipled posture has now become the official position of the GOP leadership, led by its pious "moral values" wing. A whole slew of very upstanding Family Values Senators are parading around making a flamboyant showing of pressuring Larry Craig to resign (knowing that it will entail no political cost), all while remaining completely silent about David Vitter's at least equally "undignified" and confessed adultery and lawbreaking (acts which, just like Craig, he concealed from his family and colleagues in the Senate until he had no choice).
Whatever else one wants to say about the "family values" wing of the right-wing movement, the absolute last thing that it is is a principled, apolitical movement. And -- as the starkly different treatment for Craig and Vitter conclusively demonstrates -- these vaunted "moral principles," for which we are all supposed to show such profound respect, are invoked only when there is no political cost to invoking them, and worse, typically only when there is political benefit in doing so.
I don't post this here simply to bash the Republicans. This example, and there are many, many others, shows that there truly is no moral high ground in American politics today. None. On neither side of the isle. The Democrats are trying to make their own morality play in this election cycle, but it's all about politics, not morality. The important part of the "values voter" in politicians eyes is the "voter" part, and if appealing to values is the way to get their vote, that's what they'll do.
I know this is a very cynical approach to take on a blog that strives to be positive and affirming, but this is part of the whole message here--ultimately politics is not the answer, God is. There is important work to be done through legislatures, both locally and in Congress, to improve the quality of life for the GLBT community and secure equal rights in our society. That's politics.
The foundation for morality and values, however, is the Church. No, not the church that has scorned and persecuted GLBT people, that has pushed them and others away from God with the hatred and discrimination they preach. There are other churches that do have an understanding about who Jesus really was and why He came to earth. Churches like mine, Believers Covenant Fellowship, apply the lesson taught in John 12:47
As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
Politicians are not going to save the world. We will be fortunate if they don't destroy it. Our society, and ultimately the world, will only be safe if we reach people and show them who God really is and allow His love and spirit to manifest in their lives. Instead of turning this country into a theocracy, with is the dream of the religious right, we need to turn people into spirit-filled Christians.
That's how you and I can make a difference.
When Hugh Hewitt admitted that he wants Larry Craig to resign but does not want the adulterous, serial-prostitute-hiring David Vitter to do so, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn from many different corners -- on the ground that this inconsistency is obviously attributable both to anti-gay animus and rank political self-interest (Vitter's replacement would be chosen by a Democratic Governor, whereas Craig's would be chosen by a right-wing GOP Governor). Even some right-wing blogs noted the absurdity of that position: Hugh Hewitt wants Craig to resign immediately but David Vitter to stay on. Huh?"
Yet that contradictory and nakedly unprincipled posture has now become the official position of the GOP leadership, led by its pious "moral values" wing. A whole slew of very upstanding Family Values Senators are parading around making a flamboyant showing of pressuring Larry Craig to resign (knowing that it will entail no political cost), all while remaining completely silent about David Vitter's at least equally "undignified" and confessed adultery and lawbreaking (acts which, just like Craig, he concealed from his family and colleagues in the Senate until he had no choice).
Whatever else one wants to say about the "family values" wing of the right-wing movement, the absolute last thing that it is is a principled, apolitical movement. And -- as the starkly different treatment for Craig and Vitter conclusively demonstrates -- these vaunted "moral principles," for which we are all supposed to show such profound respect, are invoked only when there is no political cost to invoking them, and worse, typically only when there is political benefit in doing so.
I don't post this here simply to bash the Republicans. This example, and there are many, many others, shows that there truly is no moral high ground in American politics today. None. On neither side of the isle. The Democrats are trying to make their own morality play in this election cycle, but it's all about politics, not morality. The important part of the "values voter" in politicians eyes is the "voter" part, and if appealing to values is the way to get their vote, that's what they'll do.
I know this is a very cynical approach to take on a blog that strives to be positive and affirming, but this is part of the whole message here--ultimately politics is not the answer, God is. There is important work to be done through legislatures, both locally and in Congress, to improve the quality of life for the GLBT community and secure equal rights in our society. That's politics.
The foundation for morality and values, however, is the Church. No, not the church that has scorned and persecuted GLBT people, that has pushed them and others away from God with the hatred and discrimination they preach. There are other churches that do have an understanding about who Jesus really was and why He came to earth. Churches like mine, Believers Covenant Fellowship, apply the lesson taught in John 12:47
As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
Politicians are not going to save the world. We will be fortunate if they don't destroy it. Our society, and ultimately the world, will only be safe if we reach people and show them who God really is and allow His love and spirit to manifest in their lives. Instead of turning this country into a theocracy, with is the dream of the religious right, we need to turn people into spirit-filled Christians.
That's how you and I can make a difference.
September 05, 2007
Mike Rogers Gaining Fame for Outing Politicians
I've written about Mike Rogers before, but there were two recent pieces about him that I think are worth bringing to your attention. First, The Washington Post wrote an article about his work outing politicians on the front page of its Metro section:
Rogers reasons that there's justice behind his tactics -- "odious," "outrageous" and "over-the-line" as they might seem to his detractors.
In Rogers's mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.
In 2005, Rogers blogged about Mark Foley, months before his inappropriate instant-messages to male congressional pages became public and he was forced to resign. The former Florida congressman had a varied record, sometimes voting in favor of gay rights, but at one point voting against adoption by same-sex couples.
And last October, he says, he targeted Craig -- months before an undercover sex sting in a Minneapolis airport men's room, and before the Idaho Statesman started its months-long investigation. Two years earlier, Rogers notes, the three-term senator had voted for the failed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
"Hypocrisy," Rogers sneers, "plain, hate-filled hypocrisy."
"I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you."
Wayne Besen then followed with more in his weekly column:
In an era of softer advocacy, Rogers is decidedly in your face. Yet, he has integrated new media with old school activism to create a stunningly effective hybrid that has brought Capitol Hill to its knees. Well, the hypocritical, anti-gay Congressmen were already on their knees - but until Rogers came along with his "outing" website BlogActive, they were getting away with it. Rogers does not tiptoe (or is it tap foot) around the contentions issue of outing and has a string of successes, including the downfall of closeted former Virginia GOP Congressman Ed Schrock.
Still, some opponents - often in the GLBT community - have tried to smear Rogers as radical or loony. Sometimes, these slights are in the media, but more often than not, they are defamatory whispers at cocktail parties by those who feel threatened by his work. Far from radical, however, Rogers is refreshingly contemplative and levelheaded when it comes to the ethics of outing. He has a clear idea of where he stands and has been consistent in his rules of engagement.
While I come up short from anointing Rogers a hero like Besen does, I strongly respect his work. He clearly has an agenda, who on Capitol Hill doesn't, but ultimately he's doing one thing--forcing politicians to be honest about who they are and why they act like they do.
No wonder they are terrified of him.
Rogers reasons that there's justice behind his tactics -- "odious," "outrageous" and "over-the-line" as they might seem to his detractors.
In Rogers's mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.
In 2005, Rogers blogged about Mark Foley, months before his inappropriate instant-messages to male congressional pages became public and he was forced to resign. The former Florida congressman had a varied record, sometimes voting in favor of gay rights, but at one point voting against adoption by same-sex couples.
And last October, he says, he targeted Craig -- months before an undercover sex sting in a Minneapolis airport men's room, and before the Idaho Statesman started its months-long investigation. Two years earlier, Rogers notes, the three-term senator had voted for the failed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
"Hypocrisy," Rogers sneers, "plain, hate-filled hypocrisy."
"I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you."
Wayne Besen then followed with more in his weekly column:
In an era of softer advocacy, Rogers is decidedly in your face. Yet, he has integrated new media with old school activism to create a stunningly effective hybrid that has brought Capitol Hill to its knees. Well, the hypocritical, anti-gay Congressmen were already on their knees - but until Rogers came along with his "outing" website BlogActive, they were getting away with it. Rogers does not tiptoe (or is it tap foot) around the contentions issue of outing and has a string of successes, including the downfall of closeted former Virginia GOP Congressman Ed Schrock.
Still, some opponents - often in the GLBT community - have tried to smear Rogers as radical or loony. Sometimes, these slights are in the media, but more often than not, they are defamatory whispers at cocktail parties by those who feel threatened by his work. Far from radical, however, Rogers is refreshingly contemplative and levelheaded when it comes to the ethics of outing. He has a clear idea of where he stands and has been consistent in his rules of engagement.
While I come up short from anointing Rogers a hero like Besen does, I strongly respect his work. He clearly has an agenda, who on Capitol Hill doesn't, but ultimately he's doing one thing--forcing politicians to be honest about who they are and why they act like they do.
No wonder they are terrified of him.
September 04, 2007
Is Gay Marriage Issue Taking Focus Away From HIV/AIDS?
There are those who subscribe to that school of thought.
From the Washington Blade:
Campaigns for marriage equality have stolen too much attention from the nation’s AIDS epidemic, according to some gay activists.
H. Alexander Robinson, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, said in a column posted last week on the Bilerico Project web site that presidential candidates have spent more time discussing same-sex marriage than AIDS.
“While marriage is clearly a major civil rights priority for our community and I dare say the nation,” he said, “it is hardly the only issue and should not in my view define our movement.”
Brad Luna, the organization’s media relations director, said HRC has long worked with other groups to garner more funding and attention to fight the epidemic.
He said those Capitol Hill pleas are not always heard, though, and that “we feel the frustration” when lawmakers fail to adequately address “a disease that needs much more of our attention and resources dedicated to its end.”
Luna said HRC nonetheless pushes politicians on the issue, notably through congressional scorecards and presidential candidates questionnaires.
Is HIV/AIDS moving beyond a "gay" issue? I certainly think the stigma attached to it is well past the stage of being a "gay disease," and I believe it's up to everyone, not just the GLBT community, to advocate for those who suffer from the disease and to work dilligently toward prevention.
From the Washington Blade:
Campaigns for marriage equality have stolen too much attention from the nation’s AIDS epidemic, according to some gay activists.
H. Alexander Robinson, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, said in a column posted last week on the Bilerico Project web site that presidential candidates have spent more time discussing same-sex marriage than AIDS.
“While marriage is clearly a major civil rights priority for our community and I dare say the nation,” he said, “it is hardly the only issue and should not in my view define our movement.”
Brad Luna, the organization’s media relations director, said HRC has long worked with other groups to garner more funding and attention to fight the epidemic.
He said those Capitol Hill pleas are not always heard, though, and that “we feel the frustration” when lawmakers fail to adequately address “a disease that needs much more of our attention and resources dedicated to its end.”
Luna said HRC nonetheless pushes politicians on the issue, notably through congressional scorecards and presidential candidates questionnaires.
Is HIV/AIDS moving beyond a "gay" issue? I certainly think the stigma attached to it is well past the stage of being a "gay disease," and I believe it's up to everyone, not just the GLBT community, to advocate for those who suffer from the disease and to work dilligently toward prevention.
September 03, 2007
Correcting Some Right-Wing Propaganda
I've signed up for a lot of e-mail lists from right and far-right wing organizations because I think it is important for me to see what kind of hate-filled bile some of them are spewing regarding the GLBT community and its allies.
I received one over the weekend from The Liberty Counsel, the group founded by the late Jerry Falwell to force his interpretation of God's will for the United States through the court system. This organization was featured in the series "God's Warriors" that recently ran on CNN. One of the things they showed is the mock Supreme Court studio where law students at Falwell's Liberty University are taught to argue for the right-wing agenda in front of the highest court in the land. Matt Starver, the Chairman of The Liberty Counsel, has already had that opportunity.
Anyway, their latest e-mail provided another disturbing insight into the distortions and fear-mongering they use to raise money and recruit people into their fold. Here is the excerpt:
For the past several years, Liberty Counsel has been engaged in an intense legal struggle to preserve the institution of marriage. We are fighting hard because we fully understand the consequences of losing! Even if homosexual activists gain the right to same-sex "marriage," they will not be satisfied.
The goal of radical pro-homosexuals and their activist groups is to destroy marriage and to silence all Christian messages. Christians are already being systematically forced out of business and silenced by the radical pro-homosexual elements in our society.
To paint the entire GLBT community with these broad strokes is either delusional or dishonest. Can he find someone who wants to include three people into a marriage or who wants to marry a dog? Sure--there are people way, way, way out on the fringe regarding any issue. There are also people on the fringe of the right-wing who would like to execute homosexuals, but I wouldn't reasonably accuse The Liberty Counsel to have that as part of their agenda nor would I stoop to their level to intentionally misrepresent that as being so.
Obviously, the vast majority of the GLBT community either want full-marriage rights that would not change anything about existing rights for heterosexual couples, merely include same-sex couples, or they just aren't concerned about making it legal and are content to leave those laws just like they are. There is no groundswell of support for taking the concept of legal marriage beyond two people, and I'm confident that Mr. Starver knows that.
The only "Christian" message that the GLBT community is interested in silencing is that of hatred toward GLBT people. Again, there is a large portion of the community that has just completely tuned that message out. Nice work by the right-wing, pushing people not like themselves away from God, hardly what Jesus had in mind with The Great Commission:
Matthew 28: 19-20 (NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
I know the so-called fundamentalists take the end of that scripture to mean teach GLBT people not to be GLBT because of how they have conveniently cherry-picked and misunderstood scripture, but even with that they have often approached it in a way that precludes the first part (far and away the most important) of making disciples.
Approaching people with hatred, bigotry, and judgement (of man, not God) usually results in pushing people away or creating pushback, where people respond in kind with their own hatred, bogotry, and judgement.
Neither one fits the passage from Matthew, an odd approach for any organization supposedly promoting Christian values.
I received one over the weekend from The Liberty Counsel, the group founded by the late Jerry Falwell to force his interpretation of God's will for the United States through the court system. This organization was featured in the series "God's Warriors" that recently ran on CNN. One of the things they showed is the mock Supreme Court studio where law students at Falwell's Liberty University are taught to argue for the right-wing agenda in front of the highest court in the land. Matt Starver, the Chairman of The Liberty Counsel, has already had that opportunity.
Anyway, their latest e-mail provided another disturbing insight into the distortions and fear-mongering they use to raise money and recruit people into their fold. Here is the excerpt:
For the past several years, Liberty Counsel has been engaged in an intense legal struggle to preserve the institution of marriage. We are fighting hard because we fully understand the consequences of losing! Even if homosexual activists gain the right to same-sex "marriage," they will not be satisfied.
The goal of radical pro-homosexuals and their activist groups is to destroy marriage and to silence all Christian messages. Christians are already being systematically forced out of business and silenced by the radical pro-homosexual elements in our society.
To paint the entire GLBT community with these broad strokes is either delusional or dishonest. Can he find someone who wants to include three people into a marriage or who wants to marry a dog? Sure--there are people way, way, way out on the fringe regarding any issue. There are also people on the fringe of the right-wing who would like to execute homosexuals, but I wouldn't reasonably accuse The Liberty Counsel to have that as part of their agenda nor would I stoop to their level to intentionally misrepresent that as being so.
Obviously, the vast majority of the GLBT community either want full-marriage rights that would not change anything about existing rights for heterosexual couples, merely include same-sex couples, or they just aren't concerned about making it legal and are content to leave those laws just like they are. There is no groundswell of support for taking the concept of legal marriage beyond two people, and I'm confident that Mr. Starver knows that.
The only "Christian" message that the GLBT community is interested in silencing is that of hatred toward GLBT people. Again, there is a large portion of the community that has just completely tuned that message out. Nice work by the right-wing, pushing people not like themselves away from God, hardly what Jesus had in mind with The Great Commission:
Matthew 28: 19-20 (NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
I know the so-called fundamentalists take the end of that scripture to mean teach GLBT people not to be GLBT because of how they have conveniently cherry-picked and misunderstood scripture, but even with that they have often approached it in a way that precludes the first part (far and away the most important) of making disciples.
Approaching people with hatred, bigotry, and judgement (of man, not God) usually results in pushing people away or creating pushback, where people respond in kind with their own hatred, bogotry, and judgement.
Neither one fits the passage from Matthew, an odd approach for any organization supposedly promoting Christian values.
Is Our Society at the Point Where "Marriage Just Doesn't Work?"
I read this op-ed piece in the Washington Blade about the perceived failure of marriage as an institution and cringed.
I CAN’T HELP but think that part of the problem is not divorce itself, but the narrowness with which we construct marriage. The notion that two people live together their entire lives in a primary relationship that is to fulfill their sexual, emotional and spiritual needs is limiting, at best, and bunk, at worst. In short, I’m coming to the conclusion that marriage doesn’t work.
While the sociological evidence may be overwhelming — 50 percent of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce and the number of people marrying in Europe is in steady decline — it has taken personal experience for me to understand that marriage does not work and to begin to articulate an alternative.
The bottom line is that people should be able to live their best lives in relationships that are warm and caring and supportive and loving. For some people those may be lifetime relationships; for others, they may be serial relationships. For all, those relationships will be with many people. Regardless of what church and state recognize, we all craft multiple relationships over a lifetime to fulfill multiple needs.
Have straight people screwed marriage up so badly that this is where we are as a society?
In my opinion, not quite.
Personally, I had a wonderful marriage to my late wife Bette (over 11 years until her passing) and have an amazing marriage with Pastor Brenda. I have never felt that I needed anyone or anything else to suppliment the love, affirmation, satisfaction, and parnership I have enjoyed in both marriages. I have been truly blessed.
I know of other people who have experienced the same. My best friend is coming up on his 20th wedding anniversary and his marriage is still going strong. Apostle Dale and his partner Garrey, now legally married in Canada, have been together for 20 years and Brenda tells me their relationship has never been stronger.
It is overreaching to say that marriage, as it is currently defined, is a failure because so many fail. In baseball, the best hitters fail to reach base seven out of every ten times. Does that mean that the rules should be made easier? No, it merely means that it is a challenging endeavor that takes a lot of committment and hard work, just like a marriage.
I don't think anything that is truly important or valuable comes easily. If it did, how much would it really be worth? I had to work hard at my marriage to Bette, and it was worth every bit of effort and then some. What I learned from that relationship has made mine with Pastor Brenda even easier, but we still work at it, putting the other person's needs first and giving ourselves completely to each other, opening our hearts and souls up, taking a chance on being hurt but trusting each other enough that we don't live in fear of that happening.
It would be easy and somewhat trite to say that God is the answer here, but there have even been a flurry of recent breakups, some of them quite nasty, between high-profile ministry couples that seem to refute that concept.
That doesn't mean it's not true, however. When we are living in God's will, He will bless us. God is all about love, and love needs to be the foundation of a good marriage--love for each other and love for Him.
Of course, there are many, many books written about this and I won't presume to be able to speak comprehensively about marriage in a blog post. I do hope, however, that if you approach the idea cynically, perhaps through valid personal experience like the writer of the Blade editorial, what I am sharing here might help you consider an alternative view. In the Blbie, 1 Corinthians 13 is known as "the love chapter." I'll close here with a short excerpt for you to consider, which I believe is just as applicable to same-sex couples as it is to myself and Pastor Brenda:
1 Corinthians 13, verses 4-7: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I CAN’T HELP but think that part of the problem is not divorce itself, but the narrowness with which we construct marriage. The notion that two people live together their entire lives in a primary relationship that is to fulfill their sexual, emotional and spiritual needs is limiting, at best, and bunk, at worst. In short, I’m coming to the conclusion that marriage doesn’t work.
While the sociological evidence may be overwhelming — 50 percent of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce and the number of people marrying in Europe is in steady decline — it has taken personal experience for me to understand that marriage does not work and to begin to articulate an alternative.
The bottom line is that people should be able to live their best lives in relationships that are warm and caring and supportive and loving. For some people those may be lifetime relationships; for others, they may be serial relationships. For all, those relationships will be with many people. Regardless of what church and state recognize, we all craft multiple relationships over a lifetime to fulfill multiple needs.
Have straight people screwed marriage up so badly that this is where we are as a society?
In my opinion, not quite.
Personally, I had a wonderful marriage to my late wife Bette (over 11 years until her passing) and have an amazing marriage with Pastor Brenda. I have never felt that I needed anyone or anything else to suppliment the love, affirmation, satisfaction, and parnership I have enjoyed in both marriages. I have been truly blessed.
I know of other people who have experienced the same. My best friend is coming up on his 20th wedding anniversary and his marriage is still going strong. Apostle Dale and his partner Garrey, now legally married in Canada, have been together for 20 years and Brenda tells me their relationship has never been stronger.
It is overreaching to say that marriage, as it is currently defined, is a failure because so many fail. In baseball, the best hitters fail to reach base seven out of every ten times. Does that mean that the rules should be made easier? No, it merely means that it is a challenging endeavor that takes a lot of committment and hard work, just like a marriage.
I don't think anything that is truly important or valuable comes easily. If it did, how much would it really be worth? I had to work hard at my marriage to Bette, and it was worth every bit of effort and then some. What I learned from that relationship has made mine with Pastor Brenda even easier, but we still work at it, putting the other person's needs first and giving ourselves completely to each other, opening our hearts and souls up, taking a chance on being hurt but trusting each other enough that we don't live in fear of that happening.
It would be easy and somewhat trite to say that God is the answer here, but there have even been a flurry of recent breakups, some of them quite nasty, between high-profile ministry couples that seem to refute that concept.
That doesn't mean it's not true, however. When we are living in God's will, He will bless us. God is all about love, and love needs to be the foundation of a good marriage--love for each other and love for Him.
Of course, there are many, many books written about this and I won't presume to be able to speak comprehensively about marriage in a blog post. I do hope, however, that if you approach the idea cynically, perhaps through valid personal experience like the writer of the Blade editorial, what I am sharing here might help you consider an alternative view. In the Blbie, 1 Corinthians 13 is known as "the love chapter." I'll close here with a short excerpt for you to consider, which I believe is just as applicable to same-sex couples as it is to myself and Pastor Brenda:
1 Corinthians 13, verses 4-7: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
The Political Closet
That's a term used in this essay in the Gay City News, referring to a politician who touts their support for GLBT equality yet stops short on the issue of same-sex marriage.
As the writer, Yoav Sivan, points out, that is one crowded closet here in the United States. Should the GLBT community still support presidential candidates who support issues like hate crimes legislation, ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" but settle for civil unions instead of full marriage rights?
The task before gay politicians is how to emerge from two closets - their personal closet in which they can choose to hide their sexuality and their political closet in which they can choose to hide their pro-gay stands.
No one watching the recent Human Rights Campaign/Logo forum of Democratic presidential candidates could doubt that all three of the leading contenders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, remain in the political closet. None of them was convincing in claiming to be against marriage equality.
In the race for the Democratic nomination, the Democratic presidential hopefuls are attempting to court gay voters without coming out as too pro-gay. Even LGBT organizations tend to play along by providing them auspices, helping them fundraise while not asking for the political token in return.
They convince themselves that it is worthwhile to keep low profile now in order to install a friendlier face in the White House. But isn't about time that gay rights be allowed in the White House through the main entrance and not merely through the back door?
Yes, closeted liberal politicians - we know whom they are - can keep their private life out of view of the cameras. But due to the continuous efforts of gay rights activists, a politician cannot ignore the gay agenda any longer.
If those politicians want to keep to their personal closet, it cannot be at the expense of our rights. If they are not willing to advocate what's in their hearts - marriage equality and nothing less - we gay activists must drag them out of the political closet by whatever tools at our disposal and never let them back in.
I strongly agree with the principles Sivan expresses here, but the problem right now is the execution. If the GLBT community does not support the Democratic nominee, warts and all, they give the Republican candidate a greater chance of winning, which almost certainly would be a setback in the struggle for greater rights.
What would be needed is a Democratic candidate with the courage and strength of conviction who could also obtain the resources needed for a successful campaign. Sadly, that individual has not forward, if he or she even exists at all. That leaves voters interested in GLBT equality with a lesser of the evils decision.
Hopefully, a Democratic president who at least moved the equality ball upfield, even if they fall short of the goal line (full marriage rights) would encourage more support for equality and eventually make supporting same-sex marriage politically expedient.
That is the ONLY way I ever see it becoming reality.
As the writer, Yoav Sivan, points out, that is one crowded closet here in the United States. Should the GLBT community still support presidential candidates who support issues like hate crimes legislation, ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" but settle for civil unions instead of full marriage rights?
The task before gay politicians is how to emerge from two closets - their personal closet in which they can choose to hide their sexuality and their political closet in which they can choose to hide their pro-gay stands.
No one watching the recent Human Rights Campaign/Logo forum of Democratic presidential candidates could doubt that all three of the leading contenders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, remain in the political closet. None of them was convincing in claiming to be against marriage equality.
In the race for the Democratic nomination, the Democratic presidential hopefuls are attempting to court gay voters without coming out as too pro-gay. Even LGBT organizations tend to play along by providing them auspices, helping them fundraise while not asking for the political token in return.
They convince themselves that it is worthwhile to keep low profile now in order to install a friendlier face in the White House. But isn't about time that gay rights be allowed in the White House through the main entrance and not merely through the back door?
Yes, closeted liberal politicians - we know whom they are - can keep their private life out of view of the cameras. But due to the continuous efforts of gay rights activists, a politician cannot ignore the gay agenda any longer.
If those politicians want to keep to their personal closet, it cannot be at the expense of our rights. If they are not willing to advocate what's in their hearts - marriage equality and nothing less - we gay activists must drag them out of the political closet by whatever tools at our disposal and never let them back in.
I strongly agree with the principles Sivan expresses here, but the problem right now is the execution. If the GLBT community does not support the Democratic nominee, warts and all, they give the Republican candidate a greater chance of winning, which almost certainly would be a setback in the struggle for greater rights.
What would be needed is a Democratic candidate with the courage and strength of conviction who could also obtain the resources needed for a successful campaign. Sadly, that individual has not forward, if he or she even exists at all. That leaves voters interested in GLBT equality with a lesser of the evils decision.
Hopefully, a Democratic president who at least moved the equality ball upfield, even if they fall short of the goal line (full marriage rights) would encourage more support for equality and eventually make supporting same-sex marriage politically expedient.
That is the ONLY way I ever see it becoming reality.
September 02, 2007
Debate on the Merits of Outing
There is a debate that is posted on the Newsweek website that I think readers here will be interested in.
The participants are Michelangelgo Signorile, author and host of a talk program on Sirius OutQ radio and Chris Crain, author and former editor of a block of gay newspapers like the Washington Blade. The topic is the ethics of "outing" public officials, especially anti-gay ones. Here are some excerpts, but I suggest you check out the whole debate:
Signorile: I think reporters, editors and news producers are gradually seeing the importance and the relevance of looking into this issue with regard to public figures. If people are going to make other people’s lives into campaign issues by promoting "family values," then it is right to look into issues relevant to their own lives.
Crain: (Idaho Statesman reporter Dan) Popkey spent months interviewing anyone familiar with gay life in Washington, D.C., including me, asking questions about where closeted men cruise for sex. This is a witch hunt, not legitimate journalism.
Crain: They will go after anyone whose private sex life is, according to them, inconsistent with their public views. In some cases, "outing" activists including you, Mike, have gone after nonpoliticians and even openly gay and pro-gay public figures if their private sex lives are deemed inconsistent with their public views. Anonymous ads on online sex sites have been exposed, and the claims of alleged past sex partners have been sought and published. These activists have no boundaries when it comes to the private sex lives of public figures, and they would drag the media into the bedrooms, toilets and phone-sex chat lines with them. It's not legitimate journalism, it invades the privacy of public figures, and (whether they realize it or not) it smears gay people generally by reinforcing the idea that we're all out there furtively looking for anonymous sex.
Signorile: Some people adhere only to the hypocrisy test; others, like me, are about normalizing sexual orientation in journalism and not keeping homosexuality as the dirty little secret while heterosexuality is glamorized. For me, a public figure's homosexuality should be reported on when relevant to a larger story, just as when heterosexuality is reported on or asked about whenever relevant.
Personally, I agree with Signorile. Public figures put themselves out there and often trade on publicity they seek. I believe the flip side to that is puting relevant parts of their lives under scrutiny, particularly but not exclusively when their public positions are inconsistent with how they live their lives.
If you want to hide something about your life, you should stay out of the spotlight. If you chose to put yourself out there for public consumption, in today's society you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
The participants are Michelangelgo Signorile, author and host of a talk program on Sirius OutQ radio and Chris Crain, author and former editor of a block of gay newspapers like the Washington Blade. The topic is the ethics of "outing" public officials, especially anti-gay ones. Here are some excerpts, but I suggest you check out the whole debate:
Signorile: I think reporters, editors and news producers are gradually seeing the importance and the relevance of looking into this issue with regard to public figures. If people are going to make other people’s lives into campaign issues by promoting "family values," then it is right to look into issues relevant to their own lives.
Crain: (Idaho Statesman reporter Dan) Popkey spent months interviewing anyone familiar with gay life in Washington, D.C., including me, asking questions about where closeted men cruise for sex. This is a witch hunt, not legitimate journalism.
Crain: They will go after anyone whose private sex life is, according to them, inconsistent with their public views. In some cases, "outing" activists including you, Mike, have gone after nonpoliticians and even openly gay and pro-gay public figures if their private sex lives are deemed inconsistent with their public views. Anonymous ads on online sex sites have been exposed, and the claims of alleged past sex partners have been sought and published. These activists have no boundaries when it comes to the private sex lives of public figures, and they would drag the media into the bedrooms, toilets and phone-sex chat lines with them. It's not legitimate journalism, it invades the privacy of public figures, and (whether they realize it or not) it smears gay people generally by reinforcing the idea that we're all out there furtively looking for anonymous sex.
Signorile: Some people adhere only to the hypocrisy test; others, like me, are about normalizing sexual orientation in journalism and not keeping homosexuality as the dirty little secret while heterosexuality is glamorized. For me, a public figure's homosexuality should be reported on when relevant to a larger story, just as when heterosexuality is reported on or asked about whenever relevant.
Personally, I agree with Signorile. Public figures put themselves out there and often trade on publicity they seek. I believe the flip side to that is puting relevant parts of their lives under scrutiny, particularly but not exclusively when their public positions are inconsistent with how they live their lives.
If you want to hide something about your life, you should stay out of the spotlight. If you chose to put yourself out there for public consumption, in today's society you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
August 31, 2007
Another Straight Ally Shares Her Thoughts
I ran across a post that Kathy Baldock made on GayChristian.net where she copied a column she had written for a publication called "Reno Out" in Nevada. I asked her permission to reprint it here and she was kind enough to say yes. Kathy has actually written two columns for Reno Out, and I am posting the first one here. I'll post the other one soon, and hopefully I'll be able to share them with you on a regular basis going forward. Enjoy.
I’ve realized lately that five simple words open the door to conversation with people who might otherwise be content to do the pleasantries and move on. “I am a social activist”, I say. Is it global warming, immigration, the homeless, or the handicapped? What is it that drive my passions? Certainly each of these topics warrant my concerns. My trigger, however, is the gay community. From a time I cannot pinpoint, I have cared that bigotry does exist towards my gay friends. Years ago, a Native American lesbian with whom I have a very close relationship said, “I am considered the lowest of the low in society.” I felt her pain, I feel her pain. In November , I sat in a friend’s dining room watching the election results as FOX News posted the gay marriage results state by state. He spewed out, “that’s what’s wrong with America, the gays are ruining the American family”. Let’s ignore his own adultery that ruined his American family. Rather, let’s leer at Raf and Tim’s 17 year relationship. They knew on their first date that they wanted to spend their lives together. They “got married” one year later and moved in together. Let’s also look at two lesbian friends of mine who have been together for 14 years sharing love, faithfulness and respect behind closed doors, because being gay invalidates their belief system to many fellow Christians. This straight girl longs for much of what I see that these two couples share.
What is wrong with America and the rest of the world? If I got to elect one dream candidate next November, I would elect President Jesus. His platform is mercy, compassion, human dignity, justice and hospitality. But, He is not running; He expects His followers to do the work for Him . In the arena of social justice for the LGBTQ community, an accurate picture of His heart and agenda have not been reflected.
I am sorry that this distortion has hurt people. In January, I went to the Gay Christian Conference, sponsored by gaychristian.net, for four days. I was the first straight Christian to join them in their three years of meeting. Was I going to see for myself “ what is wrong with America?” Surely not in the way in which the rhetorical question was posed to me in November. I did not know my purpose, I just knew I needed to go listen , meet with and learn from my gay brothers and sisters. One night late, during the please-hear-my -pain-and-journey open mike, the Jesus I say I follow took over. I publicly apologized for the rejection of gay children by their parents, for rejection of the gay community by the straight community and rejection of the gay church by the straight church. I did not just say I was sorry, I was blessed with the associated pain God feels over each of these issues; this made the sorrow very real to me.
Healing began that night for hundreds of people; healing that I want to be involved in, as a Jesus person. I see hatred swirling downwardly, hatred between two groups I care about: the Christian community and the gay community. Neither may be honest enough to say the word “hate”, but I am going to adhere to the Jesus definition which basically says, if it ain’t total love, then it is hate. I may be one person now, but I flow and move in many circles in our community and beyond. I choose to be as stalwart as Tank Man, who in June of 1989 stood in Tiananmen Square, in front of 17 People’s Republic army tanks. He is my personal hero, standing there in his work clothes with his grocery bag and in his silence; he said before the watching world “stop this destruction, stop this craziness.”
I have raised two wonderful children and a new book has begun for my life. I do not like bigotry. That is one thing wrong with America, with humanity……I want to stand in my personal Tiananmen Square each day. I may only be a small plot of land now, but I know the passion and truth God has put in me will extend beyond what I can see. I make effort to speak to the two side of the chasm. To my gay friends, I say “can we re-look at the Jesus I know, not the misrepresented one, the hateful one?” Come talk to me, or go see my friend Denise Cordova at Light of the Soul Christian Ministries. They meet every Sunday at 7 pm at the First Congregational Church on Sunnyside. She is a married, lesbian, Christian pastor. That may wrinkle a few noses. Good.
Wherever you sit in the discussion, if you meet me and I say ‘I am a social activist”, be ready to engage in a conversation of mercy, compassion, human dignity, compassion and hospitality ala my Leader. You may not share my tenets, that’s okay. But, let’s talk, and begin to move towards dispelling the hatred, the fear, the misunderstandings. I want my Christian lesbian friends to have the freedoms I have in the church and in public. I want the two groups that I care about to experience the Jesus I know . I will stand daily in my work clothes with my grocery bags in front of the tanks of bigotry and say “stop this destruction, stop this craziness.”
I’ve realized lately that five simple words open the door to conversation with people who might otherwise be content to do the pleasantries and move on. “I am a social activist”, I say. Is it global warming, immigration, the homeless, or the handicapped? What is it that drive my passions? Certainly each of these topics warrant my concerns. My trigger, however, is the gay community. From a time I cannot pinpoint, I have cared that bigotry does exist towards my gay friends. Years ago, a Native American lesbian with whom I have a very close relationship said, “I am considered the lowest of the low in society.” I felt her pain, I feel her pain. In November , I sat in a friend’s dining room watching the election results as FOX News posted the gay marriage results state by state. He spewed out, “that’s what’s wrong with America, the gays are ruining the American family”. Let’s ignore his own adultery that ruined his American family. Rather, let’s leer at Raf and Tim’s 17 year relationship. They knew on their first date that they wanted to spend their lives together. They “got married” one year later and moved in together. Let’s also look at two lesbian friends of mine who have been together for 14 years sharing love, faithfulness and respect behind closed doors, because being gay invalidates their belief system to many fellow Christians. This straight girl longs for much of what I see that these two couples share.
What is wrong with America and the rest of the world? If I got to elect one dream candidate next November, I would elect President Jesus. His platform is mercy, compassion, human dignity, justice and hospitality. But, He is not running; He expects His followers to do the work for Him . In the arena of social justice for the LGBTQ community, an accurate picture of His heart and agenda have not been reflected.
I am sorry that this distortion has hurt people. In January, I went to the Gay Christian Conference, sponsored by gaychristian.net, for four days. I was the first straight Christian to join them in their three years of meeting. Was I going to see for myself “ what is wrong with America?” Surely not in the way in which the rhetorical question was posed to me in November. I did not know my purpose, I just knew I needed to go listen , meet with and learn from my gay brothers and sisters. One night late, during the please-hear-my -pain-and-journey open mike, the Jesus I say I follow took over. I publicly apologized for the rejection of gay children by their parents, for rejection of the gay community by the straight community and rejection of the gay church by the straight church. I did not just say I was sorry, I was blessed with the associated pain God feels over each of these issues; this made the sorrow very real to me.
Healing began that night for hundreds of people; healing that I want to be involved in, as a Jesus person. I see hatred swirling downwardly, hatred between two groups I care about: the Christian community and the gay community. Neither may be honest enough to say the word “hate”, but I am going to adhere to the Jesus definition which basically says, if it ain’t total love, then it is hate. I may be one person now, but I flow and move in many circles in our community and beyond. I choose to be as stalwart as Tank Man, who in June of 1989 stood in Tiananmen Square, in front of 17 People’s Republic army tanks. He is my personal hero, standing there in his work clothes with his grocery bag and in his silence; he said before the watching world “stop this destruction, stop this craziness.”
I have raised two wonderful children and a new book has begun for my life. I do not like bigotry. That is one thing wrong with America, with humanity……I want to stand in my personal Tiananmen Square each day. I may only be a small plot of land now, but I know the passion and truth God has put in me will extend beyond what I can see. I make effort to speak to the two side of the chasm. To my gay friends, I say “can we re-look at the Jesus I know, not the misrepresented one, the hateful one?” Come talk to me, or go see my friend Denise Cordova at Light of the Soul Christian Ministries. They meet every Sunday at 7 pm at the First Congregational Church on Sunnyside. She is a married, lesbian, Christian pastor. That may wrinkle a few noses. Good.
Wherever you sit in the discussion, if you meet me and I say ‘I am a social activist”, be ready to engage in a conversation of mercy, compassion, human dignity, compassion and hospitality ala my Leader. You may not share my tenets, that’s okay. But, let’s talk, and begin to move towards dispelling the hatred, the fear, the misunderstandings. I want my Christian lesbian friends to have the freedoms I have in the church and in public. I want the two groups that I care about to experience the Jesus I know . I will stand daily in my work clothes with my grocery bags in front of the tanks of bigotry and say “stop this destruction, stop this craziness.”
I Hate Writing About Things That Happen In the Men's Room
I couldn't think of anything else to title this post, so I just went with the thought running through my head. Since you are reading this blog, I suspect you've heard of the problem Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig ran into at a Minnesota airport. He was arrested during a police sting for lewd conduct in the men's room.
I'm posting because I ran across two interesting accounts of this story, one from each side.
First, from Pink News UK where, somewhat surprisingly, Rep Barney Frank disagrees with senators like John McCain who are calling for Craig's regisnation:
"What he did, it’s hypocritical, but it’s not an abuse of his office in the sense that he was taking money for corrupt votes. I think people should resign when they have clearly done the job in a way that is dishonest.
"Mr Frank added: "It’s one thing to say that someone can’t be trusted to vote without being corrupt, it’s another to say that he can’t be trusted to go to the bathroom by himself."
Personally, I'm not sure I'd be happy with a senator that had an issue with either. Also in the Pink News article is some detail (not graphic) about the incident.
Courts heard that plain clothes officer, who sat in an adjacent cubicle in a public toilet at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, observed that Craig repeatedly tapped his foot - supposedly a well-known signal for initiating gay sex - before brushing his foot against the officer's and eventually resorting to waving his hand underneath the cubicle partition.
This would strongly contradict Craig's adamant, and I do mean adamant, denial that he is gay. I think he doth protest too much.
Now swinging to the right, the news mouthpiece for the American (Straight) Family Association.
Matt Barber is policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America. He says anonymous homosexual sex in public restrooms is a national problem, noting Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle who has angered homosexual activists with his efforts to crack down on such activity.
"Not all men who self-identify as homosexual, or who engage in homosexual behaviors, take part in these types of anonymous homosexual rendezvous -- but we know that statistics show that a lot of them do (emphasis mine)," says Barber. "And I think that people need to consider how they might feel if one of their children were to walk in at a park, or an airport, or elsewhere into a restroom and walk into this type of behavior. Something needs to be done about it."
People who engage is sweeping, unsubstantiated, indicting generalizations like Barber did here, and does on a regular basis, should lose their right to speak to anyone with a recorder, computer, or even a pencil that might write his latest utterance down. I doubt he truly believes that, but if he does, he has that right. He just doesn't need to inflict it on others, especially those who are gullable enough to buy into it.
I'm posting because I ran across two interesting accounts of this story, one from each side.
First, from Pink News UK where, somewhat surprisingly, Rep Barney Frank disagrees with senators like John McCain who are calling for Craig's regisnation:
"What he did, it’s hypocritical, but it’s not an abuse of his office in the sense that he was taking money for corrupt votes. I think people should resign when they have clearly done the job in a way that is dishonest.
"Mr Frank added: "It’s one thing to say that someone can’t be trusted to vote without being corrupt, it’s another to say that he can’t be trusted to go to the bathroom by himself."
Personally, I'm not sure I'd be happy with a senator that had an issue with either. Also in the Pink News article is some detail (not graphic) about the incident.
Courts heard that plain clothes officer, who sat in an adjacent cubicle in a public toilet at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, observed that Craig repeatedly tapped his foot - supposedly a well-known signal for initiating gay sex - before brushing his foot against the officer's and eventually resorting to waving his hand underneath the cubicle partition.
This would strongly contradict Craig's adamant, and I do mean adamant, denial that he is gay. I think he doth protest too much.
Now swinging to the right, the news mouthpiece for the American (Straight) Family Association.
Matt Barber is policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America. He says anonymous homosexual sex in public restrooms is a national problem, noting Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle who has angered homosexual activists with his efforts to crack down on such activity.
"Not all men who self-identify as homosexual, or who engage in homosexual behaviors, take part in these types of anonymous homosexual rendezvous -- but we know that statistics show that a lot of them do (emphasis mine)," says Barber. "And I think that people need to consider how they might feel if one of their children were to walk in at a park, or an airport, or elsewhere into a restroom and walk into this type of behavior. Something needs to be done about it."
People who engage is sweeping, unsubstantiated, indicting generalizations like Barber did here, and does on a regular basis, should lose their right to speak to anyone with a recorder, computer, or even a pencil that might write his latest utterance down. I doubt he truly believes that, but if he does, he has that right. He just doesn't need to inflict it on others, especially those who are gullable enough to buy into it.
August 30, 2007
Fired For Being Straight?
That's the claim being made by Jeffrey Shapiro, who is suing two HIV/AIDS non-profit organizations that fired him. Here's the report from The Advocate.
This touches on something that I have wondered for a while since I've gotten involved in GLBT rights advocacy. How far can a straight man like me go with it?
Here is a story of how a straight woman has become the head of a local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, so it does happen that straight people can lead GLBT organizations, but will it work?
How much of that will be perceived as a welcome contribution from a straight ally, and how much will be perceived as a straight person horning in on a GLBT organization. How much leadership will be accepted by the GLBT members of a gay advocacy group from a straight person who can not directly relate to the issues they face. Have strong empathy, sure, but not being able to directly identify with the inability to marry, potential job discrimination because of sexual orientation, etc.
Personally, I've been totally accepted in my church, which is made up of a strong majority of GLBT people. I'm on the board of directors and currently a deacon candidate. I've even been given the opportunity to preach from the pulpit--no issues there.
How much impact could I have in a political organization working for GLBT advocacy?
I'd really be interested in receiving feedback on that question from my GLBT readers.
This touches on something that I have wondered for a while since I've gotten involved in GLBT rights advocacy. How far can a straight man like me go with it?
Here is a story of how a straight woman has become the head of a local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, so it does happen that straight people can lead GLBT organizations, but will it work?
How much of that will be perceived as a welcome contribution from a straight ally, and how much will be perceived as a straight person horning in on a GLBT organization. How much leadership will be accepted by the GLBT members of a gay advocacy group from a straight person who can not directly relate to the issues they face. Have strong empathy, sure, but not being able to directly identify with the inability to marry, potential job discrimination because of sexual orientation, etc.
Personally, I've been totally accepted in my church, which is made up of a strong majority of GLBT people. I'm on the board of directors and currently a deacon candidate. I've even been given the opportunity to preach from the pulpit--no issues there.
How much impact could I have in a political organization working for GLBT advocacy?
I'd really be interested in receiving feedback on that question from my GLBT readers.
Big Day in Court for the GLBT Community
Two very positive rulings came down today that are positive steps toward equality for GLBT people.
First, a lesbian couple in Maine won the right to proceed with legally adopting their foster children. From GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders):
Maine’s Law Court issued a unanimous ruling today that opens the door to two siblings
in foster care to be jointly adopted by the two women who have raised them for the past
six years.
Ann Courtney and Marilyn Kirby of Portland are no longer barred from forming a
permanent, legal parental relationship with their foster children, 10-year-old “M” and her
brother, six-year-old “R”. The children were not named in court documents to protect
their identities.
“We’re ecstatic,” said Ann. “We love these kids, and their well-being means everything
to us. Our daughter and son can now know that we are a family, and we’ll always be a
family.”
Attorney Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who
represented the couple, said, “This decision is in the best interest of the children, who
have flourished under Ann and Marilyn’s care. The court wisely listened to the experts
who knew this family well – everyone from the state’s adoption workers to the children’s
guardian to the social worker who completed the home study.”
The children were removed from their home in 2001 when their biological parents were
no longer able to care for them. They were placed with Ann, an attorney, and Marilyn, a
counselor, who quickly re-organized their lives to address the children’s multiple
emotional, learning, and developmental problems.
“A joint adoption assures that in the event of either adoptive parent’s death, the children’s
continued relationship with the surviving parent is fixed and certain,” the Court said. “A
joint adoption also enables the children to be eligible for a variety of public and private
benefits…Most importantly, a joint adoption affords the adopted children the love,
nurturing, and support of not one, but two parents.”
First, a lesbian couple in Maine won the right to proceed with legally adopting their foster children. From GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders):
Maine’s Law Court issued a unanimous ruling today that opens the door to two siblings
in foster care to be jointly adopted by the two women who have raised them for the past
six years.
Ann Courtney and Marilyn Kirby of Portland are no longer barred from forming a
permanent, legal parental relationship with their foster children, 10-year-old “M” and her
brother, six-year-old “R”. The children were not named in court documents to protect
their identities.
“We’re ecstatic,” said Ann. “We love these kids, and their well-being means everything
to us. Our daughter and son can now know that we are a family, and we’ll always be a
family.”
Attorney Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who
represented the couple, said, “This decision is in the best interest of the children, who
have flourished under Ann and Marilyn’s care. The court wisely listened to the experts
who knew this family well – everyone from the state’s adoption workers to the children’s
guardian to the social worker who completed the home study.”
The children were removed from their home in 2001 when their biological parents were
no longer able to care for them. They were placed with Ann, an attorney, and Marilyn, a
counselor, who quickly re-organized their lives to address the children’s multiple
emotional, learning, and developmental problems.
“A joint adoption assures that in the event of either adoptive parent’s death, the children’s
continued relationship with the surviving parent is fixed and certain,” the Court said. “A
joint adoption also enables the children to be eligible for a variety of public and private
benefits…Most importantly, a joint adoption affords the adopted children the love,
nurturing, and support of not one, but two parents.”
Here is the link to the entire press release.
In a potentially landscape-changing ruling, an Iowa court ruled that it unconstitutional in the state of Iowa to deny a same-sex couple the right to marry. That's right, Iowa could be moving in the direction of having legal same-sex marriages. There is more detail in this release by Lambda Legal, which is arguing the case, and it will ultimately go before the Iowa Supreme Court so nothing is final, but I find this fascinating nonetheless.
You know there are right-wing activists huffing and puffing even as I write this about "activist judges," which we have clearly established here means ones who don't adhere to the right-wing agenda of discrimination and bigotry.
Let them huff and puff, because at least today our courts ruled in favor of fairness and justice in these cases.
August 29, 2007
"The Love That Will Finally Speak Its Name"
The story this post is excerpted from was published in the current issue of Newsweek:
Now I write this after living for 44 years with the most loved and loving, giving, understanding and delightful partner imaginable. For all our time together, we were "in the closet."
For so long, if you were a known homosexual you could lose your job. We kept our relationship from our families—or at least we thought we did. After my partner died, her son told me that her family knew about us, but kept our secret because they believed our relationship was our own business.
But our silence for all those years was also partially a self-induced caution. Looking back, I think it's possible that as the world changed, we didn't change fast enough.
Finally, after almost nine years since my beloved partner's death, I am able to do what I could never have braved in earlier years: pre-sent myself herewith to the world as a lesbian, along with all the women who ask to be judged by the full facet of our characters.
Why am I now able to speak the unspoken? A friend at the retirement community where I live recently came out in the local and national newspapers. When I saw her do that, I thought, for heaven's sake, nobody can fire me, I'm 88 years old, my parents are gone.
Still, I was frightened. It took me several days to put this essay in the mailbox. I owe a lot of credit to people who are comfortable enough in their own skins to say, "This is who I am."
Shall I be haunted for trying to tell my story now, when many might still not wish to address it, or shall I, perhaps, be congratulated?
Ms. Barr, please accept my congratulations. It's never too late to completely be who you are.
Now I write this after living for 44 years with the most loved and loving, giving, understanding and delightful partner imaginable. For all our time together, we were "in the closet."
For so long, if you were a known homosexual you could lose your job. We kept our relationship from our families—or at least we thought we did. After my partner died, her son told me that her family knew about us, but kept our secret because they believed our relationship was our own business.
But our silence for all those years was also partially a self-induced caution. Looking back, I think it's possible that as the world changed, we didn't change fast enough.
Finally, after almost nine years since my beloved partner's death, I am able to do what I could never have braved in earlier years: pre-sent myself herewith to the world as a lesbian, along with all the women who ask to be judged by the full facet of our characters.
Why am I now able to speak the unspoken? A friend at the retirement community where I live recently came out in the local and national newspapers. When I saw her do that, I thought, for heaven's sake, nobody can fire me, I'm 88 years old, my parents are gone.
Still, I was frightened. It took me several days to put this essay in the mailbox. I owe a lot of credit to people who are comfortable enough in their own skins to say, "This is who I am."
Shall I be haunted for trying to tell my story now, when many might still not wish to address it, or shall I, perhaps, be congratulated?
Ms. Barr, please accept my congratulations. It's never too late to completely be who you are.
Can Democrats Produce Results for Gays?
Columnist Deb Price thinks it's time they do:
Congress returns from its August recess soon. And many gay Americans are starting to wonder whether Democrats intend to live up to the "Under new management" sign they hung up at the U.S. Capitol after last November's elections.
With few legislative workdays left before lawmakers become obsessed with the 2008 campaigns, now is the time for Democrats to produce results. And outlawing job discrimination against those of us who're gay should be a top priority.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, remains "very optimistic" ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) will pass the House and Senate this year.
And lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., says she is "absolutely confident" Democratic leaders will schedule a House vote on ENDA.
Brought up for a vote, the bill is all but certain to pass. National surveys continually show that the vast majority of Americans want to protect workers from being fired simply for being gay. Forty-five percent of House members and 40 percent of senators are from the 20 states that already outlaw such discrimination.
And, as (U.S. Rep.) Andrews points out, most lawmakers--Democrats and Republicans alike -- know and care about gay friends, staffers and relatives. "Fifteen years ago, the issue was, 'Should some gay person be able to get a job as a checkout person in a supermarket?' Now it is about whether your cousin should be able to, or your next-door neighbor," said Andrews, who fondly recalls his lesbian aunt.
"It's hard to find anyone with a straight face in my state -- no pun intended -- who would say someone who runs a supermarket should be able to refuse to hire a gay man or lesbian woman," Andrews said.
It's up to the new management team on Capitol Hill to translate the nation's change of heart into gay-friendly laws. Protecting gay workers would be an excellent start.
Opponents to gay rights often hide behind polls that show a majority of people support that position. That is not the case here, and it's time for Congress to come out of hiding and actually do something constructive this session--pass EDNA.
Congress returns from its August recess soon. And many gay Americans are starting to wonder whether Democrats intend to live up to the "Under new management" sign they hung up at the U.S. Capitol after last November's elections.
With few legislative workdays left before lawmakers become obsessed with the 2008 campaigns, now is the time for Democrats to produce results. And outlawing job discrimination against those of us who're gay should be a top priority.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, remains "very optimistic" ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) will pass the House and Senate this year.
And lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., says she is "absolutely confident" Democratic leaders will schedule a House vote on ENDA.
Brought up for a vote, the bill is all but certain to pass. National surveys continually show that the vast majority of Americans want to protect workers from being fired simply for being gay. Forty-five percent of House members and 40 percent of senators are from the 20 states that already outlaw such discrimination.
And, as (U.S. Rep.) Andrews points out, most lawmakers--Democrats and Republicans alike -- know and care about gay friends, staffers and relatives. "Fifteen years ago, the issue was, 'Should some gay person be able to get a job as a checkout person in a supermarket?' Now it is about whether your cousin should be able to, or your next-door neighbor," said Andrews, who fondly recalls his lesbian aunt.
"It's hard to find anyone with a straight face in my state -- no pun intended -- who would say someone who runs a supermarket should be able to refuse to hire a gay man or lesbian woman," Andrews said.
It's up to the new management team on Capitol Hill to translate the nation's change of heart into gay-friendly laws. Protecting gay workers would be an excellent start.
Opponents to gay rights often hide behind polls that show a majority of people support that position. That is not the case here, and it's time for Congress to come out of hiding and actually do something constructive this session--pass EDNA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
