This is an excellent commentary by Stanley Bennett-Clay that just about says it all!
Part of his commentary reads as follows:
God birthed me black, left-handed, artistic and gay; four things that the majority population rejected. Well, I reject your rejection. God made me special and you don’t get it....
And if you don’t get it soon, it will get you. We as a community cannot afford to divide our house. We are many God-created things. If we don’t understand and respect that, then we have a total misunderstanding and disrespect for who we are and who we’re supposed to be as God’s perfect imperfect children. And the ‘not-getting’ will doom us all!
[Thanks to Gay Agenda.]
LGBT people are part of God's multifaceted tapestry in a life where one size doesn't fit all! God made us as He chose to make us according to His sovereign will, and to in any way condemn God's creation is to commit an offense against God!
And all the sanctimonious professing Christians who misuse the Bible to in any way condemn part of God's creation are making a mockery of their claim to being Christians, and have done inestimable harm to the image of Christianity held by many intelligent and sensitive people!
Stanley Bennett-Clay's commentary hits the nail on the head!
His commentary can be read here.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
GOV. DAVID PATERSON OF NEW YORK GETS IT!
"For too long, gay and lesbian New Yorkers - we have pretended they have the same rights as their neighbors and friends. That is not the case. All have been the victims of what is a legal system that has systematically discriminated against them."
[Gov. David] Paterson, who is black, framed the issue in sweeping terms, invoking Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe and drawing a parallel between the fight to eliminate slavery in the 1800s and the current effort to allow same-sex marriage.
"Rights should not be stifled by fear," Paterson said. "What we should understand is that silence should not be a response to injustice - and that if we take not action, we will surely lose."
[For the full article, see here.]
It's high time that all decent people saw the light regarding the struggle for equal rights for LGBT people! This struggle is no different than the struggle for equal rights for any other minority group, and is no less significant than was and is the struggle for equal rights for African Americans in the U.S.
When Gov. Paterson says that "silence should not be a response to injustice," I can only think of all those professing Christians who remain silent amidst the hateful rhetoric visited upon Gay people "in the name of God" by clergy and others who are given undeserved credibility as representing the Prince of Peace.
So, when one reads an article by Rev. Marvin M. Ellison affirming the consistency between Christianity and same-sex marriage, it provides a refreshing oasis that is, unfortunately, very rare, yet shows a Christian who takes God seriously; who takes very seriously Jesus' commands to us to love and not condemn others:
As a Christian theologian, I support marriage equality because I take the Bible seriously. More importantly, I take the God of the Bible seriously. The God I worship has a divine passion for justice that compels me to respect all neighbors and defend their human rights, including the freedom to marry regardless of the gender of the two people.
This freedom to marry is important because my religious tradition teaches that love — the call to love and be loved — is at the very heart of what it means to be human. Love is also holy ground. “Where there is love,” the tradition affirms, “there is God.”
[For the full article, see here.]
Despite the quest for equal rights for Gay people affirmed by Rev. Ellison and relatively few other Christians, the tragic fact is that full and equal civil rights for Gay people will first come to pass in secular society before most all of the churches within the institutional Church jump on the bandwagon and capitalize on the gains made after the necessary "season of suffering" that will have to be endured before the realization of that goal.
The Governor Patersons of the world deserve our respect and admiration for understanding the absolute need for equal rights, and by their so doing bring shame upon so many professing Christians, unlike Rev. Ellison, who don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that we are to be agents of God's grace in this world; we are never to condemn others; we are certainly never to seek to deny others the advantages and rights that we possess.
Remaining silent amidst this tragedy of having Gay people being treated as second-class citizens, being denied equal rights, is just as reprehensible as is the hate-mongering rhetoric that emanates from all too many pulpits and venues throughout the world by people who profess to be Christians but whose very words consign them to a netherworld that has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or with Jesus or with God!
God bless Governor Paterson and Rev. Ellison and all those like them who both see the need for equal rights for Gay people and who have the guts to do their best to see to it that those equal rights are extended to Gay people as soon as possible.
[Gov. David] Paterson, who is black, framed the issue in sweeping terms, invoking Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe and drawing a parallel between the fight to eliminate slavery in the 1800s and the current effort to allow same-sex marriage.
"Rights should not be stifled by fear," Paterson said. "What we should understand is that silence should not be a response to injustice - and that if we take not action, we will surely lose."
[For the full article, see here.]
It's high time that all decent people saw the light regarding the struggle for equal rights for LGBT people! This struggle is no different than the struggle for equal rights for any other minority group, and is no less significant than was and is the struggle for equal rights for African Americans in the U.S.
When Gov. Paterson says that "silence should not be a response to injustice," I can only think of all those professing Christians who remain silent amidst the hateful rhetoric visited upon Gay people "in the name of God" by clergy and others who are given undeserved credibility as representing the Prince of Peace.
So, when one reads an article by Rev. Marvin M. Ellison affirming the consistency between Christianity and same-sex marriage, it provides a refreshing oasis that is, unfortunately, very rare, yet shows a Christian who takes God seriously; who takes very seriously Jesus' commands to us to love and not condemn others:
As a Christian theologian, I support marriage equality because I take the Bible seriously. More importantly, I take the God of the Bible seriously. The God I worship has a divine passion for justice that compels me to respect all neighbors and defend their human rights, including the freedom to marry regardless of the gender of the two people.
This freedom to marry is important because my religious tradition teaches that love — the call to love and be loved — is at the very heart of what it means to be human. Love is also holy ground. “Where there is love,” the tradition affirms, “there is God.”
[For the full article, see here.]
Despite the quest for equal rights for Gay people affirmed by Rev. Ellison and relatively few other Christians, the tragic fact is that full and equal civil rights for Gay people will first come to pass in secular society before most all of the churches within the institutional Church jump on the bandwagon and capitalize on the gains made after the necessary "season of suffering" that will have to be endured before the realization of that goal.
The Governor Patersons of the world deserve our respect and admiration for understanding the absolute need for equal rights, and by their so doing bring shame upon so many professing Christians, unlike Rev. Ellison, who don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that we are to be agents of God's grace in this world; we are never to condemn others; we are certainly never to seek to deny others the advantages and rights that we possess.
Remaining silent amidst this tragedy of having Gay people being treated as second-class citizens, being denied equal rights, is just as reprehensible as is the hate-mongering rhetoric that emanates from all too many pulpits and venues throughout the world by people who profess to be Christians but whose very words consign them to a netherworld that has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or with Jesus or with God!
God bless Governor Paterson and Rev. Ellison and all those like them who both see the need for equal rights for Gay people and who have the guts to do their best to see to it that those equal rights are extended to Gay people as soon as possible.
Friday, April 17, 2009
TODAY IS THE NATIONAL DAY OF SILENCE
Today is the National Day of Silence.
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network will sponsor the 13th annual National Day of Silence tomorrow, April 17. Students from more than 8,000 middle schools, high school and colleges have registered as participants. Students will take some form of a vow of silence to protest and bring attention to anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.
[For the full article, see here.]
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network will sponsor the 13th annual National Day of Silence tomorrow, April 17. Students from more than 8,000 middle schools, high school and colleges have registered as participants. Students will take some form of a vow of silence to protest and bring attention to anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.
[For the full article, see here.]
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
NEW YORK MAY BE THE NEXT STATE TO LEGITIMIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Gov. David A. Paterson [of New York] on Thursday will announce plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.
Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.
The action in Vermont, where state legislators overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, came less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry.
[For the full article, see here.]
The dominoes of homophobia regarding same-sex marriages are continuing to fall, along with the credibility of so many homophobic clergy and homophobic religious and secular groups.
Increasingly, it seems that intelligent and decent people are beginning to see the bankruptcy of the so-called "religious" and other arguments propounded against same-sex marriage; the distortions and downright lies made by homophobic religious and secular people that have hitherto deprived same-sex couples of the same civil rights accorded to heterosexual couples.
I truly believe that same-sex marriage is crucial, as it legitimizes same-sex love; shows same-sex love to be in no way inferior to opposite-sex love; will likely be the vehicle whereby all other civil rights will be won by LGBT people.
Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.
The action in Vermont, where state legislators overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, came less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry.
[For the full article, see here.]
The dominoes of homophobia regarding same-sex marriages are continuing to fall, along with the credibility of so many homophobic clergy and homophobic religious and secular groups.
Increasingly, it seems that intelligent and decent people are beginning to see the bankruptcy of the so-called "religious" and other arguments propounded against same-sex marriage; the distortions and downright lies made by homophobic religious and secular people that have hitherto deprived same-sex couples of the same civil rights accorded to heterosexual couples.
I truly believe that same-sex marriage is crucial, as it legitimizes same-sex love; shows same-sex love to be in no way inferior to opposite-sex love; will likely be the vehicle whereby all other civil rights will be won by LGBT people.
Friday, April 10, 2009
THE DANGEROUS AGENDA OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE
There is now The National Organization For Marriage in the mix to further muddy the waters in order to achieve the goal of preventing same-sex marriages.
Part of its avowed purpose is the following:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.
Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation.
Consistent with its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, NOM works to develop political messaging, build its national grassroots email database of voters, and provide political intelligence and donor infrastructure on the state level, with a focus on developing new strategies for increasing influence in the Northeast and West Coast, where marriage is most under threat.
Their smarmy, distorted, discriminatory, fear-mongering and sanctimonious advertising can be seen in the following brief video.
In case one's eyes start tearing up over the above video, please see the following video which shows that the above video was undoubtedly rehearsed and made by actors who can be seen rehearsing their scripted lines in the following video.
If the rehearsals are real --- we assume they are --- it sort of takes the thunder (literally) out of the argument that same-sex couples are forcing their agenda on religious institutions, because it begs the question, why couldn't they just find non actors to say it? That's particularly evident when you watch different performers speak the same lines.
In a statement, HRC spokesman Brad Luna says, “What’s next for the National Organization for Marriage? Will they hire legendary infomercial pitchman Ron Popeil to hawk their phony agenda? This ad is full of outrageous falsehoods—and they don’t even come out of the mouths of real people.”
[For the full article, see here.]
We should make no mistake: even though the video for the National Organization For Marriage is undoubtedly contrived, many people have neither the necessary critical thinking skills nor the sensitivity to distinguish truth from fiction. As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, said: No matter how big the lie, if it's repeated often enough people will come to believe it. Unfortunately, he was correct in this assessment!
My guess is that's what groups like the National Organization For Marriage is counting on to have its exclusionary agenda become institutionalized in the United States.
Every person in the United States must decide whether some people will be treated like second class citizens or will be treated equally under the law! Each of us must decide whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to each and every United States citizen or not!
To deny Gay people (or any minority group for that matter) full equality plays right into the hands of such groups as the National Organization For Marriage, and all other religious and secular groups that seek to deny dignity and equal rights to Gay people.
As GLAAD stated in reference to the National Organization For Marriage video:
"The distorted, misleading claims of the National Organization for Marriage do one thing and one thing only – perpetuate a climate of hostility and fear that will put committed couples in harm's way," said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano. "We stand in support of One Iowa and our partners on the ground and urge our community to speak out against these divisive attacks."
GLAAD is working with and calling on national and local media in states where the ad is schedule to run including New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to expose the misinformation in these ads in order to bring attention to the real intent of the National Organization for Marriage – to exclude same-sex couples and their families from the responsibilities and protections of marriage.
[See here.]
We can't afford to ignore the animus that lies behind such groups as The National Organization For Marriage, and others that eagerly support it or adhere to their discriminatory values, and their single-minded attempts to deny equal civil rights to Gay people.
If anything should catalyze and motivate meaningful activism against those groups that would deny dignity and equal rights to Gay people, the denial of dignity and equality to Gay couples as seen in the video of the National Organization For Marriage should be that catalyst and motivator!
Part of its avowed purpose is the following:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.
Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation.
Consistent with its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, NOM works to develop political messaging, build its national grassroots email database of voters, and provide political intelligence and donor infrastructure on the state level, with a focus on developing new strategies for increasing influence in the Northeast and West Coast, where marriage is most under threat.
Their smarmy, distorted, discriminatory, fear-mongering and sanctimonious advertising can be seen in the following brief video.
In case one's eyes start tearing up over the above video, please see the following video which shows that the above video was undoubtedly rehearsed and made by actors who can be seen rehearsing their scripted lines in the following video.
If the rehearsals are real --- we assume they are --- it sort of takes the thunder (literally) out of the argument that same-sex couples are forcing their agenda on religious institutions, because it begs the question, why couldn't they just find non actors to say it? That's particularly evident when you watch different performers speak the same lines.
In a statement, HRC spokesman Brad Luna says, “What’s next for the National Organization for Marriage? Will they hire legendary infomercial pitchman Ron Popeil to hawk their phony agenda? This ad is full of outrageous falsehoods—and they don’t even come out of the mouths of real people.”
[For the full article, see here.]
We should make no mistake: even though the video for the National Organization For Marriage is undoubtedly contrived, many people have neither the necessary critical thinking skills nor the sensitivity to distinguish truth from fiction. As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, said: No matter how big the lie, if it's repeated often enough people will come to believe it. Unfortunately, he was correct in this assessment!
My guess is that's what groups like the National Organization For Marriage is counting on to have its exclusionary agenda become institutionalized in the United States.
Every person in the United States must decide whether some people will be treated like second class citizens or will be treated equally under the law! Each of us must decide whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to each and every United States citizen or not!
To deny Gay people (or any minority group for that matter) full equality plays right into the hands of such groups as the National Organization For Marriage, and all other religious and secular groups that seek to deny dignity and equal rights to Gay people.
As GLAAD stated in reference to the National Organization For Marriage video:
"The distorted, misleading claims of the National Organization for Marriage do one thing and one thing only – perpetuate a climate of hostility and fear that will put committed couples in harm's way," said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano. "We stand in support of One Iowa and our partners on the ground and urge our community to speak out against these divisive attacks."
GLAAD is working with and calling on national and local media in states where the ad is schedule to run including New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to expose the misinformation in these ads in order to bring attention to the real intent of the National Organization for Marriage – to exclude same-sex couples and their families from the responsibilities and protections of marriage.
[See here.]
We can't afford to ignore the animus that lies behind such groups as The National Organization For Marriage, and others that eagerly support it or adhere to their discriminatory values, and their single-minded attempts to deny equal civil rights to Gay people.
If anything should catalyze and motivate meaningful activism against those groups that would deny dignity and equal rights to Gay people, the denial of dignity and equality to Gay couples as seen in the video of the National Organization For Marriage should be that catalyst and motivator!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A MUST READ: "THE PERFECT BLEND," ON CHRIST, THE GAY MARTYR
I wish to call your attention to a superb two part post, "The Perfect Blend," on my good friend Don Charles' blog, Christ, The Gay Martyr.
Don Charles is a true fighter for equal rights, and all of his writings attest to his brilliance and tenacity in this fight! His current post, "The Perfect Blend," is, in my opinion, the most brilliant essay he has ever written, or anyone else has written, for that matter!
This two part post is absolutely superb in every way, and it will open your mind to think about being Transgender in a healthy, life-affirming, and spiritual way that is truly liberating. His essay is erudite, articulate, well thought out, and designed to get everyone thinking about the very meaning and elevation of Transgender status in both its spiritual and secular roots and manifestations.
I can't say enough good things about this essay!!!!
Here is an excerpt from this essay to hopefully whet your appetite to read it in full:
...the transsexual population does represent itself as sick or handicapped. It seems to worship hetero-conformity. Some transsexual individuals want so much to conform to traditional concepts of gender that they’ll spend thousands of dollars on dangerous and often inconclusive surgical procedures. They aren't satisfied until they fall totally in line with binary gender expectations. Failing that, they want to get as close to those expectations as possible.
If you want a truly liberating paradigm with which to view Transgender status in its true fullness in both a spiritual and secular sense, you've got to read Don Charles' excellent two part essay entitled, "The Perfect Blend."
Don Charles is a true fighter for equal rights, and all of his writings attest to his brilliance and tenacity in this fight! His current post, "The Perfect Blend," is, in my opinion, the most brilliant essay he has ever written, or anyone else has written, for that matter!
This two part post is absolutely superb in every way, and it will open your mind to think about being Transgender in a healthy, life-affirming, and spiritual way that is truly liberating. His essay is erudite, articulate, well thought out, and designed to get everyone thinking about the very meaning and elevation of Transgender status in both its spiritual and secular roots and manifestations.
I can't say enough good things about this essay!!!!
Here is an excerpt from this essay to hopefully whet your appetite to read it in full:
...the transsexual population does represent itself as sick or handicapped. It seems to worship hetero-conformity. Some transsexual individuals want so much to conform to traditional concepts of gender that they’ll spend thousands of dollars on dangerous and often inconclusive surgical procedures. They aren't satisfied until they fall totally in line with binary gender expectations. Failing that, they want to get as close to those expectations as possible.
If you want a truly liberating paradigm with which to view Transgender status in its true fullness in both a spiritual and secular sense, you've got to read Don Charles' excellent two part essay entitled, "The Perfect Blend."
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
VERMONT LEGALIZES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
I just received this email from Andy Humm:
Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override
By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press Writer Dave Gram, Associated Press Writer – 25 mins ago
MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.
Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.
House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.
Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.
"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."
Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.
"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.
"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.
"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."
Also in the crowd was Michael Feiner, a farmer from Roxbury and gay marriage supporter, who took a break from collecting sap for maple syrup-making to come to the Statehouse.
"I'm taking a break to come and basically make sure that I was here to witness history," he said.
The House had initially passed the bill last week with a 95-52 vote.
Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override
By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press Writer Dave Gram, Associated Press Writer – 25 mins ago
MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.
Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.
House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.
Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.
"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."
Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.
"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.
"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.
"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."
Also in the crowd was Michael Feiner, a farmer from Roxbury and gay marriage supporter, who took a break from collecting sap for maple syrup-making to come to the Statehouse.
"I'm taking a break to come and basically make sure that I was here to witness history," he said.
The House had initially passed the bill last week with a 95-52 vote.
Monday, April 6, 2009
MISOGYNY, HOMOPHOBIA, RACISM, AND XENOPHOBIA
The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges some star-chamber proceeding and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole."
[For the full article, see here.]
Many of us have argued that misogyny is at the root of much homophobia, just as it is at the root of patriarchal religions! Whether it's preventing women from holding leadership positions in assorted institutional churches to requiring certain modes of dress for women, the lack of compliance of which could even be punished by death from others, misogyny can be seen to run throughout these views.
What I'm about to suggest is that the dynamics underlying misogyny can also be applied beyond "hatred (or contempt) of women or girls," and, by so doing, further our understanding of all sorts of hostility against minority groups that are perceived as "weak" and that, therefore, threaten the misogynist's need for control against all forces that he feels are threatening his need to control, in both his relationships as well as in society itself.
Gay men are likely viewed with far more revulsion by misogynists than are lesbians because the former aren't viewed by many misogynists as "real men," whereas lesbians are viewed as somewhat less threatening to many misogynists' world-view regarding their need to control the domains in which they live. The misogynist's dislike, if not downright hatred, of women may be seen to morph into dislike or hatred of anything that looks like it's "womanly," or "weak."
It is interesting that many Straight men get off on watching lesbian sex portrayed on the screen whereas most of those men would be turned off, even revolted, by watching gay male sex displayed on that same screen. The former depictions are far less threatening to the misogynist than are the latter depictions!
Many men's need to control women, to view women as somehow not as strong or as somehow lacking the abilities of men to control a given situation, be it religious or secular, needn't be seen to be restricted to women as the object of their need to control. Many men who are misogynists may also feel they need to control, along with women, all groups within society that they feel can impact their lives in such a way that they will lose their perception of control that they associate with "manliness," and that, in their world-view, in any way threatens their very concept of "a man" that they equate with being "macho," "strong," "in control."
So, as depicted in the above cited article, not ironically printed on the web site, Men's News Daily, we see animus simultaneously directed against immigrants, Gay people, and people of color; all of that animus is justified in this man's mind by the condemnation of "political correctness." So, to be accepting of Gay people is just one example of what this man terms "political correctness."
"The angry white man" can exorcise his misogynist demons by imposing his need for control over what he perceives, and needs to perceive, as "the weak," "the vulnerable," "the minority," or any "other" that threatens his need for control, and threatens in his own mind what he sees as slipping away from him: his sense of "honor" that in his mind comes largely, if not solely, out of his ability to control a situation and/or a relationship in which he finds himself.
So, to the misogynist, women are threatening, as are LGBT people, as are immigrants, as are people of color! They, each in their own way, threaten the misogynists' needs to feel dominant, to dominate a relationship and/or a situation, to see "the other" as weak so they can, therefore, feel themselves to be strong. And to the degree that their sense of self stems from the perception they have of their strength in a given relationship and/or situation, it is to that degree that any perceived threat to their need to dominate will become their enemy.
So, Gay people are in the same league as the other minority groups that were mentioned, as they are seen as a threat by the misogynist to his very manhood! And since his "manhood" is equated in his mind with "strength" and "control," and to the degree that the aforementioned minority groups are seen by him as such threats, it is to that degree that they are his "enemy."
Therefore, he needs to externalize his animus against them by meeting his psychological need for control by appealing to sanitized terms, such as "traditional family values," "conservatism," "political correctness," and the like, in order to justify in the public's mind (and, likely, in his own mind as well) the underlying dynamic that may really be operating in his psyche that demands control over others, particularly others who are deemed by him as threats to his view of himself as well as threats to the world to which he has become accustomed, and that he feels is slipping away from his understanding and perceived control.
And what may be most galling to the misogynist is that what he has hitherto perceived as "weak" and "Inferior" seem to be gaining ascendancy and strength in society, and that ascendancy, because it rocks his inner (and outer) world, is likely to scare him to death! And out of that fear, he feels the need to lash out against all those minority groups in what he perceives to be in a socially acceptable way, and talk radio is replete with such "lashing out" that helps in the purging of that very need to "return to good old fashioned values."
Therefore, we all have to be involved in the civil rights struggle for LGBT people! Misogyny may not only be seen to lie within the root of homophobia, but may also be seen to lie within the root of racism and all manifestations of xenophobia as well!
[Many women can also be misogynistic, but that is a subject for another time.]
[For the full article, see here.]
Many of us have argued that misogyny is at the root of much homophobia, just as it is at the root of patriarchal religions! Whether it's preventing women from holding leadership positions in assorted institutional churches to requiring certain modes of dress for women, the lack of compliance of which could even be punished by death from others, misogyny can be seen to run throughout these views.
What I'm about to suggest is that the dynamics underlying misogyny can also be applied beyond "hatred (or contempt) of women or girls," and, by so doing, further our understanding of all sorts of hostility against minority groups that are perceived as "weak" and that, therefore, threaten the misogynist's need for control against all forces that he feels are threatening his need to control, in both his relationships as well as in society itself.
Gay men are likely viewed with far more revulsion by misogynists than are lesbians because the former aren't viewed by many misogynists as "real men," whereas lesbians are viewed as somewhat less threatening to many misogynists' world-view regarding their need to control the domains in which they live. The misogynist's dislike, if not downright hatred, of women may be seen to morph into dislike or hatred of anything that looks like it's "womanly," or "weak."
It is interesting that many Straight men get off on watching lesbian sex portrayed on the screen whereas most of those men would be turned off, even revolted, by watching gay male sex displayed on that same screen. The former depictions are far less threatening to the misogynist than are the latter depictions!
Many men's need to control women, to view women as somehow not as strong or as somehow lacking the abilities of men to control a given situation, be it religious or secular, needn't be seen to be restricted to women as the object of their need to control. Many men who are misogynists may also feel they need to control, along with women, all groups within society that they feel can impact their lives in such a way that they will lose their perception of control that they associate with "manliness," and that, in their world-view, in any way threatens their very concept of "a man" that they equate with being "macho," "strong," "in control."
So, as depicted in the above cited article, not ironically printed on the web site, Men's News Daily, we see animus simultaneously directed against immigrants, Gay people, and people of color; all of that animus is justified in this man's mind by the condemnation of "political correctness." So, to be accepting of Gay people is just one example of what this man terms "political correctness."
"The angry white man" can exorcise his misogynist demons by imposing his need for control over what he perceives, and needs to perceive, as "the weak," "the vulnerable," "the minority," or any "other" that threatens his need for control, and threatens in his own mind what he sees as slipping away from him: his sense of "honor" that in his mind comes largely, if not solely, out of his ability to control a situation and/or a relationship in which he finds himself.
So, to the misogynist, women are threatening, as are LGBT people, as are immigrants, as are people of color! They, each in their own way, threaten the misogynists' needs to feel dominant, to dominate a relationship and/or a situation, to see "the other" as weak so they can, therefore, feel themselves to be strong. And to the degree that their sense of self stems from the perception they have of their strength in a given relationship and/or situation, it is to that degree that any perceived threat to their need to dominate will become their enemy.
So, Gay people are in the same league as the other minority groups that were mentioned, as they are seen as a threat by the misogynist to his very manhood! And since his "manhood" is equated in his mind with "strength" and "control," and to the degree that the aforementioned minority groups are seen by him as such threats, it is to that degree that they are his "enemy."
Therefore, he needs to externalize his animus against them by meeting his psychological need for control by appealing to sanitized terms, such as "traditional family values," "conservatism," "political correctness," and the like, in order to justify in the public's mind (and, likely, in his own mind as well) the underlying dynamic that may really be operating in his psyche that demands control over others, particularly others who are deemed by him as threats to his view of himself as well as threats to the world to which he has become accustomed, and that he feels is slipping away from his understanding and perceived control.
And what may be most galling to the misogynist is that what he has hitherto perceived as "weak" and "Inferior" seem to be gaining ascendancy and strength in society, and that ascendancy, because it rocks his inner (and outer) world, is likely to scare him to death! And out of that fear, he feels the need to lash out against all those minority groups in what he perceives to be in a socially acceptable way, and talk radio is replete with such "lashing out" that helps in the purging of that very need to "return to good old fashioned values."
Therefore, we all have to be involved in the civil rights struggle for LGBT people! Misogyny may not only be seen to lie within the root of homophobia, but may also be seen to lie within the root of racism and all manifestations of xenophobia as well!
[Many women can also be misogynistic, but that is a subject for another time.]
Saturday, April 4, 2009
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION BY THE COURTS OR BY THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY?
This article highlights the crux of the dynamics of our Democratic Republic. When it comes to granting and/or removing civil rights from any minority group, is it the job of the Judiciary to decide or can the will of the majority of the electorate decide?
Yesterday's win in Iowa, and the likely attempt by those in that state who are against same-sex marriage to gather enough signatures to put this issue on a ballot, places the state Supreme Courts in both Iowa and in California, as well as in other states, to decide their role regarding Constitutional rights. That is, does the Supreme Court in a state interpret the Constitution regarding civil rights or can the will of the majority of the electorate overturn the state Supreme Court's decision and, therefore, be the final decision-maker regarding civil rights?
If the will of the majority of the electorate can override a State Supreme Court's decision regarding civil rights of a minority group, one has to ask what the role of a Supreme Court is?
We say we are "a nation of laws!" Now state Supreme Courts have to decide whether or not this assertion is true and, while it is discussing this issue, also has to decide its own relevance in our society.
Same-sex marriage has provided the litmus test to ultimately decide whether or not we are a nation of laws and whether or not the Judiciary has the final say in interpreting the Constitution.
For any state Supreme Court, such as the one in California, to decide that the will of the majority can override its decisions regarding civil rights as it interprets the Constitution, relegates this country to be at the mercy of mob rule at the ballot box, and invalidates the very need for a state Supreme Court!
And a tyranny of the majority is one of the very things that the Founding Fathers were most afraid of! That's why the U.S. is a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy!
The civil rights of every single minority group are up for grabs if there can be such tyranny of the majority! And it is hoped that the members of the state Supreme Courts are sensitive enough to understand this basic truth!
Yesterday's win in Iowa, and the likely attempt by those in that state who are against same-sex marriage to gather enough signatures to put this issue on a ballot, places the state Supreme Courts in both Iowa and in California, as well as in other states, to decide their role regarding Constitutional rights. That is, does the Supreme Court in a state interpret the Constitution regarding civil rights or can the will of the majority of the electorate overturn the state Supreme Court's decision and, therefore, be the final decision-maker regarding civil rights?
If the will of the majority of the electorate can override a State Supreme Court's decision regarding civil rights of a minority group, one has to ask what the role of a Supreme Court is?
We say we are "a nation of laws!" Now state Supreme Courts have to decide whether or not this assertion is true and, while it is discussing this issue, also has to decide its own relevance in our society.
Same-sex marriage has provided the litmus test to ultimately decide whether or not we are a nation of laws and whether or not the Judiciary has the final say in interpreting the Constitution.
For any state Supreme Court, such as the one in California, to decide that the will of the majority can override its decisions regarding civil rights as it interprets the Constitution, relegates this country to be at the mercy of mob rule at the ballot box, and invalidates the very need for a state Supreme Court!
And a tyranny of the majority is one of the very things that the Founding Fathers were most afraid of! That's why the U.S. is a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy!
The civil rights of every single minority group are up for grabs if there can be such tyranny of the majority! And it is hoped that the members of the state Supreme Courts are sensitive enough to understand this basic truth!
Friday, April 3, 2009
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS LEGAL IN IOWA!
I just received this email from Andy Humm. It's great news, to say the least! It's puzzling to realize that Iowa can have a unanimous Supreme Court decision, yet California had a split decision on its Supreme Court and that vote was overturned by the voters, until further notice.
This is Andy Humm's email:
Brothers and Sisters,
This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously opened marriage to same-sex couples, the first time a state high court has done so unanimously.
The court wrote that the “the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.”
Any attempt to overturn the decision by a constitutional amendment could not take effect until 2012 and such amendments have been rejected by the legislature in recent years.
The Vermont House voted 95-52 in favor of marriage equality yesterday, not enough to override a threatened veto from Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, but activists there are working on it. The Senate passed the bill by a veto-proof majority.
Enjoy the weekend! And congratulations to our comrades in Iowa and Vermont.
Andy Humm and Ann Northrop
Co-Hosts
Gay USA
April 3, 2009
Iowa Supreme Court upholds Hanson's ruling; marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
DES MOINES REGISTER STAFF REPORTS
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning [unanimously] struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.
The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.
Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today’s decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s.
“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”
It’s probable that county and state governments in Iowa, as in other states that have passed gay marriage laws, will be given two or three months to put the change in place. That means that such unions won’t begin today, said Justin Uebelhor, director of communications for One Iowa, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered advocacy group.
“Typically, it’s not immediate, and that’s most likely what we’d be looking at in Iowa,” Uebelhor said.
Opponents have long argued that allowing gay marriage would erode the institution. Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.
Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.
“If you’ll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats’ excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court,” Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton said Friday. “It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they’ll keep their promise.”
Until today, Iowa law said marriage could only be between one man and one woman.
The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling.
In Dec. 10 arguments to the high court, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle said Hanson erred in his ruling, which declared the 1998 Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and threw out several expert witnesses that gay marriage opponents had hoped to use at the trial. Hanson ruled that the witnesses did not qualify as experts on issues relevant to the case.
Brien, the Polk County recorder, rejected the marriage license requests because he “has no say in this law,” Kuhle said. “He can no more give these plaintiffs a license than he could give a license to a man and three women,” he added.
Kuhle argued that same-sex marriage could loosen the definition of marriage to include polygamy. Future generations might discard the institution if they come to believe that opposite-sex parents are not necessary, he argued.
A ruling favorable to gay marriage also could hurt children, who are best raised by a mother and father, he said.
“One could easily argue, and we do, that fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it,” Kuhle said. “It’s not going to happen tomorrow. We’re not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you’ve got to look to the future.”
Kuhle said state support for same-sex marriage would teach future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation despite thousands of years of history.
Nor does the case belong in the courts, Kuhle said. The debate should fall to the Legislature.
Same-sex marriage bill advances in Vermont
Burlington Free Press
MONTPELIER — The Vermont House voted 95-52 on Thursday night to allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont.
The tally suggests it might be difficult for the House to override a promised gubernatorial veto of the bill that would need 100 votes, though supporters said they would push for that.
The vote came at 9 p.m. Thursday after four hours of impassioned debate on the bill in a chamber filled with supporters and opponents.
Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, spoke on the House floor about gays and lesbians in his community — carpenters and nurses and maple sugarers — and of his own relationship with his male partner.
“That’s who we’re talking about here today,” he said. “These couples are living everyday lives of ordinary and extraordinary significance.”
Lippert declared that the civil unions law he helped craft nine years ago could not provide complete equality. “People know what it means when you say you’re married,” he said.
Rep. Johanna Donovan, D-Burlington, agreed. “There’s only one thing truly equal to marriage and that’s marriage,” she said. “Now is the time to give civil unions a respectful burial.”
Like Lippert, several legislators who are gay or who have gay family members spoke emotionally of their own circumstances.
“I didn’t choose to be gay,” Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, said. “God made me gay. I begged him not to make it so,” he said. “I stand because nobody should be ashamed of how God made them.”
With his voice breaking from emotion, Rep. Jason Lorber, D-Burlington, described seeing the notice about his union with his partner under the heading “civil union” in the newspaper. “Why do we have to be off to the side,” Lorber said. “Why do we have to say you are different? Why can’t we just say congratulations?”
Rep. Tim Jerman, D-Essex Junction, said he hopes his daughter, a lesbian, will be able to come home to marry when the time comes.
There were a few surprises from legislators. Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, said he was undecided going into the debate. Quoting a letter from former Sen. Peter Brownell, who lost his seat over civil unions but didn’t regret his support, Wright said he would support the bill.
Other legislators spoke about why they could not support the bill.
“It’s not easy to speak against this bill,” said Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre. “Marriage in my understanding has for the ages been one man and one woman. Now we take it upon ourselves to change that definition.”
Rep. Albert “Sonny” Audette, D-South Burlington, apologized for voting no. As a Catholic, he said, he could not vote to change marriage.
Efforts to derail the bill failed. Rep. Robert Helm, R-Castleton, argued for putting the issue to an advisory public referendum next March, asserting that the public has not had sufficient time to debate the issue. The measured failed by a vote of 96-52.
Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, succeeded in amending the bill to clarify the distinction between civil and religious marriage.
She was among five Republicans who voted for the bill. She was joined by Wright and Reps. Rick Hube, R-South Londonderry, Patti Komline, R-Dorset and Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe.
It was unclear Thursday night whether supporters of the bill could muster the 100 votes that would be needed to override a veto that Gov. Jim Douglas has said is coming. Some of the 11 Democrats who voted against the bill have said they would change course and vote for an override.
The House holds a final vote on the bill today. It then goes to the Senate, which passed the bill 26-4 last week, but would need to either concur with changes the House made or work the differences out in conference committee to send the bill to the governor.
Douglas would have five days from receipt of the bill to act on it, but has said he plans to veto it quickly.
Beth Robinson, who led the push for the bill with the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, counseled supporters after the vote that they need to keep calling people and knocking on doors to persuade lawmakers to vote for an override.
The House chamber was filled with supporters and opponents, some of whom had packed lunches and spent the day waiting through several hours of debate on the 2010 state budget.
Nina Beck of South Burlington was one of them. She and partner Stacy Jolles were plaintiffs in the court case that brought about civil unions nine years ago. Beck attended with 9-year-old son Seth, who was a baby during that debate.
“I’m very excited,” Beck said. “Civil unions we said was a very good step in the right direction. We’ve kept working for marriage.’
After the vote, Beck said, “It’s fabulous,” but added, “we have a way to go.”
Molly Jesse of Essex came to the Statehouse with friends to show her opposition to the bill. “It takes away from the sanctity of the marriage vow,” she said. “I can’t sit around and watch our marriage fall into this abyss.”
This is Andy Humm's email:
Brothers and Sisters,
This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously opened marriage to same-sex couples, the first time a state high court has done so unanimously.
The court wrote that the “the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.”
Any attempt to overturn the decision by a constitutional amendment could not take effect until 2012 and such amendments have been rejected by the legislature in recent years.
The Vermont House voted 95-52 in favor of marriage equality yesterday, not enough to override a threatened veto from Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, but activists there are working on it. The Senate passed the bill by a veto-proof majority.
Enjoy the weekend! And congratulations to our comrades in Iowa and Vermont.
Andy Humm and Ann Northrop
Co-Hosts
Gay USA
April 3, 2009
Iowa Supreme Court upholds Hanson's ruling; marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
DES MOINES REGISTER STAFF REPORTS
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning [unanimously] struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.
The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.
Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today’s decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s.
“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”
It’s probable that county and state governments in Iowa, as in other states that have passed gay marriage laws, will be given two or three months to put the change in place. That means that such unions won’t begin today, said Justin Uebelhor, director of communications for One Iowa, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered advocacy group.
“Typically, it’s not immediate, and that’s most likely what we’d be looking at in Iowa,” Uebelhor said.
Opponents have long argued that allowing gay marriage would erode the institution. Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.
Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.
“If you’ll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats’ excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court,” Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton said Friday. “It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they’ll keep their promise.”
Until today, Iowa law said marriage could only be between one man and one woman.
The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling.
In Dec. 10 arguments to the high court, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle said Hanson erred in his ruling, which declared the 1998 Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and threw out several expert witnesses that gay marriage opponents had hoped to use at the trial. Hanson ruled that the witnesses did not qualify as experts on issues relevant to the case.
Brien, the Polk County recorder, rejected the marriage license requests because he “has no say in this law,” Kuhle said. “He can no more give these plaintiffs a license than he could give a license to a man and three women,” he added.
Kuhle argued that same-sex marriage could loosen the definition of marriage to include polygamy. Future generations might discard the institution if they come to believe that opposite-sex parents are not necessary, he argued.
A ruling favorable to gay marriage also could hurt children, who are best raised by a mother and father, he said.
“One could easily argue, and we do, that fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it,” Kuhle said. “It’s not going to happen tomorrow. We’re not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you’ve got to look to the future.”
Kuhle said state support for same-sex marriage would teach future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation despite thousands of years of history.
Nor does the case belong in the courts, Kuhle said. The debate should fall to the Legislature.
Same-sex marriage bill advances in Vermont
Burlington Free Press
MONTPELIER — The Vermont House voted 95-52 on Thursday night to allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont.
The tally suggests it might be difficult for the House to override a promised gubernatorial veto of the bill that would need 100 votes, though supporters said they would push for that.
The vote came at 9 p.m. Thursday after four hours of impassioned debate on the bill in a chamber filled with supporters and opponents.
Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, spoke on the House floor about gays and lesbians in his community — carpenters and nurses and maple sugarers — and of his own relationship with his male partner.
“That’s who we’re talking about here today,” he said. “These couples are living everyday lives of ordinary and extraordinary significance.”
Lippert declared that the civil unions law he helped craft nine years ago could not provide complete equality. “People know what it means when you say you’re married,” he said.
Rep. Johanna Donovan, D-Burlington, agreed. “There’s only one thing truly equal to marriage and that’s marriage,” she said. “Now is the time to give civil unions a respectful burial.”
Like Lippert, several legislators who are gay or who have gay family members spoke emotionally of their own circumstances.
“I didn’t choose to be gay,” Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, said. “God made me gay. I begged him not to make it so,” he said. “I stand because nobody should be ashamed of how God made them.”
With his voice breaking from emotion, Rep. Jason Lorber, D-Burlington, described seeing the notice about his union with his partner under the heading “civil union” in the newspaper. “Why do we have to be off to the side,” Lorber said. “Why do we have to say you are different? Why can’t we just say congratulations?”
Rep. Tim Jerman, D-Essex Junction, said he hopes his daughter, a lesbian, will be able to come home to marry when the time comes.
There were a few surprises from legislators. Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, said he was undecided going into the debate. Quoting a letter from former Sen. Peter Brownell, who lost his seat over civil unions but didn’t regret his support, Wright said he would support the bill.
Other legislators spoke about why they could not support the bill.
“It’s not easy to speak against this bill,” said Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre. “Marriage in my understanding has for the ages been one man and one woman. Now we take it upon ourselves to change that definition.”
Rep. Albert “Sonny” Audette, D-South Burlington, apologized for voting no. As a Catholic, he said, he could not vote to change marriage.
Efforts to derail the bill failed. Rep. Robert Helm, R-Castleton, argued for putting the issue to an advisory public referendum next March, asserting that the public has not had sufficient time to debate the issue. The measured failed by a vote of 96-52.
Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, succeeded in amending the bill to clarify the distinction between civil and religious marriage.
She was among five Republicans who voted for the bill. She was joined by Wright and Reps. Rick Hube, R-South Londonderry, Patti Komline, R-Dorset and Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe.
It was unclear Thursday night whether supporters of the bill could muster the 100 votes that would be needed to override a veto that Gov. Jim Douglas has said is coming. Some of the 11 Democrats who voted against the bill have said they would change course and vote for an override.
The House holds a final vote on the bill today. It then goes to the Senate, which passed the bill 26-4 last week, but would need to either concur with changes the House made or work the differences out in conference committee to send the bill to the governor.
Douglas would have five days from receipt of the bill to act on it, but has said he plans to veto it quickly.
Beth Robinson, who led the push for the bill with the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, counseled supporters after the vote that they need to keep calling people and knocking on doors to persuade lawmakers to vote for an override.
The House chamber was filled with supporters and opponents, some of whom had packed lunches and spent the day waiting through several hours of debate on the 2010 state budget.
Nina Beck of South Burlington was one of them. She and partner Stacy Jolles were plaintiffs in the court case that brought about civil unions nine years ago. Beck attended with 9-year-old son Seth, who was a baby during that debate.
“I’m very excited,” Beck said. “Civil unions we said was a very good step in the right direction. We’ve kept working for marriage.’
After the vote, Beck said, “It’s fabulous,” but added, “we have a way to go.”
Molly Jesse of Essex came to the Statehouse with friends to show her opposition to the bill. “It takes away from the sanctity of the marriage vow,” she said. “I can’t sit around and watch our marriage fall into this abyss.”
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
OBAMA AND DADT
More than 1,000 retired military officers, including several who were top commanders, are urging President Obama and Congress to maintain the law that bars gays from serving openly in the armed forces.
Obama is consulting with the Pentagon on the issue and says he supports eventual repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits gays in the military from being open about their sexual orientation. A bill that would allow gays to serve openly has been introduced in Congress.
[For the full article, see here.]
The key word Obama uses is "eventual!" Most people know that DADT will eventually be repealed, and to cover his bases Obama says he supports the inevitable. However, his "support" would best be shown if he showed the principle and courage of President Truman who mandated integration in the military in 1947!
As Commander-in-Chief, Obama could mandate equal rights in the military by not waiting for Congress to hash it out! However, he is at best equivocal regarding equal rights for Gay people, as seen in his being against same-sex marriage, and in his alignment with Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary during his campaign.
Donnie McClurkin is a gospel singer, "who has detailed his struggle with gay tendencies and vowed to battle 'the curse of homosexuality'." [See here.]
Erica, of the gospel duo Mary Mary said the following: "Um... how do I feel about homosexuality? I feel how God feels about it, um… but I still love them. You know what I mean? I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I love them. They can come to the concert; I'm going to hug them just like I hug everybody else. They have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else - just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute, everybody needs God."
Obama has a chance to make good on a lot of his rhetoric concerning equality for Gay people by taking the lead in repealing DADT, and so far he has disappointed those who had faith that he would do so.
Obama is consulting with the Pentagon on the issue and says he supports eventual repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits gays in the military from being open about their sexual orientation. A bill that would allow gays to serve openly has been introduced in Congress.
[For the full article, see here.]
The key word Obama uses is "eventual!" Most people know that DADT will eventually be repealed, and to cover his bases Obama says he supports the inevitable. However, his "support" would best be shown if he showed the principle and courage of President Truman who mandated integration in the military in 1947!
As Commander-in-Chief, Obama could mandate equal rights in the military by not waiting for Congress to hash it out! However, he is at best equivocal regarding equal rights for Gay people, as seen in his being against same-sex marriage, and in his alignment with Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary during his campaign.
Donnie McClurkin is a gospel singer, "who has detailed his struggle with gay tendencies and vowed to battle 'the curse of homosexuality'." [See here.]
Erica, of the gospel duo Mary Mary said the following: "Um... how do I feel about homosexuality? I feel how God feels about it, um… but I still love them. You know what I mean? I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I love them. They can come to the concert; I'm going to hug them just like I hug everybody else. They have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else - just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute, everybody needs God."
Obama has a chance to make good on a lot of his rhetoric concerning equality for Gay people by taking the lead in repealing DADT, and so far he has disappointed those who had faith that he would do so.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
TODAY, MARCH 31, IS "TRANSGENDER DAY OF VISIBILITY"
Today is "Transgender Day of Visibility."
After returning to the US from Greece I entered the dreaded teenage years. As a teenager I was angry and sullen. My sense of wrong-ness with my body deepened with puberty. The changes to my body horrified me. The body hair that sprouted from my arms and the peach fuzz on my face saddened me it was a deepening difference between myself and the girl I knew that I was inside. Girls just didn't have hair on their face. I took up shaving which I deeply detest doing now. This facial hair wouldn't be a 5th so bad if I hadn't done so. My voice changing was sickening to me. Loosing the sweet girlish sounding voice I had as a child sent me into deep despair.
This all made me angry with myself, with my friends, with my family, and with humanity in general. This led to me doing the things teenagers do to rebel. I lied, shoplifted and broke into houses not to steal but simply to snoop around. The things I did were a cry for attention. And attention I received in spades. I got caught at both but instead of being charged with the crimes I was sent to counseling. During this time frame my parents caught me with a slip on under my shirt and pants. When this came up at counseling I wish to god I had told the therapist the truth. I wish I had screamed that I was a transsexual.
[For the full story, see here. And for an excellent link to Transgender resources, please see Susan's Place: Transgender Resources.]
We should be supportive of each other.
We should be respectful of each other’s choices/needs/wants.
We should recognize the vast wonderful differences that each of us has...
[Taken from A Life About Transition]
After returning to the US from Greece I entered the dreaded teenage years. As a teenager I was angry and sullen. My sense of wrong-ness with my body deepened with puberty. The changes to my body horrified me. The body hair that sprouted from my arms and the peach fuzz on my face saddened me it was a deepening difference between myself and the girl I knew that I was inside. Girls just didn't have hair on their face. I took up shaving which I deeply detest doing now. This facial hair wouldn't be a 5th so bad if I hadn't done so. My voice changing was sickening to me. Loosing the sweet girlish sounding voice I had as a child sent me into deep despair.
This all made me angry with myself, with my friends, with my family, and with humanity in general. This led to me doing the things teenagers do to rebel. I lied, shoplifted and broke into houses not to steal but simply to snoop around. The things I did were a cry for attention. And attention I received in spades. I got caught at both but instead of being charged with the crimes I was sent to counseling. During this time frame my parents caught me with a slip on under my shirt and pants. When this came up at counseling I wish to god I had told the therapist the truth. I wish I had screamed that I was a transsexual.
[For the full story, see here. And for an excellent link to Transgender resources, please see Susan's Place: Transgender Resources.]
We should be supportive of each other.
We should be respectful of each other’s choices/needs/wants.
We should recognize the vast wonderful differences that each of us has...
[Taken from A Life About Transition]
Sunday, March 29, 2009
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL HELD IN ABEYANCE
So much for my being optimistic regarding the repeal of DADT relatively soon. And so much for "liberal" and "Gay friendly" President Obama:
Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates put it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."
[See here.]
Equal rights doesn't seem to be on Obama's "plate" right now!
Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates put it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."
[See here.]
Equal rights doesn't seem to be on Obama's "plate" right now!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
BUREAUCRATIC "ACTIVIST" CORPORATE SALARIES
In an article in the Washington Blade entitled, "How much do they make? A look at the compensation paid to leaders of the LGBT rights movement", the following is stated:
Craig Shniderman, executive director of Food & Friends, which provides meals and nutritional services for homebound people with HIV/AIDS in the Washington, D.C. area, had the highest salary among the heads of the nation’s most prominent LGBT advocacy groups and groups that provide AIDS-related services in Los Angeles, New York and D.C.
A survey of the compensation paid to heads of 30 LGBT and AIDS organizations, conducted by the Washington Blade, shows that Shniderman had a total salary and benefits package of $382,200 in 2008, the latest period for which the organizations’ salary and annual revenue data could be obtained for a completed fiscal year.
Shniderman’s earnings placed him ahead of Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT political advocacy group. Solmonese, who ranked second in the salary survey, received a total compensation package of $338,400 in 2008....
Geoff Kors, Equality California’s executive director, had a 2008 compensation of $171,000.
I don't know what criteria are used to determine or justify these exorbitant salaries of people who are deemed "activists" of one sort or another in regard to LGBT issues. However, those criteria should, and must, be made public so that people can see whether they are getting enough bang for the buck to justify what I consider to be outrageous salaries, particularly since we have hitherto seen very little accomplishment in the acquisition of full and equal Gay rights, and with the exception of the likely repeal of DADT, we are unlikely to see any further movement in equal rights for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps garnering these exorbitant salaries and perks occurs precisely because there has been such little accomplishment in acquiring equal rights for LGBT people; perhaps because rubbing elbows with politicos in Washington, D.C and elsewhere is helping to garner such salaries and perks when actually moving Gay rights forward in a meaningful way would offend those politicians and prevent such handsome remuneration of those corporate heads.
Perhaps if a lot of the money that goes into those salaries and perks were meaningfully spent in actually fighting for full and equal LGBT rights, much more in that area would have been accomplished by now.
Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating; bureaucrats are careerists who are usually far more interested in keeping and enhancing their careers than they are in achieving the goals they say they are interested in achieving. For, if they achieved their goals, they'd be without a job!
Sociologists call this phenomenon, "Goal Displacement," where the means by which the alleged goals are to be achieved become more important than the actual achievement of those goals. So, in this connection, it is possible that many "activists" who make "activism" a career might be far more interested in maintaining their positions, especially their well-paid positions, than they are in achieving the goals of equal rights that they say they are interested in achieving, and for which they are being ostensibly paid.
We don't know the answers to these questions, but it behooves people genuinely interested in full and equal civil rights for LGBT people to demand justification for granting this largesse to these and other corporate heads in the area of what is called "activism," and determine whether or not these salaries and perks are justified.
Craig Shniderman, executive director of Food & Friends, which provides meals and nutritional services for homebound people with HIV/AIDS in the Washington, D.C. area, had the highest salary among the heads of the nation’s most prominent LGBT advocacy groups and groups that provide AIDS-related services in Los Angeles, New York and D.C.
A survey of the compensation paid to heads of 30 LGBT and AIDS organizations, conducted by the Washington Blade, shows that Shniderman had a total salary and benefits package of $382,200 in 2008, the latest period for which the organizations’ salary and annual revenue data could be obtained for a completed fiscal year.
Shniderman’s earnings placed him ahead of Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT political advocacy group. Solmonese, who ranked second in the salary survey, received a total compensation package of $338,400 in 2008....
Geoff Kors, Equality California’s executive director, had a 2008 compensation of $171,000.
I don't know what criteria are used to determine or justify these exorbitant salaries of people who are deemed "activists" of one sort or another in regard to LGBT issues. However, those criteria should, and must, be made public so that people can see whether they are getting enough bang for the buck to justify what I consider to be outrageous salaries, particularly since we have hitherto seen very little accomplishment in the acquisition of full and equal Gay rights, and with the exception of the likely repeal of DADT, we are unlikely to see any further movement in equal rights for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps garnering these exorbitant salaries and perks occurs precisely because there has been such little accomplishment in acquiring equal rights for LGBT people; perhaps because rubbing elbows with politicos in Washington, D.C and elsewhere is helping to garner such salaries and perks when actually moving Gay rights forward in a meaningful way would offend those politicians and prevent such handsome remuneration of those corporate heads.
Perhaps if a lot of the money that goes into those salaries and perks were meaningfully spent in actually fighting for full and equal LGBT rights, much more in that area would have been accomplished by now.
Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating; bureaucrats are careerists who are usually far more interested in keeping and enhancing their careers than they are in achieving the goals they say they are interested in achieving. For, if they achieved their goals, they'd be without a job!
Sociologists call this phenomenon, "Goal Displacement," where the means by which the alleged goals are to be achieved become more important than the actual achievement of those goals. So, in this connection, it is possible that many "activists" who make "activism" a career might be far more interested in maintaining their positions, especially their well-paid positions, than they are in achieving the goals of equal rights that they say they are interested in achieving, and for which they are being ostensibly paid.
We don't know the answers to these questions, but it behooves people genuinely interested in full and equal civil rights for LGBT people to demand justification for granting this largesse to these and other corporate heads in the area of what is called "activism," and determine whether or not these salaries and perks are justified.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A BRILLIANT, POISED SPEECH ON EQUAL RIGHTS IN VERMONT
The following video is from the Vermont Senate marriage hearings prior to its affirmative vote regarding same-sex marriage. It is a speech and answers to questions by a very intelligent, poised, young man, James Neiley. Even if the Senators hadn't heard any other speech regarding the need for equal rights in Vermont, this young man would have persuaded any but those with the most hardened of hearts. If each state had a spokesperson like him, same-sex marriage would likely become a reality in all states far sooner than will otherwise occur.
[Thanks to Towleroad.]
[Thanks to Towleroad.]
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
GIVE FUNDAMENTALISM AN INCH AND IT WILL TAKE A MILE!
There is an interesting article entitled, "All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher of hate" that I urge you to read.
Part of it reads as follows:
All homosexuals should face stoning to death, a Muslim preacher of hate declared yesterday.
Anjem Choudary, the firebrand cleric who wants to see Britain ruled by Sharia law, said such a regime was the only way to fix the country's ills.
Under it, adulterers and homosexuals would be killed by stoning.
The U.S. is far more tolerant of fundamentalism than is Britain, and from the above cited article, we see that unless fundamentalism is directly confronted, all Britons may well suffer for lethargy in the face of this danger.
The above cited article shows that the threats to Gay people are of one piece as are the threats to the very fabric of British society! The same is certainly true in the U.S!
As I've often written, if any one's civil rights are threatened, all of our civil rights are threatened!
We should make no mistake: Many, if not most, "Christian" fundamentalists have the same feelings as do these clerics, except that the former are usually not as honest about their feelings and agenda. An exception is the first and favorite child born of fundamentalism, "Dominionism."
In the U.S., the attempt to impose fundamentalist perceptions in the interpretation of our Constitution, as seen in Dominionism, is a very dangerous path that will allow the threats currently posed to Gay people to be posed to virtually everyone in the U.S.
And when fundamentalist biblical interpretations are inculcated in the electorate who then trust and use those interpretations to vote on the granting or removal of the Constitutional rights of a minority group, as seen in the vote on Prop. 8, that is Dominionism in action!
Moreover, we can expect that the uncertainties of the economy may well make fundamentalism and even Dominionism more seductive to increasing numbers of people who are disoriented by those uncertainties and who are captured by the need to grab on to simplistic ideas and sound bites in order to make sense out of the world and in a desperate attempt to feel better about themselves.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," [D. James] Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." [For the full article, see here.]
Give fundamentalists an inch, and they'll take a mile!
Part of it reads as follows:
All homosexuals should face stoning to death, a Muslim preacher of hate declared yesterday.
Anjem Choudary, the firebrand cleric who wants to see Britain ruled by Sharia law, said such a regime was the only way to fix the country's ills.
Under it, adulterers and homosexuals would be killed by stoning.
The U.S. is far more tolerant of fundamentalism than is Britain, and from the above cited article, we see that unless fundamentalism is directly confronted, all Britons may well suffer for lethargy in the face of this danger.
The above cited article shows that the threats to Gay people are of one piece as are the threats to the very fabric of British society! The same is certainly true in the U.S!
As I've often written, if any one's civil rights are threatened, all of our civil rights are threatened!
We should make no mistake: Many, if not most, "Christian" fundamentalists have the same feelings as do these clerics, except that the former are usually not as honest about their feelings and agenda. An exception is the first and favorite child born of fundamentalism, "Dominionism."
In the U.S., the attempt to impose fundamentalist perceptions in the interpretation of our Constitution, as seen in Dominionism, is a very dangerous path that will allow the threats currently posed to Gay people to be posed to virtually everyone in the U.S.
And when fundamentalist biblical interpretations are inculcated in the electorate who then trust and use those interpretations to vote on the granting or removal of the Constitutional rights of a minority group, as seen in the vote on Prop. 8, that is Dominionism in action!
Moreover, we can expect that the uncertainties of the economy may well make fundamentalism and even Dominionism more seductive to increasing numbers of people who are disoriented by those uncertainties and who are captured by the need to grab on to simplistic ideas and sound bites in order to make sense out of the world and in a desperate attempt to feel better about themselves.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," [D. James] Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." [For the full article, see here.]
Give fundamentalists an inch, and they'll take a mile!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
PROFESSING CHRISTIANS MUST FISH OR CUT BAIT
"Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease." (Proverbs 22:10)
The scorners and the contentious unfortunately comprise a significant number, if not the majority, of the institutional Church. These are the ones who advocate and/or remain silent amidst prejudice, discrimination, oppression, the bearing of false witness against others, and who seek to deprive Gay people of the civil rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States to all citizens.
The scorners and the contentious almost always align themselves with the reactionary political forces in society, and perversely tout as being "Christian" such destructive values as Americanism, jingoism, militarism, and capitalism.
They are little more than thugs who have taken their preconceived prejudices and hatreds and brought them into what is called "the church," and seek to justify those prejudices and hatreds by appealing to God Who, they erroneously contend, is on their side and is on the side of such blatantly anti-Christian values that they both hold and proclaim.
If the institutional Church has any hope of surviving; has any claim upon representing the Prince of Peace; is to have any credibility with Christians and other decent, sensitive people, its clergy and members must loudly speak out against this grotesque perversion of Christianity!
No Christian can sit idly by and allow Christianity and Jesus to be dragged through the mud by these homophobic and other wolves in sheep's clothing! And any professing Christian who does quietly allow the professing Christian thugs to define Christianity in the minds of others knows nothing of Christ and His call on our lives!
Any professing Christian who advocates demonic values, or remains silent when demonic values are expressed in the name of God, is slowly but surely eroding what credibility Christianity has in civilized society; turning intelligent, sensitive, decent people away from even exploring Christianity as "a reasonable faith"; demeaning Jesus and His values that even a cursory reading of the New Testament would tell anyone with even a scintilla of spiritual sensitivity.
So, every Christian worthy of the name must "cast out the scorner," the hater, from the midst of Christ's Church, lest Christians and Christianity fall in the estimation of intelligent, sensitive, and decent people even more than has already likely occurred.
And, most importantly, the professing Christian thugs are spitting in the face of God, and to allow them to continue to do so wreaks havoc on the Church and wreaks havoc on the souls of all those who profess to be Jesus' disciples and yet do nothing to stop this assault on God and on His Church.
So it is incumbent upon every single Christian to take to heart the following exhortation: "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease." (Proverbs 22:10)
The scorners and the contentious unfortunately comprise a significant number, if not the majority, of the institutional Church. These are the ones who advocate and/or remain silent amidst prejudice, discrimination, oppression, the bearing of false witness against others, and who seek to deprive Gay people of the civil rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States to all citizens.
The scorners and the contentious almost always align themselves with the reactionary political forces in society, and perversely tout as being "Christian" such destructive values as Americanism, jingoism, militarism, and capitalism.
They are little more than thugs who have taken their preconceived prejudices and hatreds and brought them into what is called "the church," and seek to justify those prejudices and hatreds by appealing to God Who, they erroneously contend, is on their side and is on the side of such blatantly anti-Christian values that they both hold and proclaim.
If the institutional Church has any hope of surviving; has any claim upon representing the Prince of Peace; is to have any credibility with Christians and other decent, sensitive people, its clergy and members must loudly speak out against this grotesque perversion of Christianity!
No Christian can sit idly by and allow Christianity and Jesus to be dragged through the mud by these homophobic and other wolves in sheep's clothing! And any professing Christian who does quietly allow the professing Christian thugs to define Christianity in the minds of others knows nothing of Christ and His call on our lives!
Any professing Christian who advocates demonic values, or remains silent when demonic values are expressed in the name of God, is slowly but surely eroding what credibility Christianity has in civilized society; turning intelligent, sensitive, decent people away from even exploring Christianity as "a reasonable faith"; demeaning Jesus and His values that even a cursory reading of the New Testament would tell anyone with even a scintilla of spiritual sensitivity.
So, every Christian worthy of the name must "cast out the scorner," the hater, from the midst of Christ's Church, lest Christians and Christianity fall in the estimation of intelligent, sensitive, and decent people even more than has already likely occurred.
And, most importantly, the professing Christian thugs are spitting in the face of God, and to allow them to continue to do so wreaks havoc on the Church and wreaks havoc on the souls of all those who profess to be Jesus' disciples and yet do nothing to stop this assault on God and on His Church.
So it is incumbent upon every single Christian to take to heart the following exhortation: "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease." (Proverbs 22:10)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
JUDICIAL BACKLASH AGAINST PROFESSING CHRISTIANS
This is an interesting article in that I agree that Christian groups should be able to exclude non-Christians from their membership if they so choose, given the fact that it is not inconceivable that, for example, militant atheists could join Christian groups and deliberately choose to sabotage those groups.
However, these professing Christian groups have brought this debacle upon themselves, by aligning themselves with haters, hate-mongers, reactionary politics, and those who demean and defame LGBT people!
This court's ruling can be seen to be judicial payback for the professing Christian haters painting Christianity as exclusionary in the worst sense of the word! And this ruling can be seen to be just the beginning of a backlash that will be felt by both the haters who mask themselves as Christians as well as by those who are Christians indeed.
And, everyone and every group that professes itself to be "Christian" that has either promoted discrimination against Gay people and/or has kept silent about this oppression of Gay people, even to the point of the promotion of the advocacy of denying Constitutional rights to Gay people as seen in the vote on Prop. 8 in California, deserves this kind of treatment from the courts!
And we can expect this kind of backlash to be just the beginning in not only the Judicial, but in virtually every other political, social, and institutional arena!
However, these professing Christian groups have brought this debacle upon themselves, by aligning themselves with haters, hate-mongers, reactionary politics, and those who demean and defame LGBT people!
This court's ruling can be seen to be judicial payback for the professing Christian haters painting Christianity as exclusionary in the worst sense of the word! And this ruling can be seen to be just the beginning of a backlash that will be felt by both the haters who mask themselves as Christians as well as by those who are Christians indeed.
And, everyone and every group that professes itself to be "Christian" that has either promoted discrimination against Gay people and/or has kept silent about this oppression of Gay people, even to the point of the promotion of the advocacy of denying Constitutional rights to Gay people as seen in the vote on Prop. 8 in California, deserves this kind of treatment from the courts!
And we can expect this kind of backlash to be just the beginning in not only the Judicial, but in virtually every other political, social, and institutional arena!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
JULIAN BOND SPEAKS ABOUT GAY RIGHTS
Please see the following video of Julian Bond speaking about Gay rights. No one should make the mistake of thinking that the struggle for LGBT rights is not just as important and just as essential as the struggle for African-American rights, and the rights of any and every other minority group, if we truly want to be a civil society in which all decent people want to live.
Monday, March 16, 2009
RELIGION HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF GOD
And people of faith should ask themselves: What is the cumulative effect upon outside observers of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker living like lords on the largesse of the poor, multiplied by Jimmy Swaggart's pornography addiction, plus Eric Rudolph bombing Olympians and gays in the name of God, plus Muslims hijacking airplanes in the name of God, multiplied by the church that kicked out some members because they voted Democrat, divided by people caterwauling on courthouse steps as a rock bearing the Ten Commandments was removed, multiplied by the square root of Catholic priests preying on little boys while the church looked on and did nothing, multiplied by Muslims rioting over cartoons, plus the ongoing demonization of gay men and lesbians, divided by all those "traditional values" coalitions and "family values" councils that try to bully public schools into becoming worship houses, with morning prayers and science lessons from the book of Genesis? Then subtract selflessness, service, sacrifice, holiness and hope.
[For the full article, see here.]
Perhaps the major institutional instigator of homophobia is "religion!" Religion is human beings' institutionalization of the worship of the god whom most have created in their own image!
God is outside and far larger than any religious world-view can contain, and God is far more merciful and gracious toward God's creation than mere human beings can ever be!
The "religious" among us have sown to the wind and now religion as an institution is beginning to reap the whirlwind!
Actually, what the above article understates or omits is the increasing lack of religiosity among many people who do go to church, as witnessed by the fact that much of what is preached and believed by those who participate in religious institutions sounds incredible to most thinking and sensitive people. And it sounds incredible because it is incredible!
A basic fundamental of Christianity's view of God is that of "grace," or God's unmerited favor toward God's creation! Indeed, that grace, manifested by unconditional love, is what all Christians are enjoined by God and by the Bible to do!
Christians are to be agents of God's grace in this world!
Yet, we see very little of that love toward others among professing Christians, especially the showing of unconditional love toward Gay people! And that is one of the reasons I've long maintained that Gay people are God's gift to society and, most particularly, to the Church!
Gay people enable, and make patently clear, the separation of the wheat from the weeds within Christ's Church!
By Gay people being victimized and oppressed "in the name of God," the contradiction between the grace of God and the hatefulness of many of those who claim to represent God, shows forth to all who have eyes to see the absence of God within most of the institutional Church.
And although Gay people are the recipients of the hatred that often manifests itself in sanctimonious and unctuous intonations of a rhetoric of "love" by assorted clergy and professing Christians, institutions of "religion" are commensurately suffering the loss of members due to such transparent phoniness, and every Christian should be thankful for that.
And, most importantly, it is God Who suffers the most from such homophobia, and every single Christian knows that fact to be true!
[For the full article, see here.]
Perhaps the major institutional instigator of homophobia is "religion!" Religion is human beings' institutionalization of the worship of the god whom most have created in their own image!
God is outside and far larger than any religious world-view can contain, and God is far more merciful and gracious toward God's creation than mere human beings can ever be!
The "religious" among us have sown to the wind and now religion as an institution is beginning to reap the whirlwind!
Actually, what the above article understates or omits is the increasing lack of religiosity among many people who do go to church, as witnessed by the fact that much of what is preached and believed by those who participate in religious institutions sounds incredible to most thinking and sensitive people. And it sounds incredible because it is incredible!
A basic fundamental of Christianity's view of God is that of "grace," or God's unmerited favor toward God's creation! Indeed, that grace, manifested by unconditional love, is what all Christians are enjoined by God and by the Bible to do!
Christians are to be agents of God's grace in this world!
Yet, we see very little of that love toward others among professing Christians, especially the showing of unconditional love toward Gay people! And that is one of the reasons I've long maintained that Gay people are God's gift to society and, most particularly, to the Church!
Gay people enable, and make patently clear, the separation of the wheat from the weeds within Christ's Church!
By Gay people being victimized and oppressed "in the name of God," the contradiction between the grace of God and the hatefulness of many of those who claim to represent God, shows forth to all who have eyes to see the absence of God within most of the institutional Church.
And although Gay people are the recipients of the hatred that often manifests itself in sanctimonious and unctuous intonations of a rhetoric of "love" by assorted clergy and professing Christians, institutions of "religion" are commensurately suffering the loss of members due to such transparent phoniness, and every Christian should be thankful for that.
And, most importantly, it is God Who suffers the most from such homophobia, and every single Christian knows that fact to be true!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
FUNDAMENTALISM AND HOMOPHOBIA
This is an excellent essay on the "Fundamentalist Agenda," by Davidson Loehr. Although there are parts within it with which I don't agree, it deserves to be read in its entirety, as it gets at the root of the exclusion of all those who don't conform to the ideology of fundamentalists of all stripes, be they "religious" or secular; that fundamentalism can be seen to cause and comprise a large part of the reasons for homophobia.
The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of “alpha males” who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought.
It seems to me that the roots of homophobia are seated deep within a fundamentalist mind-set, be it "religious" or not, that takes its moral hegemony and heteronormativity for granted; seeks to resurrect a past that never really truly existed, but is a wish-fulfillment taken from an idealized version of our culture that never truly existed. In other words, fundamentalist thinking, thinking in black and white terms, thinking in one-dimensional terms, stems from both an idealized version of what is viewed as "reality" as well as from a fictional version of what is viewed as that same "reality."
Therefore, "success" is equated with the alpha male who is then viewed as representing the pinnacle of "success"; the one who represents "the real man" who is seen to be diametrically opposed to the usually false stereotype of the essentially effeminate gay male. Hence, the revulsion and discrimination of both secular and "religious" fundamentalists against gay males and, to a lesser degree, against lesbians who don't threaten alpha male status. (Indeed, many male heterosexuals get off on lesbian porn, whereas very few male heterosexuals are likely to get off on gay male porn.)
And when the name of God can be invoked in that fundamentalist mind-set, even the minority's civil rights can be prevented and removed if a seemingly credible argument can be made that the Bible and the Constitution should be coterminous. Hence, as the above cited article states: "Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." Only fundamentalist thinking can see our Democratic Republic as being coterminous with viewing our society as a Theocracy!
And, to complicate matters even further, many LGBT people have internalized this fundamentalist thinking, despite much rhetoric to the contrary, so that many live lives of unnecessary shame and guilt for being the way God created them; many who disdain the very Person of God have also internalized religious fundamentalism after hearing hateful rhetoric in the name of "religion" over the years, consciously and/or unconsciously viewing themselves as "deviant," as "sinners," as "depraved," as "going to hell."
These lies have so infused so many LGBT people that one can't even talk about a "Gay Civil Rights Movement," as the critical mass that would allow such a movement, and the outraged demand for dignity and civil rights at the current time seem quite removed from public discourse, and the gratitude for crumbs of incrementalism by many Gay people being so effusive, that it seems unlikely that equal rights will be won in this generation. The living up (or down) to the stereotypes placed on Gay people by the oppressor shows that fundamentalist thinking has done its job on both the fundamentalists and upon their targets of victimization!
The alpha male is so identified with "success," and is so well-respected, that anything that contravenes this status, be it a powerful woman or an effeminate male, is ripe for being a subject of derision! Hence, homophobia, just like misogyny, is largely a reaction to what is deemed to be the very opposite of both heteronormativity as well as "maleness" that is seen to be synonymous with "power," and "success." And, those who think in fundamentalist terms, in black and white terms, in one-dimensional terms, see these opposites as threats both to the way they think the world should work and as threats to their very own psyches.
Nostalgia for a past that never really existed and the deep desire to maintain a concept of self whereby one's world is not in any way rocked or threatened is crucial to all fundamentalists! Indeed, the very idea that being Gay is just as normal and natural as is being Straight is anathema to fundamentalists, and flies in the face of their "logic" that is largely based on the fiction that equal rights for Gay people threatens the very fabric of society which is, in reality, synonymous with the very fabric of what protects their own psyches.
We can never underestimate the fear that drives fundamentalists! One only has to listen to some of their rhetoric to see that fear that underlies such statements as made by the late Jerry Falwell: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'”
Clearly, any rational person sees the foolishness behind such a statement, yet fundamentalists are not rational, because people who operate from fear are rarely, if ever, rational! Their world-view is viewed by them as being under attack, and they lash out at anything that threatens that world-view and their very psyches. And their deep need to see the world and their place in the world in a certain way, frequently ascribed to being "God's way," is easily threatened when such seeming aberrations, threats, and uncertainties as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina occur, so they need to lash out at, and even blame, those whom they have come to view as "the other" who is, by definition, "not on God's side."
Clearly, repeated indoctrination of homophobia from assorted pulpits throughout the world have done little but reinforce discrimination as well as fundamentalist thinking, so that these consequences of such ignorant and hateful rhetoric "in the name of God" have nurtured and reinforced this fundamentalist thinking that has become viewed as normal and "Godly" by those who have been exposed to this indoctrination. Moreover, the incestuous socialization that occurs in so many churches have also helped reinforce such fundamentalist thinking and homophobia so that any attempt to rationally explain the fallacies of both are quite often met with a virulent rage that brings to light some of the worst aspects of the human heart and condition.
Rationality is no match for fundamentalism; sweet reason can never overcome fundamentalist thinking; there is no compromise with fundamentalism; making nice with fundamentalists is to be seen, and is seen by them, as operating from a position of weakness!
The only antidote to the ravages of fundamentalism and fundamentalist rhetoric regarding its impact on homophobia is enforced integration in positions of equality so that Straight and Gay people are put in positions of equality by law and, over time, acceptance and less fear will be generated by that very interaction. Hence, civil rights of any minority group such as Gay people can never be allowed to come to a vote of the electorate, as "inalienable rights" are Constitutional guarantees that must be demanded by people who have dignity and, therefore, have rage against being treated as second-class citizens; continue to bring that case to the Judiciary and Legislatures.
There is no "other side" to LGBT rights! Fundamentalism is based on fear and on myth that helps frightened people navigate their way in this uncertain world! Hence, there is no antidote to fundamentalism that meets certain crucial needs to psychologically fragile people!
Rather, meaningful activism must occur for full and equal civil rights to occur, and for that to occur there must be a "transformation of consciousness" whereby LGBT people and allies demand equal, Constitutionally guaranteed, rights, and don't seek some level playing field with fundamentalists, because there can be no such level playing field that doesn't diminish the dignity and rights of Gay people.
It is Gay people who have the dignity to demand full and equal rights who have the moral high ground; it is the fundamentalists who operate from a position of weakness because of their fearfulness! And this fact must never be forgotten by Gay people if full and equal civil and sacramental rights are to become a reality in the foreseeable future!
The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of “alpha males” who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought.
It seems to me that the roots of homophobia are seated deep within a fundamentalist mind-set, be it "religious" or not, that takes its moral hegemony and heteronormativity for granted; seeks to resurrect a past that never really truly existed, but is a wish-fulfillment taken from an idealized version of our culture that never truly existed. In other words, fundamentalist thinking, thinking in black and white terms, thinking in one-dimensional terms, stems from both an idealized version of what is viewed as "reality" as well as from a fictional version of what is viewed as that same "reality."
Therefore, "success" is equated with the alpha male who is then viewed as representing the pinnacle of "success"; the one who represents "the real man" who is seen to be diametrically opposed to the usually false stereotype of the essentially effeminate gay male. Hence, the revulsion and discrimination of both secular and "religious" fundamentalists against gay males and, to a lesser degree, against lesbians who don't threaten alpha male status. (Indeed, many male heterosexuals get off on lesbian porn, whereas very few male heterosexuals are likely to get off on gay male porn.)
And when the name of God can be invoked in that fundamentalist mind-set, even the minority's civil rights can be prevented and removed if a seemingly credible argument can be made that the Bible and the Constitution should be coterminous. Hence, as the above cited article states: "Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." Only fundamentalist thinking can see our Democratic Republic as being coterminous with viewing our society as a Theocracy!
And, to complicate matters even further, many LGBT people have internalized this fundamentalist thinking, despite much rhetoric to the contrary, so that many live lives of unnecessary shame and guilt for being the way God created them; many who disdain the very Person of God have also internalized religious fundamentalism after hearing hateful rhetoric in the name of "religion" over the years, consciously and/or unconsciously viewing themselves as "deviant," as "sinners," as "depraved," as "going to hell."
These lies have so infused so many LGBT people that one can't even talk about a "Gay Civil Rights Movement," as the critical mass that would allow such a movement, and the outraged demand for dignity and civil rights at the current time seem quite removed from public discourse, and the gratitude for crumbs of incrementalism by many Gay people being so effusive, that it seems unlikely that equal rights will be won in this generation. The living up (or down) to the stereotypes placed on Gay people by the oppressor shows that fundamentalist thinking has done its job on both the fundamentalists and upon their targets of victimization!
The alpha male is so identified with "success," and is so well-respected, that anything that contravenes this status, be it a powerful woman or an effeminate male, is ripe for being a subject of derision! Hence, homophobia, just like misogyny, is largely a reaction to what is deemed to be the very opposite of both heteronormativity as well as "maleness" that is seen to be synonymous with "power," and "success." And, those who think in fundamentalist terms, in black and white terms, in one-dimensional terms, see these opposites as threats both to the way they think the world should work and as threats to their very own psyches.
Nostalgia for a past that never really existed and the deep desire to maintain a concept of self whereby one's world is not in any way rocked or threatened is crucial to all fundamentalists! Indeed, the very idea that being Gay is just as normal and natural as is being Straight is anathema to fundamentalists, and flies in the face of their "logic" that is largely based on the fiction that equal rights for Gay people threatens the very fabric of society which is, in reality, synonymous with the very fabric of what protects their own psyches.
We can never underestimate the fear that drives fundamentalists! One only has to listen to some of their rhetoric to see that fear that underlies such statements as made by the late Jerry Falwell: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'”
Clearly, any rational person sees the foolishness behind such a statement, yet fundamentalists are not rational, because people who operate from fear are rarely, if ever, rational! Their world-view is viewed by them as being under attack, and they lash out at anything that threatens that world-view and their very psyches. And their deep need to see the world and their place in the world in a certain way, frequently ascribed to being "God's way," is easily threatened when such seeming aberrations, threats, and uncertainties as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina occur, so they need to lash out at, and even blame, those whom they have come to view as "the other" who is, by definition, "not on God's side."
Clearly, repeated indoctrination of homophobia from assorted pulpits throughout the world have done little but reinforce discrimination as well as fundamentalist thinking, so that these consequences of such ignorant and hateful rhetoric "in the name of God" have nurtured and reinforced this fundamentalist thinking that has become viewed as normal and "Godly" by those who have been exposed to this indoctrination. Moreover, the incestuous socialization that occurs in so many churches have also helped reinforce such fundamentalist thinking and homophobia so that any attempt to rationally explain the fallacies of both are quite often met with a virulent rage that brings to light some of the worst aspects of the human heart and condition.
Rationality is no match for fundamentalism; sweet reason can never overcome fundamentalist thinking; there is no compromise with fundamentalism; making nice with fundamentalists is to be seen, and is seen by them, as operating from a position of weakness!
The only antidote to the ravages of fundamentalism and fundamentalist rhetoric regarding its impact on homophobia is enforced integration in positions of equality so that Straight and Gay people are put in positions of equality by law and, over time, acceptance and less fear will be generated by that very interaction. Hence, civil rights of any minority group such as Gay people can never be allowed to come to a vote of the electorate, as "inalienable rights" are Constitutional guarantees that must be demanded by people who have dignity and, therefore, have rage against being treated as second-class citizens; continue to bring that case to the Judiciary and Legislatures.
There is no "other side" to LGBT rights! Fundamentalism is based on fear and on myth that helps frightened people navigate their way in this uncertain world! Hence, there is no antidote to fundamentalism that meets certain crucial needs to psychologically fragile people!
Rather, meaningful activism must occur for full and equal civil rights to occur, and for that to occur there must be a "transformation of consciousness" whereby LGBT people and allies demand equal, Constitutionally guaranteed, rights, and don't seek some level playing field with fundamentalists, because there can be no such level playing field that doesn't diminish the dignity and rights of Gay people.
It is Gay people who have the dignity to demand full and equal rights who have the moral high ground; it is the fundamentalists who operate from a position of weakness because of their fearfulness! And this fact must never be forgotten by Gay people if full and equal civil and sacramental rights are to become a reality in the foreseeable future!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
"IGNORANCE IS MY OPPRESSOR" BY DON CHARLES
The following post is by my good friend Don Charles who kindly allowed me to cross post it here; it was posted the other day on the Diary section of Pam's House Blend.
It's a beautiful statement as to much of what has retarded the acquisition of full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, and it states points that have to be constantly reiterated until increasing numbers of LGBT people take them to heart and act on them.
"Ignorance Is My Oppressor"
by: Stuffed Animal
Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 14:37:12 PM EDT
The Vital Voice is a Gay newspaper operating out of St. Louis, Missouri. Much of its February/March edition is given over to guest columnist Maurice Tracy. In fact, his lengthy essay on race and sexuality is featured on the front page. Here's an excerpt from the intro, edited slightly for style:
"I see the Gay Rights struggle as part of the Civil Rights struggle. To miss that point is to allow the struggle for Civil Rights to remain fragmented, incomplete, and under the ownership of one particular group and makes that group monolithic in nature . . . the Civil Rights Movement encompasses Gay individuals, women, racial minorities, class struggles, citizenship issues, gender identity and many other varying categories. In this respect, the Civil Rights Movement is not a Black movement or a Gay movement, but a queer(sic) movement. The notions of equality, fairness and access are not queer(sic) values in theory; they are queer(sic) values in practice."
WTF? "Queer values"? Talk about a letdown! Dude kicked off his essay like gangbusters, but within just a few sentences, his argument went straight to Hell. I've seen this sort of thing happen countless times. I swear, we LGBT folk trip ourselves up so often, you'd think we were born slapstick comedians! Read the online edition of The Vital Voice at: www.thevitalvoice.com
It's so ironic. Maurice Tracy spends pages and pages raising the consciousness of Vital Voice readers about Gay racism. Yet he repeatedly denigrates Gay identity with the word "queer". He desperately needs his own consciousness raised! Mr. Tracy, currently a doctoral candidate at St. Louis University, isn't the only clueless Black Gay pundit I know of: Pam Spaulding, Irene Munroe, Jafari Sinclaire Allen and the regrettably named "Queer Kid Of Color" are also blind to the toxic nature of this "reclaimed" sexual slur. They don't care about what I'm going to say here. No problem; I'm not saying it for their benefit. I'm saying it for yours.
"Queer" is a word with much cruelty, shame and emotional devastation attached to it. Those who use it casually either don't know Gay history, or worse, don't give a damn about it. "Queer" is a relic of the awful years not so long ago when Lesbians and Gay men were forcibly committed to mental institutions. Forty years ago, the word conjured up disturbing images of depraved, predatory individuals raping animals or children. For many people, especially our culturally conservative adversaries, it still does.
"Queer" does not, as some mendacious activists claim, merely mean "different". Not by a long shot! Look it up in the dictionary, and you'll find several nuances, but they all boil down to a single concept: abnormally different and/or sick. Those who embrace "queer" haven't done anything to redefine it, so whether they realize it or not, they also embrace this definition. At best, it's a sexist term that insults Gay identity by defining it according to heterosexual standards. At worst, it's a dehumanizing stigma that justifies the doctrine of brainwashing "ex-Gay" ministries.
Believe me, I've heard every excuse for "reclaiming" the word. Most aren't worth the time it would take me to discredit them. One does warrant scrutiny, though: the argument that we should adopt hurtful terms like "queer" in order to "deaden their sting". The premise is that we can drain these words of their toxicity by frequent use. This isn't a new idea; Lesbians and Gay men were co-opting anti-Gay labels long before Stonewall. And we all know about African-Americans' ironic use of the N-word.
However, "everybody's doing it" and "it's always been done" have never been valid reasons for bad behavior. They don't make a bogus theory any less bogus, either. As I think of how prevalent public use of the word "nigger" has become over the last two decades, and recall how long some Black people have been throwing it around (since slavery), I note that it's lost none of its racist baggage. If ever a "shock jock" lets "nigger" slip into a broadcast, or a public figure like Jesse Jackson is overheard uttering it, howls of outrage are sure to follow. Obviously, this "deaden the sting" strategy don't work so good!
Even if it did work, I wouldn't want it to. I see the "sting" of words like "nigger" and "queer" as a necessary component of the Gay Rights movement. For our own good, we shouldn't try to deaden the pain it causes. Yes, it hurts, but it also makes us angry. Anger fuels activism! Adopting sexual slurs is a tragically misguided attempt to stifle our righteous anger. What's the consequence of this stifling? We settle for a discriminatory status quo.
Too many of us shrug off insults. Too many of us shrug off mean-spirited media portrayals of ourselves. Lord knows, too many of us shrug off demonizing propaganda from organized religion. Too many of us shrug off banning from national institutions like the Boy Scouts and the US military. Too many of us shrug off laws that deny our families legal status. And the list of smoothed-over indignities grows longer. At the end of that list, we're going to find a nation full of hopelessly docile LGBT folk. The self-described "faggots", "dykes", "trannies" and "queers" will lay prone, ready and willing to be steamrolled by the forces of bigotry, and when it happens, there'll be hardly a whimper of protest. I don't think that's what the activists who rose in the wake of the Stonewall rebellion had in mind.
We deserve our righteous anger. We deserve the motivation to fight back. We deserve far better than identification with the demeaning labels that bigots have hurled at us . . . and by the way, bigots are still hurling them! Our enemies haven't given up using "queer", "dyke", "faggot", etcetera, and they never will, so we can't possibly "reclaim" those terms. Nor can we erase their ugly connotations. All we can do is confuse society about what we mean when we use them among ourselves, and when we invite others to do the same. Isn't there enough confusion about who and what we are?
Evidently, there isn't enough for folks like Maurice Tracy. Later in his essay, he laments the fact that no Black actors had featured roles on the "Queer As Folk" TV series. I imagine he's also disappointed that "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy's" Fab Five don't include a Black makeover stylist. Those are two instances where I'm thankful African-Americans were excluded. I never get upset about not being invited to Stupid People Parties!
When radical heterosexists spread lies about my kind, I am being oppressed! When White pundits at The Advocate opine that "Gay Is The New Black", I am being oppressed! When Black or White pundits insist on calling the Gay Rights movement a "queer movement", I am being oppressed, too!
Make no mistake, though: My oppressor is not James Dobson. My oppressor is not Peter LaBarbera. My oppressor is not Tony Perkins. Nor is my oppressor The Advocate's editorial board, or even Maurice Tracy. Ignorance is my oppressor! The promotion of ignorance is injurious to me, and it doesn't matter who the source of that ignorance is. If my enemy blows my brains out on purpose, or if my brother blows my brains out by accident, I'm just as dead either way!
The lyrics of an old Stealers Wheel song spring to mind: Clowns to the left of me/Jokers to the right/Here I am/Stuck in the middle with you.* More often than not, that's how I feel about living in a world where there's no escape from racism and heterosexism. In the Black community, I get raw hatred thrown in my face like a stinking scumbag. In Gay circles, I'm either invisible, or a threat, or a crude "homo-thug" fetish. I seek refuge among my Black Gay brethren, only to be labeled a "Black queer". Lord, deliver me! I'm so very sick and tired of being stuck in the middle of ignorant talk about race, gender and sexuality.
*excerpt from "Stuck In The Middle With You", words and music copyright 1978 by Joe Egan and Gerald Rafferty, published by Music of Stage Three (BMI)
Monday, March 9, 2009
A TERRIFIC VIDEO ON THE "RELIGIOUS" RIGHT
The following is a brief and terrific video of the views concerning the "religious" right by Frank Schaeffer, son of the noted late Francis Schaeffer. [Thanks to GayAgenda.com.]
Saturday, March 7, 2009
MIKE SIGNORILE'S TAKE ON THE FATE OF PROP. 8 MAY WELL BE CORRECT
Mike Signorile's take on the fate of Prop. 8 may well be correct.
After listening to the hearings on March 5th, and the deference with which Kenneth Star who advocated for Prop. 8 was treated by the justices, I'm afraid that my optimism as to the overturning of November's vote of the electorate in California might well have been incorrect.
Of course, it's not over until it's over, and even if the justices of the California State Supreme Court affirm Prop. 8, even with the caveat that those who were already married after the Court's May decision stating that the deprivation of marriage rights to same-sex couples is and always was unconstitutional, and prior to the vote of the electorate on the amendment, would still have valid marriages, we can expect a great deal of revulsion expressed and far more activism manifested should this slap in the face occur.
"Equality under the law" must still prevail, and if the current California Supreme Court bends to the tyranny of the majority, we can expect that one day in the near future enough activism will be evinced so that every state in the union will affirm same-sex marriage.
However, we must never forget that for there to be equal rights for any minority group, there must be, to use Martin Luther King's words, "a season of suffering."
And we should all hope that there is sufficient numbers of LGBT people and allies with the necessary fire in the belly to engage in meaningful activism, such as continuously picketing selected homophobic churches (as it is denominations and churches that have done the most to make possible the denigration of LGBT people); continuously picketing and mandating Marriage License bureaus to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples who are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen in this country; provoke the major LGBT rights organizations to become far more aggressive in asserting the demand for equal rights; educate people that we are under the Constitution of the United States and we are not a theocracy whereby religious convictions determine Constitutional rights.
Should the California State Supreme Court uphold Prop. 8 (and we will know their finding within 90 days), this should provoke increasing numbers of us to become far more political, less frivolous, and far more focused in realizing that we are engaged in a civil rights struggle no less important or urgent than the civil rights struggle that embroiled African Americans and their allies not all that long ago!
And if the Court affirms Prop. 8, whether or not those marriages that occurred within that window between the Court's May decision and the electoral vote in November are deemed valid, that finding may well be a blessing in disguise if it motivates LGBT people and allies, not only in California but in every state in the United States, to exponentially increase our anger, our rage, and our activism at the blatant injustice in enabling LGBT people to be consigned to second class citizenship bereft of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts!
After listening to the hearings on March 5th, and the deference with which Kenneth Star who advocated for Prop. 8 was treated by the justices, I'm afraid that my optimism as to the overturning of November's vote of the electorate in California might well have been incorrect.
Of course, it's not over until it's over, and even if the justices of the California State Supreme Court affirm Prop. 8, even with the caveat that those who were already married after the Court's May decision stating that the deprivation of marriage rights to same-sex couples is and always was unconstitutional, and prior to the vote of the electorate on the amendment, would still have valid marriages, we can expect a great deal of revulsion expressed and far more activism manifested should this slap in the face occur.
"Equality under the law" must still prevail, and if the current California Supreme Court bends to the tyranny of the majority, we can expect that one day in the near future enough activism will be evinced so that every state in the union will affirm same-sex marriage.
However, we must never forget that for there to be equal rights for any minority group, there must be, to use Martin Luther King's words, "a season of suffering."
And we should all hope that there is sufficient numbers of LGBT people and allies with the necessary fire in the belly to engage in meaningful activism, such as continuously picketing selected homophobic churches (as it is denominations and churches that have done the most to make possible the denigration of LGBT people); continuously picketing and mandating Marriage License bureaus to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples who are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen in this country; provoke the major LGBT rights organizations to become far more aggressive in asserting the demand for equal rights; educate people that we are under the Constitution of the United States and we are not a theocracy whereby religious convictions determine Constitutional rights.
Should the California State Supreme Court uphold Prop. 8 (and we will know their finding within 90 days), this should provoke increasing numbers of us to become far more political, less frivolous, and far more focused in realizing that we are engaged in a civil rights struggle no less important or urgent than the civil rights struggle that embroiled African Americans and their allies not all that long ago!
And if the Court affirms Prop. 8, whether or not those marriages that occurred within that window between the Court's May decision and the electoral vote in November are deemed valid, that finding may well be a blessing in disguise if it motivates LGBT people and allies, not only in California but in every state in the United States, to exponentially increase our anger, our rage, and our activism at the blatant injustice in enabling LGBT people to be consigned to second class citizenship bereft of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
WATCH THE HEARING ON PROP. 8 BEGINNING AT 9AM PST ON MARCH 5TH
The hearing tomorrow, March 5th, on Prop. 8 in California is scheduled from 9 am PST to 12 PM at the chambers of the California State Supreme Court that is located at at 350 McAllister St. in San Francisco.
There will be a live Webcast that can be seen by clicking this link.
So far, much of what I've read by the legal pundits discussing this issue is not optimistic, save for the possible keeping intact the marriages of same-sex couples in California who have become already married. Indeed, it is possible that many of the Justices may vote "conservatively" on this issue for fear of being voted out of office.
As summarized by one article:
...if history is any indication, those seeking to overturn the ballot measure are swimming upstream.
Because Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution, opponents can no longer rely on that document's guarantees of equal treatment and personal liberty to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Instead, advocates of same-sex marriage argue that Prop. 8, by withdrawing fundamental rights the court had sought to protect, assaulted the state Constitution itself. [See here.]
I'm still optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will vote to overturn the clearly discriminatory vote on Prop. 8 for the following reasons:
1. None of the justices, save the most reactionary, wish to go down in history as favoring discrimination against a minority group.
2. The justices are not likely to want their previous ruling affirming the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California to be overridden by a tyranny of the majority.
3. The fact that we are a Democratic Republic where the Judiciary has the final say on Constitutional matters must hold prominence.
4. To allow the vote of the majority to stand regarding the civil rights and civil liberties of any one group would be tantamount to obviating the need for a Supreme Court in California to adjudicate Constitutional matters.
5. Majority vote on matters that have to do with civil rights issues are fundamentally different than such votes on tax increases and the like.
6. The ruling last May of this Supreme Court that the prevention of same-sex marriages in California was, and always was, unconstitutional must vitiate any attempt to amend or revise that Constitution in a blatant attempt to exert the will or whim of any majority at any given time as final authority in adjudicating the constitutionality of such marriages.
7. To allow the "will of the majority" to be the final authority on the civil rights of any one minority group opens up a can of worms whereby every other minority group, such as African Americans, unions, Latinos, etc., can have one or more of their civil rights removed by majority vote. Such a ruling would provide a chilling effect in both California as well as in our whole society that is unlikely to be lost on the justices when they come to a decision on this matter.
I'm not an attorney or any kind of Constitutional scholar! However, it seems blatantly clear to me that any majority vote must not and should not trump the Judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution; that interpretation in regard to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California was made last May.
Please remember: There will be a live Webcast of the discussions of Prop. 8 beginning at 9 am PST on Thursday, March 5th, that can be seen by clicking this link.
There will be a live Webcast that can be seen by clicking this link.
So far, much of what I've read by the legal pundits discussing this issue is not optimistic, save for the possible keeping intact the marriages of same-sex couples in California who have become already married. Indeed, it is possible that many of the Justices may vote "conservatively" on this issue for fear of being voted out of office.
As summarized by one article:
...if history is any indication, those seeking to overturn the ballot measure are swimming upstream.
Because Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution, opponents can no longer rely on that document's guarantees of equal treatment and personal liberty to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Instead, advocates of same-sex marriage argue that Prop. 8, by withdrawing fundamental rights the court had sought to protect, assaulted the state Constitution itself. [See here.]
I'm still optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will vote to overturn the clearly discriminatory vote on Prop. 8 for the following reasons:
1. None of the justices, save the most reactionary, wish to go down in history as favoring discrimination against a minority group.
2. The justices are not likely to want their previous ruling affirming the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California to be overridden by a tyranny of the majority.
3. The fact that we are a Democratic Republic where the Judiciary has the final say on Constitutional matters must hold prominence.
4. To allow the vote of the majority to stand regarding the civil rights and civil liberties of any one group would be tantamount to obviating the need for a Supreme Court in California to adjudicate Constitutional matters.
5. Majority vote on matters that have to do with civil rights issues are fundamentally different than such votes on tax increases and the like.
6. The ruling last May of this Supreme Court that the prevention of same-sex marriages in California was, and always was, unconstitutional must vitiate any attempt to amend or revise that Constitution in a blatant attempt to exert the will or whim of any majority at any given time as final authority in adjudicating the constitutionality of such marriages.
7. To allow the "will of the majority" to be the final authority on the civil rights of any one minority group opens up a can of worms whereby every other minority group, such as African Americans, unions, Latinos, etc., can have one or more of their civil rights removed by majority vote. Such a ruling would provide a chilling effect in both California as well as in our whole society that is unlikely to be lost on the justices when they come to a decision on this matter.
I'm not an attorney or any kind of Constitutional scholar! However, it seems blatantly clear to me that any majority vote must not and should not trump the Judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution; that interpretation in regard to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California was made last May.
Please remember: There will be a live Webcast of the discussions of Prop. 8 beginning at 9 am PST on Thursday, March 5th, that can be seen by clicking this link.
Monday, March 2, 2009
ROBIN TYLER GETS IT!
It is naive, at best, to believe that appealing to "sweet reason," and the "better natures" of homophobic haters is going to do anything except make the marriage equality movement seem that much more pathetic.
For example, the following is the Courage Campaign's video, entitled Fidelitythat beseeches the California State Supreme Court to overturn the popular vote taken last May on Proposition 8.
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
They come hat in hand to beseech the Supreme Court to support equality for same-sex couples, and although this is a laudatory goal, the method by which they seek to achieve that goal shows that they come from a position of weakness and relative powerlessness.
The California State Supreme Court knows full well the many social and legal implications of allowing the popular vote on Prop. 8 to stand; coming from an emotional position advocating "fairness" and "decency" hold no water in the Judicial arena.
Rather, reminders as to the danger of the tyranny of the majority in adjudicating the civil rights of any minority group; the legal and social implications of allowing a State Supreme Court's prior adjudication of the State's Constitution to be trumped by the will and whim of the electorate that is mightily affected by lies and deceit by those who would limit civil rights of any citizen, must be emphasized.
In stark contrast, Robin Tyler gets it! She is not merely talking to the Supreme Court, but to all who would consider themselves Gay rights activists who can learn a great deal from her:
Some people have said, "Well, you can always put your right to equality back on the ballot in 2010." Excuse me? Since when was it OK for people to vote on a group's rights to basic equality and civil rights? Equality isn't a popularity contest. It's the right of all California citizens.
Nobody's rights should ever be put to a popular vote. That's why we have a court system. And that's why Diane and I are confident the court will show the courage it did when it not only ruled for marriage equality for same-sex couples but also declared that lesbians and gays were a suspect class, a legitimate minority entitled to all rights.
If the court does rule for us, tens of thousands of us will be on the streets that night celebrating a great victory -- not just for us but for everyone.
But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.
The time for saying "please" is over.
Part of what I wrote to a friend of mine regarding this article by Robin Tyler follows:
No more wimpering and seeking to play nice with those who hate Gay people and seek to deny them Constitutional rights! Robin Tyler and those very few like her are speaking the truth, and that truth will resonate with everyone who seeks equal justice and equal rights for everyone.
I am very optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will overturn the vote taken last May on Prop. 8!
As I wrote to another friend of mine regarding this issue:
I'm optimistic that the vote on Prop. 8 will be overturned by the Supreme Court, as not to do so would set a chilling precedent that would affect both Gay people as well as all minority groups in California. As a Democratic Republic we cannot have a tyranny of the majority that can remove constitutionally approved rights as adjudicated by a Supreme Court. Last May, the Calif. Supreme Court said that to deny same-sex marriage to Gay couples was unconstitutional, and had always been unconstitutional. Therefore, for them to now say that the will of the electorate prevails regarding Prop. 8 would nullify their role in interpreting the Calif. Constitution; vitiate the role of the Calif. State Supreme Court in adjudicating constitutional matters; set a chilling precedent that would affect every other minority group; have implications for other states in regard to minority group rights.
I truly believe that the Calif. Supreme Court will nullify that vote on Prop. 8, as the jurists are not oblivious to the truths and fall-out that condoning that vote would mean. A Pandora's Box would be open, leaving all minority group rights up for grabs, depending on the will and whim of the electorate. Moreover, civil rights are never to be decided by majority vote, and that's one of the main reasons our country was founded as a Democratic Republic and not as a mere Democracy where a tyranny of the majority could and would determine such rights.
We need a whole lot more Robin Tylers out there, demanding equality in every facet of life, including that of the designation of "Marriage" and all of the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by heterosexuals who have chosen to partake of that institution!
And there is no need to pathetically go hat in hand to achieve that goal, as to do so shows vulnerability and weakness, and is counterproductive to the acquisition of full and equal civil rights!
For example, the following is the Courage Campaign's video, entitled Fidelitythat beseeches the California State Supreme Court to overturn the popular vote taken last May on Proposition 8.
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
They come hat in hand to beseech the Supreme Court to support equality for same-sex couples, and although this is a laudatory goal, the method by which they seek to achieve that goal shows that they come from a position of weakness and relative powerlessness.
The California State Supreme Court knows full well the many social and legal implications of allowing the popular vote on Prop. 8 to stand; coming from an emotional position advocating "fairness" and "decency" hold no water in the Judicial arena.
Rather, reminders as to the danger of the tyranny of the majority in adjudicating the civil rights of any minority group; the legal and social implications of allowing a State Supreme Court's prior adjudication of the State's Constitution to be trumped by the will and whim of the electorate that is mightily affected by lies and deceit by those who would limit civil rights of any citizen, must be emphasized.
In stark contrast, Robin Tyler gets it! She is not merely talking to the Supreme Court, but to all who would consider themselves Gay rights activists who can learn a great deal from her:
Some people have said, "Well, you can always put your right to equality back on the ballot in 2010." Excuse me? Since when was it OK for people to vote on a group's rights to basic equality and civil rights? Equality isn't a popularity contest. It's the right of all California citizens.
Nobody's rights should ever be put to a popular vote. That's why we have a court system. And that's why Diane and I are confident the court will show the courage it did when it not only ruled for marriage equality for same-sex couples but also declared that lesbians and gays were a suspect class, a legitimate minority entitled to all rights.
If the court does rule for us, tens of thousands of us will be on the streets that night celebrating a great victory -- not just for us but for everyone.
But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.
The time for saying "please" is over.
Part of what I wrote to a friend of mine regarding this article by Robin Tyler follows:
No more wimpering and seeking to play nice with those who hate Gay people and seek to deny them Constitutional rights! Robin Tyler and those very few like her are speaking the truth, and that truth will resonate with everyone who seeks equal justice and equal rights for everyone.
I am very optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will overturn the vote taken last May on Prop. 8!
As I wrote to another friend of mine regarding this issue:
I'm optimistic that the vote on Prop. 8 will be overturned by the Supreme Court, as not to do so would set a chilling precedent that would affect both Gay people as well as all minority groups in California. As a Democratic Republic we cannot have a tyranny of the majority that can remove constitutionally approved rights as adjudicated by a Supreme Court. Last May, the Calif. Supreme Court said that to deny same-sex marriage to Gay couples was unconstitutional, and had always been unconstitutional. Therefore, for them to now say that the will of the electorate prevails regarding Prop. 8 would nullify their role in interpreting the Calif. Constitution; vitiate the role of the Calif. State Supreme Court in adjudicating constitutional matters; set a chilling precedent that would affect every other minority group; have implications for other states in regard to minority group rights.
I truly believe that the Calif. Supreme Court will nullify that vote on Prop. 8, as the jurists are not oblivious to the truths and fall-out that condoning that vote would mean. A Pandora's Box would be open, leaving all minority group rights up for grabs, depending on the will and whim of the electorate. Moreover, civil rights are never to be decided by majority vote, and that's one of the main reasons our country was founded as a Democratic Republic and not as a mere Democracy where a tyranny of the majority could and would determine such rights.
We need a whole lot more Robin Tylers out there, demanding equality in every facet of life, including that of the designation of "Marriage" and all of the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by heterosexuals who have chosen to partake of that institution!
And there is no need to pathetically go hat in hand to achieve that goal, as to do so shows vulnerability and weakness, and is counterproductive to the acquisition of full and equal civil rights!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
CIVIL RIGHTS ARE LIKE BEING PREGNANT
Having civil rights is a lot like being pregnant! For many reasons, one can't get incremental civil rights and still be viewed as a full-fledged citizen, anymore than a woman can be "a little bit pregnant." She is or is not pregnant!
We have equal rights or we don't have equal rights, and there can be no such acceptable compromise with full-fledged citizenship as exists in the acceptance of incremental civil rights, such as Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions!
As you know by now, I've always been against incremental civil rights because they provide no allowance for the person to be viewed as having dignity and deserving of full and equal civil rights that are accorded and guaranteed to all citizens of the U.S. as demanded by the Constitution.
Just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there is no such thing as equality when it is partial, or partially gained through incrementalism! We are treated equally under the law or we're not treated equally under the law, and incrementalism, by definition, nullifies the existence of equality under the law for Gay people.
Moreover, such incrementally gained rights can be easily removed by the mere stroke of a pen, be those rights Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions.
Here is one example:
The Incline Village General Improvement District board has decided to rescind health care insurance benefits to domestic partners of district employees.
The action, taken on a 3-2 vote Wednesday, reverses a similar board vote last August in favor of offering domestic partner benefits.
Board Chairman Ted Fuller says he voted to rescind the benefits because of the need to cut costs and the potential for abuse.
[For the full article, see here.]
There is no substitute for full marriage rights with the designation of "Married" accruing to same-sex couples who seek to make a lifetime commitment to each other. No substitute will do! And no substitute can be accepted!
It doesn't matter if we're told that every single right that married couples enjoy will be conferred on Domestic Partners or those in Civil Unions. The fact is that those expediently and politiclly manufactured institutions can be easily rescinded if and when the political and/or social and/or economic climate is viewed as conducive to their removal.
Moreover, to substitute those institutions for marriage still consigns same-sex love to being inferior to opposite-sex love, even if all marriage benefits are given to those couples with those other, lesser, designations. By accepting such incrementalism, it shows that the dignity, the legitimacy, and the normality of same-sex love is consigned to a nether world of second-class citizenship (despite rhetoric to the contrary); indicates the acceptance by the minority group of that inferiority, that "otherness," that still maintains the institutionalized belief in the inequality of same-sex love with opposite-sex love.
We are to make no mistake: any other designation than "Marriage" makes what civil rights that exist for Gay people up for grabs; dependent on the economic and/or social and/or political climate of a given time; institutionalizes the inherent inequality of same-sex couples and the nature of same-sex love.
Moreover, it is my contention that only with the institutionalization of "Marriage" for same-sex couples will virtually all other civil rights accrue to Gay people! "Marriage" confers a basic legitimacy to same-sex love and to the people entering that veritable and historically esteemed institution!
In this connection, it must be noted that it is heterosexuals who have tainted the institution of "marriage" through divorce; same-sex couples who seek marriage are a major hope that the institution of marriage will once again be accorded dignity and viability!
Gay people deserve no less than do Straight people!
And no amount of settling for inequality in any way, for any reason, be it for political expediency or for what is perceived to be the lesser of two evils, justifies the capitulation to anything less than the designation of "Marriage" for all same-sex couples who must expect and demand full and equal civil rights and the dignity that those rights are accorded and will afford them.
We have equal rights or we don't have equal rights, and there can be no such acceptable compromise with full-fledged citizenship as exists in the acceptance of incremental civil rights, such as Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions!
As you know by now, I've always been against incremental civil rights because they provide no allowance for the person to be viewed as having dignity and deserving of full and equal civil rights that are accorded and guaranteed to all citizens of the U.S. as demanded by the Constitution.
Just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there is no such thing as equality when it is partial, or partially gained through incrementalism! We are treated equally under the law or we're not treated equally under the law, and incrementalism, by definition, nullifies the existence of equality under the law for Gay people.
Moreover, such incrementally gained rights can be easily removed by the mere stroke of a pen, be those rights Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions.
Here is one example:
The Incline Village General Improvement District board has decided to rescind health care insurance benefits to domestic partners of district employees.
The action, taken on a 3-2 vote Wednesday, reverses a similar board vote last August in favor of offering domestic partner benefits.
Board Chairman Ted Fuller says he voted to rescind the benefits because of the need to cut costs and the potential for abuse.
[For the full article, see here.]
There is no substitute for full marriage rights with the designation of "Married" accruing to same-sex couples who seek to make a lifetime commitment to each other. No substitute will do! And no substitute can be accepted!
It doesn't matter if we're told that every single right that married couples enjoy will be conferred on Domestic Partners or those in Civil Unions. The fact is that those expediently and politiclly manufactured institutions can be easily rescinded if and when the political and/or social and/or economic climate is viewed as conducive to their removal.
Moreover, to substitute those institutions for marriage still consigns same-sex love to being inferior to opposite-sex love, even if all marriage benefits are given to those couples with those other, lesser, designations. By accepting such incrementalism, it shows that the dignity, the legitimacy, and the normality of same-sex love is consigned to a nether world of second-class citizenship (despite rhetoric to the contrary); indicates the acceptance by the minority group of that inferiority, that "otherness," that still maintains the institutionalized belief in the inequality of same-sex love with opposite-sex love.
We are to make no mistake: any other designation than "Marriage" makes what civil rights that exist for Gay people up for grabs; dependent on the economic and/or social and/or political climate of a given time; institutionalizes the inherent inequality of same-sex couples and the nature of same-sex love.
Moreover, it is my contention that only with the institutionalization of "Marriage" for same-sex couples will virtually all other civil rights accrue to Gay people! "Marriage" confers a basic legitimacy to same-sex love and to the people entering that veritable and historically esteemed institution!
In this connection, it must be noted that it is heterosexuals who have tainted the institution of "marriage" through divorce; same-sex couples who seek marriage are a major hope that the institution of marriage will once again be accorded dignity and viability!
Gay people deserve no less than do Straight people!
And no amount of settling for inequality in any way, for any reason, be it for political expediency or for what is perceived to be the lesser of two evils, justifies the capitulation to anything less than the designation of "Marriage" for all same-sex couples who must expect and demand full and equal civil rights and the dignity that those rights are accorded and will afford them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)