Dialogue on the 'Mos

I've written a response to someone who had responded to my earlier post on gays and firefighters.

He writes:

Thank you for your comments.

have a few questions for you based on your comments.

You said that “When will gays learn that they are only hurting their cause for mainstream acceptance by participating in lewd Gay Pride parades, in which they themselves conform to all of the most negative stereotypes about them?

How are these gays in/at the parade “playing into stereotypes” as opposed to showing the public how they really truly are? Were these gays “acting” or is this who they truly are?

You said that “In forcing these men to attend the Pride Parade, the San Diego Fire Department has only surrendered another PR coup to the Christian Right who are now running pieces like this.”

How is the “Christian Right” as you called them using this as a “PR coup”? Isn’t the objective factual truth of how homosexuals acted at this event being reported?

What do you have against people reporting the objective factual truth?

Thanks,
Chris

My response:

Chris,

Where to begin.

I agree with you that stereotype usually has some accuracy to it when applied to any given minority. However, one must recognize that stereotype tends to exaggerate and distort the most superficial differences (and then turns these differences into moral flaws).

I would start by asking you if you actually know any gay people closely. Friends? Family? Anyone that you are close to? I would be willing to bet that you would have an entirely different perspective on ‘those people’ if you did.

I am being presumptuous, but I am willing to bet that you do not actually know anyone closely who happens to be gay. I do know a lot of gay people. I love some of them, I can’t stand others—pretty much the way I feel about any given sample of the population.

That being said, I think that a lot of gays are putting up an act at events like gay pride. For every naked dancing boy I see for a few seconds walking by at a Pride event, I personally know five more gays who shun such displays.

With regard to your remarks on reporting “objective factual truth,” I would say that the facts of this incident are not disputed, and I have no problem with them being reported as such. As you see from my original post, I actually agree with you in thinking that forcing these men (however exaggerated their claims of psychological damage may be) to march in the parade was wrong.

However, I do dispute the way that people from generally conservative religious backgrounds paint an entire swath of human beings (who happen to be in the minority ) as depraved and evil. From a minority perspective, it’s kind of scary.

Thanks for the dialogue,

Elizabeth

Pride Parade Sets Back Gay Rights

When will gays learn that they are only hurting their cause for mainstream acceptance by participating in lewd Gay Pride parades, in which they themselves conform to all of the most negative stereotypes about them?

What's worse, when you force other people to attend, like four San Diego firefighters who are now suing the San Diego Fire Department for sexual harassment.

I think the fire fighters are being a little mellow dramatic (maybe something they picked up from the drag queens) when they say, "I've dealt with finding bodies in burning buildings, traffic accidents with kids, but I've never been so stressed out before until this incident," nonetheless no one should be forced to attend any function against their will.

In forcing these men to attend the Pride Parade, the San Diego Fire Department has only surrendered another PR coup to the Christian Right who are now running pieces like this.

Family Values Victory in the 10th Circuit

On August 3, 2007 the 10th Circuit Court ruled that the Oklahoma law that banned the recognition of out of state adoptions by same-sex couples was unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Finstuen v. Crutcher is a great victory for gay parents who previously risked having their parental rights stripped away upon entering the state of Okalahoma.

I found two things interesting about this case. First the Court decided to base its judgment on the Full Faith and Credit Clause without even addressing the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The latter two are obvious points of contention to the Oklahoma statute—the law categorically rejected out of state adoption certificates granted only to couples of the same sex.

It seems the Court did not want to get into the politically risky realm of equal and fundamental rights for gays. It was probably wise on their part. This is the Heart Land we’re talking about after all—the justices probably would have been burned in effigy and/or received death threats had they decided that gays had a constitutional right to adopt and be treated as equals.

I also think the potential impact this decision may have on DOMA is interesting because the easiest challenge to DOMA is that it too violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause by saying states do not have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. The 10th Circuit Court in Finstuen v. Crutcher, however, seemed to be careful in its wording saying:

In applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between statutes and judgments. Specifically, the Court has been clear that although the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies unequivocally to the judgments of sister states, it applies with less force to their statutory laws [my emphasis].

Are they trying to set aside an exception that would allow DOMA to stand—somehow trying to classify one state’s acceptance of a same sex marriage as a ‘statutory law’ rather than a ‘judgment’, and thus not equivalent under the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Or are they trying to say that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is weaker, as a matter of fact, in cases of statutory law because of the generally accepted public policy exception?

Either way it seems the 10th Circuit tried to make their decision in Finstuen v. Crutcher just narrow enough so as not to deal a fatal blow to DOMA. However they provided just one more powerful background case to any future case that would deal with DOMA.

Blame Gays First

The Christian Post ran a story on America's Pro-Gay Culture and Its Effects on Iraqi Christians. Apparently, the acceptance of gays in the US is creating great hardship for Iraqi Christians.

I love how the religious right blames gays for the plight of the Iraqis without even mentioning that most Iraqis live in fear of getting blown up by Islamic terrorists and insurgents everyday, and don't even have reliable sources of energy, food, water, and medicine--all because of the US's unnecessary and disastrously executed war.

Blaming gays first isn't really new, unfortunately. The religious right loves to blame gays for the destruction the "American family" without even considering how straights have done a fine job ruining marriage themselves.

More on the Democrats on Gays

Matt Foreman, president of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, shares my disappointment in the Democratic candidates over their lack of support for full legal equality for all Americans:

It’s déjà vu all over again — the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us — sorta — but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.

This must change...We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.

It's refreshing to see a leader of one of major gay rights organization speaking the obvious about the Democratic candidates. Don't expect the HRC to ever confront this reality.

Senate Judiciary Approves Activist Judge Southwick

The Senate Juiciary Committee just approved the nomination of of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lindsey Catlett of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights reported on Judge Southwicks questionable record:

In Richmond v. Mississippi Dept. of Human Services, Southwick joined the 5-4 majority that upheld the reinstatement of a white social worker who was fired for calling a black employee a "good ole n****."

"[T]he opinion that Southwick joined accepted without any skepticism Richmond's testimony that her use of the racial slur was ‘not motivated out of racial hatred or animosity directed at her co-worker or toward blacks in general, but was, rather, intended to be a shorthand description of her perception of the relationship existing between the [co]-worker and [a Department of Human Services] supervisor,'" said Ralph G. Neas, president of the People for the American Way (PFAW) and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), in a May 8 letter
of opposition to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The four dissenting judges in Richmond recognized this as a faulty argument and a threat to civil rights: "The word "n****" is, and has always been, offensive. […] There are some words, which by their nature and definition are so inherently offensive, that their use establishes the intent to offend." The dissenting opinion was confirmed when the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously overturned Richmond.

In another case, S.B. v. L.W., Southwick joined the 5-4 majority that denied a woman custody of her child. The majority considered the sexual orientation of the mother to be a legitimate factor in deciding custody.

But Judge Southwick even went further by joining a concurrence which held that homosexuality is a "choice that bears consequences." As PFAW and HRC stated, "the concurrence appears to have been written for the sole purpose of underscoring and defending Mississippi's hostility toward gay people and what it calls ‘the practice of homosexuality.'"

Unfortunately for blacks and gays in the 5th Circuit, Judge Southwick is likely to be confirmed by the Senate.

Gay people from New Mexico can marry in Massachusetts

The AP Reports:

Gay couples from New Mexico can marry in Massachusetts because their home state has not explicitly banned same-sex marriage, according to Massachusetts records officials.

New Mexico joins Rhode Island as the only states whose gay residents are allowed to marry in Massachusetts, the only state that allows same-sex marriage.

In a July 18 notice, city and town clerks were instructed by Stanley Nyberg, Massachusetts’ Registrar of Vital Records, to give marriage licenses to gay couples from New Mexico.

...

Massachusetts began marrying same-sex couples in 2004. Gov. Mitt Romney then prohibited out-of-state couples from marrying in the state, citing a 1913 law that bars Massachusetts from marrying couples who would be prevented from marrying in their home states.

This is good news for gays in New Mexico, but they still aren't totally in the clear:

New Mexico hasn’t outlawed same-sex marriage, but it hasn’t endorsed it either. Nor have lawmakers approved domestic partnership legislation, despite prodding from Gov. Bill Richardson.

...

But those who decide to marry in Massachusetts or elsewhere must be prepared to live with uncertainty, advocates of gay marriage cautioned Thursday.

Those marriages “will be respected to varying degrees,” warned Equality New Mexico. The group said the state, businesses and others may join the federal government in refusing to recognize the unions.

Will Governor Richardson stay true to his Youtube debate rhetoric and recognize the marriages of his gay constituents performed in Massachusetts? If he can't even take this small step (which I'd say Massachusetts has rightly foisted upon him), gays surely cannot trust him to 'achieve' his promises of civil unions, domestic partnerships, hate crimes legislation, and a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

UPS Desists its Discriminatory Policy in New Jersey

Due in large part to a letter written by Governor John Corzine about two weeks ago, UPS has decided to extend health insurance benefits to civil unionized couples in New Jersey.

Just another small step toward equality—though one would have thought an unnecessary one since New Jersey’s civil unions were supposed to be equal to marriage in all but name.

Lack of gay rights causes alimony abuse

Another blogger's take on the inadequacy of civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Domestic partnerships in Washington

Gay couples in Washington State began to register as domsestic partners today. According to the Associated Press, "couples that register as domestic partners receive enhanced rights, including hospital visitation, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and the sbility to inherit in the absence of a will."

'Enhanced rights' is good, but it's still not equal rights, which will only come with marriage.

The House acknowledges gay hate crimes victims

Yesturday, the House of Representatives passed H.RES. 535, Commending David Ray Ritcheson, a survivor of one of the most horrific hate crimes in the history of Texas.

The text of the resolution reads:

No human being deserves to be tortured and victimized like David Ray Ritcheson simply because he is of a different background, race, religion, ethnic group, or sexual orientation.

I think it is significant that the House mentions sexual orientation, because unlike any of the other groups, it is the only one that is not protected by federal hate crimes legislation. One of the religious right's biggest complaint about the recent legislation that died in the Senate, was that it would codify 'immoral lifestyles' into US law. This resolution, though non-binding, shows that gays are slowly being recognized by our lawmakers.

Sullivan on the Democrats' gay responses

Andrew Sullivan provides a nice brief response to the Democratic candidates' responses to the gay questions at the Youtube debate:

It still frustrates. They still won't actually answer the simple question: Why do you oppose equal marriage rights? I'm sorry but I'm not interested in John Edwards' "personal journey". In fact, I'm extremely uninterested. I want to know what his argument is. He disavows the religious rationale but offers no other. If it's the "ick" factor, let us know. If you can't justify that, then live up to your own convictions. Obama was just as evasive. Richardson came closest in talking about what's "achievable." But what does that mean? The answer is: they're too afraid to say what they believe. They still smell of fear. As long as candidates are too afraid to stand up for what they believe, why should anyone support them? We're not electing a focus-group or a consultant. We're supposed to be electing a president.

I concur.

The Democrats on religion

More from the Democratic Youtube Debate: Senator Biden (D-DE) says one of the most sane things I've heard from a politician on religion in a long time:

Religion informs my values, reason dictates my outcomes...I don’t find anything inconsistent about my deep religious beliefs and my ability to use reason.

I did not like what Senator Obama (D-IL) had to say:

We've got to translate our moral, our religious values into moral terms that all people can share, including those who are not believers.

Is he implying that the non-religious lack moral values, that they somehow need to be taught by the religious? Even though Obama represents a liberal twist on faith in politics (a welcome change from the religious right), I still feel uncomfortable with the divisions he makes along religious lines.

The Democrats on gays at the Youtube debate

At the Democratic Youtube Debate, which aired tonight on CNN’s Situation Room with Anderson Cooper, Americans were allowed to submit their questions to the Democratic candidates via Youtube.

Rev. Reggie Longcrier of Hickory, NC submitted the following video to Jon Edwards:

Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segeragation, and to deny women the right to vote.

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?

Edward responded:

I think Rev. Longcrier asks a very important question, which is, fundamentally, whether it’s right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we’re President of the United States. I do not believe that’s right. I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination, I want to do some of the things I just heard Bill Richardson talk about; standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, what Chris Dodd just talked about, and I think that’s something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as President of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. I think as a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke at, my wife Elizabeth out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports, uh gay m-marriage [stutter], I do not, um this is a very difficult issue for me and I have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

Anderson Cooper, being a good moderator, pressed Edwards to answer the question, asking bluntly, "why is it OK to quote religious beliefs when talking about why you don’t support something?"


Edwards responded:

It’s not. I’ve been asked a personal question, which, I think is what Rev. Longcrier is raising. The personal questions is, do I believe, do I personally support gay marriage. The answer to that is I don’t. Uh, but I think it is absolutely wrong as President of the United States for me to use that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights. And I will not do that when I am President of the United States.

Edwards still did not respond to Rev. Longcier' s question! From what I've taken from his response, Edwards believes that religion should not be used to discriminate and that he is against discrimination, but he still thinks it's right to discriminate against gays by keeping them from marrying.

Anderson Cooper then pressed Barack Obama on the issue (presumably because he is the only black candidate), saying, "the laws banning interracial marriage in the US were ruled unconstitutional in 1967—what is the difference between the ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?"


Obama responded:

Well I [stutter] I think it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill and that is that we’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law, and the civil unions that I propose would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal, uh, for same sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

With respect to marriage it’s my belief, uh, that it’s up to individual denominations to make a decision as to whether or not they want to recognize a marriage or not. Uh, but, in terms of, you know, the rights of people to uh, transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those civil rights that are, uh, conferred by our government, those should be equal.

Doesn't Obama, of all people, realize that separate is never equal? I wonder when gays will finally wake up and realize that none of the mainstream candidates support their full equality. Gays donate and vote for Democratic candidates overwhelmingly. When will gays stand up and hold the Democrats accountable?

More on the inadequacy of civil unions and domestic partnerships

In California, a court ordered that a man must continue to pay alimony, even after his ex-wife entered a domestic partnership with another woman.

The LA Times reports:

Ron Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman — and had taken her last name — when he agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony.

What he didn't know was that the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was supposed to mirror marriage law, Garber said.

State marriage laws say that alimony ends when the former spouse remarries, and Garber reasons he should be off the hook, given that domestic partnership is akin to marriage. But an Orange County judge has decided that registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must pay.

"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."

The case, which Garber intends to appeal, highlights gaps between the legal status of domestic partners and of married couples, an issue the California Supreme Court is considering as it ponders whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

This is similar to a Virginia case where the Virginia Court of Appeals found that Jonathan Stroud did not have to continue supporting his ex-wife Debra Stroud after she entered a lesbian relationship. In their divorce settlement Mr. Stroud agreed to pay $4000 a month to Ms. Stroud until she remarried. Unlike California, the Virginia court found that the lesbian relationship did resemble the effects of marriage (in spite of the Virginia anti-gay marriage amendment), and canceled Mr. Stoud's support agreement.

From an Equality Virginia Press release:

In the case of Jonathan Stroud v. Debra Lyn Stroud, the Court chose to recognize a relationship between two women as a marriage-like relationship under the definition of cohabitation. However, they made this determination in the context of ending Mr. Stroud’s obligation to provide spousal support to his former wife.

“While we applaud the decision to legally recognize two women as a couple in a marriage-like relationship in the shadow of the so-called ‘marriage amendment’, it is quite ironic that the Court chose to recognize this relationship in order to remove a marriage benefit when the state has consistently denied recognizing the right to provide marriage benefits to gay and lesbian couples,” said Dyana Mason, Equality Virginia’s Executive Director. “It’s going to be very interesting how the Virginia Supreme Court responds to this case if it is appealed.”

These cases reveal how the lack of clear legal definitions for gay couples exposes couples straight and gay alike to the whims of judges, dare I say "activist".

Civil unions: seperate and not equal

Gay couples in New Jersey are still not treated as equals to their straight counterparts, in spite of the civil unions law past last year. The authors of the legislation intended civil unions to be equal to marriage in all but name.

However, it is becoming clear that civil unionized couples in New Jersey do not recieve equal recognition or benefits as married couples. New Jersey governor John Corzine has written a letter to UPS requesting that they change their employee benefits policies to reflect New Jersey law. UPS maintains that they do not have to provide benefits to civil unionized couples because they are governed by federal law, where DOMA reigns supreme. Interestingly enough however, UPS does provide benefits to gay marriaged couples in Massachusetts, the only state where gays are allowed to wed. This undermines UPS's DOMA argument, since DOMA applies equally in Massachusetts as it does in New Jersey.

The Washington Post also takes note of the problem:

A recent study by Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay advocacy group, indicated that as many as one in eight of the 1,092 same-sex couples who have registered for civil unions there have been denied all or part of the benefits they hoped to gain from the law. That is particularly significant because New Jersey, as the first state outside New England to approve civil unions, was seen as a bellwether in gauging how they would take root outside the bluest of the blue states.

As cases like these become more prevelant, hopefully lawmakers and the population at large will realize that civil unions are a seperate institution that are not, and can never be, equal to marriage.

The persistence of hate

Although gays in South Africa enjoy full legal equality (including full marriage), they still suffer from virulent bigotry, which has been leading to a recent increase in hate crimes against them.

The Sunday Herald reported on the rape, torture and execution-style murder of gay rights activists Sizakele Sigasa and Salome Masooa:

Sigasa, 34, a prominent lesbian rights activist, was shot six times in her head and collarbone. Her underpants had been used to tie her hands behind her back, and her ankles had been tied together with the laces from her own trainers. Masooa, 23, had been shot through the back of her head.

The pair had left a Soweto party to take a friend home on the night of the attack. Their bodies were later discovered near their car by a jogger. Alhough no arrests have been made, in a country where daily murders are commonplace, gay rights
organisations said the killings were driven by "lesbophobia".

The Joint Working Group, the umbrella organisation for South Africa's gay and lesbian associations, said the murders were part of a growing epidemic of hate crimes. In the past two months there have been two other murders of lesbian women in black townships. Simangele Nhlapo, a member of a support group for women living with Aids, was raped and murdered; her two-year-old daughter was raped and left with both her legs broken. In another incident, 16-year-old Madoe Mafubedu, living openly as a lesbian, was raped and repeatedly stabbed until she died.

Reports like these make me thankful that although gays do not have full legal equaltity in the United States, we at least are not subject to this form of brutality.

I guess that's if you don't take into account:

Kenneth Cummings Jr, murdered by a man who says he was carrying out God's "code of retribution"

Danny Overstreet, shot to death by a man "looking to waste some faggots"

JR Warren, beaten to death by three teens before being run over

PFC Barry Winchell, beaten to death while sleeping

Fred Martinez Jr, beaten to death with a boulder

Billy Jack Gaither, beaten to death before being set on fire

Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, shot to death in their home

Sakia Gunn, stabbed to death by two men

Steven Haataja, burned to death

Andrew Anthos, 72 years old, beaten to death with a metal pipe

The list goes on and on.

The FBI reports that there were 1,213 gay victims of hate crimes in 2005. This makes them the second largest group targeted by hate after blacks. Yet unlike blacks, gays are not covered by federal hate crimes legislation.

One can argue about the merrits of hate crimes legislation itself, but to exclude the second largest victim group is indefensible.

Gays increase housing values

In case you missed this bit from Colbert last night, Richard Florida, professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and author of The Rise of the Creative Class, argues that "gay-friendly" cities are more economically prosperous than those that are not.

See here for a link to Florida's related paper.

I have not read the book or the article yet so I cannot comment, but it certainly is an interesting thesis.

Bush to Mary Cheney

What Bush would say to Dick Cheney regarding his gay daughter Mary:

My only ask was that if his daughter doubted my tolerance to her orientation that I would hope that he would help make it clear to Mary that this is a--I was just worried about--the reason I'd federalized the issue is because I was worried about the courts' defining the issue and that we'd end up with de facto marriage that was not traditionally defined, I guess is the best way to put it.

Yes, that is an actual quotation from the President of the United States.

In case you need a translation: it's not that Bush is intolerant of gays, he's just intolerant of the recognition of gay relationships.

Facebook bans Gays

or the surname at least