Back in June, FiveThirtyEight.com posted some interesting poll data on how differently gay marriage polls depending on the wording. Specifically, the difference was that one poll asked "if the government has a right to pass laws to prohibit or allow" marriages based on various categorizations of the relationships in question (interfaith, interracial, same-sex, polygamous, and involving children under 16, to be precise.) The other polls asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry -- quite a different question.
What's the result of changing the wording? 63% of people polled believed that the government did not have that right, vs. the usual 40some% that think same-sex marriage "should be allowed." (Leading me to wonder what people think voting for laws is -- if they don't believe the government has a right to regulate something, shouldn't they vote against regulating it? But people tend not to analyze their voting process, I think.)
I've mentioned before that I think conservatives are controlling the dialog. That's why this is the hot GLBT issue, and why it's being sold so badly: they define the terms and make the attacks, and we argue with the terms and counter the attacks. We aren't fighting more winnable battles on such a public stage, even though they're as important; I think we could convince people that homeless GLBT youth deserve better services, for example, and actually get a lot of support for youth-related issues in other areas, because "the children" tend to be an automatic selling point, but it's not in the limelight. And we're fighting from the position that we ought to be given rights, implicitly suggesting that the government (the voting public, Congress) has the right to deny them to us. Which it doesn't.
The big question is, though, how do we change this? I've talked a lot about what's wrong; we all do. How to make it right is harder. I, personally, will be changing my emphasis in future debates, and I advise everyone who sees this to do the same.
What future debates, specifically? Well, if it's true that an overturn of Prop. 8 will be on the ballot next year, then I'm going to try to find a way to travel to the high-Yes parts of the state and campaign next summer, because there aren't a lot of people I can influence in my own town. The hard part is transportation -- I don't drive and public transit is unlikely to work well -- but I'm optimistic about it.
Someone's got to go, anyway. The highest concentrations of queer people in the state are, not surprisingly, in the most queer-friendly areas, so we really need to be out knocking on doors further from home. As scary as that sounds.
2009-08-06
2009-07-27
hello again
It's been a while, hasn't it? I'll explain why later, but I want to start off by mentioning that Washington state is apparently going to have a vote on their domestic partnerships that eerily parallels Prop. 8 -- potentially taking away the rights granted to the GLB people of Washington by their legislature last year. The most telling part of this? From the article:
As to why I was away, I spent mid-June to mid-July traveling, the time I got back through the present being sick, and the time before that, well....
Mid-May I was going about my normal academic process on campus and saw a sign advertising GLBT activist/community events, and a sense of overwhelming frustration and hopelessness overcame me as the words oh, what's the point raced through my head in three-foot letters of fire, and I became so angry and confused that I knew I had to get help. I ran over to the student health center and made an appointment to get counseling. Turned out to be the same day the court upheld Prop. 8. So I basically got out of math class, feeling pretty good (we got a test back; I got 100%, so I remember that) but scared, called home, asked my dad for the results, got them, thanked him, and stumbled off to wait for my appointment. Had it, made an appointment for another one with another counselor, went to the rally downtown.
The reason all of this interfered with my blogging is that, well, when you're having a breakdown, when something that personal is that wrong -- well, it doesn't lend itself to activism so much. I mean, it does -- I had wild impulses to write my protest on every blank wall I came to, tear down the Yes On 8 yard sign I had to see every day on the bus and stand there until the cops came, parade around with "GIVE ME BACK MY RIGHTS" scrawled on my bare chest (not downtown, though, as female toplessness is legal there), or chain myself to something -- but the sort of actions it inspires don't include coherent blog posts. All I would've produced would've been blind rage and grief and repetitions of they're lying, I'm hurting, this is wrong that would have left me more frustrated.
I'm back, though, and next summer I will be out collecting signatures to overturn this thing. Because I was reminded, when I rewatched Milk with my family, that we don't have that guy any more; we have to inspire ourselves, and keep on fighting whatever the odds. So, hi. My name is Phoenix.You stole my civil rights. Prepare to be defeated. I'm here to recruit you.
The newest version [of the law being challenged] adds registered domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law that presently apply only to married couples.Translation: these are the "just civil unions" that all but the most extreme anti-gay people allege to support. They're not called marriages, they're separate from religion; they're just legally equivalent. And the good people of Washington are going to vote on whether to take them away anyway. Because, as I think I've mentioned before, anti-gay activists are liars.
As to why I was away, I spent mid-June to mid-July traveling, the time I got back through the present being sick, and the time before that, well....
Mid-May I was going about my normal academic process on campus and saw a sign advertising GLBT activist/community events, and a sense of overwhelming frustration and hopelessness overcame me as the words oh, what's the point raced through my head in three-foot letters of fire, and I became so angry and confused that I knew I had to get help. I ran over to the student health center and made an appointment to get counseling. Turned out to be the same day the court upheld Prop. 8. So I basically got out of math class, feeling pretty good (we got a test back; I got 100%, so I remember that) but scared, called home, asked my dad for the results, got them, thanked him, and stumbled off to wait for my appointment. Had it, made an appointment for another one with another counselor, went to the rally downtown.
The reason all of this interfered with my blogging is that, well, when you're having a breakdown, when something that personal is that wrong -- well, it doesn't lend itself to activism so much. I mean, it does -- I had wild impulses to write my protest on every blank wall I came to, tear down the Yes On 8 yard sign I had to see every day on the bus and stand there until the cops came, parade around with "GIVE ME BACK MY RIGHTS" scrawled on my bare chest (not downtown, though, as female toplessness is legal there), or chain myself to something -- but the sort of actions it inspires don't include coherent blog posts. All I would've produced would've been blind rage and grief and repetitions of they're lying, I'm hurting, this is wrong that would have left me more frustrated.
I'm back, though, and next summer I will be out collecting signatures to overturn this thing. Because I was reminded, when I rewatched Milk with my family, that we don't have that guy any more; we have to inspire ourselves, and keep on fighting whatever the odds. So, hi. My name is Phoenix.
2009-04-21
reactions
I wear a pin identifying myself in some way every day. Usually, it's the one that says "I was affected by Proposition 8." And I have had many discussions triggered by that, besides the coincidental Prop. 8 talks, and I feel called to talk about some of the common themes.
The number one, of course, is people who say "I'm sorry -- I voted no" or "yeah, me too." There's not much to say about this, really. I like to hear these things, because they're simple bond-forming dialog-openers, allowing me to connect to my neighbors and share the pain that we both felt, easing it some.
Number two is a little more frustrating, and often follows number one: "it won't last/the Supreme Court will fix it." As I've mentioned, the legal impact is minimal -- the overall legal trend, worldwide, is towards equality, and even with the oral arguments I think there's a good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will act on this specific case. Certainly by the time I find someone I want to marry, (DV, insha'Allah, etc.) I expect to have that legal right. But to me this is about losing faith in people's goodness, in their compassion, in their sense of justice. It's about knowing that even in my safe little bubble, at least one out of every four people I meet doesn't believe I deserve equal protection under the law. It's about feeling helpless to protect myself because I gave my all and it wasn't enough, and it still isn't enough, to make a difference. Under the circumstances, reassurances about the legal part don't help and get irritating, because the Supreme Court can't fix my faith, and the promise of a better world to come doesn't help because it doesn't do anything about the present. So this line, though well-intentioned, is irritating and at times seems naïve, as though it were saying that it's no big deal, but only factoring in the tip of the iceberg. (Not that I think this is at all intentional, you understand.)
That leads me neatly to number three: "sexuality shouldn't matter." Again well-intentioned, again irritating. Yeah, it shouldn't matter -- nobody should care if other people are queer or not, outside of a dating context; nobody should care about gender or ethnicity or religion or political affiliation either, but the thing is? They do. It does matter, no dodging it.
Number four is one I get from queer people who don't personally seek marriage rights (some GLB people, many T): "marriage is a nonissue -- we should be working on things that affect all of us." Yes, we should be working on more urgent things: fully inclusive nondiscrimination and hate crime legislation, protecting queer kids from abuse and bullying, protecting the children of queer parents from the same plus the danger of losing their parents, helping those in countries where the laws are truly draconian (Uganda and Iran come to mind), protecting the weakest among us. And yes, marriage is emphasized far more here and now than those things, and I don't think that's by any means a good thing -- actually, I think it's a conservative ploy to keep us occupied, controlling the dialog. However, when we start talking about "nonissues" or suggest that because you don't want it, it doesn't/shouldn't concern you, I have to disagree. Go back to #2, please, or to the first post in this blog, and also refer to the list of legal rights provided by marriage in the US. Okay, you back? So there was that little detail about the pain and grief and losing faith thing, plus the legal bit -- calling it a nonissue is really fucking hurtful to those of us who, y'know, are personally interested in those things. Besides which, discriminatory laws set a dangerous precedent from any minority's viewpoint: they imply that it's okay to have, well, discriminatory laws.
The fifth kind of reaction I encountered in its most glaring form the other day, when I spoke to a family friend I hadn't seen in some time. He greeted me, and I him, and he read my pin aloud, as people often do. Then he greeted another friend, was called away by his family, and vanished without so much as nodding a farewell or looking my way. I can't tell whether this was the snub it appeared, any more than I know whether the silent anonymous people who avoid my eyes on the bus after glancing at the pin are simply being wary of strangers or something else. Sometimes I wish I met people who were openly and unambivalently hostile; not knowing is the most irritating thing of all.
The number one, of course, is people who say "I'm sorry -- I voted no" or "yeah, me too." There's not much to say about this, really. I like to hear these things, because they're simple bond-forming dialog-openers, allowing me to connect to my neighbors and share the pain that we both felt, easing it some.
Number two is a little more frustrating, and often follows number one: "it won't last/the Supreme Court will fix it." As I've mentioned, the legal impact is minimal -- the overall legal trend, worldwide, is towards equality, and even with the oral arguments I think there's a good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will act on this specific case. Certainly by the time I find someone I want to marry, (DV, insha'Allah, etc.) I expect to have that legal right. But to me this is about losing faith in people's goodness, in their compassion, in their sense of justice. It's about knowing that even in my safe little bubble, at least one out of every four people I meet doesn't believe I deserve equal protection under the law. It's about feeling helpless to protect myself because I gave my all and it wasn't enough, and it still isn't enough, to make a difference. Under the circumstances, reassurances about the legal part don't help and get irritating, because the Supreme Court can't fix my faith, and the promise of a better world to come doesn't help because it doesn't do anything about the present. So this line, though well-intentioned, is irritating and at times seems naïve, as though it were saying that it's no big deal, but only factoring in the tip of the iceberg. (Not that I think this is at all intentional, you understand.)
That leads me neatly to number three: "sexuality shouldn't matter." Again well-intentioned, again irritating. Yeah, it shouldn't matter -- nobody should care if other people are queer or not, outside of a dating context; nobody should care about gender or ethnicity or religion or political affiliation either, but the thing is? They do. It does matter, no dodging it.
Number four is one I get from queer people who don't personally seek marriage rights (some GLB people, many T): "marriage is a nonissue -- we should be working on things that affect all of us." Yes, we should be working on more urgent things: fully inclusive nondiscrimination and hate crime legislation, protecting queer kids from abuse and bullying, protecting the children of queer parents from the same plus the danger of losing their parents, helping those in countries where the laws are truly draconian (Uganda and Iran come to mind), protecting the weakest among us. And yes, marriage is emphasized far more here and now than those things, and I don't think that's by any means a good thing -- actually, I think it's a conservative ploy to keep us occupied, controlling the dialog. However, when we start talking about "nonissues" or suggest that because you don't want it, it doesn't/shouldn't concern you, I have to disagree. Go back to #2, please, or to the first post in this blog, and also refer to the list of legal rights provided by marriage in the US. Okay, you back? So there was that little detail about the pain and grief and losing faith thing, plus the legal bit -- calling it a nonissue is really fucking hurtful to those of us who, y'know, are personally interested in those things. Besides which, discriminatory laws set a dangerous precedent from any minority's viewpoint: they imply that it's okay to have, well, discriminatory laws.
The fifth kind of reaction I encountered in its most glaring form the other day, when I spoke to a family friend I hadn't seen in some time. He greeted me, and I him, and he read my pin aloud, as people often do. Then he greeted another friend, was called away by his family, and vanished without so much as nodding a farewell or looking my way. I can't tell whether this was the snub it appeared, any more than I know whether the silent anonymous people who avoid my eyes on the bus after glancing at the pin are simply being wary of strangers or something else. Sometimes I wish I met people who were openly and unambivalently hostile; not knowing is the most irritating thing of all.
2009-02-24
lying liars that lie
There's an old talking point that goes like this: marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure, same-sex couples should have basic legal recognition/protections of some kind, but call it something else. This is the primary argument of moderates opposed to marriage equality, and something many conservatives pay lipservice to. It's bollocks.
Two articles today about Colorado, which has passed a bare-minimum domestic partnership bill, and Wisconsin, which is working on the same. Now, these are two states with bans on same-sex marriage, protecting the sacred institution and all that, right? Here's the article on Colorado's measure:
I need Al Franken here to shout "LIARS" for me, I think.
Passing this along, while I'm here. I don't think I can make it, but I will be a very visible presence in my classroom that day.
Two articles today about Colorado, which has passed a bare-minimum domestic partnership bill, and Wisconsin, which is working on the same. Now, these are two states with bans on same-sex marriage, protecting the sacred institution and all that, right? Here's the article on Colorado's measure:
Republicans attacked the measure, calling it an attempt to circumvent the state constitution which bans same-sex marriage.And here's the one about Wisconsin:
The conservative Wisconsin Family Action said Tuesday that the proposal would violate the state constitution. In 2006, Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.These are not marriage equivalents we're talking about here, even if we ignore the psychological effect of the word and talk pure law. These are simple, inadequate things, trying to give basic legal recognition and a semblance of dignity to same-sex couples. And yet they are now supposedly covered by the marriage bans, something I fancy few voters knew when they put those bans into place.
I need Al Franken here to shout "LIARS" for me, I think.
Passing this along, while I'm here. I don't think I can make it, but I will be a very visible presence in my classroom that day.
2009-02-02
that'll teach me to watch my tongue
Of course as soon as I comment on how little news there is, I get this: Mormon Church admits it spent 100 times more for Prop 8 than reported. OUCH.
I admit to a certain level of happiness at the knowledge that this is out there, even if it hasn't hit the mainstream press (which AFAIK it hasn't.) They lied; it's good that they are being exposed. On the other hand, it's frustrating because I know that the Mormons are only one religious group that worked on this thing, and even if they lose their tax-exempt status or get fined it won't lessen the power of the bigger power they represent. It will, however, make for excellent material to base further lies on. The homosexual activists are persecuting the poor innocent churches; crop the church's actions that started the whole thing and you've got "proof."
It hooks into the fight over donors' "privacy." That's the thing where there was a brief attempt to prevent information about who contributed to pass measures from being accessible, on the basis that look at how the evil homosexual activists were punishing Prop. 8 supporters by boycotting their businesses or attacking them -- usually verbally. This is, of course, complete bullshit.
Nobody has a right to not be boycotted, FFS. If they did, that would imply that others didn't have the right to spend or not spend their money as they see fit. I'm pretty sure I have a right to not buy things I don't want, and to not go to the horrible local grocery store where everyone's surly. I mean, nobody's told me yet that that's a violation of their freedom of expression because they have a right to be surly.
I think I've already covered that nobody has a right to say whatever they want and not have anyone contradict them, right? So I'll skip the part where I talk about how negative reactions are not something the Constitution protects you from. Let's just say the LDS appear to be about to get a stiff lesson in what freedom of religion and expression don't mean, and I just wish I thought it would take.
I admit to a certain level of happiness at the knowledge that this is out there, even if it hasn't hit the mainstream press (which AFAIK it hasn't.) They lied; it's good that they are being exposed. On the other hand, it's frustrating because I know that the Mormons are only one religious group that worked on this thing, and even if they lose their tax-exempt status or get fined it won't lessen the power of the bigger power they represent. It will, however, make for excellent material to base further lies on. The homosexual activists are persecuting the poor innocent churches; crop the church's actions that started the whole thing and you've got "proof."
It hooks into the fight over donors' "privacy." That's the thing where there was a brief attempt to prevent information about who contributed to pass measures from being accessible, on the basis that look at how the evil homosexual activists were punishing Prop. 8 supporters by boycotting their businesses or attacking them -- usually verbally. This is, of course, complete bullshit.
Nobody has a right to not be boycotted, FFS. If they did, that would imply that others didn't have the right to spend or not spend their money as they see fit. I'm pretty sure I have a right to not buy things I don't want, and to not go to the horrible local grocery store where everyone's surly. I mean, nobody's told me yet that that's a violation of their freedom of expression because they have a right to be surly.
I think I've already covered that nobody has a right to say whatever they want and not have anyone contradict them, right? So I'll skip the part where I talk about how negative reactions are not something the Constitution protects you from. Let's just say the LDS appear to be about to get a stiff lesson in what freedom of religion and expression don't mean, and I just wish I thought it would take.
2009-01-31
days go by
I haven't posted here in over a month because, well, nothing's changing. We got some interesting data, most significantly that knowing GLB people didn't affect how people voted that much. I'd say this is really significant, but once the first surprise sank in I realized that it made sense.
We accept that people may not think they have "anything against" us while still expressing raging bigotry. Anyone who's participated in any debate involving a minority knows the old classic, "some of my best friends are [insert group here] but...." The thing is, generally when interacting with our friends we see them as, well, our friends, not as "a black person/Latino/Hindu/Libertarian." There are exceptions -- for instance, I get my hair cut by a black woman I could never possibly fail to see as a black woman, because she's an activist and a half -- and subconsciously we may be affected, but as a general rule an individual person is first and foremost a person. When thinking about the group they belong to, we probably don't think of them first. We think of the stereotype.
I read an article the other day about the Swiss government's movement to restrict nude hiking in anticipation of a huge number of German tourists hiking naked later this year. Between that, a similar issue in Italy a while back, the infamous nude skydiving video I'm too lazy to dig up, and the airline for nudists, I've become very attached to the stereotype of "naked in public = German" and vice versa. And actually some of my best friends are German and to the best of my knowledge aren't in the habit of hiking naked, and I never associate any of them with nudity. And yet, say "German" to me and I think, not of them, but of the skydiving guys. I daresay even if/when I go to Germany this summer and discover that most if not all of the people I meet are fully clothed, I will continue to have this association. My point is, beliefs about groups of people, once formed, are fairly resistant to the influence of individuals in those groups.
"Well, then," I can hear you saying, "if knowing people doesn't change anything, what can we do? Being out obviously isn't enough." Ah, she responds arrogantly to the imagined masses, this returns to the idea of being actively out. It's not enough for us to say "I'm gay" once and have that be an end to it. It's probably not enough to bring a partner to every gathering. You have to, like my hairdresser, be an activist. Discuss the issues. Make people see you and the group together, not apart.
The difficulty of this is that it is freaking exhausting. I am so damn' sick of having to introduce the terminology and underlying concepts, dispel the common myths, and then debate my basic rights with people, I wish I never had to do it again. I'm tired of putting myself out there, hearing the same old tired responses, failing to change anything. And I'm only 20, and I've only been talking about this for maybe four years, so I can only imagine that the older activists must be on their fifth or sixth wind at least. And I'll be there, given time.
Right now I'm burnt out because there is no news. There is no justice, but more importantly my faith in humanity's still off somewhere. I was at a concert earlier this month, and the time had come to sing "Step By Step" together and I realized that I couldn't do it because, while I believe it intellectually, my heart is not so sure. That's the long-term thing here -- I don't trust that the right will prevail any more. Only months ago I was a proud idealist, convinced that if only we worked hard enough all would be well, and now I'm fighting just to get that back. And it doesn't stop hurting, and it won't no matter what the court rules, because I don't have faith in the system to protect me, or in the people, or in God. I hope like hell this will pass, because if it doesn't I think I'll end up nonfunctional, addicted to something and hating the world, driven to do something beyond anyone's power and make the world right.
Wow, that was a downer. Sorry, folks.
We accept that people may not think they have "anything against" us while still expressing raging bigotry. Anyone who's participated in any debate involving a minority knows the old classic, "some of my best friends are [insert group here] but...." The thing is, generally when interacting with our friends we see them as, well, our friends, not as "a black person/Latino/Hindu/Libertarian." There are exceptions -- for instance, I get my hair cut by a black woman I could never possibly fail to see as a black woman, because she's an activist and a half -- and subconsciously we may be affected, but as a general rule an individual person is first and foremost a person. When thinking about the group they belong to, we probably don't think of them first. We think of the stereotype.
I read an article the other day about the Swiss government's movement to restrict nude hiking in anticipation of a huge number of German tourists hiking naked later this year. Between that, a similar issue in Italy a while back, the infamous nude skydiving video I'm too lazy to dig up, and the airline for nudists, I've become very attached to the stereotype of "naked in public = German" and vice versa. And actually some of my best friends are German and to the best of my knowledge aren't in the habit of hiking naked, and I never associate any of them with nudity. And yet, say "German" to me and I think, not of them, but of the skydiving guys. I daresay even if/when I go to Germany this summer and discover that most if not all of the people I meet are fully clothed, I will continue to have this association. My point is, beliefs about groups of people, once formed, are fairly resistant to the influence of individuals in those groups.
"Well, then," I can hear you saying, "if knowing people doesn't change anything, what can we do? Being out obviously isn't enough." Ah, she responds arrogantly to the imagined masses, this returns to the idea of being actively out. It's not enough for us to say "I'm gay" once and have that be an end to it. It's probably not enough to bring a partner to every gathering. You have to, like my hairdresser, be an activist. Discuss the issues. Make people see you and the group together, not apart.
The difficulty of this is that it is freaking exhausting. I am so damn' sick of having to introduce the terminology and underlying concepts, dispel the common myths, and then debate my basic rights with people, I wish I never had to do it again. I'm tired of putting myself out there, hearing the same old tired responses, failing to change anything. And I'm only 20, and I've only been talking about this for maybe four years, so I can only imagine that the older activists must be on their fifth or sixth wind at least. And I'll be there, given time.
Right now I'm burnt out because there is no news. There is no justice, but more importantly my faith in humanity's still off somewhere. I was at a concert earlier this month, and the time had come to sing "Step By Step" together and I realized that I couldn't do it because, while I believe it intellectually, my heart is not so sure. That's the long-term thing here -- I don't trust that the right will prevail any more. Only months ago I was a proud idealist, convinced that if only we worked hard enough all would be well, and now I'm fighting just to get that back. And it doesn't stop hurting, and it won't no matter what the court rules, because I don't have faith in the system to protect me, or in the people, or in God. I hope like hell this will pass, because if it doesn't I think I'll end up nonfunctional, addicted to something and hating the world, driven to do something beyond anyone's power and make the world right.
Wow, that was a downer. Sorry, folks.
2008-12-23
diverting from our main discussion to Rick Warren
Link first: "It's not Obama I'm mad at; it's way too many of you."
There're a lot of people, including some quite close to me, who don't get why this Rick Warren thing is a big deal. Or they argue that it's about bringing together diverse views, or reaching out to the right, and that it's somehow admirable for this. Here're my two cents:
Bull-fucking-shit. Hem. This isn't just one isolated event; it's yet another in a long line of occasions where the Democratic Party has reached out to the right at the expense of the GLBT community, thrown us under the bus in the name of unity. This isn't about diversity; this is validation of hate speech, a signal that it is somehow acceptable to, as Warren has, compare gay marriage to incest. This isn't outreach; we're not communicating anything to the guy or his supporters except that Obama & co. care about them. And if he'd spoken of another minority -- say, Jews, or Asian-Americans, or African-Americans -- as hatefully as he has of gay people, nobody would consider it an acceptable form of outreach or diversifying.
The thing is, quite simply, that GLBT issues are not abstract. I've said it before; I'll keep saying it. GLBT issues are not abstract. People die because of anti-GLBT discrimination. People are brutally attacked because homophobia is still accepted -- nay, encouraged -- in our society. I could go on -- that's just this last week -- but I shouldn't have to. It should be bleeding obvious that GLBT people need protection and active support and that no, we can't wait. We have waited too long. We can't go on taking scraps from the table of justice, watching as hate speech is accepted and affirmed while we are told to sit down and shut up until the mainstream is "ready" for us, following along like good little sheep after leaders who openly oppose full equality and justify it with religious beliefs that aren't even validated by the holy texts they draw from. As the famous quote/paraphrase whose origins appear to be lost in the mists of time says, "justice too long delayed is justice denied" and we cannot allow ourselves to be denied justice. Neither can any supposed ally allow us to, without admitting that they don't really care about us.
We can't let ourselves be thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party or anyone else. We can't let ourselves be put at the bottom of the priority list, to wait until America is ready for us. We need justice today, and if America is not ready then it must be dragged kicking and screaming into a place of justice, as it has been so many times before in the history of our nation, because the majority's opinion is so wildly unimportant in comparison to the needs of the minority that it should never even register.
Enough is enough is enough, already.
There're a lot of people, including some quite close to me, who don't get why this Rick Warren thing is a big deal. Or they argue that it's about bringing together diverse views, or reaching out to the right, and that it's somehow admirable for this. Here're my two cents:
Bull-fucking-shit. Hem. This isn't just one isolated event; it's yet another in a long line of occasions where the Democratic Party has reached out to the right at the expense of the GLBT community, thrown us under the bus in the name of unity. This isn't about diversity; this is validation of hate speech, a signal that it is somehow acceptable to, as Warren has, compare gay marriage to incest. This isn't outreach; we're not communicating anything to the guy or his supporters except that Obama & co. care about them. And if he'd spoken of another minority -- say, Jews, or Asian-Americans, or African-Americans -- as hatefully as he has of gay people, nobody would consider it an acceptable form of outreach or diversifying.
The thing is, quite simply, that GLBT issues are not abstract. I've said it before; I'll keep saying it. GLBT issues are not abstract. People die because of anti-GLBT discrimination. People are brutally attacked because homophobia is still accepted -- nay, encouraged -- in our society. I could go on -- that's just this last week -- but I shouldn't have to. It should be bleeding obvious that GLBT people need protection and active support and that no, we can't wait. We have waited too long. We can't go on taking scraps from the table of justice, watching as hate speech is accepted and affirmed while we are told to sit down and shut up until the mainstream is "ready" for us, following along like good little sheep after leaders who openly oppose full equality and justify it with religious beliefs that aren't even validated by the holy texts they draw from. As the famous quote/paraphrase whose origins appear to be lost in the mists of time says, "justice too long delayed is justice denied" and we cannot allow ourselves to be denied justice. Neither can any supposed ally allow us to, without admitting that they don't really care about us.
We can't let ourselves be thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party or anyone else. We can't let ourselves be put at the bottom of the priority list, to wait until America is ready for us. We need justice today, and if America is not ready then it must be dragged kicking and screaming into a place of justice, as it has been so many times before in the history of our nation, because the majority's opinion is so wildly unimportant in comparison to the needs of the minority that it should never even register.
Enough is enough is enough, already.
2008-12-20
18000 marriages need to end to protect marriage
Yes On 8 wants to annul all the same-sex marriages performed in the state to date. I am completely unsurprised.
I just don't get it, friends. I don't understand how other people living their lives can be so offensive to anyone that they're willing to put their time and money into tearing us down. The nearest I can figure is that there's some severe difference in word definitions between us and them.
My hypothesis is that it comes down to the definition of homosexuality. From the point of view of a GLBA person, homosexuality is the state of being attracted to/falling in love exclusively or almost exclusively with people of the same sex/gender as oneself. It's innate, it's immutable -- who chooses who they love? -- and it's a part of who you are regardless of what you do.
The thing about this understanding of sexual orientation -- supported by science and backed by the APA -- is that it makes "homosexuality is a sin" gibberish. It's a trait. Redheadedness isn't a sin, or autism, or being black, or being left-handed. And therefore we don't push redheads to dye their hair, mandate drugging of autistic people, force black people to bleach their skin and straighten their hair, or prohibit the use of the left hand for writing. In the present, I mean. So it's illogical to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, just as laws against left-handedness would be illogical.
Therefore, I don't think that our opponents can possibly define homosexuality this way. The party line for a lot of conservatives is that it's a "lifestyle choice," right? So what I eventually realized is that homosexuality to them means gay sex. A gay person is someone who has sex with people of the same sex -- bisexuals I think must be seen as incredibly promiscuous, because otherwise there would be no way of giving meaning to the term -- and therefore, logically, if they stop having sex with people of the same sex, they are no longer gay.
Now, there are a few flaws with this, and the first is that it's completely and demonstrably false. Well, that can be dodged by simply not believing the overwhelming scientific evidence or any individual gay person who has relevant personal experience. The second is that only a total idiot with a persecution complex would ever choose to be a member of an unpopular minority group. The counter to this that I've seen is the suggestion that gay sex is addictive, sort of like tobacco I suppose, and to try it once is to risk getting hooked for life. Alternately, there's the Freudian idea that gay people have some childhood trauma that makes us afraid of relationships with people of the opposite sex, so that same-sex relationships seem better somehow even with every disadvantage that goes with them.
So assuming that the addiction view is accepted, the logic runs the opposite way. You want to make it harder for people to become addicted to harmful things, so you pass laws to discourage use and encourage rehabilitation. Therefore, banning same-sex marriage (and ideally civil unions) is a way of discouraging gay people from committing to relationships, making stable commitment harder and forcing us to see opposite-sex relationships as preferable alternatives. Similarly, with the Freudian model, the idea is that making same-sex relationships less appealing will lead people back to heterosexuality.
The problem, of course, is that they're so completely wrong about every aspect of this that it's absurd. And here we get to the part I don't understand, and will never be able to understand: why don't they figure this out? Why is it so hard to realize that the sex-addiction model of homosexuality completely fails to account for monogamous same-sex couples, gay virgins/happily single gay people like yours truly, heterosexually monogamous bisexual-identified people, and indeed most of the gay/bi community because most people aren't awfully promiscuous actually? Or that the Freudian model, besides being rejected by the psychiatric community, fails to explain any variety of bisexual? It doesn't compute, for me.
I just don't get it, friends. I don't understand how other people living their lives can be so offensive to anyone that they're willing to put their time and money into tearing us down. The nearest I can figure is that there's some severe difference in word definitions between us and them.
My hypothesis is that it comes down to the definition of homosexuality. From the point of view of a GLBA person, homosexuality is the state of being attracted to/falling in love exclusively or almost exclusively with people of the same sex/gender as oneself. It's innate, it's immutable -- who chooses who they love? -- and it's a part of who you are regardless of what you do.
The thing about this understanding of sexual orientation -- supported by science and backed by the APA -- is that it makes "homosexuality is a sin" gibberish. It's a trait. Redheadedness isn't a sin, or autism, or being black, or being left-handed. And therefore we don't push redheads to dye their hair, mandate drugging of autistic people, force black people to bleach their skin and straighten their hair, or prohibit the use of the left hand for writing. In the present, I mean. So it's illogical to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, just as laws against left-handedness would be illogical.
Therefore, I don't think that our opponents can possibly define homosexuality this way. The party line for a lot of conservatives is that it's a "lifestyle choice," right? So what I eventually realized is that homosexuality to them means gay sex. A gay person is someone who has sex with people of the same sex -- bisexuals I think must be seen as incredibly promiscuous, because otherwise there would be no way of giving meaning to the term -- and therefore, logically, if they stop having sex with people of the same sex, they are no longer gay.
Now, there are a few flaws with this, and the first is that it's completely and demonstrably false. Well, that can be dodged by simply not believing the overwhelming scientific evidence or any individual gay person who has relevant personal experience. The second is that only a total idiot with a persecution complex would ever choose to be a member of an unpopular minority group. The counter to this that I've seen is the suggestion that gay sex is addictive, sort of like tobacco I suppose, and to try it once is to risk getting hooked for life. Alternately, there's the Freudian idea that gay people have some childhood trauma that makes us afraid of relationships with people of the opposite sex, so that same-sex relationships seem better somehow even with every disadvantage that goes with them.
So assuming that the addiction view is accepted, the logic runs the opposite way. You want to make it harder for people to become addicted to harmful things, so you pass laws to discourage use and encourage rehabilitation. Therefore, banning same-sex marriage (and ideally civil unions) is a way of discouraging gay people from committing to relationships, making stable commitment harder and forcing us to see opposite-sex relationships as preferable alternatives. Similarly, with the Freudian model, the idea is that making same-sex relationships less appealing will lead people back to heterosexuality.
The problem, of course, is that they're so completely wrong about every aspect of this that it's absurd. And here we get to the part I don't understand, and will never be able to understand: why don't they figure this out? Why is it so hard to realize that the sex-addiction model of homosexuality completely fails to account for monogamous same-sex couples, gay virgins/happily single gay people like yours truly, heterosexually monogamous bisexual-identified people, and indeed most of the gay/bi community because most people aren't awfully promiscuous actually? Or that the Freudian model, besides being rejected by the psychiatric community, fails to explain any variety of bisexual? It doesn't compute, for me.
2008-12-07
so sick of this all
We've got a long haul until March. Let's have analysis to fill it up!
Someone was talking about the importance of communication and understanding and how the other side had their reasons today, and that got me thinking. It's hard for me, because on the one hand, I hate having to do this. We shouldn't have to fight this one. We have a society that, by and large, recognizes the importance of equality. Legally, at any rate, we recognize that racial inequality is wrong, that people with disabilities need accommodations, that men and women deserve equal respect. (Socially, we often don't recognize areas where these ideals are not applied, but they are embedded in our laws now.) And it took so long, and so much heartbreak and struggle, that it is unthinkable to me that we could now ignore that legacy. How can a society full of people who have lived through the civil rights movement and the women's movement, or been taught about them in their history classes, fail to recognize the same story with a simple search-and-replace? How can I possibly have to fight this battle as though it were new? It's completely unfair.
On the other hand, as my dad always used to tell me when I complained about some unjust family rule, life isn't fair. Whether we like it or not, we have to fight this, and we have to give it our all, and we have to be better than the best people if we want to stand a chance of winning. So I suppose I recognize that feeling how unfair it is doesn't really help, at all.
I do find myself increasingly frustrated by the call for dialog, though. I think we've got a cultural fallacy, brought about by "fair" press coverage of everything, that says that if there are two different views on a subject, they must be afforded equal respect. This is bullshit. The two sides of the "debate" on global warming are not equally valid -- one is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and the other by a small fringe group. The two sides of the "debate" on whether same-sex couples make good parents are not equal -- scientific evidence firmly supports the affirmative position. Ditto, well, most gay stuff. It is biologically caused, neither a mental illness nor a cause of mental illness, and immutable. These are what we call facts and they are supported by scientific evidence, so they're not at all equal to the beliefs supported by people's personal beliefs and discredited studies conducted by wingnuts like this guy. And these and other facts clearly show that being gay is, yes, a status equally worthy of the law's protection as race, gender, national origin, disability, etc.
The Yes side deceived the people, used low-down tricks, and is now hiding behind faith and so-called democracy all to justify subverting the American system to attack a vulnerable minority. They do not deserve equal respect to the people they hurt, and their opinions do not deserve to be heard in "civilized discourse" as though they were legitimate, because while they may be valid opinions for individuals to hold, they aren't legitimate parts of any political or even philosophical debate. There is a wrong and a right here, and they're in the wrong.
I'll probably still end up debating them and trying to listen to them, because as I said before, we have to do things that we shouldn't even have to consider doing if we're going to win this. Which is why, today, I hate the world.
P. S. Oh, here, have a link: antigay campaigns cause depression in LGBT people. Gosh, really? I only came the closest I've ever been to suicidal in November, so I am of course totally shocked by this.
Someone was talking about the importance of communication and understanding and how the other side had their reasons today, and that got me thinking. It's hard for me, because on the one hand, I hate having to do this. We shouldn't have to fight this one. We have a society that, by and large, recognizes the importance of equality. Legally, at any rate, we recognize that racial inequality is wrong, that people with disabilities need accommodations, that men and women deserve equal respect. (Socially, we often don't recognize areas where these ideals are not applied, but they are embedded in our laws now.) And it took so long, and so much heartbreak and struggle, that it is unthinkable to me that we could now ignore that legacy. How can a society full of people who have lived through the civil rights movement and the women's movement, or been taught about them in their history classes, fail to recognize the same story with a simple search-and-replace? How can I possibly have to fight this battle as though it were new? It's completely unfair.
On the other hand, as my dad always used to tell me when I complained about some unjust family rule, life isn't fair. Whether we like it or not, we have to fight this, and we have to give it our all, and we have to be better than the best people if we want to stand a chance of winning. So I suppose I recognize that feeling how unfair it is doesn't really help, at all.
I do find myself increasingly frustrated by the call for dialog, though. I think we've got a cultural fallacy, brought about by "fair" press coverage of everything, that says that if there are two different views on a subject, they must be afforded equal respect. This is bullshit. The two sides of the "debate" on global warming are not equally valid -- one is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and the other by a small fringe group. The two sides of the "debate" on whether same-sex couples make good parents are not equal -- scientific evidence firmly supports the affirmative position. Ditto, well, most gay stuff. It is biologically caused, neither a mental illness nor a cause of mental illness, and immutable. These are what we call facts and they are supported by scientific evidence, so they're not at all equal to the beliefs supported by people's personal beliefs and discredited studies conducted by wingnuts like this guy. And these and other facts clearly show that being gay is, yes, a status equally worthy of the law's protection as race, gender, national origin, disability, etc.
The Yes side deceived the people, used low-down tricks, and is now hiding behind faith and so-called democracy all to justify subverting the American system to attack a vulnerable minority. They do not deserve equal respect to the people they hurt, and their opinions do not deserve to be heard in "civilized discourse" as though they were legitimate, because while they may be valid opinions for individuals to hold, they aren't legitimate parts of any political or even philosophical debate. There is a wrong and a right here, and they're in the wrong.
I'll probably still end up debating them and trying to listen to them, because as I said before, we have to do things that we shouldn't even have to consider doing if we're going to win this. Which is why, today, I hate the world.
P. S. Oh, here, have a link: antigay campaigns cause depression in LGBT people. Gosh, really? I only came the closest I've ever been to suicidal in November, so I am of course totally shocked by this.
2008-11-20
the latest and a moment for other people
An interesting look at how various hypothetical votes from the African-American community would have affected Prop. 8.
You've probably heard by now that the Supreme Court is going to review the challenges to Prop. 8, but won't be staying it. We probably won't know the outcome until at least March, so while we're waiting I suggest we continue to fight where we can.
The latest I've been seeing is people saying we shouldn't be protesting churches, or we shouldn't be protesting at all. The idea is that we've got to show everyone how nice we are so they'll get around to giving us our rights. The trouble with this idea is that a) GLBT people are an "invisible" minority, meaning unless we consciously put ourselves out there nobody knows it's us being nice, and b) everybody else is too busy taking care of their own needs to worry about minorities (or other minorities.) We need to be loud to get dialog going. If I may quote Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From Birmingham Jail here, he makes my point:
In short, you have to start the conversation first.
Today is the 10th annual International Transgender Day of Remembrance, so I'd like to take a moment to address someone else's fight here. Because transpeople get treated like shit by the general population, even gay/bi people who really ought to know better, and far too often people brutally murder them in cold blood and get away with it, and it's wrong. So take a moment -- read this year's names and think about what you can do to stop the hate, because we all should do something.
You've probably heard by now that the Supreme Court is going to review the challenges to Prop. 8, but won't be staying it. We probably won't know the outcome until at least March, so while we're waiting I suggest we continue to fight where we can.
The latest I've been seeing is people saying we shouldn't be protesting churches, or we shouldn't be protesting at all. The idea is that we've got to show everyone how nice we are so they'll get around to giving us our rights. The trouble with this idea is that a) GLBT people are an "invisible" minority, meaning unless we consciously put ourselves out there nobody knows it's us being nice, and b) everybody else is too busy taking care of their own needs to worry about minorities (or other minorities.) We need to be loud to get dialog going. If I may quote Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From Birmingham Jail here, he makes my point:
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
In short, you have to start the conversation first.
Today is the 10th annual International Transgender Day of Remembrance, so I'd like to take a moment to address someone else's fight here. Because transpeople get treated like shit by the general population, even gay/bi people who really ought to know better, and far too often people brutally murder them in cold blood and get away with it, and it's wrong. So take a moment -- read this year's names and think about what you can do to stop the hate, because we all should do something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
