Comfort

I'm selfish. Probably to a fault. I tend to figure that as long as I'm not hurting anyone, everything will be OK. As such, it has never occurred to me not to be affectionate with someone I'm in a relationship with for fear that it might make those around us uncomfortable. Ooops. Told 'ya I was selfish.

The interesting thing about marriage equality- at least based on my anecdotal evidence here in Iowa- is that it is giving all of us the legitimacy to be comfortable in our relationships. We are considered equal (at least in the eyes of the state), which means that we can behave the same as any other couple in public and around our family and friends. It is amazing to experience that kind of freedom, relief, legitimacy, and belonging.

I also think it's an amazing opportunity for both strangers and friends/family to see more love. One of my favorite things to observe is an older couple holding hands. How wonderful would it be to live in a world with even more couples holding hands?

Peace out.

The Fact of the Matter Is...In my Humble Opinion

OK, so I'm a bit run down at the moment, which might be affecting my judgement. I have also read the news online: Never a good idea if one wants to prevent a rant from forming. Nonetheless, I may just pull a Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" if I hear any of the following...one...more...time:

1) "You should just be patient. Change takes time. Remember the Civil Rights movements?"

Uh huh. And, can we not learn from the past and hence reduce the amount of time that change takes?

P.S. Would you still be advocating patience if I were to revoke the rights that you have (and take for granted)? Didn't think so.

2) "We should totally vote on issues like marriage for same sex couples."

Hmmm. Should we do that before or after we vote on marriage for opposite sex couples? Should we do that even though we live in a representative democracy and a nation with a constitution (things that, respectively, are designed to represent the populace but still protect the civil rights of minority groups)?

Must the existence of online polls asking people "what they think" be carte blanche for folks to decide the fate of others even though what they "feel" or "believe" is not factual or informed?!

3) "Gay rights are just not important right now. We need economic bailouts, immigration reform, healthcare reform, and an end to the various wars we're fighting first."

My favorite. You are totally right.

I've never seen lesbian and gay folks negatively affected by immigration law (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-gay-iranian-seeks-us-asylum-faces-deportation/story?id=10865471).

I can't imagine that the lack of marriage equality could possibly harm the health or economic viability of lesbian and gay families (http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_Greene_v_SonomaCounty041910).

And, absolutely, wars have nothing to do with gay people whatsoever (insert entirely too many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" articles here).

I apologize in advance for the tone of this post. By virtue of my current profession, I'm usually tirelessly diplomatic and accepting of varied viewpoints. Not today. Today I'm just tired.

Am I a Bad Omen?

In keeping with societal preoccupation with the self, I am beginning to wonder if my presence is a bad omen for marriage equality. Here's why:

1) On a recent visit to California, Proposition 8 was passed and I was reduced to marching in protests. While gay folks typically have some good slogans (because, as Kate Clinton says, we're darn used to protesting), I was dismayed to have to say "chickens have more rights than me" while marching. Why did I have to say this? Because the humane slaughter proposition (which I support) on the ballot passed hence protecting the rights and treatment of chickens. Chickens=1, Gays=0 in the rights tally...you get the picture.

2) Just when I think that Hawaii (where I've been living for the past month) is about to allow civil unions [NOT the same as marriage...NOT even close to adequate because of legal references in state and federal law specific to marriage only...but, alas, better than nothing], *bam* Governor Linda Lingle decides that 'civil unions are too much like marriage' and that they 'should be put to a popular vote.'

WTF??? (As an aside, this is the ONLY text messaging language that I know and that I believe to have any utility.)

a) Civil unions are NOT the same as marriage- they are separate and inherently unequal. See the videos at gardenstateequality.org for proof of the train wreck they have been for folks in New Jersey. To me, the only problem with the civil union bill is that it wasn't marriage!

b) The Constitution exists because the rights of the minority group cannot be put to a majority vote. Clearly, I need to research and compile a list of reasons and examples for why this is so, but, for instance, if we were to have voted at the time of the 1967 Supreme Court decision on interracial marriage, we would have found that only 33% of the public supported interracial marriage. 'Nuf said.

I could go on and on and on with more caveats here, but I would run out of letters in the alphabet.

I was stunned and angered by the Governor of Hawaii. I was angry that her statements were riddled with factual errors. I was angry that she waited to veto the bill until *after* it was too late for a special session of the legislature that would have allowed for an override session.

Mostly, however, I was sad.

So sad, in fact, that I spent LARGE amounts of time that night crying. I would sometimes sob and yell at the television, but it didn't talk back and, frankly, my outbursts scared the two kittens I was babysitting.

Because Hawaii is 5 hours behind Iowa, by the time the decision was reported near 5pm, I could no longer call my wife or my mother or my friends in the Midwest to complain. The only solace I found was petting the cat curled up next to me who was purring contentedly. Thank the spirits and souls for that.

I am a bit surprised by how viscerally I am beginning to feel these defeats. It's as if the universe sends a loud message. In this case, just as I'm settling into life here with the boogie board and snorkel mask, the message is:'you are not welcome here.' Those who know me well can appreciate (or mourn) the irony (or tragedy) that the welcome mat has been rolled out in Iowa but not in California or Hawaii. Sigh.

So, Governor Lingle- if you care- you have succeeded in perpetuating ignorance and in hurting those who are only asking for the same rights and protections under the law as anyone else.

Time to keep educating. Peace, B

And the funny thing about being mad is

that it really just masks the sadness and the fear in all things personal and political.

It seems that my life has gotten really dark as the anger has grown to accommodate the sadness about 'what could be but isn't yet' and the fear of 'what could be but isn't yet.' Seems that the only place I have been living is the realm of 'what could be but isn't yet.' Ooops.

Not that I know Melissa Etheridge or Tammy Lynn Michaels, but folks who know me know that, as I prepare to get married, their 'divorce' has been unnerving. I am very sad for their family and for both of them regardless of the details of their split. I wish them both nothing but the best.

In listening to Melissa's new CD, "Fearless Love," I am- as usual with Melissa music- blown away by the lyrics. In thinking about sadness and fear and anger, the song "Only Love" on the new album has really struck a chord. A portion of the lyrics are below:

Everything you feel
That's what your world is made of

And when I take a good look around I see
My thoughts are coming back to me

So look around
We are in charge of our own dreams
We have more power than it seems

So look around
Come on now show me who you're loving
Then show me just who you hate
Then I can show you all your angels
That guard your heaven's gate

Huh.

Have I been feeling angry and hence thinking that there are only things to "hate" in the world? Check.

Have I been sending out 'angry vibes' and noticing that's what I've been attracting in return? Check.

Could I stop being angry for my present circumstances and, if I really feel that they need to be changed, change them? Check.

Have I been making the world smaller by condemning all the things I'm pretty sure I 'hate'? Check.

Could I make peace with some of these people and things? Check.

Could changing what I can and making peace with what I cannot change possibly improve my life and the lives of others? Check. (Sorry for sounding a bit like 'The Serenity Prayer,' but I have always found it to be somewhat relevant.)

Note to Self: Live peacefully in the land of what is and pursue your dreams.

Love to all (especially those who have been enduring the bouts of anger that have been masking the sadness and the fear), B

Now I'm Mad (see text below)

OK, so I was mad when I hit "send." Really mad. Mad because I got a form letter that was NOT addressing my actual concern. [To be fair, however, it's better than the last time I wrote to the Governor about these issues and got a reply about my comments on farm machinery...go figure.] Mad because of all of the apologetic double-speak in this letter. [Again, to be fair, I THINK Harkin might actually be on my side, just wrong in his suppositions about marriage rights.] And especially mad that we are not making progress in gaining federal rights of marriage in large part because even our elected officials do not understand the law and are not educated on matters of the rights of marriage. Marriage is not a state-level issue because it carries federal-level rights.

At any rate, below is my reply to Senator Harkin followed by his letter to me when I asked if he supported the "Respect for Marriage Act" that would repeal DOMA.

***

Thank you for your reply. I was NOT, however, contacting you regarding the DC decision. I WAS contacting you to consider support for the "Respect for Marriage Act" that would repeal DOMA.

You are wrong. Marriage is not an issue of state determination because there are 1,138 rights of marriage (including social security survivorship, etc.) that come from the federal government and will only be granted with federal recognition of marriage for same sex couples.

PLEASE consider: 1) not sending out form letters that insult the intelligence of folks, and 2) supporting the federal repeal of DOMA. Marriage is fundamentally an assemblage of state and federal rights.

Thank you, Me.

***

April 29, 2010

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.

I appreciate your comments concerning the District of Columbia Council's passage of a bill regarding same-sex marriage.

Marriage licensing and regulation currently is left to the states, and I believe that is proper. It is the right of each state to interpret its own laws as it wishes. Although the Constitution gives Congress the authority to have the final say on this law, I believe the same deference we show states in establishing marriage laws should also be shown to the District of Columbia.

In 1996, I supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which established the federal definition of marriage as only the legal union between one man and one woman. Since that time, however, I have given the issue a great deal of thought and my views have evolved. While I've always believed that committed same-sex couples should have all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage through civil unions, I have come to believe that the best way to guarantee these rights is through marriage equality. At the same time, I believe that questions regarding marriage as a religious sacrament are best left to individual religious denominations.

As I stated above, however, I believe the issue of marriage is best handled at the state level. Recently, as you know, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act violated the state constitution. In order to extend the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage to all Iowans, the Court granted same-sex couples the ability to marry. Significantly, the Court made clear that the ruling only effects civil marriages and will not impede religious groups from defining the marriages it performs as only between a man and a woman. I respect and support this decision, and I hope other Iowans will do the same.

Moreover, with few exceptions, we have changed the United States Constitution only to expand participation in our democracy or to make structural change in our system of representative government. That is why I do not support amending the United States Constitution in this area.

Again, thanks for sharing your views with me. Please don't hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin
United States Senator

TH/JO

What am I missing?

Apparently I am just way off base because I cannot understand why pro-equality forces are not taking the offensive. Why are we allowing anti-fairness factions to dictate the terms of engagement? Why are we not making a case for our rights?

Fact: At least $600,000 in anti-fairness campaign money has come into the State of Iowa for the 2010 elections. Fact: All 3 of the Republican candidates for Governor in the State of Iowa are anti-fairness. Fact: There will be paid advertising that promotes discrimination and seeks to revoke the rights of same sex couples to marry in the State of Iowa.

Suggestion: Seek outside funding to secure advertising time for pro-equality messaging. Suggestion: Create pro-equality advertisements. In these advertisements, explain that Iowa is leading the nation in bringing equality under the law to same sex couples. Suggestion: In pro-equality advertisements, go another step further to explain that what is really needed is federal action to bring parity under the law concerning the 1,138 federal rights of marriage. Suggestion: Include the stories of couples who have been discriminated against because they did not have the right to marry (e.g., not allowed to see a partner as he/she undergoes medical treatment).

In short, can we PLEASE stop capitulating to the negative forces and allowing rhetoric about "conversion" and "immorality" to dominate the conversation? Can we please lead the conversation by giving people the facts behind the importance of marriage equality? Please?!

Sincerely,
Me (trying not to move to a deserted island out of frustration)

Dear Mr. President

Dear President Obama,

I appreciate your decision to extend hospital visitation and decision-making rights to same sex couples with the appropriate legal paperwork.

I am concerned that even this provision, however, is fundamentally separate and not equal to its "marriage" equivalent. It relies on lesbian and gay couples having the money (approximately $500 per couple) to obtain the appropriate durable/medical power of attorney documents. Gay and lesbian families are adversely affected by the recession, too. Likewise, I believe that handing out the 1,138 federal rights of marriage one-by-one is not realistic for lesbian and gay couples or families.

I have been teaching about the issues facing lesbian and gay folks at a community college in Iowa for the past 5 years. In the process, I have learned that the "average" American is very receptive to marriage for same sex couples when presented with the facts. Unfortunately, we have not- through advertisements or political addresses- given the public the information necessary to understand why marriage equality is so important. Here's my suggestion for speaking to the public based both on my experiences in the classroom and my understanding of your (and many others') reservations about marriage for same sex couples:

Use this mandate you just issued as an opportunity to address the public. In the address, tell the public that you understand that many of them, because of their religious beliefs, are not comfortable with the idea of marriage for same sex couples. Tell them that you, yourself, are not comfortable with the idea of marriage given your religious beliefs.

Then inform them that, despite this discomfort, the reality of marriage is that it is, first (the first marriages in what became the United States were performed by colonial magistrates) and foremost a civil matter. Tell them that zero of the rights of marriage come from the church. Tell them that 1,138 rights of marriage (including social security benefits, rights of inheritance without taxation, hospital visitation, etc.) come from the federal government and approximately 300-600 rights come from the state in which you are married.

Explain to the public that extending the state and federal rights of marriage to same sex couples does not require that they change their religious beliefs and does not require any religious group to perform a ceremony. Extending marriage benefits to same sex couples only brings parity and equality with opposite sex couples in the eyes of the law: It does not take away rights from opposite sex couples nor does it extend "special" rights to same sex couples. Also explain that, in order to receive any of the 1,400+ rights of marriage, the word marriage must be used both because all state and federal documents reference "marriage" and because there is well documented evidence that anything else (e.g., civil unions in New Jersey) creates a system of "separate and unequal" in the eyes of the law.

End the address by informing the public that you will do all that you can to eliminate the last pieces of institutionalized discrimination against a minority group that remain in the United States (feel free to insert any other ideas you have for doing so here). Ask the public to please join you by showing support for the Supreme Court hearing the case in California and, in the meantime, by contacting their Senators and Representatives to support the "Respect for Marriage Act."

Thank you for doing what is right. Sincerely, Me

Good news, but now an opportunity to do something bigger and better

I do appreciate President Obama's mandate today to allow same sex couples rights of hospital visitation.

I would add, however, that gay couples still have to pay (at least $500 per couple) for the durable/medical power of attorney paperwork. This can be tough given that recessions hit gay folk as well. I also have to agree with lots of folks who have already aptly pointed out that waiting for all 1,136 federal rights of marriage to come to us one-by-one is a wait that lesbian and gay families cannot afford.

I guess what bothers me is a lack of Presidential statements of support that make it clear that "marriage" as a civil (federal and state) institution is the domain of all. I feel that the absence of this statement is allowing the ignorance of the public to persist with respect to marriage rights.

What if we asked President Obama to continue to seize this opportunity to state his support for legal marriage? What if he used this as an opportunity to say in a public address that this is not a religious issue, and that while 0 rights of marriage come from the church 1,400+ come from the state and federal government?

In my experience teaching the past 5 years, people do understand the need for fairness and equality under the law when presented with these facts. We are failing the public if we do not provide facts and unapologetic leadership on these issues.

Interviews are Coming, but first, Kudos to "Dancing with the Stars"?!

Interviews with folks about marriage are coming to Every Day Gay. Soon!

In the meantime, kudos to Louis Van Amstel on "Dancing with the Stars." I have to admit that I'm not a follower of the show, but my mother (who is) informed me that Louis provided a moving commentary about what it feels like to be excluded from the rights and experience of legal marriage.

Hats off to him and to others who begin these brave conversations with their friends, family, or national audiences.

New Name, New Twists

My 'Sweetie' (see lizard picture in the "blog followers" listed) has suggested some new lives for the blog. In keeping with the theme of newness, there is also a new title for the blog. The new title has multiple meanings. If you schmush together the Every and the Day, you get Everyday, implying that we are far more common than we may seem. But, if you consider the Every and the Day separately, you realize that we are, without exception, each and every day: still gay.

Beyond the title, the blog will hopefully now have new voices from time to time. 'Sweetie' proposed that I "take this show on the road" of sorts and interview various people- both gay and straight- about the rights of marriage. I'm planning to start conducting interviews soon (watch out loved ones, here I come!) and posting them here.

More soon. Love to all, Karma

DO try this at home (please)

We're always being told not to "try this at home." So let's do something we can try at home?!

Please join me in asking your friends, relatives, loved ones, etc. if they know what rights they get when they get married. Please feel free to post your responses here.

Also, please share the responses of these same friends, relatives, loved ones when you inform them that they receive approximately 1,100 rights from the federal government (including Social Security) and approximately 300-600 rights from each state at the time of their marriage. Are they surprised?

Perhaps ask them to spread the word by trying the same experiment with more friends and loved ones? I like the "Give a Damn" and other campaigns to extend full rights to LGBT folks, but I wish that these campaigns had more "meat" to them in terms of letting straight and gay folks know exactly what's at stake in the fight for marriage equality.

"Give a Damn" Campaign

The new, star-studded "Give a Damn" campaign has debuted. You can look here:

http://www.wegiveadamn.org/issues/

for a list of the campaigns issues related to the rights of LGBT folks.

Homophobia in Uganda and Jamaica

While the U.S. has a very long way to go to bring parity in rights for gay folks, there is an international perspective to consider.

If you have not already read about the bill in Uganda, you could do so here (the U.S. Congress has voted to condemn this anti-homosexuality legislation): http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

Also, consider watching the episode of Logo's "Coming Out Stories" (available on Netflix) entitled "Son of the Islands" about attitudes and practices towards homosexuals in Jamaica.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

"The Crazy Marriage Lady" is taking a day off to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). In most (38 of them!) states, individuals can be terminated from their jobs simply because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. ENDA would seek to eliminate- across all states- employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Please consider supporting this legislation by contacting your Representative at:

https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=d...isplay&page=UserAction&id=777

Thank you!

Not "For Now," but "For Always" and "For Everyone"

I was watching the KCRG TV-9 (Cedar Rapids, IA, ABC affiliate) news Wednesday morning. The newscaster announced noteworthy legislation from the 2009-2010 Iowa Assembly as well as "what did not happen" during this session. She stated that "no change was made to marriage for same sex couples." "For now." There was a significant pause in the sentence such that "for now" literally became its own sentence.

I boiled for a bit before realizing that vigilance is called for on the state level at the same time action is called for at the national level.

I also realized, after my students so eloquently stated that "everyone should have to take an LGBT Studies class so that they understand what's at stake with marriage," that my true interest these days is stating what I feel is the truth about marriage. I am beginning to feel that becoming the "Crazy Marriage Lady" (it's really just a minor modification on my way to already becoming the "Crazy Cat Lady") is what's called for professionally and personally.

Here's the deal, I understand that research indicates that folks lead with the "heart" and not the "head" on this issue, but I cannot overlook the hundreds of times since I've been teaching that the "head" has prevailed as well. [And, as a professor at an open-door, community college in the middle of Iowa, you could argue that I teach to pretty much your "typicaly American."] Almost without exception as I discuss these issues, students are both incredulous and enraged when they are educated about the marriage rights denied same sex couples. Students feel that "people just aren't educated and that they should be if they're going to hold such strong opinions." I agree.

In class, we address the fact that 0 rights come from the church. In fact, marriage rights for same sex couples should NOT threaten or change anyone's beliefs. As is presently the case for heterosexual couples, religious bodies can always decide NOT to perform these ceremonies. No law would require religious participation.

However, we are fighting for EXACTLY THE SAME rights of marriage at the state and federal levels. Consistently, my students guess that they receive about 10 or so rights of marriage. They are shocked to learn that there are 1,100 rights from the federal government (including Social Security) and 300-600 rights from the state in which they live. Because all of these rights at the state and federal levels are written as rights of "marriage," it is important that same sex couples also be "married" as opposed to being given "civil unions" (they just do not carry the same weight across states and employers, etc.).

Right now, the "Respect for Marriage Act" would seek to extend federal rights to same sex couples as would possible Supreme Court decisions (for cases in Massachusetts and California). Please consider stating your support to as many folks and legislators as possible for these court cases and this legislation.

Please tell your legislators and President to support "The Respect for Marriage Act"

"The Respect for Marriage Act" is the legislation pending (in addition to two Federal Supreme Court challenges in Massachusetts and California) to allow same sex couples the same federal rights of marriage as heterosexual couples. Below is a very brief, but inclusive, explanation of the legislation that tells you exactly what it WILL and will NOT do (for instance, it does not require any religious body to perform ceremonies).

If you agree with this bill, PLEASE consider contacting your representatives in the House, Senate, and the White House to indicate your support and to suggest that this bill be advanced as quickly as possible. THANK YOU!!!

(A copy of the verbatim description of the bill follows.)

Respect for Marriage Act
H.R.3567

The Problem
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) singles out lawfully married same-sex couples for unequal treatment under federal law. This law discriminates in two important ways. First, Section 2 of DOMA purports to allow states to refuse to recognize valid civil marriages of same-sex couples. Second, Section 3 of the law carves all same-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, out of all federal statutes, regulations, and rulings applicable to all other married people—thereby denying them over 1100 federal benefits and protections.

For example, legally married same-sex couples cannot:
• File their taxes jointly
• Take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse
• Receive spousal, mother’s and father’s, or surviving spouse
benefits under Social Security
• Receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal
civilian employees

Since DOMA’s passage in 1996, five states have provided equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and two other jurisdictions recognize marriages of same-sex couples celebrated in other states and abroad. Thousands of couples have married since Massachusetts issued marriage licenses in 2004.* Because of DOMA, the federal government is not honoring their equal obligations under state law.

What is the Respect for Marriage Act?
The Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) repeals DOMA and restores the rights of all lawfully married couples—including same-sex couples—to receive the benefits of marriage under federal law. The bill also provides same-sex couples with certainty that federal benefits and protections would flow from a valid marriage celebrated in a state where such marriages are legal, even if a couple moves or travels to another state.

By repealing Section 2, the Respect for Marriage Act returns to traditional principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit. Under RMA, same-sex couples and their families would be eligible for important federal benefits and protections such as family and medical leave or Social Security spousal and survivors’ benefits, but the federal government could not grant state-level rights. The bill does not require states that have not yet enacted legal protections for same-sex couples to recognize a marriage. Nor does it obligate any person, state, locality, or religious organization to celebrate or license a marriage between two persons of the same sex. This legislation only requires the federal government to equally apply its policy of looking to the states in determining what legal relationships are eligible for federal benefits.

Americans Support Extending Protection to Same-Sex Couples
The system of federal benefits has always been based upon marriage. Polling shows strong public support for extending federal benefits and protections to same-sex couples. According to a December 2008 Newsweek/Princeton Research survey, more than seven in 10 Americans believe that same-sex couples should have inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, insurance benefits, and hospital visitation rights. The Respect for Marriage Act, in repealing DOMA, would provide to same-sex couples the full range of federal benefits and responsibilities already associated with long-term, committed relationships.

What is the Current Status of the Bill? RMA was introduced in the 111th Congress by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House.

*Same-sex couples may marry in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. California recognizes (the over 18,000) same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8. New York recognizes same-sex marriages celebrated in other states, but does not grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex marriages celebrated in other states and has passed a marriage equality bill, which was signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty. Pending congressional review, the law is scheduled to go into effect in early March 2010.

Fecundity (i.e., in the sense of productive, fruitful conversations that could arise)

Caveat: I'm feeling snarkier than usual this morning, which is a rather frightening state. That said, not naming any names, but ever notice the plethora of "not-yet-all-the-way-out" but quietly confirmed to be lesbian and gay folks on all sorts of morning, noon, and night national television programming?

What if rather than focusing on morning programming about "secrets of your dishwasher" (no kidding- that was on this morning- although I did confirm that it's best to put silverware in 'facing up' if you want it to come out the cleanest), these folks were to do some programming about the truths in their lives and the rights and protections they wish they had under the law.

I do not believe they would be abandoned by their loyal followers. Rather, I believe the vast majority would be personally supported. Furthermore, imagine the progress we could make with that many more voices. As I learned at NGLTF's Creating Change Conference, if gay and lesbian folks do not have meaningful conversations with those around them (and, in these cases, the millions listening to them) about these issues, folks around them just figure that the issues aren't important and said gay and lesbian folks really just don't care that much.

Imagine the fecundity of subsequent conversations among millions of Americans were those who occupy prominent places in society (i.e., the folks that people listen to on a daily basis on television...eh hem) to officially and publicly come out.

Told you, snarkier than usual, but I'm just sayin'....

A note to President Obama: PLEASE remember that all "moral issues of social justice" are EQUALLY important

Do not be angry, do not be angry, do not be angry. Huh. Still angry. Guess it's time to blog.

I was watching an interview with Ted Kennedy's widow this morning in response to the passing of health care reform legislation. I was fine...until the numerous excerpts of speeches by President Obama in which he refers to health care reform as the number one "moral issue...of social justice" in our time.

I would like to suggest an alternate framing inspired by the folks who talk about "multiple oppressions" like bell hooks and the late Audre Lorde. I think it is very dangerous to present any issue of moral and social justice as any more or less important or deserving of action. We face unprecedented segregation in schools by race and class (according to Gary Orfield, more so than at any time since the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968). We have a growing gap between the rich and the poor in our society both in terms of income and wealth. We still face challenges in providing quality and affordable health care insurance to all citizens. We still do not allow same sex couples the same rights of marriage at the state and federal levels as opposite sex couples, nor do we protect LGBT folks from being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation. We desperately need immigration reform. ALL of these issues (and then some) are of equal importance as "moral" issues of "social justice."

I would also strongly suggest that President Obama begin to properly frame issues of equality for LGBT folks as "moral issues of social justice." To date, he has only offered that he is not quite comfortable supporting the idea of marriage for same sex couples. His discomfort seems to be rooted in issues of religion. PLEASE remember, President Obama, that WE ARE FACING A MORAL ISSUE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE every day as people who are excluded from the 1,100 Federal and approximately 300-600 State rights of marriage. WE ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Just as laws banning interracial marriage were struck down by the Federal Supreme Court as unconstitutional, we must strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. We should not allow the tyranny of the majority to decide the rules of the minority (e.g., only 30% of the population supported the Supreme Court decision to allow interracial marriage and yet we know it to be the fair and equal decision according to the Constitution). Nor should we WAIT (as Rea Carey said, and I paraphrase, waiting is the luxury of those who already *have* rights) for YOU to be comfortable with the religious implications. Marriage rights are civil in nature and not religious. State and Federal rights should be granted to ALL or to NONE.

Our full and equal rights are not an issue of the comfort of those in power or those in the majority. Our rights are not to be considered only during times of political convenience (e.g., the current year-long "time out" on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to try to ensure positive mid-term elections for Democrats and the abject silence on issues of marriage rights or employment protection). Our rights should be enacted and protected as a matter of law. As we have done to protect other minority groups in society (e.g., folks of color, women, differently-abled folks, religious minorities and nationalities), we must act to protect and enable full and equal rights under the law for LGBT peoples as well.

I'm sorry if this still sounds angry. I am not sorry if this sounds irreverent. I hold no reverence for people in positions of power or authority simply because they are in power or authority. I only hold reverence for those who have earned it by standing up for what is right and fair and equal in the eyes of the law even when that action is not (politically) popular. PLEASE, President Obama, stand up for what is right.

Recognizing (and Changing) the Absurd

This afternoon's Introduction to LGBT Studies class was fantastic. I asked everyone to brainstorm about how our cultural, interpersonal, and institutional experiences would be different if homosexuality was the norm in our society.

This exercise is my adaptation of the 1997 "Ellen" episode in which Ellen's cousin has a dream that heterosexuals are the minority group. In this dream world, Normal Rockwell is pornography (ewww..."little boys kissing little girls") and heterosexuals find freedom from discrimination living together in "Straight Town." Programs on television with heterosexual content ("Mad About You" or "Friends") warrant a "Parental Advisory for adult content" and the program "Nightline" features a panel discussion of "Heterosexuals in the military: yea or nay."

In class, we decided to add the following to the "Ellen" episode:

1) We would have 'straight bars' and 'straight pride.'
2) We would be debating whether or not it was appropriate for heterosexuals to teach in our schools. They could "teach" our children to be heterosexual. Likewise, we would be reluctant to include representation of famous heterosexuals in our history curriculum.
4) We would be awaiting the first heterosexual President of the United States. We think we would be waiting a long time.
5) We would be debating whether employment non-discrimination laws should protect heterosexuals from being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation. In most states, you could not be openly heterosexual without fear of being fired.
6) We would be very concerned about heterosexual parents. We would limit heterosexual adoptions in some states and give custody to the homosexual parent in cases where a heterosexual parent "comes out."
7) Rather than having Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) (I'm NOT kidding...it really does exist...Google it), we would have Heterosexuals Anonymous or maybe even Straight-A. We're pretty sure heterosexuals "can change" and be perfectly "normal" like homosexuals.
8) We would not extend federal or state (in most cases) rights of marriage to heterosexual couples. We're pretty sure that would destroy the fabric of society.

Get the picture?

I could keep going, but the list is nearly endless.

We collectively laughed in class at the absurdity of most of these assertions. It seemed like "they could never happen" because they are so ridiculous and absurd when applied to heterosexuals.

Can we use this exercise to see that current inequities in rights and protections for gay folks are absurd and ridiculous? Can we then decide that this will both change and never happen again? I hope so.

Please feel free to try this brainstorming exercise yourself or share it with others. Peace, Sarah

Here's the TH Editorial :)

Printed in the Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA) on Tuesday, March 9, 2010

"Letter: Iowa ruling on same-sex marriage a source of pride"

I was raised in Dubuque, but only recently felt I might belong in Iowa. As a young, educated professional, I represent the demographic most likely to leave the state for expanded opportunities.

Last spring when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled it only fair that same sex couples be granted the same rights of marriage as heterosexual couples, my heart opened toward Iowa. I was proud to be an Iowan. I felt visible and legitimate both as an individual and as part of a same sex couple.

My partner and I will soon be married in Iowa. A magistrate will perform the nuptials. We will not have any religious involvement nor are we trying to change anyone’s religious beliefs. We will spend all of the money for the wedding through Iowa owned/operated businesses. We will receive the nearly 400 rights and responsibilities of marriage in the State of Iowa.

Since neighboring states will not recognize our marriage, we are paying an attorney to help us prepare the paperwork that will (hopefully) preserve our power to make decisions for each other in emergency situations. Until the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is overturned, we cannot receive any of the nearly 1,100 rights of marriage at the federal level, including Social Security Survivor Benefits.

In the end, I stay in Iowa because of a fabulous Dean and co-workers at Kirkwood; because my family (including my new family-in-law) lives in Iowa; and, foremost, because Iowa grants me the right to marry my soul mate.