Monthly Archives: August 2007

Becoming Visible

Coming Out Day is coming.

 

I remember making speeches eight or nine years ago about the importance of coming out—detailing the reasons that gay rights would not advance until the majority of gay and lesbian citizens made their identities known. (This was before people routinely included references to bisexual and transgendered identities.)

 

  • It’s much harder to demonize “the other” if it turns out that he/she lives next door, works in the adjacent cubicle, or is your lawyer. It’s a lot easier to picture all gay men as female impersonators with feather boas when you don’t know that your favorite Aunt Bea and her friend Gladys haven’t just been roommates for the past thirty-five years.
  • If you are a politician—at least a politician from an urban area—it is harder to disregard a potentially substantial group of voters and contributors. (These days, that only holds true if you’re a Democrat, unfortunately.)
  • If you are a gay person who is still in the closet, it is much harder to speak out on gay issues, for multiple reasons.
  • If you are a mother or father, you can’t really know your child if s/he is hiding such an important part of who they are. And that child loses an opportunity to discover what a ferocious and effective ally mom and dad can be. (Speaking for myself, anyone who tries to make my son a second-class citizen had better watch out for mom!)

 

These were—and are—good reasons for coming out, and they convinced thousands of people to do just that.

 

These days, we hear much less frequently about the importance of coming out, and for good reason. People listened, heard, and acted, and the consequences have been dramatic. While there are plenty of people still hiding behind the off-season clothes in the back of what must be a very large closet, there are so many people who now proudly acknowlege their gayness and relish their ability to truly be who they are that the conversation has turned from whether to come out to the question of when. That’s because we are seeing a new phenomenon, increasing numbers of young people who now come out to family and friends while they are still in high school.

 

The results of this increase have been striking. Because so many in the gay community  had the courage to declare themselves over the past decade or so (often in extremely hostile environments), the broader culture has changed. Is it still hostile? Yes, but not nearly as much as it used to be. If some families and workplaces remain ideologically closed, many others have become welcoming. Young men and women today certainly don’t have it easy, but they face a far more accepting culture than their older brothers and sisters faced just ten or fifteen years ago.

 

On Coming Out Days in the past, the message was simple: come out. Own who you are. Be visible.

 

This year, on Coming Out Day, it might be appropriate to reflect on just how much good the coming out movement has done—socially, culturally, personally and legally. Progress is always slow and difficult when it requires shifting people’s attitudes, but progress—substantial progress—has been made.

 

Being visible isn’t just productive. It’s exhilarating.

 

Comments

What We Lost on 9-11

    We are approaching the sixth anniversary of 9-11. This might be a good time to stop using those numbers as a way to score political points, and to reflect on what we’ve lost. Not just the tragic loss of life, or loss of America’s historic innocence, but the twin losses of opportunity and accountability.

   In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, we had a brief experience of what could have been an enormously positive aftermath. A genuine wave of fellowship at home—a reaffirmation of the unum in e pluribus unum—was met with an outpouring of support from abroad. We might have built  an enduring monument to those we lost by reinforcing those twin sentiments: by repairing our tattered national unity at home and engaging in an era of co-operative enterprise abroad.

    The fact that we did neither is an indictment of our tragically flawed and inadequate national leadership, of course, but it is also a sign of troubling systemic failure, without which politicians would have been unable to use the events of 9-11 in the service of partisanship, ideology and power. 

    Let’s face it: for far too long, Americans have viewed the concept of civic virtue as “quaint” (to borrow a phrase from our less-than-estimable Attorney General). We have left governing to the few public-spirited individuals willing to undergo the intrusiveness, pettiness and rancor that passes for the electoral process these days. One result has been that along with the public-spirited we have attracted the venal and power-hungry to what used to be called, without irony, public service.

    And when we get the government we deserve, the government we have failed to monitor or control, the government that is increasingly unaccountable, we are shocked! Shocked!

    Do we have a state legislature that has refused to act on consolodation and streamlining of local government, refused to manage our unwieldy and unequal tax system? Let’s spend our energies arguing about daylight savings time.

    Do we have a national government that is bankrupting our grandchildren, isolating us globally, fixated on undermining our constitutional checks and balances? Let’s gossip about the latest sex scandal.

    At the end of the day, we can’t escape responsibility by blaming the Republicans, the Democrats, or the media. Harry Truman to the contrary, the buck stops with us.

    We can’t recapture the window of opportunity that opened in the wake of 9-11. That window is closed. But we can reclaim the concept of civic virtue that is essential to protecting the rule of law—the powerful idea that legitimate democratic governments are responsive to their citizens, but citizens are responsible for creating responsive governments.

    If we don’t rise up to demand a return of accountability—if we just sit on the couch and watch the latest iteration of “American Idol” or the further adventures of Paris the Inane—we will have lost a whole lot more than the twin towers and the people who worked there.

    We will have lost America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Open Letter to X

 

 

 

 

AVA post

August 11, 2007

 

 

An Open Letter to “X”                                       

Those of you who know my writing mainly through blog postings here and elsewhere might be surprised to know that my twice-a-month column for the Indianapolis Star is much more restrained (or so I like to think). I measure my words in that venue carefully—in large part because I only get 500 of them, and it can be hard to make complex points within that limit. (Try it if you don’t believe me.) I also try to hold down the snark and make my points politely and reasonably, on the assumption that my readers (inexplicable as it seems) will not all agree with me.

 

Nevertheless, I get some email and snail-mail that is critical of my motives, my intellect, my personality and occasionally my parentage. Last Wednesday I got snail-mail that included a recent letter to the editor criticising a column I’d written. (It was a perfectly reasonable criticism, which makes me doubt it was written by my correspondent.) The letter itself—in its entirety, capitalization, etc. in the original—read as follows:

 

“SSK—the only good jews are the messianics who read and understand the O.T. and its prophets. You have alot to learn. Hitler’s holocaust will like like a tea party compared to the coming tribulation where you and yours will be snared. In addition you are a big S.O.B.                 X”

 

I’m quite sure the person who penned this charming message is not a reader of blogs, but just in case, if you’ll bear with me, I’d like to respond with an open letter to “X.”

 

“Dear X,

 

I have received your letter, and having read the Old Testament, I certainly understood your none-too-veiled reference to The End Times. I know that Christians who are biblical literalists believe that when the End Times come, they (and only they) will be “Raptured” while all the sinners (defined solely as those who fail to believe what you do) will burn in perpetual agony in hell. With respect to my prospects for the hereafter, I’m prepared to take my chances, since I’m inclined to think that a God worthy of the name would be favorably disposed to those of us who spend our energies working for a more tolerant and compassionate world, whatever our faults.

 

Religion aside, I’m always bemused by people who cannot respond to ideas with which they disagree by specifying the nature of the disagreement. If I have written something with which you have a dispute, why not explain the basis of that dispute? Did I have my facts wrong? Which ones, and how do you know? I’m certainly capable of making mistakes, but if you cannot explain what they are, correction is unlikely.

 

I’m tired of ad hominem attacks, whether they are attacks on me or anyone else. Responding to a policy argument with the equivalent of “I hate you and your mother wears combat boots” is neither persuasive nor witty.  What do you think you are accomplishing by expressing such vitriol? And what was it that I wrote that so agitated you that you could not frame a meaningful response? Have you considered why my opinion—whatever it was—hit so close to home that you felt compelled to lash out with venom? (And I’m curious—is this sort of behavior consistent with your definition of being a good Christian, worthy of being Raptured?)

 

Finally, why not sign your name? Are you too embarrassed by your own inability to articulate your criticism? Does some small part of you recognize that failure to take ownership of your correspondence implies cowardace and intellectual poverty? Maybe my columns are riddled with errors. Perhaps my policy prescriptions are facile or unworkable. But I sign my name, because I want to play fair. I want serious, thoughtful people to feel free to engage in dialogue with me, to point out holes in my logic or mistakes of fact. That is the only way I’ll learn.

 

Until you are equally willing to own your words, equally willing to defend your beliefs in calm, reasoned discourse, don’t expect me—or anyone else—to take you seriously.                                              Yours truly, Sheila Kennedy”

 

I feel better now.

 

Comments

Open Letter to “X”

 

Those of you who know my writing mainly through blog postings here and elsewhere might be surprised to know that my twice-a-month column for the Indianapolis Star is much more restrained (or so I like to think). I measure my words in that venue carefully—in large part because I only get 500 of them, and it can be hard to make complex points within that limit. (Try it if you don’t believe me.) I also try to hold down the snark and make my points politely and reasonably, on the assumption that my readers (inexplicable as it seems) will not all agree with me.

 

Nevertheless, I get some email and snail-mail that is critical of my motives, my intellect, my personality and occasionally my parentage. Last Wednesday I got snail-mail that included a recent letter to the editor criticising a column I’d written. (It was a perfectly reasonable criticism, which makes me doubt it was written by my correspondent.) The letter itself—in its entirety, capitalization, etc. in the original—read as follows:

 

“SSK—the only good jews are the messianics who read and understand the O.T. and its prophets. You have alot to learn. Hitler’s holocaust will like like a tea party compared to the coming tribulation where you and yours will be snared. In addition you are a big S.O.B.                 X”

 

I’m quite sure the person who penned this charming message is not a reader of blogs, but just in case, if you’ll bear with me, I’d like to respond with an open letter to “X.”

 

“Dear X,

 

I have received your letter, and having read the Old Testament, I certainly understood your none-too-veiled reference to The End Times. I know that Christians who are biblical literalists believe that when the End Times come, they (and only they) will be “Raptured” while all the sinners (defined solely as those who fail to believe what you do) will burn in perpetual agony in hell. With respect to my prospects for the hereafter, I’m prepared to take my chances, since I’m inclined to think that a God worthy of the name would be favorably disposed to those of us who spend our energies working for a more tolerant and compassionate world, whatever our faults.

 

Religion aside, I’m always bemused by people who cannot respond to ideas with which they disagree by specifying the nature of the disagreement. If I have written something with which you have a dispute, why not explain the basis of that dispute? Did I have my facts wrong? Which ones, and how do you know? I’m certainly capable of making mistakes, but if you cannot explain what they are, correction is unlikely.

 

I’m tired of ad hominem attacks, whether they are attacks on me or anyone else. Responding to a policy argument with the equivalent of “I hate you and your mother wears combat boots” is neither persuasive nor witty.  What do you think you are accomplishing by expressing such vitriol? And what was it that I wrote that so agitated you that you could not frame a meaningful response? Have you considered why my opinion—whatever it was—hit so close to home that you felt compelled to lash out with venom? (And I’m curious—is this sort of behavior consistent with your definition of being a good Christian, worthy of being Raptured?)

 

Finally, why not sign your name? Are you too embarrassed by your own inability to articulate your criticism? Does some small part of you recognize that failure to take ownership of your correspondence implies cowardace and intellectual poverty? Maybe my columns are riddled with errors. Perhaps my policy prescriptions are facile or unworkable. But I sign my name, because I want to play fair. I want serious, thoughtful people to feel free to engage in dialogue with me, to point out holes in my logic or mistakes of fact. That is the only way I’ll learn.

 

Until you are equally willing to own your words, equally willing to defend your beliefs in calm, reasoned discourse, don’t expect me—or anyone else—to take you seriously.                                              Yours truly, Sheila Kennedy”

 

I feel better now.

Comments