Category Archives: Gay Rights

True Colors

Sponsors of anti-gay legislation and proponents of measures to “save marriage” nearly always deny that they are homophobic. They just love their gay friends, and care deeply about the welfare of their gay neighbors. In a phrase I’ve heard so often it makes me want to upchuck, they “hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

Sure they do.

As gay equality becomes ever more inevitable, and these bigots become more hysterical, the mask of goodwill–never very persuasive–slips further. Two recent, glaring examples come from Wisconsin and Michigan.

In Wisconsin, demonstrably crazy Governor Scott Walker has evidently taken a break from demonizing public sector employees and harassing public school teachers, in order to pursue his latest “policy” initiative: reversing laws that grant hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners. Walker claims that allowing such visits violates language in the Wisconsin Constitution.(Interestingly, the language Walker is relying on is exactly the same as the language Republicans are trying to add to the Indiana Constitution–language denying same-sex couples not only the right to marry, but the right to any benefit “substantially similar” to marriage.)

In Michigan, the House of Representatives–with the strong endorsement of Rick Snyder, Michigan’s Governor (and strong contender for America’s Nuttiest Chief Executive)– has approved an amendment to that state’s education budget that would impose a five-percent penalty on colleges and universities that offer domestic partnership benefits to same-sex partners.

The only reason to deny hospital visitation rights is to hurt people at their most vulnerable. Such a measure serves no other purpose. The effort to “punish” universities makes it more difficult for them to offer a high-quality education–not just because of the lost revenue, but because an anti-gay message coupled with an inability to offer partner benefits is a huge roadblock to recruitment of good faculty–gay or straight.

These measures, and others like them, are desperate, last-gasp efforts to deny cultural change. They will undoubtedly be reversed, if they become law at all. But they offer us a very valuable look at the real face of anti-gay activism–a face contorted by hate and fear.

Whatever else they may be, when the mask comes off, these are small, mean-spirited people.

Comments

What Planet is This?

Never in a million years did I think I’d write what I am about to write: progress on gay rights and same-sex marriage is the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal political landscape.

Yes, you read that correctly. Think about it.

Within the past couple of months, the Justice Department concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional, and announced that it will not defend it in court. The silk-stocking law firm hired by the Republican troglodytes in Congress to defend the measure backed out, citing its own commitment to gay equality.

In the last few weeks, I’ve read an impassioned essay by a conservative Evangelical pastor berating his fellow Evangelicals for their political activism against same-sex marriage and taking them to task for hypocrisy. I’ve seen a You Tube of a young Republican (and boy, are they rare) testifying to a state legislative committee in favor of same-sex marriage. I’ve seen two polls conducted by respected national opinion research firms, both of which found a slight majority of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. And most recently, this news item appeared on the ABC News website:

“The Navy will allow same-sex couples to wed in ceremonies on its bases and officiated by Navy chaplains after the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is officially repealed, according to new training guidelines published last month by the Navy’s chief of chaplains.”

This ship has sailed. There will be rearguard actions, there will be setbacks, but the war is over, and the good guys won.

Unfortunately, the rest of the country is going to hell.

State legislatures are passing increasingly insane measures. In Texas, the legislature has overruled law enforcement and the administrations of the state’s universities, and authorized students who are so inclined to carry guns on campus. (That should “shoot down” their academic recruiting—nothing as comforting as knowing that the student you just failed is mad as hell and packing heat…). Arizona was just the first of several states to pass anti-immigrant measures that—whatever their highly dubious merits—they know to be unconstitutional. (Profiling aside, the Constitution makes immigration an exclusively federal issue.) Here in Indiana, where I live, in addition to passing our own version of such a bill (over the strenuous protests of our largest employers), the legislature passed–and the Governor signed—the nation’s most restrictive abortion bill, which among other things de-funded Planned Parenthood, the only provider of healthcare services for some 22,000 low-income women. (The fact that denying two million dollars to Planned Parenthood will cost the state four million dollars in federal family planning money didn’t matter any more than the health of Indiana’s poorest women mattered.)

I won’t even mention the efforts of Governors in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan to deny public sector workers the right to engage in collective bargaining, or their wars on public schools and teachers. Or the states that have passed their very own “birther” bills.

When you look at Congress, it’s even worse. The 2010 elections swept a large number of absolutely crazy ideologues into office, where they are busily trying to abolish Medicare and Medicaid, cause the national government to default on its obligations by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, voting that climate change doesn’t exist (I kid you not!) and engaging in all sorts of other mischief, the consequences of which they clearly do not begin to understand.

Seriously, if it weren’t for the progress on gay rights, there’d be no progress at all. And if that isn’t enough to make you head out for the nearest bar, I don’t know what is.

Comments

No Rites, No Rights

Those of us who argue for same-sex marriage typically refer to the 1008 or so rights that accompany state recognition of marriage. The rights most often discussed are concerned with hospital visitation, taxation and inheritance, and those inequities are particularly galling.

But there are lots of other rights that are denied to GLBT folks who cannot marry—and even to those who live in states that do allow same-sex marriage, thanks to the unwillingness of the federal government to recognize those marriages for purposes of federal law. Immigration law is an example.

Back in my days as Indiana’s ACLU director, I had a visit from a twenty-something young man (let’s call him Scott) and his lover, who was from El Salvador (let’s call him Juan). They had met on a student exchange program of some sort, and fallen in love. They wanted to make a life together, preferably in the United States. But the young man from El Salvador was ending the term of his most recent visa, and immigration lawyers had told him there was nothing they could do—that if he wanted to immigrate to the U.S., legally, he would have to go home, apply and wait. If memory serves, his likely wait was something like fourteen years.

Scott’s American parents were supportive. They offered to legally adopt Juan. That didn’t sit well with Juan’s parents, not to mention some pesky legal impediments to what was a pretty creative—or desperate—approach.  At that time—and probably still today—an equal protection lawsuit was untenable. The last I heard, the couple—consisting of two highly skilled workers who would have been valued members of the workforce had they been straight—was living in El Salvador.

Had Juan been “Janice,” the scenario would have been far different.

Thirty years ago, our daughter fell in love with a non-citizen. They married, and as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, he has lived in the U.S. legally ever since. No problem.

Unfortunately, Scott and Juan ran into two deeply-entrenched bigotries: one against same-sex couples, and one against Hispanics.

It is unnecessary to recount the current efforts in Arizona, Indiana and elsewhere to marginalize and harass Hispanics. The rhetoric is all about “illegals,” but the legislative measures are not so narrowly targeted. Meanwhile, my son-in-law has lived in this country for over 30 years without ever encountering anti-immigrant animus. Why? Here’s a clue: He is British, and very white. His accent is considering charming, even “classy.”

People are people. There are certainly undesirables who want to come to America (not to mention our homegrown crop), but they are undesirable for personal reasons: drug habits, criminal histories, contagious diseases, likely inability to find gainful employment. None of these reasons has anything to do with sexual orientation or country of origin.

In our interconnected world, where international travel is easily accessible and growing exponentially, people from different countries will fall in love. It makes no sense to treat those couples differently based upon their sexual identity or birthplace. These distinctions are not based on thoughtful policies, they are not enforced in order to make our country safer or to protect our economic well-being. They are based purely on prejudices that we would do well to discard.

Until we do, the Scotts and Juans of this world will continue to get the short end of the stick.

Comments

What If They Held an Election, and Reasonable People Came?

This has been a pretty contentious session of the Indiana legislature, and one of the most divisive proposals has been the renewed effort to include a ban on same-sex marriage in the Indiana Constitution.

The amendment is really just a gratuitous effort to marginalize gay citizens, since we don’t have same-sex marriages in Indiana. Proponents want a vote on the issue, not because it is appropriate in our system to vote on other citizens’ fundamental rights–it isn’t–but in order to make clear that the majority of citizens in Indiana don’t like gay people.

They may be too late.

Indiana Equality Action recently commissioned a poll of Indiana citizens on attitudes toward the proposed amendment. The results were shocking–in a good way. Forty-seven percent of Indiana residents oppose the amendment, while 43% favor it. Even more surprising, 65% of self-described Republicans and conservatives opposed it, and 41% of seniors. More predictably, 67% of young voters opposed it.

I want to be clear: opposition to the amendment should not be equated with support for same-sex marriage. (The numbers show progress, but not that much progress!) However, there are plenty of compelling reasons to oppose constitutionalizing discrimination, even when you don’t particularly like the folks who are being singled out, and obviously those reasons have convinced a lot of people that this amendment is a bad idea. The poll also confirmed that Indiana citizens have much higher priorities than bashing gay people: the economy and jobs, education, the state budget, health care, crime and drugs, and taxes all came in well ahead of gay marriage.

Particularly interesting is how quickly attitudes on this issue have changed, even in staid, conservative Indiana.  Clearly that’s one of the reasons the usual suspects have been so desperate to get this amendment on the ballot–every year it is delayed, its prospects for passage dim further.

If the proposal passes this year, as expected, and if a separately elected legislature passes the identical language, it will go before the Indiana electorate for a vote. That means that voters first chance to weigh in on the issue will be nearly four years from now.

I wouldn’t want to bet on the outcome.

Cultural Whiplash

Who are we supposed to believe, our lying eyes or the polls?

On the one hand, efforts to marginalize gays—to label them as permanently “other,” as second or third-class citizens—have heated up since the advent of the Tea Party and the 2010 elections. Here in Indiana, we have seen the resurrection of efforts to constitutionalize a ban against same-sex marriage, an effort that has been dutifully endorsed by the majority party, and seems likely to pass during this legislative session.

Fortunately, the Indiana Constitution requires that proposed amendments be passed—in identical form—by two separately elected legislatures, so there’s hope it can still be defeated.  There is no similar roadblock to an equally hateful anti-immigration provision, modeled upon Arizona’s law, or to measures aimed at rolling back women’s right to control their own reproduction.

Other states seem fixated on efforts to exclude and demonize Muslims. The most ludicrous are measures passed by several states that outlaw the imposition of Sharia law—thus “solving” an absolutely non-existent problem.

In the U.S. Congress, a number of anti-woman measures are part of what appears to be a full-court press to repeal the 21st—and maybe the 20th—century. Newly elected ideologues are voting against science (the 31 Republican members of the House Energy Committee voted that global climate change doesn’t exist and besides, it isn’t caused by human activity) and economic reality (trying to reduce the deficit by refusing to raise taxes on even our richest citizens, and passing cuts likely to reduce revenues further by throwing the economy back into recession).

Looking at the news these days is a prescription for depression. Who are these people we’ve elected, and why are they actively trying to repeal the Enlightenment and destroy everything that makes America great? Are they insane, or just really, really ignorant?  What does it say about us that we elected these buffoons?

And yet.

Several recent surveys from respected pollsters have shown a slight majority of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. An overwhelming majority favors legislation that would forbid employers from firing people simply because they are gay. The same Congress that seems to be trying to put women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, did repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Department of Justice has confirmed what seemed pretty obvious to many of us—that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional—and consequently, announced that DOJ won’t defend it in court. Even Arizona appears to be backing off its hateful anti-immigration campaign—not because Arizona legislators have suddenly come to their senses, but because their bigotry has cost the state millions in lost business and tourism. Nice people decided to spend their money elsewhere—and it turned out there are a lot of nice people.

In short, the politics of equality is decidedly mixed. If we look for evidence of progress, there’s plenty to see. If we look for evidence that we are regressing, we’ll see that too. If we look at the whole picture, we get whiplash.

I cling to one amply documented bit of evidence: every poll, every survey, shows that the younger generation—those under 35 or so—are more tolerant, more accepting of difference, more at ease in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural world.

So when my generation is gone, things will improve. Unfortunately, a lot of people will be hurt while we’re waiting.

Comments