Category Archives: Gay Rights

The jury is still out.

In the upcoming election, the real question is not whether the individual named John McCain or the individual named Barack Obama will be elected President. The choice before us is ultimately not between persons or even parties; it is nothing less than a choice between the past and the future, and that choice will have particular significance for the gay community.

As readers of the Word know all too well, the last decade will not rank among America’s shining hours. (Okay, the metaphor is mixed, but you know what I mean.) The country has been in the throes of a cultural and religious chauvinism not seen since the last Great Awakening/Nativist eruption. Such eras are never kind to minority groups or marginalized communities, and this most recent period has been no exception. The broader problem is that, unlike previous episodes, this prolonged national snit has occurred at a time that the globe has been shrinking. The threats we face—to national security, to public safety, and to our economic interests—require genuine partnerships with other nations, a partnership beyond the capacities of an arrogant “decider” intent on unilateral action.

This November, the American electorate will decide whether to abandon an approach to national affairs that has caused us to be disdained internationally and that has turned us into a fiscal banana republic at home. Voters in California will decide whether to snatch the hard-won right to marry from its gay and lesbian citizens, and bigots in Arizona will try again to add a same-sex marriage ban to that state’s constitution. In other cities and states around the country, voters will have to decide whether to risk similarly dramatic changes in the way we do the public’s business.

In any change election—which this one is shaping up to be—there will be winners and losers. One of the reasons that people fear change is that they fear being one of the losers.

If America is really on the cusp of a paradigm shift, what will be lost? For white people, the privileged status that we still enjoy simply by virtue of skin color, the “default” judgment that light skin denotes acceptability, if not superiority. For heterosexuals, the confidence that our orientation is “normal,” that non-heterosexuals are somehow deviants to be tolerated at best and scorned or abused at worst. For corporate bigwigs, the ability to hire lobbyists and obtain legislation that exempts them from the forces of the market they try to evade even while verbally extolling its virtues. Those who enjoy these and other advantages are unlikely to view their loss as insignificant.

But if we take the risk, and opt for a new governing paradigm, most ordinary Americans have a great deal to gain, because bigotry and anxiety burden both the oppressed and the oppressor. A refusal to understand that we are all in this together—that ultimately, we cannot escape the consequences of our neighbors’ misfortunes, that we all are poorer when stereotypes deprive us of our neighbors’ talents—is what has gotten us into the mess we’re in.

The election of Barack Obama—even with a Democratic House and Senate—will not usher in utopia or anything remotely like it. The damage that has been done to our constitution, our governing institutions, our economy and our ability to trust each other has been great; if it is reparable—and it may not be—that repair will take a generation or more. Obama is brilliant and talented, and he’s read and taught the constitution (a fact I find comforting), but he’s just one man and certainly not perfect.

The election of John McCain, on the other hand, would mean Americans have chosen the past over the future. It would be evidence that Americans fear change, that we simply cannot find the courage and discipline to extricate ourselves from a culture that has proven to be not just poisonous, but inimical to our own national interests and ideals. McCain is undoubtedly a good person (and surely must be brighter than he seems on the campaign trail) but he is firmly wedded to a cultural moment that needs to pass.

Somewhere, I read a description of John McCain as “an analog candidate for a digital age.” The quip was a reaction to the fact that McCain has not used the internet or “done a google,” as he phrases it. But the characterization rings true across the board, not just in the context of technology.

The basic question voters will face in November is whether we are going to upgrade from Bush 1.0 to 2.0, or whether we are going to adopt a new operating system.

Comments

I know, I know—“nut job” is not a civil salutation. Intellectually, I know that the use of such phrases is neither nice nor likely to be very productive. But cut me some slack, and I’ll explain.
Every time I write a column for the Indianapolis Star discussing equal rights for GLBT persons, I can count on receiving a letter from the same long-time “fan” (who is a fan only in the sense that he obviously reads my columns. Otherwise, as Jon Stewart might say, not so much). The essential message is always the same, faux-solicitous one: I am doing a terrible disservice to my gay son by not providing him with the “treatments” that are available to make him “normal,” by which Mr. Nut Job means straight. These treatments, he unfailingly informs me, have been “proven” by extensive scientific research, with which I need to familiarize myself.
The letters often include Xeroxed copies of this so-called research, inevitably the sort of stuff endlessly churned out by right-wing “scientists”—guys hired by the same fine people who first alerted us to the homosexual agenda being pushed by Sponge-Bob Squarepants and Tinky-Winky.
Having learned long ago that the very worst thing you can do when you attract this particular type of pen-pal is to respond, I routinely route the correspondence to the circular file and go about my business. But I’ve been brooding over the last letter, and instead of continuing to mutter under my breath, I decided I’d use this column to vent, and to write the response I’d send if I thought the person at the receiving end possessed anything akin to an ability to process logic.
So—here’s my open letter to nut job:
Dear Mr. Right-Wing Obsessive,
Thank you for your twenty-third letter, explaining why I should run, not walk, to the nearest reparative therapy practitioner with my “abnormal” “sick” “disabled” son. I will give serious consideration to your suggestions once you respond to a few questions.
First, I’d like you to calm my concerns about the therapy itself. (Since you claim there are great amounts of credible scientific data available, I’m sure these questions will be easy for you to field.)
How will this therapy affect my son’s non-gay behaviors? You know, the personality traits that dictate what sort of human being he is when he isn’t in bed? My son, for example, is extremely popular with all kinds of people (even with lots of people that you might consider “normal.”) He has tons of friends, gay and straight. Everyone in his family adores him—his brothers, his stepfather, his stepsisters, his nieces and nephews. Will this therapy make him even more gregarious and lovable?
My son is both book-smart and street-smart, and he has always earned good money and been self-supporting. He pays his taxes without whining about it (do you?) and he is generous to charities and to his family and friends. He’s also a very good citizen; he votes, he recycles, he helps those who are less fortunate. Will this therapy further enhance his common sense, his IQ or his compassion?
Assuming you can assure me that I won’t change this wonderful human being by destroying a relatively small but nonetheless essential part of who he is, I also have some questions about the reason for your extreme interest—dare I say obsession?—with my child’s sexuality.
Will your life improve if my son is no longer gay? If so, how? Will America be safer? Will global warming abate? Will we find new sources of energy? Will Christians all begin acting like Christians? What, exactly, will change? What accounts for your insistence that my son—whom you do not know, whom you have never met—must change his very identity, a very important part of who he is? And what accounts for your evident eagerness to tell other people how they should live?
For that matter, how many wonderful friends do you have? How close is your family? How many kindnesses do you extend to those you live and work with?
In short, what makes you think you are even one-tenth the person my son is? And where the hell do you get off telling me that he is “sick”?
When you can give me satisfactory answers to all these questions, maybe I’ll take you more seriously. (But I get to determine what constitutes a “satisfactory” answer.)Yours Truly, a mother who is immensely proud of her son just the way he is.
Thanks for letting me vent. I feel much better now.

Comments

The California Supreme Court has struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. And we all know what that means: the forces of self-righteous indignation are gearing up for the mother of summer reruns. Wait for these oldies but goodies:

Judges have no business making such decisions. Um, sorry, but that’s their job. Judges are supposed to decide the cases before them, and some require deciding whether a particular law is consistent with the state or federal constitution. Judges don’t just wake up in the morning and say, gee, I feel like overturning some legislation today.

Judges should not overturn the will of the people. Failed government class, did you? In a constitutional republic, fundamental rights are not subject to majority vote. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do even when popular majorities approve. In this case, moreover, that argument is unavailable; the California legislature—the “voice” of the people—passed same-sex marriage legislation not once, but twice, only to have Governor Schwarzenegger veto it both times. (It’s also worth noting that those on the Right who scream most loudly about respecting “the will of the people” didn’t hesitate to ask the courts to overturn the will of the people in Oregon who passed a referendum legalizing assisted suicide, or the will of the people in California who endorsed medical marijuana. Can we spell hypocrite?)

We need to elect Republicans who will put “strict constructionists” on the bench. Well, let’s see. It’s certainly true that contemporary Republicans are determined to put ideologically driven judges on the bench. And they have had some measure of success. But judges who are even minimally qualified are more likely to rule based upon controlling statutes and precedents than on their personal preferences. The California Supreme Court is a case in point: of the seven sitting judges, six were appointed by Republican governors.

And then there’s the old standard: Throughout human history, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Well, no. In early Israel, a man could have several wives and concubines. (People who’ve actually read the bible, rather than merely thumping it, might recall the story of Jacob, who married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Or Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) In America, in 1848, the Oneida community practiced “complex marriage” where every woman was married to every man in the community, and there was a so-called “Christian polygamy movement,” as late as 1994. Although Mormons have (formally) renounced it, polygamy persists in many parts of the Middle East to this day—among President Bush’s princely pals in Saudi Arabia, for example, and in Senegal, where an estimated 47% of marriages are “plural” or polygamous. There is even some evidence—admittedly disputed—that the medieval Church blessed same-sex unions.

What with Iraq, the recession, climate change, natural disasters, food shortages and gas prices, do we really have to replay these tired arguments about allowing Adam and Steve to file joint tax returns?

 

       

Comments

As empowering as the blogosphere has been for gay and gay-friendly folks, it is always worth remembering that the virtual world is also host to plenty of hateful and reactionary rhetoric. In Indiana, one such site is a right-wing blog called Veritas Rex. Recently, a friend called my attention to a post there, headlined piteously “No Choice for Pro-Family Voters.” The post had been triggered by news that the local Stonewall Democrats had hosted a reception for the Democratic Gubernatorial candidates. And the candidates actually attended! And candidates who openly take money and/or solicit votes from citizens who are gay can’t possibly be “pro-family.”

 

Right.

 

Odd as it may seem to the exemplars of Godliness over at Veritas Rex, I have always considered myself pretty damn pro-family. (We have five kids! We’ve been married for thirty years! I couldn’t stand being any more pro-family!)   

 

Admittedly I have a rather different take from the wingers on what a real family looks like, but then, I live in the reality-based community, where we’ve noticed that families have changed since the 1960’s.

 

In 1960, according to the U.S. census, 44.2% of Americans lived in “Ozzie and Harriet” households, defined as a married couple living with their own children under eighteen. (Okay, so maybe mom was hitting the bottle in her suburban kitchen and dad was smacking the kids around when he came home from golfing with his buddies, but in Ozzie and Harriet time we didn’t ask impertinent questions. They were married, the kids were theirs, God was pleased. End of story.)

 

By 2000, however, only 23.5% of Americans fell into that category, and the folks at places like Veritas Rex (the folks who know exactly which families God approves of) are anguishing over what went wrong.

 

Data not being the wingers strong suit, permit me to enlighten them.

 

One big piece of the puzzle is pretty value-neutral: people got older. The life expectancy and average age of the population has increased, and those kids aren’t under 18 any more. More women are widowed. But there are, of course, many other factors. Maybe mom got the hell out of the kitchen, found out she could make a living and didn’t have to stay any longer in a sterile or miserable marriage. Maybe Dad found the courage to come out, and is living happily with his life partner in Upper Sandusky. Or maybe Mom and Dad are happily married, but have joined the growing numbers of married couples who’ve decided—for whatever reason—not to become a Mom and Dad.

 

When we look at couples who do have children, it is certainly true that two-parent families have more money, and more personal resources, and that money and other resources are important to childrearing. In a society that truly valued children, the census findings would motivate us to find ways to help children who are living in poverty, children whose custodial parent is overwhelmed. A number of initiatives come immediately to mind: expanded Day Care and Head Start programs, easier access to Medicaid coverage for children and pregnant women, increased educational and job opportunities for single parents.

 

Whatever the merits of such programs, however, they aren’t even being discussed. They cost money, and we need to save our money to make war in Iraq, and to ensure that the richest 1% of the population continue to enjoy tax relief. Instead, for the poor folks, George W. Bush and his administration have pursued programs that “provide incentives” for marriage by those receiving government aid. (Add a breadwinner to that household and get off the dole, you slut!)

 

Leaving aside the general lunacy of this approach, gays have to appreciate the irony. The Bush Administration says marriage is the answer to all our social ills. It will provide jobs for the unemployed, make an uncaring father into an earnest and helpful mentor, improve public school test scores and keep people off welfare. (Hell, it might even cure cancer! Worth a try—maybe we can avoid expanding health care.) But even though marriage is the prescription for what ails you, we sure aren’t going to let those homosexuals marry! Two parent families are more financially secure, and have more resources to devote to childrearing, but we aren’t going to let gays and lesbians in committed relationships adopt children!

 

Those who bemoan the demise of “traditional families” and “family values” refuse to admit that there are many different kinds of families, and that no one type has a monopoly on the ability to raise emotionally healthy children and contribute to the public welfare.  They are too intent on seeing to it that everyone accepts their limited and limiting definition of “family.”

 

Real  “family values” would require valuing families. Everyone’s families. 

 

As gay communities celebrate Pride this year, they can take comfort—and pride—in the knowledge that the culture wars are ending. And that the good guys won.

 

Verily.

 

 

    

Comments

By the time this column hits newsstands, readers will have heard more than most of them ever wanted to hear about Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremy Wright. So I apologize in advance for belaboring the subject, but I remain steamed.

Why, you may ask, is a white Jewish grandmother (a demographic to which Hillary considers herself entitled) brooding over the coverage of an African-American Christian pastor? I’ll tell you: because I come from a tradition that is all about Justice. On matters of faith, any three Jews will hold at least five different beliefs; we’ll argue into the wee hours about politics, public policy and whether nice Jewish boys should attend medical school or law school. But most of us imbibed the Talmudic injunction “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue” with our mothers’ milk. And the brouhaha over Reverend Wright has been unjust on so many levels.

First—and most obvious—is the highly selective nature of the clips being shown endlessly on cable television. As many columnists and reporters have pointed out (notably, Anderson Cooper on his own blog), all of the Reverend’s hundreds of sermons are digitally available. Very few of them contained inflammatory passages. Indeed, even the statements that have aroused so much anger don’t sound nearly so incendiary when shown in context, as part of the larger message. (I shudder to think how I would sound—not being the most temperate person around—if someone selected the least reasonable statements I had made and presented them as representative.)

Second, there are the pious statements from people who were shocked, shocked, that Obama didn’t leave his church. How could he stay if he really disagreed with portions of his pastor’s sermons. Oh, yeah—as a Catholic friend of mine wondered aloud, how many of those people are Catholics who left the Church over the predatory priest scandals? As a student of mine remarked, “I’m a conservative Christian. I don’t agree with everything Pat Robertson says. But I agree with a lot, and I don’t stop being a Conservative Baptist just because there’s stuff I disagree with.”

Third—and perhaps most telling—where is all the righteous indignation about the homophobes and anti-Semites whose endorsement John McCain has actively sought?  Whatever the Reverend Wright’s positions on responsibility for 9-11 or AIDS in the African-American community, he has, according to the Washington Blade, “largely supported gay rights and welcomed gays into his 8,000-member congregation.” According to Equality Illinois, “Trinity [Wright’s congregation] has been among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights.” The church has a gay and lesbian singles ministry, and Wright has spoken up in defense of gay pastors.

Contrast that with pronouncements by Televangelist John Hagee, the virulently anti-gay, anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic Religious Right figure whose endorsement was actively sought and publicly welcomed by John McCain. (Hagee calls the Catholic Church “the great whore.”) Or with McCain’s acceptance of support from radical right leader Janet Folger, who—among other charming sentiments—has declared that “Anita Bryant was right.” Or the Reverend Ron Parsley, who McCain calls his “personal spiritual advisor.”  According to People for the American Way, “You won’t hear Parsley rail against Catholics, but you will hear him rail against gays, abortion, Islam, judges, and People for the American Way.” In Ohio, Parsley has built a political machine of “Patriot Pastors” who turn their churches into get-out-the-vote campaigns during elections—undoubtedly the “spiritual” element that most appeals to Mr. McCain.

If we are going to obsess endlessly over Rev. Wright’s less elevated pronouncements,  we might expect the media to give equal time to the considerably more florid and consistent positions of these “spiritual advisors.” If you have somehow failed to notice prominent reporting about the positions taken by Mr. McCain’s spiritual gurus, however, you aren’t alone—The Carpetbagger Report ran a Lexis-Nexis search to see just how many stand-alone articles were written about “McCain’s outreach to a bigoted and nutty televangelist” in the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. The total? Zero.

Will this focus on handpicked passages from Reverend Wright’s sermons sink Barack Obama? The answer is no. If Barack Obama loses, Reverend Wright may be the excuse; he won’t be the reason.

Obama has frequently said that this election is a choice between the past and the future. The use of Reverend Wright’s sermons to stir up racial resentments is consistent with the politics of the past. It remains to be seen whether Americans will vote for a different, fairer future.

Comments