Category Archives: Gay Rights

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

Okay, so I sound like a broken record. Or like the lawyer I used to be. But dammit, the rule of law matters. And it matters—or should—even more to those of us who are not part of “the majority” at any given time.

 

Maybe it is because I grew up Jewish in a small town in Indiana, where many of my classmates still genuinely believed that Jews had tails. Maybe it’s because I went to college in the South during the sixties, when we were arguing about whether black folks should get to vote or be allowed into the local movie theater. Maybe it’s because I have a gay son, and lots of gay friends and relatives. If these experiences have taught me anything, it is the critical importance of impartial, enforcable rules that apply to all citizens, whether their neighbors like them or not.

 

To put it another way, your fundamental rights shouldn’t depend upon the outcome of the next election.

 

The problem is, the rule of law—the principle that citizens should be equal before the law, and the corollary belief that no one is above the law—has been under unremitting assault by this administration, and recent events have served to underscore the degree to which our fundamental institutions have been deliberately sabotaged. Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence occasioned the most outrage, but travesty that it was, it isn’t the sort of  thing I’m talking about. Election of a President with a fully-developed ethical sense (okay, any ethical sense) will stop that sort of abuse.

 

What worries me far more are the sorts of revelations that came out recently in the Washington Post’s devastating four-part series on Dick Cheney. Sure, he’s looney—but unlike our President, he’s also smart, and he has managed to inflict real and lasting damage to our governing institutions. The problem is, that damage isn’t visible to Joe Sixpack or the various talking heads that pontificate on what passes for news these days. It’s more insidious.

 

Equally insidious, and even more worrisome—especially to gay Americans and other disfavored minorities—is the damage being inflicted by a generation of judicial appointees chosen for their far-right ideology rather than their legal competence.

 

Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit challenging the President’s domestic spying program. The court didn’t uphold the NSA spying—it really couldn’t have. Instead, it ducked the question by ruling that the plaintiffs had no “standing,” no right to sue. That’s a refrain we are going to hear more and more frequently; the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Administration’s “Faith-based Initiative” last month on the same basis.

 

To define standing in terms more relevant to the gay community, what if the Massachusetts courts had ruled that only people who were already married had “standing” to challenge Massachusett’s marriage laws?  

 

This sort of decision is so dangerous precisely because non-lawyers are likely to shrug it off as some legal technicality. Few citizens understand that what these courts are doing is leaving laws on the books, but rendering them essentially meaningless. You don’t really have a right if no one can enforce it.

 

In the domestic spying case, the court said if the plaintiffs couldn’t prove that they were personally being spied on, they couldn’t sue—they couldn’t challenge the program. But of course, the program is secret, and without the ability to challenge it and subpoena relevant information, there is no way they can ever prove that they are among those being targeted. It’s a perfect catch-22. Before this case, being in the same category as the people being watched would have been enough; indeed, it was enough for the lower court, which had ruled that the program was illegal.

 

As I write this, the “Backward Bush” countdown clock I’ve installed on my computer says this administration has 562 days left in office. It can still do plenty of damage, of course, but it is the judges this President has installed—with the shameful “advice and consent” of a compliant Senate—who can really turn America’s clock back. And they will be on the bench for a generation.

 

Canada looks better all the time.

 

 

 

 

Comments

My first reaction to George Will’s column in this morning’s Indianapolis Star was something along the lines of “George, you like to posture as a sophisticated, world-weary intellectual—and you’ve been taken in by another urban legend!”

 

The gist of Will’s complaint was that pro-gay political correctness was turning opinions into “hate speech.” Now, I’m no fan of laws against hate speech. In a free country, everyone is entitled to his/her opinions, and entitled to express them, no matter how stupid, scurrilous or unwise I might think those opinions are. But Will had his facts wrong. Worse, he was more or less parrotting part of an “Action Alert” issued by the notorously anti-factual American Family Association.

 

Which is where the invaluable Snopes.com comes in.  www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/hatecrime.asp 

 

Snopes sets out the entire “Action Alert,” which purports to describe the pending Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a measure that “would make it a hate crime for pastors and churches to speak out against homosexuality.” The “Alert” references the same California lawsuit described by Will in his (equally inaccurate) column, as well as other “evidence” of increasing “censorship” of religious speech.

 

Snopes characterizes the AFA’s descriptions—politely—as “gross and misleading distortions.”

 

The case that both Will and the AFA mischaracterized involved a woman who complained about anti-gay materials posted on the bulletin board at her place of work. The employer removed it, and the person who posted it sued, saying his free speech rights had been violated. The court dismissed the complaint and upheld the right of an employer to remove materials in the workplace that cause dissention among employees or distract from the work environment.

 

The AFA clearly depends upon a widespread constitutional ignorance

among those who receive its “Alerts.” Anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional principles would see right through this one. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause absolutely protects religious speech and belief—against government suppression. The Bill of Rights is a list of things that government cannot do.

 

As I used to tell my children, the government can’t tell you what not to say—but your mother sure can. And so can your employer.

 

Next time, George, check Snopes.

 

Comments

In Indiana and much of America’s Midwest, June was Pride month.

In Indianapolis, where I live, Pride celebrations have grown and matured each year. Twenty years ago, when I first started attending, they were the subject of snickering coverage by the local media. Attendance was small and largely consisted of guys in leather harnesses. Not, I hasten to add, that there is anything wrong with that, but the attendees certainly did not represent the full diversity of the gay community. These days, Pride still draws the leather crowd, but it also has a full complement of couples pushing strollers, preppy guys in penny loafers, elected officials, and businesses trying to sell everything from real estate to insurance. Pride events are listed matter-of-factly in the local paper’s listing of festivals, and covered just like other civic celebrations.

Progress on gay rights has certainly been spotty, and we’ve seen setbacks, but I think the growth—and growing acceptance—of Pride festivals is one sign among many that Americans are gradually becoming more comfortable with their gay neighbors, and less likely to support discrimination.

The culture is changing. Not as quickly as in other western democracies, perhaps, but much more quickly than in Asia, where I just spent a month traveling. There were six of us on the trip—me, my husband, his cousin and her husband, my (gay) son and a friend who is also gay.

We met my son in New Delhi, since he has been traveling in India this year, and then went to Bhutan—a picture-perfect Shangra-La in the Himalayas that has only opened to visitors recently. The government of Bhutan requires tourists to use their official tour guides, and ours was very nice. (If my gay-dar was working, he was also a “member of the family.” But that’s speculative.) While we were there, Bhutan had an AIDS Awareness Day, and I asked our guide about the situation faced by the gay community—was there acceptance, rejection, etc.? His answer? “Bhutan has no gay people. Bhutanese aren’t gay.”

I guess that answered my question! 

Bhutan was a real contrast to Kathmandu, our next stop, where there were posters everywhere announcing an upcoming gay and lesbian film festival, and where the atmosphere was decidedly more cosmopolitan and open. But it was in China that the influence of culture was most pronounced—and repressive. In each city we visited, my son would locate a local gay club or bar. His conversations with people he met in those clubs were informative, to say the least. (He has been keeping a blog which includes his impressions of gay life in Asia, and lots of photos; for those who are interested, the URL is www.satoristephen.com.)

China has no laws addressing homosexuality. Unlike in India (and the U.S. until very recently), sodomy is not a crime. What China has is tradition, and a culture that venerates family. Failure to marry and have children to carry on the family line is unthinkable to most Chinese men, and even more unthinkable is coming out to their parents. In the bars, Stephen met married men whose wives were presumably clueless about their extra-marital activities. He met others who recoiled at the very idea that their families might discover their sexual orientation. The Chinese closet is very dark, and the door is closed very tightly.

I attended a couple of academic conferences while we were in China, and I asked a young Chinese colleague about attitudes toward gays and lesbians. She confirmed the cultural bias, although she said things were beginning to soften somewhat among the more educated and affluent classes.

Here in the U.S., we tend to look longingly at Europe and Canada, where acceptance of gay relationships and even same-sex marriage is far more advanced than it is in red-state America. But as my mother used to remind me, things can always be worse.

Next year, when Pride rolls around, remember: you could live in Asia.

Comments

In last month’s column, I wrote about an unexpected victory for equal rights—the defeat, or at least the temporary derailing, of a same-sex marriage ban in very red Indiana. Since then, at least two other states have enacted civil union statutes, and polls suggest that the saliency of the issue and its utility in energizing the GOP base have declined.

 

But then there is the other side of the coin, the episodes that remind us that progress does not occur in a straight line, but in what my mother used to call “fits and starts.”

 

In Richmond, Indiana, at virtually the same time our legislature was showing signs of an emerging sanity, a young man named Joe Augustine was beaten with a rock and left with a fractured skull as he was leaving a rehearsal of the Richmond Civic Theater’s production of “The Laramie Project.”  That play, as most readers of this column probably know, is based upon the horrific beating and death of Matthew Shepard.

 

As I write this, there has not been confirmation that this was a hate crime, although it seems unlikely that the choice of victim was merely coincidental. And even in Richmond, in the wake of this savage beating, the news is not all terrible. Townspeople have rallied to support the young man and his family. Businesses have put up signs; the community held a fundraiser to help with medical bills. And the rest of the cast—in the grand old tradition of “the show must go on”—continued with the play’s production.

 

Two steps forward, one step back. That’s the way humans progress. But we do progress. Over the nine years that I have taught university undergraduates, I have watched a sea change in their attitudes toward their gay classmaters. Most of today’s college students literally do not understand what the fuss is all about. In contrast to their parents’ generation, homosexuality—like sexuality in general—does not make them uncomfortable. Most have gay friends, watch “out” entertainers, and tend to attribute anti-gay bias to ignorance at best or emotional problems at worst.

 

Much of this attitude change can be directly traced to the “coming out” movement, and the familiarity with gay friends and neighbors that has ensued. One of the persistent mysteries of human behavior is our tendency to fear that which is different and unknown, despite ample evidence that such fears can be—and often are—pathological.  In a healthy society, we would divert the energy and resources being expended to deprive gay people of their civil rights to an effort to identify and help the angry and dangerous who walk among us.

 

Of course, in a healthy society, we would also divert the resources being flushed down the toilet in a failed drug war to public health measures aimed at helping drug abusers quit. In a healthy society, we would not spend trillions of dollars and waste thousands of young lives fighting a war of choice in Iraq. I could go on and on, but there is little point. I often wonder whether the people who are so angry at the prospect that two men or two women might create a loving and supportive family are equally upset when children go to bed hungry or abused, when we cannot find the public resources to improve our schools or to pay our police and fire personnel adequately. Is their “morality” equally offended when our brave young soldiers come home from a fool’s errand to face poor or indifferent medical care? And speaking of medical care, where are these guardians of public morality when we discuss the 47 million Americans who are uninsured? Isn’t that a sufficiently moral issue?

 

Fits and starts. It would be nice if we were beginning to recover from the fits and ready to start addressing the genuinely important conditions of our common culture.        

Comments