Category Archives: Gay Rights

    It’s “that time of year.”

 

   No—I’m not talking about Halloween, or even Thanksgiving, Chanukah and Christmas. For the eleventh year in a row, from November 3d through the 19^th, approximately 100 organizational partners will invite us to the civic conversation known as the annual Spirit and Place Festival. The festival revolves around a different theme each year; this year, it is “Tradition and Innovation.”

   

One of the most timely programs is being co-sponsored by PFLAG, the acronym for “Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays,” although I’m quite certain the co-sponsors had no idea when they planned their program just how newsworthy their subject-matter—“Traditional Families, Fact or Fiction?—would be.

    When the news broke about creepy Congressman Mark Foley, gay-bashers resorted to one of the oldest fictions—suggesting that all gays are pedophiles. As Frank Rich noted dryly in a New York Times article, saying all gay men are like Mark Foley is like saying all heterosexual men are like Joey Buttofucco.

    There are plenty of “fictions” about human sexual identity at any time, of course. I recently was mailed a book as a “gift” from a gentleman who described himself as a reader of my columns. The book (written by an “eminent scholar” who is neither eminent nor a scholar, according to colleagues in the fields of psychiatry and genetics)  purported to “prove” that sexual orientation is just a choice we make. (As I told my husband, I sure don’t remember “choosing” mine!)

    Rich’s column was actually a reflection on a somewhat different tradition—the ritual use of gay-bashing as a political tool by the GOP (or “Gay Old Party,” as Rich described it) while employing numerous self-identified, out-of-the-closet gays in major staff and administration positions.  Rich focuses on the political hypocrisy involved, and doesn’t speculate about the psychology of those gay individuals who work for publicly homophobic office-holders. It’s hard not to see such people as either self-loathing or opportunistic—or both—but such behaviors are not uncommon among members of socially marginalized groups.

    Ultimately, it is precisely that social marginalization that is the target of the Spirit and Place program, to be held on Saturday, November 18^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church on

West 43d Street

.

    The description of the event begins with a question: “What defines a family in 2006?” It’s a good question, and a timely one: just in the last couple of weeks, a census report showed that married couples currently represent slightly fewer than half of American households. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are increasingly living together without getting married—some by choice, some because it is an avenue legally foreclosed to them.

    We need to understand the reasons for—and consequences of—these changes in social norms. How do they affect children? The elderly? What are the implications for public policies? Who are the real people who make these choices, and how does the disapproval of others affect them and their families?

    Which “traditions” are worth saving—and which aren’t?

 

 

Comments

 

    When I was a young girl growing up in the not-so-metropolitan town of Anderson, Indiana, the few Jewish families living in the area were acutely aware of their minority status. One of the most feared accusations Jews faced back then was that of “dual loyalty”—the suspicion that our support for the new state of Israel might be as strong or stronger than our loyalty to America and American values. 

    I hadn’t thought about dual loyalty accusations in a long time, although there were certainly echoes of it in the hostility with which Latino demonstrations over immigration reform were received. Displays of the Mexican flag, especially, seemed to engender resentment from people who proudly characterized themselves in letters to the editor and similar forums as “real Americans.”

    In my experience, Americans have historically tended to be pretty insular, even jingoist, likely to think of themselves as “real Americans” and “Americans First.” So I was really unprepared for the recent Pew Research poll showing that forty-two percent of Americans consider themselves Christian first, and American second. According to Pew, 

          “The 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Poll finds American adults are closely split between those   who see themselves as Christians first (42%) and those who see themselves as Americans first (48%); an additional 7% say they see themselves as both equally. By contrast, only a third of German Christians (33%) and fewer than a quarter of British, French and Spanish Christians self-identify primarily with their religion. In this regard, the views of Americans closely parallel those of French Muslims, 46% of whom think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality.”

      Pew doesn’t tell us, of course, what kind of Christian these folks are, so we can take some solace from even more recently released research from Baylor University that debunks the notion that the more devout the Christian, the more conservative the politics. According to Baylor, equal numbers of political liberals and political conservatives are comitted churchgoers.Nevertheless, there is something disquieting about these numbers. My own worry is that the people most likely to respond that they are “Christian first” are also most likely to believe that their theological beliefs should trump America’s constitutional values.

Case in point: Recently, I got a call at the office from an elderly-sounding man who wanted my mailing address. He said he read my columns in the Star, and wanted to send me something. “How nice!” I said—to which he responded, “You may not think so when you get it.” He was right; he sent me a book by a self-professed Christian “psychologist” that explained why homosexuality is an immoral choice, and how gays can “choose” not to be gay. An accompanying note suggested that I share it with my misguided son. It was a good example of someone whose “Christian” values conflict rather sharply with American values of civic equality, not to mention the quintessentially American “live and let live” ethic. 

Don’t get me wrong: just as Christians in Germany who placed religious and moral teachings above the Fatherland were right, Americans absolutely must bring moral precepts—grounded for the most part in religious belief—to questions of officially condoning torture, the conduct of war and the erosion of civil liberties. “My country right or wrong” is wrong. For that matter, many of us who support gay civil rights do so because we believe our religion or morality requires it. But in these situations, most of us would not see our religious or ethical beliefs at odds with American values. Rather, we see our ethical or religious beliefs requiring us to work for an America that lives up to its own constitutional and civic values.

Maybe that’s all the Pew poll signifies. Maybe my own history as a member of a minority religion has made me too sensitive, has caused me to over-react to these numbers. But I can’t shake the feeling that these self-professed “Christian first” folks are really the fundamentalists who have done so much to divide Americans, and set us against each other. I can’t avoid the nagging suspicion that what these folks are saying is “My kind of Christian first.”

I sure hope I’m wrong.

  

Comments

A college in Canada—Lakehead University—is running a rather audacious recruitment campaign: an internet advertisement with George W. Bush’s face and the message “Yale, Shmale. Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart. If you agree, click here.” When you click on the link, you get a pitch for Lakehead.

Just another bit of evidence—as if evidence were needed—of the low esteem in which the current American President is held.

If his usefulness to Canadian ad men and late-night comics were the only consequences of Bush’s incompetence, that would be an embarrassing, but short-lived, problem. Unfortunately, having a chief executive who doesn’t recognize basic constitutional principles or comprehend important distinctions has created domestic and international disaster. 

Let’s just connect the dots by way of one example. Bush has constantly talked about the importance of bringing “democracy” and “freedom” to the Middle East. He clearly believes the terms are interchangable. They aren’t. Democracy is the practice of popular election; liberty, as the western world has come to understand that term, requires the rule of law. The rule of law protects our freedom to live our lives as we see fit, without government interference so long as we aren’t harming someone else. Liberty thus includes freedom of speech and religion, a right to due process and equal protection, the right to privacy, and so forth.

In the Middle East, for example, Hamas—the Palestinian terrorist organization—was democratically elected (and Hezbollah enjoys majority support in much of Lebanon). It is quite likely that Iraq, which used to be the most secular Arab state, will eventually elect a theocratic government—assuming Iraq survives its current civil war intact. In short, a country can be both “democratic” and repressive. 

Why is any of this important—or relevant—to the gay community? 

The central concern of civil liberties and the rule of law is to trump what James Madison called “the passions of the majority.” The ACLU is never called upon to defend people everyone agrees with; the First Amendment was intended to protect, as Justice Holmes once put it “the idea we hate,” not the popular, widely-accepted idea. The gay community’s ability to make progress toward acceptance and equal rights depends upon America’s commitment to liberty, not its practice of democracy. In 2004, we saw what happens when citizens get to vote on the rights of their gay neighbors. The principle that matters is equal protection of the laws, not fidelity to majority passions.

This is not to suggest that democracy is unimportant, only that it is insufficient. Majority vote unconstrained by the rule of law and respect for equal rights can be every bit as tyrranical and despotic as the rule of a dictator.

An example: when I was the Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU, we represented the KKK in a suit against the state. The then-governor, Evan Bayh, had refused to allow a Klan rally on the steps of the Indiana Statehouse. The steps were routinely used by other groups—prochoice and prolife, major and minor political parties, all manner of issue advocacy organizations—but the Klan was (for good and obvious reasons)massively unpopular. Those of us defending the right of these despicable people to be treated like everyone else included me (Jewish), a co-operating attorney (gay), and a paralegal (African-American). We’d have been the first people killed if the Klan ever came to power.

In a very real sense, however, we weren’t representing the Klan—we were defending the rule of law. We knew that our own rights depended upon fidelity to the principle of equal protection—that if the most despised citizens don’t have rights, no one really has rights—they just have privileges that government can revoke when majority opinion makes it politically convenient to do so. 

Too bad our President doesn’t understand that.

 

 

 

 

Comments

One reason the legal recognition of gay marriage or civil unions is so important is very prosaic: health insurance. Currently, if you are gay and don’t work for an enlightened employer, you cannot put your partner (or your partner’s children unless you have somehow established a legal relationship with them—itself not easy) on your health insurance.

 Of course, that assumes your employer even offers health insurance. And the number of employers who do is declining.

 The bottom line is that America’s refusal to deal with our dysfunctional health system in a rational way affects gays and lesbians and poor people disproportionately. It is one more example why bad public policy—and not just bad policy on obviously gay-related issues—is especially important to the gay community. (The same thing is true of the battle over “net neutrality”—if the giant telecoms get their way, the web sites that will be hurt will disproportionately be those with fewer resources, those espousing less “mainstream” opinions. There are many issues with grave consequences to the community that are not “gay” issues.)

 So what would a rational, economically and fiscally sound, humanitarian and fair health system look like? What if the country were to go to a “single payer” health insurance system funded through tax revenues and administered through selected insurance companies, as is done in western Europe?

•  Increased economic development/job creation and competitiveness with foreign companies. Businesses currently expend an amount in excess of total net profits on health insurance for employees. The cost of health insurance is the single largest “drag” on new job creation. For companies that can afford to offer health insurance, negotiating and administering those benefits, and complying with government regulations attendant to them, consumes untold hours of HR time as well. (It should be noted that doctors’ overhead would similarly decline: currently, medical offices spend considerable sums on personnel whose sole job is confirming insurance coverage, complying with insurer regulations, submitting claims and collecting amounts due.) Smaller companies—the engines of economic growth—are often unable to offer benefits, putting them at a competitive disadvantage for good employees. If health coverage was de-coupled from employment, these enterprises would be able to add workers. Employers could also increase wages by some percentage of the amount currently being paid for insurance.
• The additional tax revenues needed to accomplish this would be minimal, for the following reasons: governments at all levels already expend huge amounts for health, through Medicaid and other federally required programs (Mothers and Children, AIDS, etc.), through benefits for public employees (Universities, police, public school teachers, etc.), and through support for public hospitals. A national system could effect considerable savings, by standardizing paperwork and administrative procedures (it is estimated that 30% of U.S. healthcare costs are administrative); negotiating with insurers to administer the program on condition that the premium structure eliminate marketing costs that are now included; providing more effective public health and prevention services; and by negotiating with drug manufacturers and other medical vendors for lower prices. Cost controls would also be enhanced by eliminating the practice of cost-shifting by hospitals (where those with insurance pay prices that have been inflated in order to cover the costs that cannot be recovered from those without), and by efficiencies of scale. Costs also decline when people are able to access routine medical care soon after the onset of symptoms, rather than visiting far more expensive emergency rooms when they can no longer ignore the problem.
•  Individuals would save money. Auto and homeowners insurance premiums would decline, because the underwriting would no longer need to take the costs of medical care into account. The considerable percentage of citizens who are currently uninsured would not incur significant out-of-pocket costs attributable to illness or accident.
• If all citizens had basic health coverage, we would also experience a decline in the social costs associated with the current dysfunctional system. Over 50% of personal bankruptcies are attributable to medical bills; those bankruptcies cost businesses millions of dollars, and are a drag on the economy. Employees with pre-existing conditions would no longer be chained to jobs they dislike. Absenteeism could be expected to decline. Immunizations would increase, and infant mortality decline. Studies also suggest that violent crime rates decline as social safety nets increase. While not quantifiable, these consequences are significant.

 And gay families would no longer face barriers to adequate medical care that straight citizens don’t face.    

Comments

A blog that I read fairly regularly calls it the “War on Fucking.” 

 

I think the blogger is on to something. As she points out, it is a mistake to look at the right-wing attacks on gays, abortion, “pornography,” “non-traditional” families and the like as separate issues; at base, what these people are against is sex, sexuality, and anything that smacks of acceptance of the role sex plays in human existence.

 

Her explanation for this war is that those waging it are people who have terrible difficulty controlling their own urges, and who assume that everyone else is having an equally difficult time controlling theirs. If there are not strict—indeed, inviolable—social controls to keep these passions in check, they are sure the result would be social chaos. (This theory may or may not be true, but it sure would help to explain all those child molesting cases involving pastors and choir directors…….). As a result, they live in a state of fear, and they cling tightly to the “eternal verities” provided by highly restrictive religious doctrines and punitive laws, which they see as the only alternative to social disintegration.

 

A glance at history will demonstrate the effect this fear has had on women and our place in society. Women were seen as uniquely and mysteriously powerful—as magical beings whose appeal could make strong men weak. Thus, the notion that “good” women might actually enjoy sex has been an especially terrifying idea. This is the real root of support for “abstinence education” rather than accurate and effective sex education, of the campaign against Plan B, the “morning after” contraceptive, and more recently (and incredibly) the opposition to inoculation against cervical cancer. In case you haven’t read about this latter controversy, medical scientists have developed a highly effective immunization against cervical cancer. But it must be given to girls before puberty. As the Washington Post recently reported:

 

“A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.

 

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed…

 

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty. But because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.”

 

This war on sexuality and sexual desire is the larger context within which we must understand the ferocious resistance to "legitimizing" gay relationships by allowing same-sex adoptions, marriage or civil unions, even laws protecting gays against discrimination. Because of their single-minded preoccupation with sex, social conservatives do not see the other elements of human relationships; thus they equate any legal recognition of gays with an endorsement of sex—and, in their worldview, “deviant” sex to boot.

 

It must be hard to live in a world where some sex fiend is hiding behind every bush, waiting to pounce—waiting to defile “pure” women and molest small children. And when you are terrified all the time, it is really hard to be logical, let alone fair or loving.

 

I’d pity them, if the rest of us weren’t civilians in the line of fire in their War on Fucking.

 

 

Comments