Tag Archives: Gay Rights

Missing Hearts and Souls

I’m going to ask for the indulgence of my readers, and quote a relatively long excerpt from an article that recently appeared in the Miami New Times in the wake of revelations about George Rekers, a leading Christian Right figure. (If somehow you missed those revelations, the short version is that Dr. Holier-than-Thou visited “Rentaboy.com” and engaged the services of a male prostitute who accompanied him on a European trip. To—ahem—“carry luggage.”) Here’s the excerpt:

“In 1974, Rekers, a leading thinker in the so-called ex-gay movement, was presented with a 4-year-old “effeminate boy” named Kraig, whose parents had enrolled him in the program. Rekers put Kraig in a “play-observation room” with his mother, who was equipped with a listening device. When the boy played with girly toys, the doctors instructed her to avert her eyes from the child.

According to a 2001 account in Brain, Child Magazine, “On one such occasion, his distress was such that he began to scream, but his mother just looked away. His anxiety increased, and he did whatever he could to get her to respond to him… Kraig became so hysterical, and his mother so uncomfortable, that one of the clinicians had to enter and take Kraig, screaming, from the room.”

Rekers’s research team continued the experiment in the family’s home. Kraig received red chips for feminine behavior and blue chips for masculine behavior. The blue chips could be cashed in for candy or television time. The red chips earned him a “swat” or spanking from his father. Researchers periodically entered the family’s home to ensure proper implementation of the reward-punishment system.

After two years, the boy supposedly manned up. Over the decades, Rekers, who ran countless similar experiments, held Kraig up as “the poster boy for behavioral treatment of boyhood effeminacy.”

At age 18, shamed by his childhood diagnosis and treatment, Rekers’s poster boy attempted suicide, according to Gender Shock, a book by journalist Phyllis Burke. Rekers, whose early experiments were the first to ostensibly demonstrate a “gay cure,” resigned from the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) last week, after it was revealed the gay escort had given him nude sexual massages. NARTH, however, stands by his science.”

It is one thing to diagnose Dr. Rekers; self-hate and projection explain a lot. I have a different question. What in the world was wrong with those parents?

My husband and I have five children and four grandchildren. Believe me, I know how easy it can be to react badly to childish provocations, how hard it is to parent adequately. I’ve second-guessed my own mothering skills more times than I can remember. That said, however, I can’t imagine treating any child the way these people treated this little boy, even for behaviors that we would all see as unequivocally and objectively wrong. Here, there was no dangerous or destructive behavior; the child was simply “effeminate,” whatever that means. Where is it written that being effeminate is a trait to be scorned or an affliction to be cured? What is it about the prospect of a child growing up gay that is so terrifying that it justifies the infliction of such unbelievable emotional abuse?

In the years since he came out, my son has periodically shared heartrending stories about friends or acquaintances whose parents rejected them. Many of them came from “religious” families—families in which “bible-believing” is a euphemism for self-righteousness, rigidity and intolerance. Some of these young people were later able to overcome the damage and achieve a measure of self-acceptance; others never did. Some haven’t spoken to their parents in years. Some developed substance-abuse problems. Others engaged in risky sexual behaviors, or gave other indications of self-loathing.

I think about all the people who cannot conceive, about the couples who wait years to adopt a child, about loving adults who want nothing more than to nurture and rear a child—and then I wonder at the unfairness of a world in which fertile people procreate easily and then abandon, neglect or mistreat the human beings entrusted to their care.

I try to understand, but I never will.

Comments

Another New Year

I’m at that time of life when the new years come around a lot more frequently. (As my husband says, “Life is like a roll of toilet paper—the closer you get to the end, the faster it turns.”) But no matter how often we ring out the old and ring in the new, it’s a time for reflections and resolutions, both communal and personal.

 For those engaged in the fight for GLBT equality, the year that just ended brought mixed feelings and results. Maine and New York were bitter disappointments. On the other hand, progress more and more seems inevitable, inexorable. Little by little, as my generation “departs” (gentle term for “dies off”), younger people with gay friends and fewer prejudices take our place.

 Obama has disappointed many in the community by not moving more quickly on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and other campaign promises. On the other hand, his White House has hosted more visibly gay people than any of his predecessors—and probably more than all of those predecessors combined—and his administration includes numerous openly gay appointees. Not very long ago, we would have all cheered just at the change in rhetoric emanating from the Oval Office. Much of the disappointment is a result of greatly expanded expectations, and the impatience nurtured by the truly stunning cultural changes of the past few years.

 Speaking of those changes, this year the fourth-largest American city elected an openly lesbian mayor, and the California legislature chose an openly gay man as its next leader. Here in my own hometown of Indianapolis (a city often referred to as the buckle of the bible-belt), I attended a Christmas fundraiser for Indiana Equality, an umbrella organization formed a few years ago by GLBT groups to lobby our occasionally retrograde General Assembly. Among the 300 plus attendees were the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian Party chairs, and a number of elected officials and political candidates of all three parties. That just wouldn’t have happened a few years ago.

 I could go on, but the bottom line here is that we need to reflect upon, recognize and celebrate the amazing amount of progress that has been made.

 Which brings us to resolutions. And the first of those is to remind ourselves that, despite enormous progress, members of the GLBT community are not yet equal. There are too many states (including my own) where someone can legally be fired simply for being gay. There are too many states where the 1008+ legal benefits that come with marriage are inaccessible to gays and lesbians. There are too many states (including my own) where civil rights statutes do not bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So resolution number one must be to recognize how much more needs to be done.

 Resolution number two, obviously, is to keep fighting the good fight. Testify at legislative hearings. Write letters to the editors of local papers. Give every cent you can spare to the organizations that are fighting for equality. Work hard to elect gay and gay-friendly candidates. Talk to people—in your family, at your workplace, in your neighborhood—who may still not understand that gays remain second-class citizens in so many arenas. This can be incredibly difficult, but it is probably as important as anything you can do. The act of coming out by so many in the community—often at great emotional cost and financial risk—was undoubtedly the single biggest impetus to the positive social changes we have experienced.

 And of course, no list of resolutions would be complete without the perennial one. This is the year I’m really going to lose weight. How about you?

Comments

Lessons from the Dark Side

The defeat of equal marriage rights in Maine was a gut-wrenching blow to gays and civil libertarians alike. There is something profoundly wrong with having to ask to be treated equally by your government. Equal rights should not be subject to vote—the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was, in Justice Jackson’s memorable words

“to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Nevertheless, until that principle is extended to the LGBT community, last month’s election should be an opportunity to consider and evaluate the political options available.

One option—the course of action requiring the least effort—is simply to wait. Every time there is a vote on one of these referenda, those on the side of denying rights to gays and lesbians win by a narrower margin. Poll after poll tells us that most people on the wrong side of history are old; younger voters support gay equality by substantial margins. When my generation dies off, this conflict will be over.

The better option, however, is to take a lesson from the rabid right-wingers who managed to capture the Republican Party in the space of relatively few years. They accomplished that by participating in the party’s grass-roots politics—running for precinct committeeperson, school board, city council. From those relatively humble positions, they were able to support the candidates who agreed with them, and ultimately drive most moderates and a fair number of thoughtful conservatives out of the GOP entirely.

On the same election day that saw same-sex marriage lose in Maine, a number of openly-gay candidates were elected to public office. It is time to take advantage of the willingness of voters to elect gay and lesbian candidates. But in order to do that, GLBT folks have to be willing to get involved at those grass roots.

Let me give an example of what I mean. Here in my own city, I know of at least one openly-gay candidate who intends to go through Democratic party slating, and if slated, to run for our City-County Council. The decision who to slate is made by the party’s precinct committeemen. The most effective tactic the community can use is to encourage as many gay and gay-friendly people as possible to run for precinct committeeperson. I don’t know how it is elsewhere, but in my city, both parties are desperate to fill committeeman slots. Anyone willing to do the grunt work required is very likely to be successful.

Why elect openly gay candidates? Assuming that the people involved are otherwise good candidates—that they will be good public servants who represent all of their constituents—we can expect several outcomes. Let me just suggest two: for one thing, the electorate will see competent people who happen to be gay in positions of authority; that changes attitudes. (If you don’t believe me, think about the impact of Obama’s election in the African-American community!) For another, elected officials can influence legislation and policymaking. If you don’t believe me, look at what has happened to the GOP—and unfortunately, to the rest of us—in the wake of the radical right’s capture of that party. Even when they are unable to pass legislation, they’ve proven adept at preventing it.

And wouldn’t it be satisfying to turn the homophobes’ tactics against them?

Obama and Gay Rights

As was evident in yesterday’s March on Washington, many members of the gay community are angry that the Obama Administration has not yet acted on several promises to advance equality for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. The general sentiment is: yes, you talk the talk. But where’s the walk?

Others–generally those who have worked on these issues for many years–recognize that  actually achieving these changes is more complicated than the critics seem to understand.

Legal change almost always lags cultural change. That’s because legislatures and even the courts (angry accusations about “socialist” policymakers and “imperial” courts notwithstanding) rarely act until something like a social consensus emerges. Nor can a President unilaterally make most changes. And even when a President can act without Congress, through Executive Order, there are legislative consequences to be expected.

The impatience displayed by many of yesterday’s marchers is understandable. It’s like being told that “if you just stay in the back of the bus a bit longer” America is more likely to get health care and environmental protection. Why should their rights be held in thrall to other goals?

My own analysis is somewhat different. Barack Obama is one of the most strategic politicians to come along in my lifetime. I believe him when he says–as he did at the HRC dinner–that he is committed to achieving equal rights for the GLBT community. And I believe he will do so in his first term. But there are two things any constituency needs from its political champions: sincere commitment and the strategic smarts to actually get something done. I think Clinton had the commitment; but he couldn’t get it done.  He faced a culture that was not ready, and his approach to the issue of gays in the military was badly timed. I think Obama knows how to get things done–even very difficult things. He is asking the gay community to trust him.

It’s easy for me to say, of course–I’m not gay. But I DO trust him. And those of my friends who’ve been long-time activists on behalf of GLBT  rights, people who know how tough these fights still are, trust him too.

Progress and Its Discontents

In my most recent column for the Indianapolis Star, I reported on our city’s Pride celebration, and pointed to the immense progress that has been made since I began attending such events in 1992. As I put it,

“The crowd was huge, and broadly representative of the diversity of the gay community and those of us who support them. There were young people pushing strollers, old folks like us, and parents with teens. We saw doctors, lawyers and bankers—people who would have been terrified to attend seventeen years ago, when being “out” might mean losing a job—or worse, a family.

Today, when a quarter of the country’s population lives in states that recognize same-sex marriage or its functional equivalent, when polls show that people under thirty support gay civil rights by huge margins, the mood at events like Pride is less defiant and much more celebratory.”

All true. But when you are building a road to a desired destination, it is sometimes necessary to erect appropriate caution signs.

When I first got involved in activism on behalf of equal rights for the GLBT community, much of the community’s political outreach was—let me be kind here—dysfunctional. Most of the reasons for the personal agendas and petty backbiting were understandable, albeit terribly unhelpful, and not much different than behaviors exhibited by people in any marginalized community. (Fights over crumbs, for some reason, tend to be more vicious.) Other behaviors seemed more specific to the gay community.

It is, let’s be honest, a community with many very wounded people. One reason for that, I think, is that while other minority groups may be despised and subjected to discrimination, children in those groups at least grow up with role models. When I grew up Jewish in a small, non-too-tolerant Indiana town, I looked to my parents for clues about what it meant to be Jewish, and for positive reinforcement of my human value. Gays growing up in repressive communities have until very recently had no such models. As a consequence, a lot of GLBT youngsters grow into very needy adults—and needy adults seldom make good movement soldiers. They have trouble subordinating their personal agendas to the needs of the community.

The considerable progress that has been made over the past two decades is largely the result of a recognition of that reality by the gay community. In a very real way, and for a multitude of reasons, the activists in the community grew up. Ostensible disputes over strategy morphed into genuine disputes over strategy, rather than thinly veiled efforts to be important. It was an important turning point that made much of the subsequent progress possible.

So why am I saying we need to erect a “Caution” sign? Because here and there, there is evidence that some of the old dysfunction is resurfacing.

Look at what happened in California. If we are honest, the fight over Proposition 8 was the community’s to lose. Yes, the Mormon Church and others put up a lot of money, but as late as mid-October, polls showed that “No on Prop 8” was winning by a comfortable margin. But as the people involved readily admit, the discord and squabbling among the various gay rights groups charged with defeating Prop 8 got in the way of effective political action.

More recently, there have been some very unseemly charges and counter-charges echoing through gay cyberspace over action and inaction by the Obama administration. Disappointment is understandable, disagreement inevitable, but the shrillness of some of the arguments and accusations has been distinctly unhelpful.

Even in my local community, there have been persistent efforts by some bloggers to mischaracterize and undermine Indiana Equality, a coalition of gay advocacy organizations that has been very effective in bringing different perspectives to the table and advancing the cause of gay equality. (Indiana is one of the very few “bible buckle” states that did not pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage; preventing that passage wasn’t just luck. As someone who was privy to some of the strategic decisions involved, I can attest that it took a lot of hard work by a lot of savvy people.)

Let me be clear about what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am absolutely not suggesting that people who disagree with a position or a strategy shut up and go away. Civil disagreement and argumentation are always appropriate. The best decisions are made when different points of view are aired and a broad array of interests is at the table.

What I am saying is the obvious: there is constructive criticism and then there is bitching—and efforts to undermine those with whom you disagree, even when it makes achieving common goals more difficult.

There was a lot of that bitching and backbiting seventeen years ago. To regress to it now, when so much progress has been made, would be tragic.

In my most recent column for the Indianapolis Star, I reported on our city’s Pride celebration, and pointed to the immense progress that has been made since I began attending such events in 1992. As I put it,

“The crowd was huge, and broadly representative of the diversity of the gay community and those of us who support them. There were young people pushing strollers, old folks like us, and parents with teens. We saw doctors, lawyers and bankers—people who would have been terrified to attend seventeen years ago, when being “out” might mean losing a job—or worse, a family.

Today, when a quarter of the country’s population lives in states that recognize same-sex marriage or its functional equivalent, when polls show that people under thirty support gay civil rights by huge margins, the mood at events like Pride is less defiant and much more celebratory.”

All true. But when you are building a road to a desired destination, it is sometimes necessary to erect appropriate caution signs.

When I first got involved in activism on behalf of equal rights for the GLBT community, much of the community’s political outreach was—let me be kind here—dysfunctional. Most of the reasons for the personal agendas and petty backbiting were understandable, albeit terribly unhelpful, and not much different than behaviors exhibited by people in any marginalized community. (Fights over crumbs, for some reason, tend to be more vicious.) Other behaviors seemed more specific to the gay community.

It is, let’s be honest, a community with many very wounded people. One reason for that, I think, is that while other minority groups may be despised and subjected to discrimination, children in those groups at least grow up with role models. When I grew up Jewish in a small, non-too-tolerant Indiana town, I looked to my parents for clues about what it meant to be Jewish, and for positive reinforcement of my human value. Gays growing up in repressive communities have until very recently had no such models. As a consequence, a lot of GLBT youngsters grow into very needy adults—and needy adults seldom make good movement soldiers. They have trouble subordinating their personal agendas to the needs of the community.

The considerable progress that has been made over the past two decades is largely the result of a recognition of that reality by the gay community. In a very real way, and for a multitude of reasons, the activists in the community grew up. Ostensible disputes over strategy morphed into genuine disputes over strategy, rather than thinly veiled efforts to be important. It was an important turning point that made much of the subsequent progress possible.

So why am I saying we need to erect a “Caution” sign? Because here and there, there is evidence that some of the old dysfunction is resurfacing.

Look at what happened in California. If we are honest, the fight over Proposition 8 was the community’s to lose. Yes, the Mormon Church and others put up a lot of money, but as late as mid-October, polls showed that “No on Prop 8” was winning by a comfortable margin. But as the people involved readily admit, the discord and squabbling among the various gay rights groups charged with defeating Prop 8 got in the way of effective political action.

More recently, there have been some very unseemly charges and counter-charges echoing through gay cyberspace over action and inaction by the Obama administration. Disappointment is understandable, disagreement inevitable, but the shrillness of some of the arguments and accusations has been distinctly unhelpful.

Even in my local community, there have been persistent efforts by some bloggers to mischaracterize and undermine Indiana Equality, a coalition of gay advocacy organizations that has been very effective in bringing different perspectives to the table and advancing the cause of gay equality. (Indiana is one of the very few “bible buckle” states that did not pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage; preventing that passage wasn’t just luck. As someone who was privy to some of the strategic decisions involved, I can attest that it took a lot of hard work by a lot of savvy people.)

Let me be clear about what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am absolutely not suggesting that people who disagree with a position or a strategy shut up and go away. Civil disagreement and argumentation are always appropriate. The best decisions are made when different points of view are aired and a broad array of interests is at the table.

What I am saying is the obvious: there is constructive criticism and then there is bitching—and efforts to undermine those with whom you disagree, even when it makes achieving common goals more difficult.

There was a lot of that bitching and backbiting seventeen years ago. To regress to it now, when so much progress has been made, would be tragic.