Sometimes we don’t notice our victories until long after a battle has been won.  Over the last couple of years, gay marriage has secured territory most people didn’t even realize was contested, and its loss will be far more devastating to gay marriage opponents than their victories in all the court cases and all the elections in the world.

I’m talking about sweetness.

Our opponents demonize us — sometimes subtly, sometimes explicitly, but viciously and relentlessly.  Their chief weapon is sex – ours, not theirs — overlaid with a self-righteous piety that is funny when Dana Carvey does it, and wrongheaded no matter whose pursed lips it leaks out of.  But while everyone from the Pope on down has been focused on the inherent disorders and immorality of homosexual sex, another front in the gay rights battle opened up: Gay teenagers in love.

Read the rest here.

First:  Mississippi Prom Canceled after Lesbian’s Date Request – From USA today and nearly every other national Media outlet in the country.  This is a story about Constance McMillan of a small town in Mississippi that sought to bring her date, another girl, to the prom so she could be uncomfortable at the prom right along with everyone else.  The school board ended up denying her request and also, canceled the prom entirely to avoid having to allow her to bring her date.  Their position was that she was quite allowed to attend, just not with another woman.  With the FULL support of her parents, She and the ACLU sued the school board and yesterday a Federal judge ruled that Constance’s civil rights were violated and the school board acted inappropriately.  During all of this parents organized a “private” prom since the school was no longer going to have one.  Guess what, Constance was not invited.  This story is not over and you’ll hear more about it.

Second: Derrik Martin GOT the OK to bring his boyfriend to his prom in a little town in Georgia, the school board not really even discuss the matter only saying that they had no policy against it.  How did Derrick’s parents react to the news?  They swiftly kicked him out of the house.

There is one thing that I want to focus on here in both of these stories and that is the parents.  EVEN in 2010, parents all over this country continue to forcefully kick their children out of their house because their child had the self-confidence and courage to come out of the closet.  I bet you didn’t know that one of the largest groups of homeless youth’s are GLBT kids.  Throughout my life I have met a number of people who have not spoken to their parents since high school because their parents could not deal with their sexuality.  It really troubles me that this 18 year old senior, who is an honors student and already has a scholarship to a university in the fall now has to prepare for the next phase of his life with no support from his parents.  On the other hand Constance will not have the same issue.  She also is 18, an honors student and headed to collage in the fall with the full support and encouragement from her parents.  It should bother EVERYONE reading this blog when this sort of thing occurs.

I was pretty fortunate.  While I’m sure that my parents had to make adjustments in their thinking when I came out to them and I know that each of them had various concerns, not once did I ever have to deal with any of the coming out process without their support. Coming Out is a big deal, especially for a teenager.  50 years from now it might not be but even today, it still is.  Those of you that are straight will NEVER fully appreciate what it takes and what it means to come out and I say that with all due respect, it is simply not something you will ever experience.   I was 17 or 18 and I had written a lengthy letter through which I came out to my parents.  I spent a good 2 months writing that letter, and re-writing it and during that time I had built my own alliances with my friends in case things went the wrong way once I came up with the courage to give my parents that letter.  I had a place to stay if I had needed it, I had a support group of people outside of my own family if I needed it.  Well, I never needed to utilize any of that because while it did take some getting used to, my sexuality did not define my existence to my parents.  It was not a simple process for any of us but it was not an issue that would end our relationship or traumatize it beyond repair.  I was still their son and especially as a minor, they still understood that they had an obligation to put up with me until I was at least 18 or until I got out of high school.  They of course continued long after that and continue to support me today.  Derrick is never going to have that sort of support from his  parents and he’s at an age when honestly he might need it the most.  I know that was the case for me, I needed my parents more after high school than during it it seems.  His relationship has fundamentally changed because his parents are unable to accept their son for who he is.  It’s sad and it should upset you to know that this STILL occurs in this country in 2010.

So, the next time you are talking amongst your friends and one of them tells you they just kicked their kid out of the house because he was a queer and well Jebus just don’t like them queers you know, think long and hard about will happen to that kid and why your friend suddenly doesn’t love him or her anymore.  It should make you really question that friendship.

“I have described myself as being ‘gently eccentric’ and slightly different as a person just because I’ve had a very different set of influences growing up than anybody else in my peer group did. I think it’s important for somebody from a big, commercial movie series like Harry Potter and particularly because I am not gay or bisexual or transgendered. The fact that I am straight makes not a difference, but it shows that straight people are incredibly interested and care a lot about this as well.” - Daniel Radcliffe, speaking from the NYC headquarters of the LGBT teen suicide prevention hot-line The Trevor Project, for whom he has just made a promotional film.

15 years ago when I was in high school, there were no major Hollywood celebrities willing to step up to the plate and go to bat for me.  Those who did were on the fringes.  For me personally, I’m not sure it would had much of an influence in my life, I was never a big celebrity follower but here we have Harry Potter, entirely straight with a HUGE following, and willing to put his money where his mouth is.  The Trevor Project was founded not long after I got out of high school and there is a link to it on my sidebar here on this blog.  It’s one of the few charities that I’d consider making a donation to.  Perhaps you might as well.

Four Christians on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently enacted Hate Crimes Prevention Act, arguing that it seeks to criminalize deeply held religious beliefs that are in opposition to homosexuality.

Read Box Turtle Bulletin’s take on this story here.  Find out exactly the only thing these Christians must want.

This shit get’s old, luckily so are the people espousing this bile.

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said it was his personal belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

Now, I’m no army boy.  I have about as much interest in fighting a war as I do eating glass.  That said, with all my pacifist tendencies, I still will typically go out of my way to support those who are willing to risk their lives to defend the ideals of this country.  Granted, there are “just” wars and “unjust” wars but that is a political distinction not a practical one.  Regardless of the justification for wars in general, millions of individuals are called on by our government and by a deep sense of personal commitment to the ideals of this country to serve and protect that which we all cherish.  Freedom.  One of the great travesties of Bill Clinton’s time in office was the passage of “Don’t ask Don’t Tell”.  This, in effect, allowed openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces as long as they were not “out” and did nothing to suggest that they were gay.  If it was discovered they were gay or if they were forced out of the closet by a third party, no matter the reason, they could be discharged…. dishonorably.  Since it’s implementation nearly 17 years ago, between 12,000 and 20,000 GLBT soldiers have been discharged at a cost to tax payers well into the 10′s of millions, many of those kicked out were critical players in the wars this country is fighting, NONE of whom did anything wrong…except be gay.

The implementation of this policy was a big deal.  I was a senior in high school and it was a campaign issue for Bill Clinton.  He would be the first president I actually got to vote for and this “compromise” was, in retrospect, forced on him by bigoted homophobes within the ranks of the military.  It has always been a bad policy, even other major military countries have proven over and over again that allowing gays to serve openly is not an issue.

Finally we are seeing some progress towards repealing this law with hearings that started today.  The big thing out of this is that Joint Chief’s are on board with a repeal.  The question is not IF the policy will be repealed, it is simply a question of HOW it will be repealed.  That’s huge because it means that a repeal is a fact, not a pipe dream.  That they are debating only HOW to repeal the law and not WHY is important.  Stay tuned over the next several months for updates.

I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance.

The name is State Rep. Paul Scott, (R-Grand Blanc) and you all need to be sure that you don’t mark is little bubble in the election booth.  I don’t talk much about transgender issues primarily because it doesn’t really relate to me.  However they are the T in GLBT and part of broader Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Trans community.  An attack on one is an attack on all and I have lost most of my patience for political leaders who continue to prey on minorities in this state and in this country.  For Mr. Scott, the above “priority” made it to the top of his list of things he wants to accomplish.  Let’s make sure he doesn’t get that opportunity.  Perhaps we can start addressing some of the issues in the image below rather than worrying about whether or not the person in the stall next to you might have once had a penis.  The statistics below are only 3 years old and I can bet they’ve not changed much.

That being the case, at least for this trial, we will have to rely on courtroom reporters and sketch artists.  Due to time and space, I’m not posting much detail about the proceedings of this trial but it is all very interesting.  You can read summaries and transcripts via THIS web site if you are so inclined.  The general consensus at this point is that our side is kicking major ass and proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Prop 8 passed because of fear and hatred towards gays and lesbians.  That is only one aspect of what is trying to be proven but it is an important one because it introduces gays (if successful) as a suspect class at the federal level deserving of heightened scrutiny when it comes to equal treatment.  One of the things that marriage equality hinges on is this fact.  In every state that has found in favor of marriage equality, gays are seen in state law as a suspect class (in the same way that other protected minority groups are).  As a result of that classification, courts had to rule in favor of equality.  Anyhow, some of the arguments being presented are stunning.  The witnesses yesterday were quite insightful and provided lots of information.  It was history day which outlined decades of  discriminatory treatment towards gays and lesbians since the early part of the 20th century.  Today, they dove into social differences and similarities and did a very nice job illustrating that there are actually very few differences between gay couples and straight couples in so far as what they are seeking to accomplish through marriage.  There has been much discussion of the impact that marriage has on children and why marriage directly benefits children whether they are in gay or straight households.  There has also been strong emphasis on the fact that gay families with children DO exist and they are a reality whether people like that fact or not.

You all might be completely board with  this but it is gripping to me.  I should have been a historian or law librarian or something like that, I totally get into this stuff.  This trial, in effect, is putting homosexuality on trial, not just marriage equality.  It is establishing the patterns of discrimination towards gays through the years, it is debunking the religious arguments, it is, in my opinion, going to be one of the most important trials of the decade and it has the potential to have big ramifications for equality.

I finally have a day off tomorrow so I’ll be doing lunch with the folks and then getting things straightened up around the house.  Work is draining right now, not much going on at all.

You all know that I don’t write just for my audience, this blog is nearly 3 years old now and I’ve used it for a number of reasons to document the times that we are all living in.  Yes, it does have a slant towards issues that are important to me and it should, after all, I pay money each month for web space to do with whatever I want.  More importantly though, this blog is my way of being politically active, regardless of the fact that nearly all my readers share most of my views, it’s likely that I will say something or even post something from elsewhere that you had not seen before or perhaps never considered.  I consider this blog my history book, something that I can go back to in 20 years and understand what it meant to be living in 2010!

Anyhow, I’m re-posting the opening statement below for you to read.  It lays out exactly what this trial will be about, what is at stake, who is involved, and why it is important.  I will post more as time permits and as the trial develops.

Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Prop 8 Trial as Prepared

The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 began today with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

After the opening statement David Boies gave the direct examination of Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami.

OPENING STATEMENT
(as prepared)

This case is about marriage and equality.  Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.

In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America.  It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union.  It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community.  The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”

Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.

___________________________________

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.

The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to equality and due process under our Constitution.  They are in deeply committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships.  They want to marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.

But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.

In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to “second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

I

MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE

Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers on couples, their families, and the community.  Proponents cannot dispute these basic facts.

While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past.  Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated.  These changes have come from legislatures and the courts.  Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.

II

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose:  to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry.  The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.”  That is a cruel fiction.

Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying.  And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union.  Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same as traditional marriage.  Proponents proudly proclaim that, under Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”

This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their families.  It increases the likelihood that they will experience discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.

Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals.  They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote.  Although progress has occurred, the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.

III

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON

Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for exclusion from the institution of marriage.  In California, even convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry.  As the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always have been, fully contributing members of our society.   And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.

The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens.  And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists.  And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.

“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children.   Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.

Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California.  The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals.  The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.

And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples.  Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination.  In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry.  Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens:  (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008,  who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.

There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination.  Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest.  All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored.  And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples.  It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.

It is unconstitutional.

So on to the reason for this post.  For those of you not following, there is a trial starting next week that has the potential (regardless of the outcome) to change the game entirely on Marriage Equality.  This is the Prop. 8 trial in California that was brought by 2 very high profile attorneys who were previously known for arguing the trial concerning the 2000 Presidential election.  Anyhow, I’m posting a link that details why this trial is so important.  Here is a snip:

All four senators spoke around this point, saying that the voters should decide.  Sen. Doherty was insistent that this wasn’t about prejudice, it was about “process.”  But, again, that’s not an argument.  Of course voters have voted down equality for same-sex couples, in many cases actually changing their state constitutions to clarify that same-sex couples are not entitled to equality.  But the rejection of a constitutional principle for a very small minority, a principle that is generally applicable to everyone in the majority, is not only not the solution to the problem being presented, it is, itself, the problem which the equal protection clause was supposed to address.  Why would an equal protection clause be necessary if it was only there to protect the majority?

The Prop. 8 case will be addressing that question head-on, and the witnesses opposing same-sex marriage will have to present the kind of arguments that the New Jersey senators were not obligated to offer.  The question is a focused one: What justification does the government have for treating same-sex couples and opposite sex couples differently in light of the fact that the federal constitution does include a provision that explicitly says all citizens should be treated equally under the law?

Read the entire story here

The context of this article pertains to the fact that again and again and as witnessed in NJ, opponents of marriage equality are refusing to publicly state WHY they are opposed to it.  They are dancing around questions, changing the subject, and any number of other political tactics to AVOID the real question at hand.  Their arguments, as can be derived through a very basic understanding of  CIVIL law have no merit.   Whether this trail secedes or not is almost not as important as creating this forum that will force opponents of marriage equality to SPECIFICALLY state the reasons for their views and SUPPORT them with evidence, under oath, and in public which is something more and more of them are either having a very hard time doing or they refuse to do so at all.  This will be the sort of trial that books are written about, again regardless of the outcome, because it pertains to a clause in the Constitution that is so critically important to our mere existence.  IF the civil rights of minorities do not matter, why is there an equal protection clause in the constitution?  You’ve got to study this a bit deeper folks, you need to know the case law behind it, the precedents (specifically that marriage IS in fact a civil right in the first place).  More importantly, you’ve simply GOT to come up with a better argument than the “because God says so” meme.  There will be plenty more on this over the next several months.

Meanwhile, I’m off for the weekend, going to relax a bit and listen to Lala.com.

So, looking back, I can only imagine how my life might have been changed by having a visibly ”out”  gay teacher, or some other well adjusted gay adult figure in my life.  Even in the early 90′s the images of gays that I was constantly being fed were either the stereotype, lispy, nelly man (think Will and Grace) or the perhaps “out” gay man who was lonely, confused, and spiritually dead.  The later was certainly the image my CRC/Calvinist teachers wanted their students to have of gay people, they just laughed at the former.  Human sure, but deeply flawed.

So the article below might represent a shift in attitudes yet again as we enter a new decade.  I’ve been out of high school now for 16 years and a lot can change and a lot IS vastly different now for kids than it was when I was 16 years old.  There are very prominent role models now that are openly gay, from sports figures, to politicians, to successful entrepreneurs.  The climate is entirely different now with 5 states that permit gay marriage and even forceful discussion about repealing the military Don’t ask Don’t Tell policy which by the way is now is getting a lot of traction due to the public’s overwhelming support of repealing that law.  It’s a world where I can go into a very male oriented workplace and not be at all concerned for my safety or my reputation.  In short it’s entirely different.  The game has changed completely.

Dutch Christian schools start teaching respect and empathy for gays

I have become convinced that pretending homosexuality doesn’t exist is not an option. …It does exist.  Gay teachers work at each of the four Reformed schools and there are students with homosexual feelings.  We want these students have a good school experience, they are allowed to exist.
– Huib van Leeuwen, President of the Reformed Schools committee

The world is indeed a different place today than it was just 10 years ago, even more so it is a vastly different place than it was 20-30 years ago.  That’s a good thing and it’s a welcome thing.  As a gay man today, I am not asking for your approval but I am asking that you acknowledge my existence as a human being, just like you, and that I am allowed to exist and live my life free of your ideological interference.

I’m awfully tired of this sort of thing.  Honestly I don’t really care if you are against gays having legal recognition but I REALLY care that you actually have some sort of argument to support your position.  It’s like kid asking a parent why you can’t do something and a parent telling you “BECAUSE I SAID SO”.  That might work for 10 year old but it’s a bullshit argument when directed adult to adult.  The gay marriage argument badly needs to head in a new direction and I’ve said this on my blog here before, I want to see the religion aspect of the entire debate put to rest.  Marriage in this country is not, has not ever been, nor will it EVER be anything other than a CIVIL contract provided by a SECULAR government.  What your church or your religion thinks about marriage is entirely irrelevant to the business of our government.  You can hoot and holler all you want but it simply is not an argument that you can justifiably take which is why at this point in time the best thing gays have going for them is the federal lawsuit involving DOMA.  That’s way more than I’m writing about now but this whole thing is going to get a whole lot uglier in this country before it gets any better and now is the time to figure out what you believe to be true.

From my perspective this is certainly an interesting time to be alive.  I’m too young to know much about the civil rights struggles of the 60′s but I’m old enough now to know and understand the parallels that exist.  I fully expect to see full equality in my lifetime but I’m not so naive to believe that it will be soon.

Arkansas 10-Year-Old Won’t Pledge Allegiance Until Gays Gain Equality

A 10-year-old Arkansas boy name Will Phillips has decided that he cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag as long as the country for which it stands refuses legal equality to its GLBT citizens.

READ MORE….

I found the list below from a post at Pam’s House Blend.  It’s interesting to me because it does provide some perspective on how a GLBT person experiences life .  It includes political judgements, thoughts on stereotypes and a run down of things that people who are not in my shoes tend to take for granted.  The one thing I don’t like about this list is that it assumes that things are not changing.  I think attitudes are changing, and they are changing rather quickly.  I encounter bits and pieces of homophobia every day in my life, much of it at work and much of it as unintentional (I think) as comments about race and religion.  I am not ‘out and proud’ at work even though I could be and it wouldn’t cause much of an issue.  I’ve always believed that my own sexuality is not relevant to my job.  I’m not getting paid to influence you on my personal life or change your opinions and attitudes towards my sexuality.  I simply do not choose to discuss my personal life in much detail with my co-workers.  That can make me a bit of a mystery to people but I sort of enjoy that.  That is not to say however that I lie about my sexuality.  If a coworker were to ask me tomorrow if I was gay, I would not lie to them.  What advantage do I have in being dishonest?  The fact of the matter is, my personal life is simply not relevant to my professional life.  People know that, and I just don’t get asked those sorts of things at work.  Anyhow, I said that because I do feel that by not actively confronting homophobia and stereotypes in conversation with random people, it perpetuates them and it allows them to continue.  More and more, we are seeing people confront these inequities in more and more situations.  Change is happening, even if not as fast as some would like.  If you are heterosexual, think about some of these statements and how they play into your own perception of reality and daily interactions with people.  I’ve highlighted the problem statments that I encounter most often and feel the most often from other people.  These I feel are the most important to change so as to allow some normalcy to the GLBT community.

Here is a list called Heterosexual Privilage from a post at Pam’s House Blend:

On a daily basis as a straight person…

• I can be pretty sure that my roomate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
• If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.
• When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
• I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
• I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE fag tag or smear the queer).
• I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.
• I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
• I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
• I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.
• People don’t ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.
• People don’t ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.
• I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family.  It’s assumed.
• My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.
• People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.
• I don’t have to defend my heterosexuality.
• I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.
• I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.
• I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.
• Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.
• I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
• My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.
• I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
• I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.
• If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.
• Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.
• I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in the Earlham curriculum, faculty, and administration.
• I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
• I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.
• I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
• I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
• I can go for months without being called straight.
• I’m not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
• My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
• In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation.  For example, sex inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.
• People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.
• I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in the cafeteria without being watched and stared at.
• Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.
• People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE “straight as an arrow”, “standing up straight” or “straightened out”) instead of demeaning terms (IE “ewww, that’s gay” or being “queer”).
• I am not asked to think about why I am straight.
• I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.

I’ve done a fair amount of thinking about what the gay rights movement means to me over the years.  When I came out in High School, it was about rebellion more than it was about acknowledging some inborn trait.  It’s pretty safe to say that I knew I was gay early on in life but like lots of other kids my age, it was a game of denial and lies until maturity caught up with me in late high school and I decided I didn’t give a shit anymore.  There was no way I was going to let on to anyone, even my folks, that I was different in “that way” from anyone else when I was 13 or 14.  I was a pretty different kid to begin with but I didn’t need that issue compounding on to my already complicated life.  By the time I was a Senior in High School though I had kept it quiet for long enough.  Being a young adult, I wanted to be a part of something like every other kid does at that age.  I had formed an accepting group of friends and it was not at all difficult to come out to any of them, some where surprised, but most were not.  It was my turn to decide for myself how the rest of my life was going to go and I decided that my sexuality was not going to be some scary secret.  I didn’t want to have to hide my relationships from the people I cared about, I didn’t want to be scared of who I was and I wasn’t going to lie to myself or anyone else and I decided at 17 to make that statement and haven’t looked back since.  Imagine if you will growing up gay pre-stonewall.  If you were out, you were lucky if you made it to your 35th birthday without significant scars.  All that’s not to say that I don’t know when to keep my mouth shut.  My judgment about people has not failed me yet.

So, what does all that have to do with anything?  Everyone on the Earth has strong desires to be a part of something.  You do, my friends do, and certainly I do as well.  Every one of us can think of events from the past that have shaped us into the people we have become today.  Young kids today hear about Stonewall and ask what the hell is that?  For gay kids today their big event is Don’t ask Don’t tell from Clinton, or more recently Matthew Sheppard.  Kids today don’t know about the impact HIV/AIDS had on the GLBT population in the 80′s and few recognize Reagen’s failure to act on that crisis sooner, they don’t know that gay relationships were illegal in all 50 states until just a few years ago!  That’s ancient history to them.  To an extent it is to me as well but those events shaped not just my views but the views of my parents and others close to me.  I’ve lived thus far during an era of exponential growth in freedom for gay people.  What has been achieved is substantial in this country in such a short period of time and it’s that short time frame that says to me people know what’s right and what’s wrong.  People know that denying one group of people the freedom to be who they are is wrong.  People know that when you hold one person down from being that one exceptional person, our whole country suffers.  The process can be slow but in comparison with other movements by other minorities, gay rights have been swift and decisive.  I’m proud to play a part in this movement.  I’m proud to know that by simply acknowledging who I am, I can change people’s minds.

Lest we forget, history has a tendency to repeat itself…sometimes over, and over, and over again.  GLBT equality is not the only equality fight left out there.  Other people are oppressed and stigmatized every day for all kinds of things that can not be changed about themselves.  We must all be conscious of the things that make us different but we all must recognize what makes us the same.  I hate using quotes to make a point but I’ll leave you with this as we approach the 4th of July.  It relates directly to my writing and to what we still have to accomplish:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

- Thomas Jefferson

This country has a long way to go yet when it comes to equality for EVERYONE but we are all on the right track.  Time, patience, and perseverance are the key elements towards that pursuit of happiness we all want in life.

A same-sex couple and their three foster children were denied a reduced admission price to a pool in eastern Idaho because the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation says the five don’t fit the definition of a family.

Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood say they and their three children were recently denied the resort’s advertised family admission price.

Mark Lowe, executive director for the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation, says the state doesn’t recognize gay or lesbian marriage and defines a family as one male, one female and children.

He says as a state agency the foundation must follow Idaho law.

Not surprising and actually this would appear to be fairly common.  I would like to know if Idaho also denies family rates to single mothers (or dad’s) or grandparents raising children, or parents without marriage licenses (common law marriages) etc.  Smells like some bullshit here, they have a lot of buffalo in Idaho don’t they?

Teacher Joseph Quigley of Northwest Classen High School in Oklahoma City, who is also gay, found  himself at a termination hearing recently. School Board Superintendent Karl Springer’s recommended the termination of Quigley, who has been with the school district since 1994, because “he wasn’t following plans for improvement and didn’t obey administrative directives.”

Quigley’s attorneys say otherwise:

“The attempt to fire Mr. Quigley, a career teacher with a stellar record, appears to be driven by some administrators after he advocated for better protections for gay and lesbian students. The legal counsel for OKCPS has relied on trumped up and exaggerated charges to make the case for his dismissal. In fact, Mr. Quigley was the subject of harassment and false charges merely because of his advocacy for gay and lesbian students and/or the fact that he is gay.”

MetroStar News, an Oklahoma LGBT newspaper, reports that Quigley received consistent high marks on his evaluations for a decade — that clearly doesn’t indicate someone was unhappy with his performance in the classroom.What did Quigley “do wrong” in the eyes of the school? Perhaps this sheds some light on the matter:

He stated that the administration “singled him out, applied a double standard, micromanaged him and has instituted a relentless scorched earth policy to get rid of him.” He also pointed out that it wasn’t until after 2007 that his evaluations showed him to be substandard, when Ms. Walling became his evaluator. It was clarified that his evaluations suddenly went down after 2006 , after Joe advocated the inclusion of “sexual orientation” among the groups listed in the Student Handbook to be protected from harassment and bullying.

Here we go. More advocates for the beating of LGBT youth, because, of course, in Oklahoma they deserve it — and the advocate, needs to suffer consequences as well. Quigley and his attorneys are considering taking his case to the federal court.What’s really sad is that Oklahoma is in a race to top of the wingnuttery charts. It  was the only state that had no Blue counties in this past election, and voters in that state managed to turn Oklahoma even more Republican. Its LGBT and reality-based citizens pay the price;  this should be a reality check to LGBTs out there who are in deep Blue states with a host of civil rights and the luxury to focus on marriage equality. People in deep Red states are in the bullseye of the bigots with limited support from allies, national orgs (and elected officials practically MIA).

Recent events in California have again brought the issue of same sex marriage to the forefront of the ‘culture wars’.  2 very well known lawyers have decided that the time is right to bring a constitutional case for gay marriage to the US Supreme Court under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.  The lawyers you will remember from Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and both are from completely opposite sides of the political spectrum.  Each of them however believe firmly in the guarantees put out by our Constitution.  A portion of their press release is below.  Click HERE to read the full release.

Ted Olson: Thank you, Chad. Good morning everyone. Thank you for being here.

I’m Ted Olson, and I’m very, very pleased to be here with my friend and colleague, David Boies. As you heard, we are two lawyers from opposite ends of the political spectrum who have come together to support one of the most important issues of our time. The case we filed on behalf of the individuals that you see before you today is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We’re here, in part, to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution.

For too long, gay men and lesbians who seek stable, committed, loving relationships within the institution of marriage have been denied that fundamental right that the rest of us freely enjoy.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court said that Proposition 8 makes it okay for gay men and lesbians to be our neighbors, our friends, our doctors, our lawyers, our parents, our children, our brothers and our sisters, but they can’t get married.

The plaintiffs in this case are Americans. They work hard, they pay their taxes and they want to get married just like many of the rest of us. They simply want to live their lives without being discriminated against by their government. All they want are the freedoms to which they are entitled under the constitution and to which the rest of us so freely enjoy.

Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple. The constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it. Our nation was founded on the principle that all Americans are created equal. This case is about ensuring that every American is treated equally under the law.

California has created a separate relationship for same sex couples called Domestic Partnerships. That is separate, and that is not equal. It is unconstitutional. Proposition 8 denies people fundamental constitutional rights.

Our courts exist to protect people when their rights are infringed. Citizens of this country, when they’re denied equal rights, turn to the courts for vindication of those rights. That is why we have them.

We’re going to court because people shouldn’t have to surrender their fundamental rights to a popular plebiscite. People should not have to beg to be treated equally, or wait for decades for popular approval to be treated equally. And when people are denied their rights, they deserve a remedy, and the courts are the most direct way to accomplish that.

Now I would like to introduce my dear colleague and dear friend, David Boies.

David Boies: Thank you Ted. It’s a pleasure to be here. I must say that being up here on a platform with Ted Olson and all these lights makes me want to urge everybody to count every vote. [Laughter.] But we are here today for something that is of equal and perhaps even greater importance. Our constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law. There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love and to raise a family.

The courts exist to reverse injustices. The purpose of our constitution and the purpose of our court system is to make sure that the promise of our constitution is extended to every American. That’s what this lawsuit is about.

The concept of equality, of equal rights and equal justice under the law, is not just in our constitution. I believe it is in the hearts and souls of every American. And we have tolerated discrimination and injustice in the past because we have been blinded to the fact that the person being discriminated against is simply another human being, another American. That blindness has enabled us historically not to recognize the equality of people based on sex, based on race, based on religion, and now based on sexual orientation.

This lawsuit is about the courts saying that no matter how blind people may be, the constitution guarantees that everyone deserves the equal rights that every human being is entitled to. And we go to court because that is the place that those equal rights have been established time and again over the last hundred years. Thank you.

The full press release is worth reading as it addresses some important concerns, chief among them the fact that nearly every major GLBT organization believes that now is not the right time for this case to be brought.  That there are simply not enough states on board yet and public opinion is simply not at the critical mass needed to win this sort of case.  While I’m inclined to believe that point and I’ve said before that I think the courts ought to stay out of this fight at least while there is momentum in state legislatures to change the system, I do agree with the points that these lawyers are making.  Why should I have to wait years for a civil right that has previously been acknowledged in MY constitution?  There is no question that there is a civil right to marriage in this country.  The question is whether or not that right can be denied to a specific group of people for any specific reason.  It is at this point that Americans must make a decision.  Are gay relationships similar to straight relationships or are they fundamentally different?  Is being gay at all a normal human variance (science says it is) or is being gay a choice (as religion seems to think it is).  Those questions are polar opposites but they are fundamental in framing this debate.

Anyhow, I’m not sure yet how I lean on this new federal lawsuit.  I’ll be interested in reading the briefs when they are filed to see exactly what is being challenged.  I’m inclined to believe that people should never have to wait for civil rights in this country while at the same time, this lawsuit has the potential to be lost which would mean a major set back in the gay rights movement.  We are talking years of progress that could be dismantled over night.  I’m not sure I’m ready to see all that ground lost.  Stay tuned for more posts like this.  I have very few other things going on in my life outside of work and following this issue and writing about it keeps my brain functioning.

LOS ANGELES – Following the California Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold Prop. 8, which stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry, Equality California (EQCA) vowed to win marriage back at the ballot box. EQCA released the following statement as well as a memo to members and allies detailing its recommendations to return to the ballot in 2010.Statement from Marc Solomon, EQCA’s Marriage Director:

“Today’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot.

“Despite today’s setback, Equality California is committed to restoring the freedom to marry.  We believe, as do the majority of our members, that 2010 is the best time to return to the ballot to repeal Prop. 8. We must take full advantage of the momentum and commitment people now have to do the work required on the ground. However, we will make the final decision on when to return in collaboration with our coalition partners and allies throughout the state.

“We have already launched a mobilization campaign to reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days in places where we need the most movement-Los Angeles County, San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Sacramento, and over the coming weeks we will expand our efforts with our partners and tens of thousands of volunteers.

“We do not underestimate the challenge of implementing a strong ballot campaign. Introducing ballot language is simple; winning an affirmative referendum on the freedom to marry will be difficult and expensive. But we have confidence that we can and will prevail.

“We look forward to working with our coalition partners to make a final decision on when to return to the ballot and to putting together one powerful, winning campaign program to ensure that committed, same-sex couples are once again able to enjoy the dignity and protections that marriage provides.”

To read the entire memo detailing arguments for 2010 versus 2012, please visit www.eqca.org/2010v2012memo

This is not the end of the fight, both sides know it.  By 2012 at the latest, it’s very likely that a campaign to repeal this amendment would succeed especially considering that the current amendment passed by only a very slim margin.  As I’ve said in previous posts, it is ALWAYS 1 step forward, 2 steps back.  Gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime, it’s only a matter of time.