Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts

Sunday, June 28, 2015

A (Partial) History of Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage. Nothing new.
Same-sex couples may now marry in all fifty states, and people are beginning work on histories of the marriage-equality movement.[1] I hope that these histories go back far enough. There is a stark difference between this history of same-sex marriage and the history of same-sex marriage in the United States.

When I was listening the Obergefell hearing, I was not particularly surprised that several justices brought up the question of whether there were historical examples of same-sex marriage. I actually think this line of questioning was profoundly irrelevant. We can find plenty of historical examples, and even contemporary ones, for things that are prohibited by the constitution. I don’t need to go deep into history to find examples of the suppression of freedom of speech. Just as a lack of freedom of speech in other places and times says nothing of our rights, a lack (or even existence) of same-sex marriage in history would say nothing about whether or not it was part of basic human liberty.



You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Friday, June 26, 2015

Marriage Equality — At Last!

Let freedom ring!
I’ve been waiting a long time for this! I’ve been arguing in favor of same-sex marriage for more than twenty years. When California authorized domestic partnerships, I saw them as half a loaf (or maybe even less, given the limited rights initially granted, though even this was better than the almost completely symbolic domestic partnerships that the city of Laguna Beach offered in the early 90s).

Opposition to marriage equality came from not only those who sought to roll back gay rights, but also from those who, though in favor of gay rights, were either opposed to marriage itself, or felt that the gay community should be pursuing other goals. If you had asked me in 1995 if employment protections or marriage equality were more achievable, I would have said, “no doubt about it, employment.” I’ve seen arguments that we should have gone for ENDA. Employment protections are important, but during the same time that Obergefell moved through the courts, the Republicans have been in control of Congress. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act has no chance of budging in a Republican-controlled Congress. In other words, if all our efforts for marriage equality in the last five years had been applied to employment non-discrimination for LGBT people, we’d be in the same place on employment, and still not have marriage equality.


You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

“Speak Now” — Well Spoken

Read now!
I’d like to start with belated congratulations to Professor Kenji Yoshino for his marriage (truly belated; he married in 2009). The day Speak Now arrived at my door, my husband and I were watching Professor Yoshino on the The Rachel Maddow Show, where he was discussing the (then) upcoming Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage with Steve Kornacki (who was subbing). I made a comment about two gay men watching two gay men talk about same-sex marriage.

“Is Yoshino gay?” I noted that he was. “Is he married?” That I didn’t know, although I opened my copy of Speak Now and read as far as the dedication to Ron Stoneham. Perhaps? I didn’t need to read further than page 1 to find out the answer. Yoshino and Stoneham married in 2009. They have two children. In of themselves, they embody the sort of people that lawyers for marriage equality might want to have as plaintiffs, a point that he brings up in his book.

Speak Now has the longer title of Speak Now; Marriage Equality on Trial; The Story of Hollingsworth v. Perry (shades of the eighteenth-century long title, because that is a long title), but in addition to being the story of Hollingsworth v. Perry, it contains a lot of biographical information about Kenji Yoshino, bringing to mind the old adage, “the personal is political.” That Yoshino made Speak Now personal, even though he was not personally involved in the Perry trial in any way is something that gives the book much of its power.



You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Dare Defend the Right to Marry in Alabama

As in 1865,
surrender is the honorable option
If, even a few months ago, I had tried to come up with a list of states that would have marriage equality before a Supreme Court ruling granting it to all,[1] Alabama wouldn’t have made it onto that list. But here we are.

On February 9, 2015, Alabama became the thirty-eighth state to permit same-sex marriage, though like two other states, Kansas and Missouri, that right is not being respected uniformly through the state.[2] That gives us thirty-five states (and the District of Columbia) were same-sex couples can marry, three states where they can get married in some parts, and twelve states where same-sex couples cannot marry.



You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Judicial Wisdom on the Law of God

I'm sorry, judge, but Mithras disagrees with you.
This one’s a little out of turn. I tend to like to post things in connection with the date they appeared in the paper, and this appeared on April 6, but it seemed so current that I figured why wait until April (when it might not be quite as pertinent).

It’s a little bit of judicial wisdom on the intersection of the civil law and people’s religious beliefs, the sort of thing we’re seeing right now. We’ve got the Latter Day Saints proposing a ban on discrimination against gay people with a loophole so large that anyone could get through it. If people can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodation, hiring, or housing, except when their religion tells them they should, gay people are protected from discrimination from anyone who actually wouldn’t discriminate against gay people. Protection from those who would discriminate? Not so much.


You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Je Suis Encore Charlie

Tous les jours
In the aftermath of the shootings at Charlie Hebdo came the wave of people saying “Je suis Charlie.” I was one of them. Bill Donahue was not, instead blaming the murders on the cartoonists. I initially allowed myself the self-congratulatory view that more of us were Charlie than not, but as the stories unfolded and people had time to reflect, they started announcing that they were not Charlie, and neither were you. I say fuck that.

I’m not much of a provocateur as a writer; I admit that freely. My work never verges into the pornographic. I don’t engage in scatalogical humor.[1] I don’t mock religion. The most fervent responses I got were when I proposed that certain word choices in the Esperanto translation of the Bible indicate that Zamenhof either used Christian sources, or his translation was subsequently altered by the organization which prints it.[2] I doubt the Ido community is about to call for my head over my statements about the birth of that language.[3]

One line of reasoning is that we are not Charlie Hebdo because we do not engage in their level of provocation. That comes dangerously close to blaming the victims. Oh, if you only hadn’t been quite so provocative. We’re saying “fuck that,” remember? Maybe my voice will never get provocative. Or maybe a piece I write down the road really pisses someone off. Am I Charlie then?

In the New Yorker, Teju Cole brought up the example of the neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, a right which was protected by the ACLU.
The extreme offensiveness of the marchers, absent a particular threat of violence, was not and should not be illegal. But no sensible person takes a defense of those First Amendment rights as a defense of Nazi beliefs.
But I’ve taken part in marches that counter-protesters thought were extremely offensive (yes, this middle-aged gay man has marched in Gay Pride parades[4]). I’ve walked past people who were screaming hate and obscenities because I was exercising my civil rights. Sure, my beliefs are on the side of increased liberty, freedom, equality, and self-determination. It’s easy to endorse me and my beliefs, but to many of those counter-protestors, I was probably indistinguishable from a Neo-Nazi.

I have been willing to be provocative, though never (in my not so humble opinion) for the sake of provocation. I can think of two occasions when people defending bans on same-sex marriage used arguments that could have been applied in support of neighborhood exclusions of blacks and Jews. Yeah, I went there. It felt good. On one of those occasions, I prefaced my remarks with “to begin, you’re full of shit, and speaking from a place of heterosexual privilege.”[5] I just haven’t done anything like that on this blog. Yet.[6]

David Brooks said that he wasn’t Charlie Hebdo, and that’s his right. But when he says that:
Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others.
I think of the times when gay people were mocked for even thinking they might seek equality. I think that was yesterday. (Actually, over on his blog, Rod Dreher was writing in defense of the former Atlanta fire chief who wrote a book comparing gay people to pedophiles and those who have sex with animals. It’s not all that clear whether Dreher disavows that view or considers it an “orthodox Christian view.” Dreher even titled his blog post “NYT: ‘Je Suis Charlie Hedbo Homo.’” Hi-lar-i-ous.)

Others have realized that they had been the target of Charlie Hebdo’s mockery. Bill Donahue didn’t forget it for a moment, remembering that the magazine was against Catholic authoritarianism. So he badmouthed the dead on CNN, then on Fox, and when a fellow conservative called him on it, did not back down. When conservatives walked back their initial support for Charlie Hebdo, I was disappointed, but not surprised. They are the crowd that feels that freedom needs to come with limitations, if not for them, then for me and you. Fine, they are not Charlie Hebdo, but I am not going to listen to them when they say that I am not either.

One commentator noted that for all our statements of support, it’s not as if Americans are going to be subscribing to the magazine. I looked on Amazon: it’s $181.39 per year. That’s a lot of cash to lay out for showing one’s support of freedom of expression. There must be a better way. Yet, the next time I’m in France, I’ll make a note to buy a copy. Just because. But no, I can stand behind the right of the creators of Charlie Hebdo to express themselves and still say that it’s too damn expensive to get a print copy of a French magazine.

It’s been a week since the shootings at Charlie Hebdo. A couple days after, despite my general lack of illustration skills, I sketched out a (mediocre) illustration of a bearded wearing a turban, holding a pencil, and saying, “Je suis Charlie.” It was the obvious illustration, still, I was a little disappointed when I found that it has been executed by a competent illustrator for the January 14 issue. You bastards stole my idea!

In a way, the great, tragic joke of it all was that the murderers would have done a better job of whipping Charlie Hebdo away if they had done nothing. The magazine was going under financially. Their fundraising appeal had gone flat. Had the murderers kicked back in that park in the Seventeenth Arrondissement, Charlie Hebdo probably would have folded before too long. Now? There’s no way the French will let Charlie Hebdo fold now. Now it’s a symbol of freedom.

Let us not forget January 7. When it comes around again, let’s not look back and wonder why we shrugged off supporting freedom of expression. Let’s remember that this is one of our great values. No one should have to worry that they’re being too provocative. No one’s religion deserves a veto over other people’s lives.[7] If you think your religion allows you to shut other people up, you’re doing it wrong. If you think gay people getting married tramples on your religion, you’re doing it wrong.[3]

Not just on January 7, but all year round: Je suis Charlie. Je suis encore Charlie. Je suis toujours Charlie. Je suis Charlie dans mon coeur.

#JeSuisCharlie


  1. Though I do love a good dirty joke.  ↩
  2. You make no friends telling Esperantists that you think Zamenhof made a bad translation.  ↩
  3. Et aussi, tu es con. And you’re an asshole too.  ↩
  4. Film at 11.  ↩
  5. There are people whose lack of concern over same-sex marriage seems to be directly related to being straight, hence it doesn’t interfere with anything they want to do. Standard conservative lack of empathy.  ↩
  6. The blog is only eight months old. Give me time.  ↩
  7. Islam? Who the fuck is talking about Islam? I’m talking about those asshole Christian conservatives whose want us to think that if same-sex couples get married, baby Jesus is going to poop his diaper. Yeah, let’s write a big, ugly exception to equal protection under the law so that Christians get to legally discriminate against gay people in all states, instead of just lots of them. (This gives me the idea for another post.)  ↩

You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Monday, June 30, 2014

A Scout Is ... Mindful of Civl Rights

Is there a merit badge for equality?
I never thought I'd see this.

I opened up the New York Times this morning over breakfast and was surprised to see that a group of Boy Scouts had marched in New York's Pride parade (now I'm ever more bummed out that I missed it). I know that I would have been cheering loudly had I been there, since I was a Boy Scout when I was in my teens.

In the late 70s, gay scouts were simply unthinkable. I don't think there were any fifteen-year olds in America who were willing to be out to their peers. Of course, this was the era of Aaron Fricke, who gained some fame by attempting to bring a male date to his prom in 1980. I'm the same age as Fricke, and was fascinated by the news stories at the time. But Fricke was a rarity in those days. (And his home town was three times the size of mine.)


You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Same-Sex Marriage at Ten

The New York TImes has been looking at same-sex marriage, as it turns ten in the United States. Ten years ago, on May 23, 2004, the Times published their first announcements of same-sex marriage ceremonies. In today’s paper, they looked at the five couples whose marriage announcements were in that 2004 edition of the newspaper. (I’m going to guess that they would have preferred to run this article back in May, but had trouble getting hold of someone.)

Ten years later, four of those couples are still together. The one that divorced was, ironically, the most famous of all. I have long suspected that Hillary and Julie Goodridge, the plaintiffs in Massachusetts, realized their relationship was over before the end of the court case, but also knew that if they broke up, it would render the case moot. They had gone on too far to say, “oh, we’ve decided we don’t care to get married after all, so just forget the whole thing.”


You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Marriage Equality in the U.S. — The Current Summary

Yesterday, a friend asked me a question about marriage equality lawsuits, but I didn't have an answer at my fingertips. In order to clear things up, some numbers:

0 - This is the number of states that do not have marriage equality, a court decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage, or an active court case that seeks to overturn a ban on marriage equality.

20 - This is the number of states with marriage equality. The latest addition is Wisconsin. It seems unlikely that Judge Crabb will be issuing a stay. The jurisdictions, in order, are:

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire (yeah, New England), District of Columbia, New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. (I'm putting California in the post-Prop 8 position.)


You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Friday, May 2, 2014

First step to same-sex marriage in Indiana?

Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage has hit the courts, but don't rush to plan your wedding there. Today there was a hearing on the case claiming that Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Each side called for a summary judgement, claiming that the facts were so clearly in their favor that the judge should automatically rule in their favor.

Of course, it's the first step in many a lengthy legal fight. "My opponent has no case; please save us the trouble and rule in my favor now." Although the judge could find for either or neither side, the Lafayette Journal and Courier notes that Judge Richard L. Young earlier "hinted that the couple were likely to succeed in having Indiana's gay marriage ban declared unconstitutional."

Even if he so rules, Indiana will be appealing to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.


You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

The times they are a'changing...for gay people

I never knew I was supposed to have a lair.

But William Saletan over at Slate quotes Russell More of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious liberty Commission that evangelicals
spoke, for instance, about the "gay agenda," in which there was this picture, almost as though there is a group of super-villains in a lair, plotting somewhere the downfall of the family
Do I get an evil chortle too? How about henchmen. There must be henchmen.

Saletan thinks that religious conservatives are about to moderate their views on gay people. Oh, I don't think we'll be getting Moore marching in the next Pride parade, but he might be less inclined to champion restrictions on the rights of gay people.

Saletan also quotes Cornelius Plantinga of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, who says that people now "think of criticism of homosexual acts as sinful."

Currently, many religious conservative are claiming that an opposition to gay people is essential to Christianity. However, Saletan pointed out yesterday,
Fundamentalists, contrary to their reputation, are pretty good at ditching unsustainable positions. Moore demonstrated this during the Q-and-A when he declared young-Earth creationism "not essential to evangelicalism."
On the other hand, they just push it forward to the idea that we are all descended from an original pair of humans.

Today, Saletan continues on the theme with the question, "Are Conservative Christians the New Queers?" In this piece, he again quotes Russell Moore, this time saying that
Christianity, even in some of its most basic claims, is going to seem strange, is going to seem freakish.
Given the actual percentage of the population that describes itself as Christian, I think we're a very long way away from anyone thinking of Christians as freakish. What will be considered "freakish" is building a religion around opposition to gay people. Because that is freakish.
You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!

Thursday, May 1, 2014

The religious freedom the right never talks about

I've been following the marriage equality movement for 20 years now, and sometimes being involved on a fairly low level. During that time, I have heard religious conservatives frequently make the argument that allowing other people to have same-sex marriages somehow compromises their religious freedom. This is one of the worst arguments against same-sex marriage, exceeded probably only by the claim that if we allow gay couples to marry, then bisexuals get to have two partners.

Despite following this for about two decades, I've only recently found that some same-sex marriage bans actually violate religious freedom. And it's even one that gets bandied about as a potential compromise by the right. One of the claims that opponents of same-sex marriage have frequently made is that they have no complaint about private religious ceremonies with no legal effect. But if that were true, then why is it illegal in at least two states for clergy to officiate at an unlicensed same-sex marriage?

I'm coming a little late to this in that the lawsuit was filed on April 28. I'm using the excuse of not having a blog title at that time. But when North Carolina voters were approving Amendment 1 in 2012, I don't remember hearing that one of its effects would be to criminalize blessing same-sex unions. Elsewhere I read of the Wyoming law. In both states, a member of the clergy who blesses a same-sex couple – no state paperwork involved – is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Clearly, when you tell a member of the clergy that he or she can't even bless the same-sex couple you were violating  religious freedom. Of course, the opponents of same-sex marriage have a rather narrow view of religious freedom. The New York Times quotes Tami Fitzgerald of the North Carolina Values Coalition as saying that:

It’s both ironic and sad that an entire religious denomination and its clergy who purport holding to Christian teachings on marriage would look to the courts to justify their errant beliefs. These individuals are simply revisionists that distort the teaching of Scripture to justify sexual revolution, not marital sanctity. (North Carolina's Gay-Marriage Ban Is Challenged by Church)
Does Ms. Fitzgerald get to the be the Pope all religions? I mean, really. Okay, so she's clearly not a member of the United Church of Christ, but if she calls their beliefs "errant," it's probably not going to go too smoothly at the interfaith gathering.

Ms. Fitzgerald seems to be one of the few to comment on this denial of religious freedom. And she's all for denying religious freedom when it's a freedom to hold a different religious view than hers. From the usual crowd that cries that religious freedom is being denied when gay people marry comes an utter silence. This is not a religious freedom that they are willing to fight for. Sadly, in their view weather may be a religious liberty to discriminate against gay people, there doesn't seem to be a religious liberty to celebrate the lives of gay people. No matter what your religion says on the matter.

I'm a supporter of both religious freedom and marriage equality. But that means that while I think that every congregation can decide whether or not they're going to celebrate same-sex unions without the interference of state, it also means that they don't insist that the state discriminate against gay people in granting marriage licenses. And it certainly means that they can't ask the state to stop people from blessing same-sex couples.
You can follow my blog on Twitter (@impofthediverse) or on Facebook. If you like this post, share it with your friends. If you have a comment just for me, e-mail me at impofthediverse@gmail.com.
This blog runs solely on ego! Follow this blog! Comment on this post! Let me know that you want to read more of it!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...