thomascwaters.com

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Bev Smith will give the keynote address, “Loss of Liberties and Social Injustice: It’s All About Perception.”

For more on Bev: www.bevsmithtalks.com

• When: Sunday, March 21 at 7:00 p.m.
• Where: Manchester Craftsmen’s Guild – 1815 Metropolitan Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15233.

Greater Pittsburgh Chapter Annual Meeting :: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

With a record of 0-31 when it comes to public votes on same-sex marriage, you would think there would be more dialogue within the LGBT community about why we can’t seem to get anywhere with this issue. Rightly or wrongly, marriage equality opponents use these losses- the losses they keep generating for us- as proof that the majority of people do not approve of marriage equality, and therefor, there should be no marriage equality. This is a difficult argument to battle, because the numbers are what they are. Votes for and votes against, the numbers say it all, right?

I detailed a few of the things I felt the broader GLBTQ community would need to look at when I talked about the election 2009 results last week, but if you don’t go back and read that post, here they are in a nutshell:

• Our game plan. If we know what the game plan is for the opposition, why are we not defending against it, and why are we not prepared for their antics since they just keep doing the same thing over and over.
• Our financial support. Are we as a community supporting these battles adequately?
• Polling and the data we use to base our decisions. What is it that we are missing when it comes to polling. Why are these predictions and numbers so far off of the real vote?

In the days since the election, there has been very little discussion of any of these things. Maybe that makes sense. Behind close doors, those who are leading the battles for equal rights are strategizing and trying to figure out their next steps, but at some point, that dialogue must leave the closed door session and begin to educate the grass roots network.

One topic that has been making a big splash across the Twitterverse and Blogosphere, is the notion that it is just wrong for people to be voting on the rights of others. As ideas go, this one seems like a no-brainer. Of course, it is wrong to allow others to vote on our rights. This was expressed most recently on a Twitter post by my friend and fellow blogger Matt Algren:

@MattAlgren: The new #marryME short doc convinces me even more that participating in unconstitutional votes on civil rights is downright wrong.

Even if this one seems like a no-brainer, I think it is critical to move cautiously in this direction. We need to remember who we are doing battle with, and what are their general strategies for success. Ourt anti-gay opponents never deal with logic, fact or reason, but focus on fear mongering with lies, misinformation, and a warped sense of the role of religion in secular life. So, if we push the “it is wrong to vote..” strategy, what are the possible ramifications down the line? How might this argument be countered? What could be the unexpected consequences from taking a position that essentially says that public votes are wrong? And what do we mean by “[our] civil rights?”

I also wrote last week about the Church’s line in the sand- where do they draw the line, and what does that matter? While that post dealt specifically with the Mormon Church, last week’s efforts by the Catholic Diocese in Washington DC display the same position. The battle, at least for some, is all about protecting the institution of marriage. In other words, the battle is about shifting cultural norms and attitudes through changing cultural constructs such as marriage and the family. Talking about cultural constructs, may seem abstract and meaningless for people who are on the short end of being treated differently than the rest. Discrimination, being denied equality feels quite real, and not like a construct at all. but no matter how it feels, the institution of marriage, and the construct of the family are very much cultural constructs that didn’t get created overnight.

Another arena where we see this type of thing being played out, is the current Health Care Reform debate. In that situation, we have the philosophical notion of small government pitted against the real needs of real people who are hurting and even dying without health care. The conservatives don’t talk about it as “small government.” Their language is “don’t let the government take over health care.” Do you see the parallel here with the anti-gay position that allowing gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Both small government and the institution of marriage are constructs, and are threatened by change.

I propose one reason we are 0-31, is that we continue to fail to grapple with the real battle which is fear of cultural change. We continue to seek a political fix for a cultural problem, and not only do we want a political fix, but we want it ,right now! The opposition plays into the general public’s fears, and we keep talking about what is the right thing to do, and we keep coming up short. We do too little to speak directly to those fears and try and counter them with reality, and when we do counter them, we do it too late. We know what fears the opposition will use, and yet we seem caught off guard every time they come up.

I want to hit hard on this notion of cultural change vs political fix today, because of another item from the news last week. The Stupack amendment was added to the House health care reform bill, which would essentially set a woman’s right to choose back several decades. Stupack, a democrat no less, introduced a measure that takes rights away from women, and if passed would score a major victory for the culturally conservative opponents to choice. What does this have to do with gay rights?

We must see the parallels in the way cultural change and the cultural notions of morality are very different beasts from the political reality of what laws say. Some would claim that a right to choice has been a done deal since Roe v Wade, but we all know that isn’t the case, and we live in fear that if the Supreme Court received enough extreme right wing judges, this law could be over-turned.  If we want to see all families- same-sex as well as opposite sex being treated equally and fairly, we must come to terms with the cultural constructs of marriage and the family. Today, the Church feels they own these constructs, and the Church is a construct as well. So we will continue to fail when we battle real religious people rather than the construct of power that we call the Church. We will continue to fail when we dismiss the fears of the majority, rather than counter them with truth. Let me clarify what I just said. By real religious people- I do not mean those who are extremely religious. I mean those flesh and blood individuals who hold their faith as a critical part of their mindset and world view. We battle them, and we lose. If we begin to sort out why the construct of Church holds the power, we can make progress, while allowing people to keep their personal faith.

I’ve written several times that the timing of the March is a problem. And I still think that, but on the other hand, is there really any wrong time to march for our rights? Easy answer: No! The conservatives are doing everything in their power to keep GLBTQ people and many others from full equality and protection, but the attacks on LGBT?QLBTQ’s is unprecidented. Consider the war being waged against Obama appointee, Kevin Jennings- simply because he is a gay man. A long list of examples can be posted here, but I think the case with Jennings is the perfect example, and the far right seems that they will stop at nothing to defeat him, and Obama.

Many within the LGBT community have been outraged at what appears to be Obama’s failure to come through on his campaign promises to the GLBTQ community, and that may be true. But the control of our full equal rights is not in Obama’s hands alone. It is our president, our congress, and the whole of the American people to whom we will be speaking at our march and rally.

So, I hope I will be seeing you in Washington this Sunday, because inspote of whatever problems or flaws there are with the march, it is our chance right now to have our voices heard, to unify as one community full of vastly diverse individuals and demand an end to being treated as second class citezens. Achieving full equality may not happen in a single act or by a single law, but to have anything less is unacceptable, and we must keep demanding our rights, and working to achieve them until full equality for all is simply the way it is.

National Equality March™ « Equality Across America.

A Twitter buddy, @QueerJohn posted this link on Twitter, and I wanted to pass it along via my blog. It is a nice concise statement about why some are marching on Washington. I think it expresses some of the best and worst of what is happening. Let me explain. There are two major flaws in the reasoning worth pointing out.

The march is a call to action for the nation’s queers to stop looking at our fight as individual states fights and take our demands right to the people that matter, the federal government.

The problem here is the notion that it is either a fight on a state-by-state basis or a fight at the national level. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the notion we should stop working at the local, regional or state level is at the least ludicrous, but better described as dangerous. One good example is protections for Transgender Americans. The angry queer notes that there is a federal push for ENDA, yet fails to recognize that ENDA covers only work place discrimination. Some states and other locales offer protections in housing and public accommodations already for Transgender persons, but more offer these protections only for sexual orientation. Passing ENDA while stopping to work for full anti-discrimination protections at a local and state level, leave trans persons unprotected. The other problem with this is the notion that “the people who matter” are all at the federal level. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider abortion. While abortion is legal everywhere because of federal law and a Supreme Court case, the reality is that in most of the country, the availability for a woman to safe access has been shrinking and as the dwindling number of doctors who perform legal late term abortions suggests this trend will continue. While abortion opponents lost  where it supposedly matters- at the federal level- the real losers have been women who need safe access to legal procedures.

Laws at every level of our government matter, and serve a role in a true democracy, and to even suggest we stop working on one level to only focus on another is dangerous, short sighted and stupid.

While I of course support the efforts of local organizations trying to protect our rights state by state, we need to stop believing that this is the path to civil rights. Nobody has ever [won] one civil rights at the ballot box. And even if we do succeed in Maine and California, do we really think the fight is over? Do we not think that our opponents will put the issues right back on the ballot? Of course they will. And do we think for a moment that a ballot initiative will work in the south? And what about all the states that don’t have ballot initiatives? What about issues other than marriage equality? Trans protections in the ballot box? There is no way that is going anywhere.

The second major flaw in the thinking is above. I am not aware of anyone who “believes that state by state is the path to civil rights.” Maybe those people do exist, but in my experience, and I’m an old guy, few expect achieving real equality to happen without local, regional, state, and federal changes. It will take all levels, not one or the other. But the real motivation, I think is implied here instead of spoken outright:

And even if we do succeed in Maine and California, do we really think the fight is over?

I think some people simply want an easy win, and so in their belligerent and whiny ways they think that “going straight to the top,” pardon the pun, will accomplish that. Most of the real force behind the steamroller that forced a march upon us this year instead of next comes from a few California activists who I think are still pissed off that they couldn’t run a successful campaign against Prop 8. Well, I have news for you- there is going to be no easy win! The battle for full equality is happening and won’t stop, but it also won’t find a simple, easy solution. Yes, the more we make strides (at any level), our opponents will continue to seek to push that progress back. And we will most likely win some battles and lose others. And this will continue until a number of factors change, most of which are in play already. For example, the population who votes is getting younger, and everything shows that as this trend continues, GLBTQ rights issues will be more likely passed at the ballot box. I am not suggesting we should sit back and wait until then, but I am suggesting that to say that because our opponents tend to win at the ballot today doesn’t mean it will always be that way.

Hey, I’m not opposed to working for federal legislation or other actions at the top level of our government. That is all needed stuff, and I too urge everyone to rally for these important legislations. I just wish people would get a clue and stop suggesting that a march is going to solve all of our equality issues. Consider the Matthew Shepherd Act and hate crimes legislation. It isn’t like no one has been working on this already! The battle is going to be ongoing and difficult, and a march on one sunday isn’t going to really change that.

The march can do some really important things, and I too hope many make the trip to help make the march as successful as possible. but to anyone suggesting we stop work on local, regional and state levels- I say to you: You are part of the problem, and not really a part of the solution. We need to keep working at every level. And if we do, we will someday enjoy full equality.

The Angry Queer.

The linked article is a very brief analysis concerning California and Marriage Equality:

So many of us had hoped beyond hope that our rallies, demonstrations and expressions of sadness and anger would have caused voters who voted yes to change their position. That is not the case.

On the one hand this can be evaluated to say that we have to wait until the number of people who support Marriage Equality rises about 50%. There was someone- thought it was  FiveThiirtyEight- but can’t find it now that proposed when there would be enough younger voters in various states, that Same-sex marriage would pass. This seems like a shaky proposal, since age alone may not be the predominant factor by which someone would vote to support same-sex marriage.

Another approach is to consider how the issue us framed. I did find a FiveThirtyEight post that discusses this quite nicely. This is a more empowering approach, but still the opposition will do their best to frame the issue in a way that best suits them. So it becomes a battle over framing as opposed to a dialogue over real issues.

Most likely the successful approach will involve some mixture of these strategies, not one or the other. But in any case, something else needs to be considered, and the above quote offers some valuable insight. Demonstrations and expression of emotions will not do the trick- they are a failing approach to change.  I’m not suggesting there is no place for either demonstrations or emotions. Both serve a purpose, but in both cases, these strategies impact an issue’s proponents more than the opponents. Demonstrations help energize your supporters and keep people motivated to do the real work of change. They do not in and of themselves cause the change.

So, what does cause change? Face to face conversations make change. What may be the lowest tech and most hands-on intensive strategy makes a difference. Every study taken, shows that when people know gay and lesbian people they are less likely to vote to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. So the solution is easy. Gays and lesbians, and all of their supporters need to be making friends and having conversations with everyone else. We have to get intimate. It isn’t abut how loud we yell, or how many show up at a rally, or how much we spend to have TV ads. It is about building and developing relationships with everyone around us.

This holds true for most any civil right important to the GLBTQ communities. Because the more that real people know other equally real gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people, the less likely they will be to restrict our rights. So how do we do this? How do we get to this type of being intimate?

First, we need to stop hiding in the closet. Whenever, and where ever we can safely be out, we need to be out. Seeking ways to increase the safety of being out is a critical first step. As simple as this sounds, however, hides the complexity of it. Safety is a difficult thing to concretely define. I know people who can not be fired because their company has a nondiscrimination policy, and yet they don’t want to come out at work. Here, the problem is with the person. The safety, or lack there of, is in their mind and not based on their situation. For others, being fired for being gay is a very real possibility.

Next, we must all stop being comfortable with the status quo. It may be easy to decide that you have “enough rights” to be happy, just as things are. This may be closely related the the issue of being out of the closet. A person may easily justify that s/he must accept things as they are or risk losing a safe environment. I tend to think this is not only short-sighted, but self-deceiving.

Another aspect of the status quo, is being too concerned only with the rights that impact you. I recently had an exchange with someone on Facebook. She was critical of the larger gay and lesbian community for not doing more for MarriageEquality in general. Another person in the dialogue, expressed that nondiscrimination protections were more important than marriage rights because they impact more people. The original person, claimed she didn’t care about transgender issues. We must see all of these rights as civil rights, and the success or failure on any of them impact the others.

Earlier I used the work “conversation” when in some regard, what I’m talking about is relationship. Not in the sense of who you date or hang out with, but in the broader sense. Do I talk to my neighbors, and do I talk to them about who I am and what is important to me? How about my co-workers, or the the wait staff of the establishments I visit? Where ever I interact with others, I have the possibility to have conversations/relationships. From the potentially closest to us- our families, to the least close, most transient interactions- there is always a place to make a difference ad help others know more about real gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.

This work, unlike demonstrations and expressions of emotion will work.  Not in a day or any concrete time frame, but in an ongoing way, so that as the number of younger voters increase, all the pieces will be in place.

Equality California’s analysis: Majority of voters remain opposed to gay marriage – Last Word.

Resources:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-get-63-of-americans-to-support.html

I am just sick that I’m not in Pittsburgh right now, in the middle of Netroots Nation. If there was a way to be in two places at the same  time, I need to know about it. How much I would have given, to be at Bill Clinton’s speech to watch real democracy in action. Or is that interaction? A blogger, Lane Hudson,  was preparing a question to ask Clinton, until it became clear that there would not be a time for questions. So he interrupted the speaker. Clinton made a dismissive comment about the recent town hall events, but in great democratic form, he asked the blogger to sit and he spoke directly to the questions, and tied it back into his speech overall. In the end there was no element of it which was like the republican orchestrated craziness at town hall events. And another highly respected person who has spoken emphatically about being against DADT and DOMA.

Clinton laid most of the blame for DADT on the activist community, saying that we didn’t give him any support in Congress, which may or may not be true. I tend to think it was, and it highlights how much our civil rights issues can not and should not be left up to the President alone. Almost like little children, we so often seek out the “person in charge at the top” and then think if we can get them to say the magic words, everything will be OK. but the reality is, our strategy must shift dramatically if we are going to achieve our goals of equal rights for everyone. There must continue to be a push to get the person at the top, on board, but the primary focus must sift in big ways to the legislative arms at all levels of government. This is why having everyone who supports equal rights contact their representatives and senators is crucial to any legislation.

Why is the average person so unwilling to get involved and helping to change our system to meet te needs of all?

I’m now off to learn about databases, and will continue wishing I were there in Pittsburgh.

I’m not sure if I feel like laughing or crying when I see this.

What the heck do these people think “Civil Rights” means, that it is so exclusively linked to the black rights movement? And even harder to understand, I guess this guy had never heard Martin Luther King speak, or Coretta Scott King for that matter. She spoke loudly that all people including gays and lesbians deserved equal rights.

If anything , placing this sign is a disgrace to the founding principles of the black civil rights movement and those who made change happen. I’ve added two video clips to shine some light into the darkness.

Resource:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/02/coretta_scott_king_on_gay_righ.php

Original post:

Rod 2.0:Beta: Black Pastor Rents Texas Billboard: “Gay Rights Are Not Civil Rights”.

Yesterday, I wrote about a blog post, where an individual presented a definition of homophobia, and then suggested that he wasn’t one, where I felt the contempt he demonstrated towards gays and lesbians illustrated otherwise.

Well I’m grateful to say, that he replied. I really value when people leave their comments and ideas on the blog. Although he made a comment about “pederasts and rapists” that I find highly offensive. I think my reply was even longer than the original post. So my reply to that is my post for this morning. Check it out.

A point this commenter attempts to make, is that he isn’t afraid of gay men and lesbian women. That may be, although the very definition he presented doesn’t require fear as a component. Contempt is adequate to meet that definition. Still my guess is, his argument may continue that he does not hold gays and lesbians in contempt, only their behavior. This is the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to homosexuality.

This is the tact my father takes, so I’m familiar with it. I think there is reason to question what it means to “love the sinner,” and this position requires a belief that there is a separation between acting homosexual, and one’s being. I tend to believe I am gay- I was born this way, and it is about more than what I do in bed with my boyfriend.

There have been a few replies back and forth, and I think it is overall, a very interesting dialogue. What are your thoughts? Add a comment and allow the dialogue to build.

As I looked over possible things to write about today, a blog entry grabbed my attention concerning the recent same-sex kiss incident in El Paso Texas.

The city of El Paso may try to use this incident to leglaize homosexual marriage.(misspelling in the original quote)

At first I thought it was just pure insanity. Brian Lee, the blogger comes across as pretty conservative bordering on a wingnut,  from his blog and I thought this was just a crackpot assertion. and, I thought he was trying to exploit the recent situation to fan the conservative flames. So, I decided to do a bit of digging.

I called the mayor’s office, but unfortunately he wasn’t in. The mayor and the council were all in a budget meeting. so I emailed a request off to the mayor for comment. But then, I decided to call the El Paso Times. Lee, uses an article they published about the gay kiss within his blog post, and he cites Andrew Kreighbaum as the reporter. Kreighbaum was a pleasure to talk to, and I learned from our chat, as well as from articles in their paper, that there are a few cool things going on there in El Paso!

If you have been following this story, you know that El Paso  already had a nondiscrimination policy, but following the incident, their city council passed a resolution re-affirming their commitment to diversity and tolerance- vote of 8-0. All of this is part of a long heritage of supporting diversity:

Ortega’s resolution cites El Paso’s rich history of promoting tolerance. In 1962, Ortega said, then city Alderman Bert Williams pushed through an ordinance that made El Paso the first city in the former Confederacy to prohibit racial discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants and theaters. Williams later became mayor. The city also passed a “forward-thinking” ordinance in 2003, Ortega said, that prohibits the refusal of service or accommodation on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

Following that path of diversity, a plan was introduced recently to provide domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners and unmarried straight partners of city employees. This may be what Lee is referring to and he doesn’t know the difference between offering benefits and marriage. (That’s my bet) Or it could be, like many wingnuts, Lee sees any legislation that helps gay families and being a stepping stone to gay marriage, a position which is insulting and dismissive. The article on their proposed domestic partnership benefits is a really good read!

I asked the Times reporter, Kreighbaum what he thought, to which he told me he stays away from commentary, and sticks to reporting. Additionally, the El Paso Times  is really covering this story well! I have put a few links here to some of their stories, but there are more as well. I’m really grateful for the level and quality of their coverage. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply from the mayor’s office.

Resources:

Officers to get bias training after Chico’s Tacos

Resolution upholds city discrimination ban

911 tapes give new details on Chico’s Tacos confrontation

El Paso City moves toward offering domestic partner benefits

Here was Lee’s blog post that I started with: brianlee.

Came across this little blog entry linked below, and it prompted a question that I’ve actually thought about before- namely, is the language we use about those who oppose our movement towards equality accurate?  Now, the blog poster’s purpose is to write against same-sex marriage. The majority of his post is about civil rights and why marriage isn’t a civil right, but that discussion doesn’t interest me as much as the issue of homophobia. He begins with a definition, and attempts to point out that he is not homophobic.

Homophobia: an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals; fear of or contempt for lesbians or gay men, and behavior based on such a feeling

This definition implies that to be homophobic, one must actually be afraid of homosexuals.  As in, fearing them, feeling fright when near them, etc.  Yet, the left constantly useshomophobia to describe the words and actions of those opposed to homosexuality and its propagation in modern society.  I have a problem with this.  First of all, I am very opposed to homosexuality.  I am NOT opposed to homosexuals, however, as they are only homosexuals because they practice homosexuality.  They are still human beings, and deserving of the basic rights allotted to all men under the auspices of a beneficent Creator.  We’ll get to the rights issue a little later.  I do not condone violent action against such people who choose to practice homosexuality.  I do condone, however, an angry voice crying out against the immorality of homosexual marriage.  Does this make me afraid of homosexuals?  I think not.  I think homosexuality is disgusting, immoral, unnatural.  I also think that way about pedophilia, necrophilia, sadomasochism, and bestiality.  I am also not afraid of the people who live those vile lifestyles.  I am not afraid of any man.  I think it’s unfair that the left would lump me into an insulting category in order to justify their arguments for such immorality.

I’m not sure who he is trying to convince- himself or his readers.

This same type of issue came up for me a week or so ago, when another blogger I know wrote about being gay bashed (her term.) My first inclination was to think she was over-reacting. Some A**hole yelled a slur at her, but was she bashed? By definition, yes she was! A verbal attack is as much a gay bashing as a physical one. But like the use of the term homophobia, do we often gravitate towards language that perpetuates a victim and abuser dynamic? I think that is a very interesting topic, but one I can’t do justice to in the time I have to write this morning, so I’ll settle now, for my initial question: is being against homosexuality the same as being homophobic?

The short answer for me is I think you can be opposed to same-sex marriage or homosexuality without being homophobic, but the poster linked? Clearly homophobic and even by his own definition! There is no way to read how he describes homosexuals (who are those who practice homosexuality) as anything other than contempt.

But, I think when we stop at labeling this guy homophobic, we stop at that victim and abuser mentality. We label ourselves as the abused and [whomever] as the abuser. And this may be true, but we never get past that spot! Guys (and women) like this guy are so very afraid, they don’t even know it! Or, do know it and have no intention of exploring that fear.

Last year, I watched an episode of 30 Days, where a fundamentalist christian woman goes and lives with a gay family for 30 days. It was a really rocky month, and you can easily leave the program doubting any real change happened, but a very little bit did I think. Why so little or why was it such a confrontational month? Fear. Fear of what one doesn’t know or fear of losing what one holds dear and important.

Like the poster I’m linking to. Fear.He claims that he thinks homosexuality is “disgusting, immoral, unnatural.” I’d ask, why is that? How much time has he spent with homosexuals?  How much experience has he had first hand with gay or lesbians? My guess is, that if he allowed himself to get to know some real gay people, some of his feelings may change.

It is so easy to hold a strong judgmental conviction about something (like homosexuality) when it is an abstract concept or idea separated from a real life experience. Why not go and spend some time in a gay church (I’m sure this guy is religious) and after a month of attending church and seeing these men and women a number of times, I wonder if some of his ideas may be shifting. They may not. He may be too afraid that they are going to change- he may be too afraid…

of homosexuals.

Some definitions… « A Continuation of Politics by Other Means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt