thomascwaters.com

Yesterday, I posted the press release from the Equality Advocates PA, about the vote to add protections for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to their existing human rights protections. This is similar to what happened here in Pittsburgh earlier in the year, but their council approved the legislation with 6 votes in favor and 1 opposed. Quite a majority as opposed to the just basely made it vote here in Allegheny County. While this is exciting, I’d like to use it to draw attention to the appalling tactics being used in Kalamazoo MI to kill similar protections that were adopted earlier this year.

This picture posted to Twitter is an example of the type of abusive and deceptive publicity being used to kill the bill there.

I don’t know too much about any of the individuals pictured. However, Kate Lynn Blatt, in the lower right corner isn’t a man, not based on the sex as listed on her driver’s license. I tried to learn some facts about this specific situation when the American Family Association of PA (AFAPA) ran that picture and some hateful stuff about her in their newsletter as part of their campaign against Allegheny County’s ordinance. She had been at a conference and spilled coffee and so, had gone to a local store to buy something to wear. The store employee and manager refused to allow her to use the women’s changing room, even though she had identification of her gender. The police were called, and the police forced the store to allow her to use the changing room.

I didn’t find out too much about the picture, except I was told that it was quite old, and not the way she looks at all.

What is second most appalling to me is the conflation of cross-dressing and being transexual or transgender. Cross-dressing, or transvestitism is generally done by men, who have no interest in being women, but do want to dress like them. Often they are straight men. Gay men, who dress up as women, generally do it from a performance angle and are called drag queens. But the women above, are individuals who were born with their gender identity not matching their physical gender, and who have taken steps (all of them perhaps) to be reassigned as the opposite sex. Thus, Kate Lynn’s sex is listed as female, and not male.

What is most appalling to me is thew way they are portraying this as if a “No on 1856″ is a vote against discrimination. This is really an outrage!

One of the ways that the Far Right works to slow (or stop) the movement for Equal Rights for GLBTQ’s, as well as other minorities, is to spread misinformation. Sometimes, this includes outright lies, but more often than not, there is some sliver of truth that is either misrepresented or distorted to form the basis of the attack or argument. Those of us fighting so hard for full civil rights need to both be aware of when these things occur, and also well versed enough in the truth to be able to counter the claims whenever possible. Free speech allows for the distortions, and free speech is always a good thing. The solution is to speak the truth so that the misinformation is countered.

The links below illustrate how some on the Far Right construct their misinformation. There are a few important angles to this story, but today I want to focus only on how misinformation is constructed. The story starts with a gay conservative blog called “Gay Patriot,” where an post was written by someone named B. Daniel Blatt. Blatt’s argument against ENDA has 2 main points:

• ENDA isn’t needed because large corporations, such as the Fortune 500 companies are adopting non-discrimination policies on their own.
• ENDA would be impossible to enforce.

This second assertion contains the seeds of misinformation. Mr Blatt wonders if the way a federal law would be enforced would be to determine if discrimination exists based on what percentage of a work force is gay, and then forcing employers to hire gay people. Both of Blatt’s points are ludicrous, but he, like any blogger, including myself, are entitled to share our own opinions. So, not surprisingly a gay conservative site, rails against federal laws, and expresses one person’s opinion as a basis for an argument. Not that big a deal in some regards- in fact I would suggest that is partly the role of a blog is to put ideas out there, and allow discussion.

Discussion did indeed ensue on Pam’s House Blend in a blog post by Autumn Sandeen, where Blatt’s ideas were countered with facts. Correctly, Sandeen identifies Blatt’s position as libertarian, and then describes in considerable detail what is wrong with his ideas. This is all good stuff, and I encourage everyone to read Sandeen’s post on Pams House Blend.

Enter a Far Right blogger, Bryan Fischer writing for Renew America. Fischer is a talk show host known to be way out there on the fringe right. But like Blatt (and myself), all of us bloggers are entitled to share our own opinions. However, what Fischer does, is go beyond sharing his opinion and a distortion is formed. Fischer seeks to validate Blatt as a “gay activist,” because if even a gay activist is saying something, then it must be true. Fischer does this in two ways. First, he cites and responds to the article on Pam’s House Blend which is heavily liberal and very gay and lesbian. Pam often writes from the first person. Fischer writes:

According to a far-left website, a gay activist by the name of B. Daniel Blatt has written that passing ENDA…

OK, now that I’m writing this, I was wrong. This isn’t just distortion, but outright lying. Sandeen’s piece never identifies Blatt as a gay activist. The far-left website merely identifies a post from a blog and finds every hole and flaw in the argument. But in that one sentence, Fischer elevates Blatt to the status of “expert” and “person-on-the-left” by putting words in Sandeen’s mouth. The reality is that Blatt’s is simply a writer/blogger who has some posts on the Gay Patriot website. Nothing I found of his suggests he is even gay, let alone a gay activist. He is simply a blogger with a point of view who posts to a blog.

Interestingly, Fischer doesn’t even go back to Blatt’s original post. He merely quotes from Sandeen’s post, yet fails to even notice Sandeen’s commentary at all, and Fischer concludes with:

When even homosexual activists say ENDA is a bad idea, you can take it to the bank: it’s a bad idea.

Fischer misses Blatt’s primary argument:

Of course, it’s wrong to discriminate against an employee just because he (or she) is gay, but it isn’t the government’s business to prevent business owners from doing wrong. (Bold emphasis added is my own- not a part of the original.)

Blatt doesn’t really call ENDA a bad idea, because for Blatt, any law where the government tries to control business wrong-doing is wrong. In other words, for Blatt, ENDA isn’t wrong because it protects gay people, it is wrong because all laws affecting business are wrong. But Fischer doesn’t mind that. His goal was to create a distortion, accomplished by finding a way to label Blatt a gay activist, which he does by falsely attributing that to Sandeen.

There are some other points, I’d like to make about this, but suffice for now, this is the anatomy of a Far right distrotion.

Blatt’s original post

Pam’s House Blend:: ENDA: Libertarian Gay & Lesbian Thought Vs. Progressive LGBT Community Thought .

Home of the lies and distortion: Renew America

RuPaul: You Better Work!

The other day, I wrote a blog entry about Pennsylvania’s Senator Leach who wants to introduce a Marriage Equality Bill in the PA Senate, which is heavily republican. This suggests it hasn’t much chance of passage although you never know/ PA currently has a law against same-sex marriage, so we are not starting at a neutral place, and there is already a bill that has been introduced that would move PA towards a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Senator Leach wrote a reply to my post, explaining at least a part of his rationale, and I appreciate the Senator, both for caring about moving LGBT Rights forward in the state, and for writing to my blog. He has agreed for me to interview him further, and I’ll be posting that as an audio podcast. I don’t anticipate getting to that for about 2 weeks with Pride happening next week.

Yet, the  linked article is a good example of what can happen when the rights of all GLBTQ folks are not sought before the rights of a smaller subset of the gay and lesbian community. I am all for marriage equality, but of what value is gay marriage to two women living in Holidaysburg PA, when each could be fired for being gay?

I agree fully with Senator Leach that now is a right time to be in dialogue about all of these things. Yet, as we move ahead, we must be clear to consider what laws we pass and how they impact everyone .

Daily Kos: State of the Nation.

Photo credit: timlovesbrian

There is no shortage of news and comment about today’s decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8.  I’ve written a very little about it today, replying to the change.org blog by Michael Jones. I generally like what he writes, and if you don’t currently frequent his stuff, I think you should. But most of what has been written today is too negative, angry or whining for me. Maybe I’m in deep denial and just don’t want to cope with the reality of the news, but I don’t think so. I think it was almost assured since the day of verbal arguments before the Supreme Court, that this was what was going to happen, so we have had months to prepare for the news. FWIW, I don’t find Michael’s post whining or angry- but for me the news wasn’t “the ultimate buzz kill” either.

And then maybe, this is exactly what is supposed to happen after such an event. Galvinize the supporters with angry rhetoric and calls for action. Use it to raise funds to keep the struggle for equality moving forward. I just think that we give our opponents more power if we feel hurt and taken advantage of. And if we really want full equal rights, we are going to need to get off our asses, and get to work big time.

A friend commented to my boyfriend today, that I had “called it right” since I had said that the decision would come down as it did. But I was far from the only one. I put much faith behind what I read on the Law Dork 2.0 site. And his comments had much to do with how I formulated my own opinions. Chris’s blog is another “must read” in my book. Another blog entry today really nailed it in many ways, and if you want to cut through all the crap, I’d say start with William Bradley’s writing on the Huffington Post. And the last thing, I want to mention that colors my opinion, has been listening to Left, Right, and Center from KCRW. From last week’s show- they were talking about California’s budget problems and the way that CA’s initiative process has made California “ungovernable.” But they have been commenting on California for some time.

There were 2 issues before the California Supreme Court, but neither one was really about same-se marriage directly. The first was questioning how Prop 8 did what it did. Opponents to Prop 8 claimed that it wasn’t really an amendment to the CA constitution, but rather a revision of it. That would change everything- for a revision requires a much higher bar for approval than a simple majority. The second issue was about if Prop 8 was proactive or retroactive. If it had been retroactive, the 18,000 marriages would have been invalidated. Fortunately, the folks who crafted the initiative were too vague in that regard. If they had done a better job crafting the initiative wording, there would probably be 36,000 more single people in CA tonight!

Both of these kinda astound me! The proponents for Yes on 8, must have figured that since the San Francisco weddings were retroactively wiped out that the 18,000 would have been, or they were just so hellbent on making sure the voters had the last (haha) word, that they didn’t think it all through. As for the first question, I think the No on 8 people were just too full of their own kool aide. While most of us can agree that everyone deserves equal rights, merely stating that is far from enough to get it through the court. Or maybe since the Supreme Court had, not too many months earlier opened the door for gay marriage, they thought it would be an easy ride. But I remember listening to the court proceedings, and I didn’t think “our side” did a very strong job or arguing for Prop 8 to be struck down. So, the Yes on Pop 89 folks did everything by the ules and California places a huge emphasis on the voters actions on initiatives, so the vote was upheld. The Judges do not believe in taking rights away from people once they have them, so the 18,000 couples remain married.

And here is the good news from my point of view. Well, the first point of good news, at least. There are now 3 groups of people in California. Straight people who can get married, gay people who can not get married, and gay people who are married. What stops 2 men (or 2 women) from being part of the last group? The date by which they want to get married? The stage is being set for the unfair nature of this to be set right. That these marriages stand is the best “gift” the Supreme Court could have granted. They really couldn’t wipe away Prop 8. The initiative had been done completely by the rules and the voters had spoken. Democracy can onlty exist when the voters believe that they are truly heard, and the majority, as slim as it was, ruled. but by leaving these 18,000 marries intact, the court has validated the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples! This has now been validated by the courts and by legislators. The conservative right has argued that redefining marriage should not happen, but gues what- it has already happened. While they will most likely still trot out that argument, it really has no merit any longer.

The second piece of good news, at least in my opinion, was that the case was pretty simple. The initiative had done it all correctly, and the voters had spoken. This makes it much easier for another ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8. As long as they do it right, and get the needed votes, it will be just as easy to overturn Prop 8. Unfortunately, in California, this back and forth process and go on and on and on. But my guess is, that after one or two more rounds, it will be all over, and the people of California will say enough!

Prop 8 was not upheld because it was the moral thing. It wasn’t upheld because traditional marriage should be the norm. It was uphelp only because the Yes on 8 people dotted their “i’s” and crossed their “t’s.” That and the fact that they organized a highly successful campaign that used fear tactics and a lack of facts that was highly persuasive, while the No on 8 People ran a poor and ineffective campaign.

The other “good” thing is that most states are not California! While initiatives can be placed on all ballots, in the cases of the other states that currently allow gay marriage, the process is far more daunting. It has almost no chance in Iowa, but some chance in Maine.

The last thing I want to say, is that Marriage Equality, isn’t and shouldn’t be the only issue that people get focused on! Here in Pennsylvania, GLBTQ people can lose their jobs, vbe refused housing or public accommodations for being wh they are. Hate crimes against GLBTQ people happen at an alarming rate without adequate recourse. and marriage isn’t the only “institution” where straight people have special rights. DODT continues to destroy the careers of many men and women who passionately have fought for and protected our country, yet are denied their right to serve. Yes! Let’s keep working for marriage equality. But if people can be fired for being gay, how will they ever have the courage to be civily married and place themselves at that risk? all of these civil rights and protections are needed, and if we only focus on marriage, we will not win overall, nor will we get to full equality as quickly.

I posted this link back on May 1st, and since then the site has grown tremendously. Consider adding your picture. There has never been a more important time to show America who we are- for real.

FACES OF US.

I watched the live video coverage of the New York Assembly’s debate on the NY Marriage Equality Bill. I’m writing about it because of the way it colors my thoughts and views about PA HB 300. While I am not sure, I’m betting that these NY representatives are somewhat similar to the PA Representatives who sit in Harrisburg and do the same type of thing I’ve been watching on the video feed. These men and women, have been all over the place in terms of their ability to speak and communicate eloquently. They are just real people who are doing service to their state, and to their constituents. But while they may exhibit a wide ability at speaking, they all demonstrate a high degree of passion for what they do, and care for the people they represent. This seems evident.

I’ve been expressing (and will continue to do so) that the best way to help gain state-wide non-discrimination legislation here in Pennsylvania, is for anyone who supports this to go and talk, one-on-one with their representative. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight- doesn’t matter. If you support greater fairness in housing, employment, and public accommodations, let your representative know, by sitting down and having a conversation with them.

Get together!

When I met with Joe Preston last week, he felt it was very important for straight supporters to get their voices in on this issue. Especially with representatives who may not be in favor of HP 300. I’d agree with that, although we know that the easiest way to change minds about this, is when people find out and get to know someone who is GLBTQ. So, get together! when 2 or 3 people sit down with a representative, and there is a diversity around the table of straight and not-straight, that can be powerful!

Attitudes don’t change overnight!

Especially with representatives who are on the fence or opposed to HB 300, it may take more than one 30 minute meeting to get them to support this bill. I don’t think that is a bad thing! I want a house of representatives that cautiously consider everything placed before them. So, issue advocacy has to be seen as an ongoing project. If you meet with your representative this week, find a few other people to go next week, and the week after that, and the week after that. Allow these visits of 3 or 4 people to become an opportunity for more and more people to become involved with their government.

Care about your representative and his/her thoughts and feelings!

Those who are not supporters, or on the fence about HB 300 have their reasons- the way they got to the position that they hold. do you know what it is? It is probably unreasonable to expect them to support the bill unless you can offer them alternative viewpoints that make sense to them or address their concerns. So take the time to understand where they are coming from, and offer your perspective rather than simply confronting them or accusing them of being on the wrong side of an issue. Every side looks like the “right” side of an issue to someone. So, take the time and effort to understand their perspective. Demonstrate mutual respect.

But use this idea even with those representatives that are in favor of the legislation. Don’t be there, just to use them to get the legislation you want. Find out what they feel is important to your area, and what they feel passionate about. Your “partnership” or put another way, your on-going working relationship with your representative needs to be good for you and for your neighbors locally and across the state.

Be personal, but know the facts!

Lastly, be able to talk successfully about HB 300 and the talking points for it, as well as be able to address factually, the common arguments against it. While you are not there to be “an expert” on the issue, at the same time, it isn’t enough to just say, “Vote for this because it is important.” Your conversation will be most successful if you can talk personally about how this bill influences you , your family and loved ones, and your neighbors, and then also talk honestly about the facts concerning this issue.

Need some help?

There are a number of resources to help you! From my blog, you can download a pretty comprehensive instruction and guidelines booklet called “How Average citizens Can change Government Action: Working With Your Elected Officials.” It provides most everything you need to have a successful meeting with your representative. But here are some other sources of assistance. You can contact a local organization or a statewide group. If you aren’t sure where to begin, contact Equality Advocates PA, and they can point you towards a group local to your area

The focus of this article is Marriage Equality, but the main point is that “the religious” is not a single monolithic group that opposes in general gay rights, and specifically Marriage Equality. While the loudest opponents in all areas of GLBTQ rights tend to be conservative religious, there are many people of faith who both actively and not-so-actively are in support of equal rights for all.

This is an important point for people on al side of this issue. For the loud opponents: they must be countered when they appear as if they speak for all people of faith. For GLBTQ equal rights activists: we must not demonize the religious as a whole because there are a few very loud and vocal opponents.  It isn’t the Church in the broadest sense, nor God, nor Jesus who speak out against equal rights. Rather is is some denominations, and some individuals. GLBTQ activists do not push their message ahead when they attack back at all  people of faith. and for those legislators in the middle: it is possible to act in accordance with your faith AND vote for equal protections of the law for all people, including GLBTQ people.

Same-sex marriage: Faiths’ views are wide-ranging – The Advocate.

Kate asked:

Do you think HB300 would have more support if the “gender identity” portions were excluded?

Thanks for a good question!

I think that the general public understands “sexual orientation” better than “gender identity and expression” and in that sense, yes, it might seem easier to pass without gender identity and expression, but more generally speaking, no I don’t think that would make that much difference here in Pennsylvania. Unlike how the issue has gone in some other states, here, the primary issues with the bill have nothing to do with transgender issues. It seems to me that there are a few main points that come up over and over in discussions with legislators: 1) Religious Exemption from hiring gay or lesbians; 2) Is this bill really needed? Legislators aren’t aware of how many cases of discrimination happen on a yearly basis; BUT, the big issue is gay marriage! People are afraid that this bill is only put forth to open the door for gay marriage. The reality is that discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations is a significant (and in my opinion, more important issue) than gay marriage.

In some other states, where sexual orientation is already covered, transgender protection has been hard for the general public mostly because of the way opponents have stolen the discourse and filled it with misinformation.

I also think that it has to be all or nothing. IF, we really care about equal rights, we can’t accomplish that piece meal, or by sacrificing one group or another. Either we buy into the fact all Pennsylvanians deserve equal protection under the law, or we don’t.

Lastly, “Gender Identity and Expression” is important from the standpoint of protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight people! It isn’t just about transfolk! Consider it this way. A woman goes to work everyday. She has short hair, curt in a somewhat masculine cut. She is never seen in a skirt or dress. She is single, and no details of her personal life are known by her fellow employees. Rumors begin to spread about her. What is the basis of this? Is it her sexual orientation? No!  She is more of a butch woman, but she could be heterosexual, right? When she is passed over for a promotion, or if she experiences any harassment- it is about her gender expression.

Or consider this: A man goes to a job interview. He is quite animated, and talks wit his hands which are a bit flamboyant. He isn’t hired, because the interviewer assumes he is gay. He may be, or he may not, but it is his gender expression, or the perception of it that he is judged by.

OK, one more point, I’d like to make. Gender expression and identity has already been protected in Pittsburgh, and some other locations for quite some time, so in PA, we have a history of these protections. We know that providing these protections state-wide will not have negative impact for the state, but just the opposite. It makes PA more competitive in today’s business world, where companies want to be located in places that value diversity and protect civil rights. Here, opponents can’t use the fear mongering about what horrific things can happen, because, if they were going to happen we would see examples for the many years that transfolk have been protected here in Pittsburgh as well as elsewhere.

Thanks for the question! I wonder what you think? Leave a comment and let me know-

This is a cool site and a useful action to take. Giving a face to the issue- demonstrating what a diverse and amazing and beautiful world of folks who seek change. To me this is especially striking after considering the NOM paid advertisement using actors claiming to be real people. How awesome to see real real people giving voice to the issue. Consider taking a picture and joining in.

FACES OF US: Pennsylvania.

How Marriage Equality and Non-discrimination Connected

Preface: I began to write this a week ago. Then, at the end of the week, I along with some constituents, met with PA Representative, Joe Petrarca. One of his concerns about PA HB 300 was that it was just a stepping stone for gay marriage. It was clear that while he could possibly vote for a nondiscrimination bill, he is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. I intended to write about each of his concerns, and decided that this started-but unpublished post was a good place to write about the issue of PA HB 300 and Marriage Equality.

Over the weekend, I began to think that I needed to re-prioritize my time and focus. Actually, I’ve been thinking that for a while, but have decided I need to take action towards that goal. So, I thought I’d stop writing about Marriage Equality. It is an easy topic to blog about as so much is happening in that arena, but in terms of importance, it is not at the top of my list. By all means, those who are pushing for it, go right ahead and push. But for me, I’d like to re-focus my energy on the battle for other, and what I’d call even more basic civil rights. This would be to write more exclusively on the issues of anti-discrimination legislation and hate-crimes legislation. OK, that is pretty easy to say, but how about operationalizing it? Maybe not as simple. Because for the opposition, these struggles are one in the same, or at least two heads of the same monster. So, on either front, an understanding of the other is important, if not critical to success.

If you read back through my blog, somewhere, way back in the Fall I voiced by basic position on same-sex marriage. I am definitely not against it, but it isn’t the direction I think we ought to be fighting. I think we would get further if the struggle was for same-sex unions that carry 100% of the civil rights that marriage allows heterosexual couples. Now, I get the whole separate but equal is not equal argument, and I actually agree with it. but I think the word Marriage is a black hole of a problem that gets in the way of the real issue which is protecting the rights of families of all types. By focusing on Civil Unions (which is probably a big enough battle as it is) with all the same civil protections, we can avoid some of the whole religious opposition to marriage /destroying the santicty of marriage  battle. There will still be religious opposition, but the arena for the real issue will be civil rights as it should be. But, no one put me in charge, so that is just my opinion- not the direction of the battle itself.

The link below is to a Catholic web site article about same-sex marriage, yet the major evidence they lay out to show how religious liberties are threatened by Marriage Equality, are all cases that have everything to do with discrimination situations. These are becoming, or will become so familiar to any activist, but they are at the foundation of the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) recent attack campaign. So, today, I’d like to respond some to this Catholic.net article, and then over time, I’d like to see if I can shed some light on how/why these issues become so entangled,  and what if anything, we can do about it as we work for anti-discrimination legislation in a number of states.

I think this is really important.

I had dinner with my dad last night who is a fairly religious protestant (Methodist) and a conservative republican. While we did not talk about Marriage Equality that explicitly, there is no doubt that he is against it, and sees marriage in the traditional sense of between a man and a woman. But, he told me he also believes that all individuals deserve to be treated fairly, and he can support anti-discrimination legislation to protect against discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. So, understanding how to untangle these two issues will be important to help move anti-discrimination forward.

Although the opposition doesn’t want that to happen. They want these things all entwined because gay marriage is scary to so many. The move towards marriage really fuels the fire and anti-discrimination legislation is one of the targets. Joe Petrarca brought this up. It seemed to me that the possibility that HB 300 would set the stage for same-sex marriage would be enough for him to vote against it.

I have for a while, maintained that nondiscrimination legislation is not a steping stone for Marriage Equality. Not in the sense expressed by those who oppose gay rights. They characterize nondiscrtimination as if it were just a ploy to get the proverbial foot in the door. The reality is however, that these protections are extremely important on their own merit, and are sought out for that alone- the protections they provide. Nothing more and nothing less.

But from a different perspective, nondiscrimination legislation can be seen as foundational for Marriage Equality. What value is the right to be civilly married if you can lose your job solely for being gay or lesbian? hate crimes legislation and nondiscrimination legislation are stepping stones in the sense that they are foundational. Without them existing first for Lesbian and Gay people, Marriage Equality isn’t very useful.

From a different and important perspective however, they are not stepping stones to gay marriage in that both hate crimes and nondiscrimination cover people not affected by same-sex marriage per se. Bisexuals and transgendered people are not as clearly impacted by Marriage Equality, yet are critical recipients of hate crimes and nondiscrimination. We use the phrase “gay rights” loosely, and yet need to remember that is stands for a wide and diverse set of communities and issues that are all related, but not exactly alike. Maybe for the opposition, it is all the same thing. Everything we are talking about in terms of Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (GLBTQ) is not heterosexuality with Barbie femininity and Ken masculinity.

Over history the rights of some have always been oppressed so that the dominant viewpoint may not be threatened. It is a form of control. For example, well after the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks were still being denied the right to vote out of the belief that if they had that right and executed it- all hell would break out? The belief of some, that these other people were less than equal fueled the desire to maintain control. It was a long time between the declaration of freedom 1862/1863 and the true freedom and right to vote in 1965. Even earlier in the history of slavery, the dominant attempted to control their black slaves by forcing upon them Religion yet, in many parts of the Americas, slaves were kept illiterate. While the tactics used were different, it is not that dissimilar to the ways the modern evangelical and Catholic church wishes to push its doctrine on everyone today. For the slaves, the result was the growth and proliferation of religious practices that continue today on the fringes of Christianity. Santaria is the best example where the catholic indoctrination was fused with ancient African belief systems to form a new religious expression. The religious indoctrination wasn’t really successful. The slaves did not become simply “good christians,” rather the religion evolved and became imbued with meaning and life as the people needed it to be. The desire to force one’s own beliefs on others has never truly been successful anywhere.

At the base of both nondiscrimination and marriage equality is a cornerstone of real equality.  Do GLBTQ people deserve to be treated as equal human beings? If yes, then the next question is how should that equality be actualized. Nondiscrimination and hate crimes legislation look at these questions from the perspective of the individual. Do I as a gay man, and an individual, deserve the right to work, find housing, etc, or is it acceptable to discriminate against me solely on the basis of my sexual orientation? Marriage Equality has nothing to do with that- with individual rights. This is the point where these two subjects have nothing to do with each other , even though both have a cornerstone of equality.

The insistence of the radical right to link nondiscrimination with marriage equality is an example of fear mongering since the term marriage carries such an emotional charge. The slope is a not-so slippery slope. To try to stop same-sex marriage by stopping nondiscrimination laws is like using a hammer to install a screw.

The last way that these two issues are not really connected, is that same-sex marriage legislation is about Civil Marriage as opposed to Religious Marriage. Most if not all of the uproar about it comes from the conservative religious community expressing fear that marriage as they define and know it as a religious covenant will be harmed. The religious institution of marriage is not really on the radar for activist. The goal there is civil protections. Legal nondiscrimination is as far away from the issue of religious marriage as it can be.

Catholic.net – .