Homosexuality Part III

I am a straight white man, so my view of discrimination is only what I can observe or read about. The closest that I have come to experiencing discrimination was in my “Hippie” years, when my long hair prompted an increase in attention from the local gendarmerie.

Perhaps it is because of that, or maybe in spite of that, I have little understanding of the thought process that leads to discrimination. I don’t think that I am in the minority, yet I see anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments regularly passed by seventy percent margins.

Truthfully, I do not understand that level of bigotry in a country that makes a claim of being “a beacon of freedom in the world.” Perhaps most hypocritical to me is DADT.

“You can fight and perhaps die for our freedom but you just sure as Hell can’t have any of it for yourself?”

It has been often said that discrimination against gays is the last acceptable form of bigotry. That is pretty close to the truth. Anti-gay rights people and politicians have a host of excuses for their bigotry that they can hide behind.

“The Bible says being gay is an abomination!”

“I am not anti-gay, I am just for traditional marriage!”

“Gay sex is so disgusting!”

Well, gay sex may be disgusting to you, but it is not to those that practice it, and, by the way no one asked you to join in. The Bible, Leviticus in particular, makes a lot of rules that are not regularly followed. When was the last time you heard about someone being stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? When is the last time you read about a man selling his daughter into slavery?

Leviticus is the often quoted passage for being anti-gay rights, but choosing that verse and ignoring the others is strictly hypocritical. So is quoting  Corinthians, written by the so-called St. Paul, who many biblical historians think was gay himself.

Using the Bible to justify discrimination is a direct contradiction of the words of Jesus who said:

“Love your neighbor as you love yourself”

Does that not mean, also, extending to your neighbor the same rights that you too enjoy?

Ironic, that a 33 year old never married man, that traveled the country with twelve also single males and a female prostitute, would most likely be considered by today’s Christians to be gay.

Hypocrites, one and all.

Thoughts?

William Stephenson Clark

Homosexuality Part II

Mention “Gay Rights” in virtually any group of people and be prepared for a “spirited” debate. In those exchanges, I am regularly “accused” of being gay since “you must be gay to support those perverts.”

Well, I’m not gay, but I know plenty of folks that are and I want them to have the same rights that I do.

The laws regarding homosexual behavior are as varied as could possibly be. Even within the United States, sodomy was illegal until very recently, 2003, and even then it was a 6-3 vote by the Supreme Court. In 1986, the Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws.

Homosexual acts are still punishable by prison sentences and even the Death Penalty in some countries. What is truly bizarre is the number of countries where male homosexual acts are illegal, but female homosexual acts are not.

The strangest of all is the law in Guyana where male homosexuality is punishable by life in prison, but female homosexuality is legal.

Go figure. They must have watched “The Hunger” one too many times.

Despite a lot of efforts, Gay Rights are still few and far between. The “Defense of Marriage Act” allows states to refuse to recognize marriages that are legal in neighboring states.  The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy still allows otherwise patriotic and valuable soldiers to be discharged for being gay.

Even normally liberal leaning California recently voted for a constitutional ban on Gay Marriage. The Texas Republican Party 2010 platform calls for the “criminalization” of Gay Marriage and a return to the sodomy laws that were overturned by the Supreme Court. Until 2006, there was an effort in the Senate to establish a United States constitutional ban on Gay Marriage.

The thread photo captures the irrational fear of homosexuality that marks much of the anti-gay debate. If what James and Aaron do in their bedroom is a threat to national security, then our national security system is sorely lacking.

There is no doubt that the battle for equality for gays and lesbians is an uphill struggle. Changes in attitudes and biases don’t come easily.

Thoughts?

(Part III tomorrow.)

William Stephenson Clark

Homosexuality Part I

(In the interest of full disclosure, your not so humble columnist is a heterosexual man and therefore is less than qualified to write on this subject, but I am the only one here, so somebody has to do it.)

In researching for these columns, I came across a staggering array of statistics, many at odds with one another. In just merely looking for a base number of the percentage of homosexuals within the population, I found a range of two percent to six percent, with claims that from twenty to forty-five percent of people have had homosexual experiences. Recent polling in the United States (2004 and 2008) indicates a gay population of about four percent.

It is no wonder that the subject has so many varying points of view if researchers cannot even agree on how many people are actually homosexual.

Numbers aside, homosexuality has had a varied history, as well. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a disorder. In Ancient Rome, however, all the emperors, save one, took male lovers.  In some societies, male relationships with adolescent youths were encouraged and even celebrated. Artwork, throughout history, depicts both gays and lesbians in a positive light. Even in the Middle East, Persians had “wine boys” serve them in the taverns of the day.

So, how is a homosexual “born?”

Well, even that question is debated among professionals.

While the general consensus among most is that homosexuals are “born that way,” the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2004 stated:

“Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.”

Interesting. What “environmental influences” would cause someone to “choose” or “become” gay?

(Since I am trying to treat a serious subject with respect, I will refrain from any jokes about Tele Tubbies, Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood or Bert and Ernie.)

The Religious Right and even some moderates and liberals claim that homosexuality is a choice. There are varying reasons behind their claims, but in my view, those claims are just a feeble attempt at justifying that last acceptable form of bigotry.

Thoughts?

(Part II of III tomorrow.)

William Stephenson Clark

Argentina Passes Gay Marriage

Same-sex civil unions are also legal in Uruguay and some states in Brazil and Mexico, while gay marriage is legal in Mexico City.

In the United States, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa allow same-sex marriage, as does Washington, D.C.

How do you say “hooray” in Spanish? Argentina became the first Latin American country to legalize gay marriage. The vote took place last Thursday in the Argentinean senate at 4 a.m. after 16 hours, with 33 senators voting for, 27 against, and three abstaining. The Roman Catholic Church fought the measure tooth and nail, organizing a 60,000 person march on Congress. The legislation will also give gay couples all the same rights enjoyed by straight couples, including adoption and inheritance.

Read more here.

fnord

The Progression of a Society

Of late, there has been a great deal of talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers of our country, particularly as it relates to the Constitution. To some, the Fathers were infallible and divinely inspired.

While I have great admiration and am grateful that those Patriots brought to birth our nation, I do not share in the deification of the Founding Fathers. When this nation was born, women were still second class citizens and non-whites weren’t even citizens at all. Slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans were the law of the land. All men were not created equal.

The progression of a society is a slow process and sometimes that progression is accompanied by violence and even war.  Some of the progress is prompted by court decision, other by courageous and principled legislative activity and more yet by seminal changes in attitudes within society.

Sometimes, the leadership that is required to facilitate progress is not recognized as such at the time. Today, we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr., but in the Sixties, he was vilified by a good portion of society. The FBI had an extensive file on him and many were convinced that he was a communist. MLK did not change – society’s attitude towards him changed.

Most take for granted the progression of society wrought by the Civil Rights Movement, but that progression came with a horrible price tag and virtually split the country in half once again.

It is said that opposition to Gay Rights is the last “acceptable” form of bigotry.  I feel for those that are hurt by the lack of progress towards equality for our gay brothers and sisters, but I also remember that it was just a half century ago that racial discrimination was rampant.

That is scant consolation for those damaged by sexual orientation discrimination, but with time comes progress and time is greatly compressed in this age of high speed communication. I am not preaching patience, I am preaching hope.

The day will come when, truly, all men and women are created equal.

William Stephenson Clark

Talking about whether we should be talking about Kagan’s sexual orientation

The suggestion that someone is gay is usually taken as a direct accusation of homosexuality. Only being gay is not automatically a disqualification for office anymore. Indeed, many places have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and there are an increasing number of gay and lesbian officeholders at all levels of elected government. So why do we still think it’s bad to call someone a lesbian?  Linda Hirshman, who admits to knowing nothing about the sexual orientation of Kagan, wraps up her interesting op-ed piece by saying:

Finally, and here’s a real dirty little secret, President Obama appointing an openly gay candidate for the Supreme Court would be political genius. Think about the prospect of watching the married Senator Ensign—who is under investigation for allegedly seeking lobbying work for the husband of his mistress—arguing that the high court nominee is “sinful” or “lacking in personal morality,” as the Focus on the Family suggests. The polls are clear: Regardless of their views on same sex marriage, most Americans do not think gays and lesbians should be discriminated against, and the numbers for gays on all issues are sky high among young voters. The Republicans don’t want to be caught in a Pat Buchanan-style culture war just as the mid-term elections loom, just like enough of them wanted to avoid the anti-Hispanic trap to confirm Justice Sotomayor. It’s a no-lose nomination.

There is nothing wrong with being gay (or lesbian). What hurts is the assumption that it hurts.

Penn Puts Gay Box on Application

The University of Pennsylvania last week became the first school to announce that it will provide a spot on its application for students to indicate their sexual orientation. Is this a good idea? There seem to be some obvious objections—for example, hyper-competitive students will simply lie about their sexual orientations if they think it will give them an edge. But Gabriel Arana raises some more interesting points at the American Prospect: “Students who are out in high school live in communities that are more tolerant. Statistically, these communities are more educated, less religious, wealthier, and whiter. Having grown up in a conservative, largely Hispanic community on the U.S.-Mexico border, I would not have felt comfortable identifying as gay on college applications. So if the intention is to recruit gay students, the effect will be felt only by the subset of gay applicants who, at 18, feel comfortable identifying as such. It really becomes a proxy for other demographic attributes that on the whole are largely indicative of privilege.” Furthermore, Arana points out that elite schools like Penn already have large and active LGBT communities—in general, they don’t face the same problems in attracting gay students than they do with students of racial minorities.

Cheney Utters Reasonable Statements

“I was a big supporter of waterboarding.”

 

 

 

Obviously, Cheney’s reasonable untterances were not about his views on enhanced interrogation techniques.  Rather, he offered his support for “reconsidering”  removing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the U.S. millitary on gays.  Read the Eugene Robinson WashPo editoral here.

Robinson continues:  “I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said last June. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.”

Robinson quotes some interesting poll data:  “Last week, a Post-ABC News poll found that 75 percent of Americans favor letting gay people serve openly in the military. This compares with just 44 percent when the poll asked the question in 1993.”

It was good to hear from our former vice president.  He could not stay long in that he was scheduled to return to his coffin where he lays awake during the day worrying about Sadam Hussein and his potential use of imaginary weapons. 

iggydonnelly

Beating them at their own game!

Westboro Baptist Church showed up to protest in front of Twitter’s San Francisco office on Thursday, but found themselves severely outnumbered by a crowd carrying multiple signs of randomness, nonsensical yelling, and even a unicorn.  A portable stereo blared Lady GaGa, while press and people passing by ignored the Westboro-gang signs and took pictures and videos of the more entertaining signs.

Westboro had scheduled an appearance in front of the Golden Gate Theatre later that evening to protest Fiddler on the Roof.  Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, Fred Phelps and his followers canceled their appearance before Fiddler on the Roof.  Apparently, they were all hated out from their big day and just had no more hate to spare.

Maybe Redemption is Possible for Everyone. . .

Ted Olson, the attorney who aided George W. Bush in his selection as president of the U.S.A., is now fighting proposition 8, California’s same sex marriage ban.  Olson has teamed up with his opponent  in the Bush v. Gore battle (attorney David Boies) to undo proposition 8.  Being declared an honoray lesbian is a title Olson wears with pride.

Olson was the subject of Maureen Dowd’s Sunday editorial.  He aknowledges his emotional reaction to the case and those effected: “’I think there’s something the matter with you if you don’t care enough to feel the suffering that they’ve been through and if you’re not emotionally upset about the fact that we’re doing an immense amount of harm to people,’ he said. ‘We’re not treating them like Americans. We’re not treating them like citizens.’”

More from the editorial:  “‘The anti-gay-marriage proponents whipped up a moral frenzy in 2008, suggesting conjugal parity would harm children, summon the devil, tear down churches and melt civilization.’ But Olson argued in his opening statement that the discrimination gays experience ‘weakens our moral fiber in this country.’”

Both attorneys expressed their disappointment with President Obama’s position on this cause: “’Damned right,’ Boies snapped. ‘I hope my Democratic president will catch up to my conservative Republican co-counsel.’”

While I don’t think Olson did the nation a favor with his work to install G.B. Bush, as the title states, “maybe redemption is possible for everyone.”

iggydonnelly

Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court

John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 72
Stephen Breyer, 70
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
Sonia Sotomayor, 56
John Roberts (the chief justice), 53

Because of his age and length of service, Stevens is widely considered the most likely to step down, followed by Ginsburg. Both happen to be judicial liberals on a Court that has four liberals (Breyer and Sotomayor being the other two) and four judicial conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). The fickle Kennedy tends to provide the fifth vote in close cases, particularly those involving abortion, race, and religion.

The election of Obama over McCain last fall prevented a Republican goal (dating from the 1968 presidential campaign) of an unambiguously conservative majority on the Court. In this liberal nightmare, the relatively youthful majority would be busy whittling away at Roe v. Wade, eliminating race-based preferences in the public sector, strengthening the government’s hand in fighting terrorism, and facilitating a larger role for religion in public life–among many other bad, bad things.

I know most of you have these players, their stats and which team they play for memorized, but I don’t and always have to go looking for them.

This morning’s New York Times has an op-ed piece titled, “Discrimination on Trial, but Not on TV.” In a 5-4 decision that split the top judges along their political leanings, the Supreme Court barred the live broadcast of audio and video from a California court where rights activists are challenging a state ban on gay marriage.

I would like to know what you think of this decision made yesterday, and your thoughts of our nation’s high court in general.

fnord

Being Gay “Was a Positive Factor”

Pundits are claiming that not only did Annise Parker’s openly gay status not adversely affect her election bid, it may have been “a positive factor” in her election.  Cities like Houston (with a 2.2 million population), Orlando, and Charolotte are becoming international communities and therefore not subject to the petty bigotries of smaller, less diverse places. 

Parker’s adversary resorted to smear tactics which emphasized her being gay.  This strategy backfired on the opposition.  Refreshing, no?  Former mayor Bob Lanier, “Houston is long past the years in which an appeal to bigotry is the winning ticket,” – he added, her sexual orientation was “more a positive factor for her.”

Parts of our dear country are moving ahead, it would seem.  How do we get places like Kansas to keep pace?  All ideas appreciated…

iggydonnelly

The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Act: Overdue Legislation

Had Matthew Shepard lived, he would have been 33 years old today.  The passage of the hate crimes legislation that bears his name was signed into law on Octorber 28th, 2009 by President Barck Obama.

The opposition to this legislation was simply shameful.  Period.  I have always been fascinated by the conservative opposition to legislation that promotes social equality.  Can anyone help me understand it?  I would appreciate it, I think…

iggydonnelly

Sunday, 10/11/09, Public Square

Today is National Coming Out Day, an internationally-observed civil awareness day for coming out and discussion about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) issues.

So many people are open about their sexuality now, that equal rights under the law is at the forefront of the modern LGBT movement.  Same-gender marriage is now recognized by several countries – Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and South Africa.  Civil unions and domestic partnerships are recognized in 17 countries, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, just to name a few.  Unions are also recognized in some parts of Mexico, Australia, and Venezuela, and other countries.

On yet another issue, America is behind the curve!

fnord

Gay Marriage Progress

Vermont was the fourth state to pass gay marriage legislation.  Nine years ago they approved a domestic partnership law.

New England is leading the way.  Maybe some day the mid-west will catch up…