If there is one thing that Obama could do that would actually make me a little less angry… it’s merge my love of statistics and gay rights! The White House is “seeking ways” to include same sex couples in the census. It might not seem like a lot but the census could be the first time that our families and relationships count (zing!). Also, the census is a wonderful way to capture demographic information to study society and develop policy, so anything that makes LGBT people more visible is great. Now if only we could get a tally on trans folk…
Of course, I don’t particularly envy the administration official tasked with figuring out how to count us. Because of the cluster-fuck that is gay rights across this country, the are almost as many different types of same-sex relationships as there are states. For instance, in Massachusetts it’s easy to define a same-sex couple if they have been married. But in Oklahoma there are 0 rights for same-sex couples. Or in New York City you have domestic partnership benefits where you get a smattering of rights. So which level do you accept as a relationship? Do they say “You must have a full marriage” which you can only do in four states (I guess technically you also have the left over California marriages and then the two states that recognize out of state same-sex marriages)? Do they say marriage and civil unions which you can only do in 7 states (well, technically a few more again)? Or do you include people in domestic partnerships (which is in many states, including some with gay marriage, plus a smattering of cities, counties and municipalities across the country)?
It might seem to make sense to include anyone who categorizes themselves as in a “long term same-sex partnership.” I used that qualification in my senior thesis when I interviewed gay couples. But this is not a very scientific qualification. Some people together for 1 year may think of themselves as long term while a couple together for 4 years may not. As Census workers fan out across the country, they have to be extremely standardized. This will inevitably lead to questions of what qualifies as “long term.”  I quantified long term as seven years. Why? I’m not really sure. It was arbitrary and whatever the Census picks will be just as arbitrary. (In case you were wondering, this is why ‘leaving it up to the states’ doesn’t work and this is why the framers gave us a Full Faith and Credit Clause.)
I don’t know if there is a pretty answer to this. I don’t think the Census can count just legally recognized marriages and civil unions because it will give you only a tiny proportion of couples. This would leave my poor brothers and sisters in places like Oklahoma and Tennessee without any representation. It’s hard enough to be sexual minority in those places without adding more indignity by having their relationships not count. I would find it a bit unsettling if maps come out of how many same-sex couples there are in the US and there are huge zeros over 43 states. It’s like when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was asked at Columbia U about gays and he said “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country. We don’t have that in our country.” Because trust me, after the Census if gay couples in these states are ignored, some backward, knuckle-dragging Senator from Oklahoma will say this: “In Oklahoma, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your state. We don’t have that in our state. In Oklahoma, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.”
Dan Savage, who I would have tried to marry if someone hadn’t already claimed him, has a wonderful idea for a year long gay rights protest:
But I have suggestion for an ongoing, smaller-scale action that would have a larger impact than a one-off “march” through an empty city. My idea would need fewer than a 1000 people to succeed—730 to be exact—and it wouldn’t be over in a day. It would go on, day-in, day-out, every day, for a year. Hell, it could go on indefinitely. It involves civil disobedience and the 730 volunteers would have to be willing to get arrested. People who are unable to participate could make donations to help cover the expenses—legal expenses and travel expenses—of those who can.
Here’s the idea: one gay or lesbian couple—a couple currently denied their rights under DOMA—shows up at the entrance to the White House grounds. A different couple every day. They ask to speak to the president about DOMA. They’re refused. They sit down. They refuse to leave. They’re arrested, carried away by the police. Couples would be recruited from all over the country, demonstrating that gay marriage isn’t just an issue in liberal California or godless New England, and the media in each couple’s home city and state would be notified in advance of their arrest. The occasional famous couple—Rosie and Kelli? Ellen and Portia?—would participate to pull in celeb media. But most of the couples who come to D.C. to get arrested would be average folks. The couples would need support, legal and logistical, and we would need someone to organize media outreach and maintain a website. The website would include a photo and profile of each couple that comes to D.C. to get arrested, collect all the press, and be used to recruit couples willing to travel to D.C. and get arrested.
The action would be small scale—it would be human scale—and it would go on and on and on. It would demonstrate better than another gay march just how seriously we take this issue: we take it seriously that we’re willing to travel to D.C. and get arrested. It wouldn’t be a one-day event that the White House could ignore or bluff its way through with some lame statement about its “commitment” to ending DOMA. The couples would keep coming. Every day an arrest. Drip, drip, drip. Members of the White House press corps would see couples getting arrested every day on their way to work. Gibbs would be forced to address DOMA on a near-daily basis. The president would be asked about the issue again and again.
I think this is a great idea. Â I’m actually all on board for this. Â SIGN ME UP.
One caveat: My boyfriend can’t do this, but I’m happy to go with someone else. Â But really I need to go with someone who is hygienic because I don’t want to deal with smelly people in my cell.
And Amy, I damn well expect you to do this when Jenn is on summer break!
I think this whole mess with the DOJ filing is a warning from President Obama.  Why? Because (like I said before) Obama wants LGBT people have equality, but only when we’ve been good little children who make sure we keep giving him money and electing his ineffective Democratic partners in the House and Senate.
That to me is essentially what John Berry, the highest LGBT person in the Obama administration, is saying in this Advocate interview:
We have four broad legislative goals that we want to accomplish and legislation is one of these things where you’ve got to move when the opportunity strikes, so I’m going to list them in an order but it’s not necessarily going to go one, two, three, four. Obviously, I think the first opportunity is hate crimes and we’re hopeful that we can get that passed this week. We’re going to try, but if not, we’re going to keep at it until we get it passed. The second one ENDA, we want to secure that passage of ENDA, and third is we want to repeal legislatively “don’t ask don’t tell,†and fourth, we want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Now, I’m not going to pledge — and nor is the president — that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration – our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure.
The Advocate: Does that include a second term? A lot of people have talked about DOMA being pushed back until a second term.
Berry: I say this in a broad sense — our goal is to get this done on this administration’s watch.
Finally, I want to talk to you about the DOMA brief. Our strongest argument against “don’t ask, don’t tell†is that we stand with the truth. And that we, more than anyone, know the cost of lying and the terrible pain it invokes.
This president took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and he does not get to decide and choose which laws he enforces. He has to enforce the laws that have been enacted appropriately and that he has inherited. It would be wrong for me or any of our community to advise him to lie or to shirk his responsibility. He’s doing his job. He has made clear that he stands for the repeal of DOMA. It will be part of this administration’s agenda to accomplish that act. We ought not waste energy and angst attacking him when we should be focusing the energy and effort on getting 218 votes in the house and 60 votes in the Senate, and that’s where we ought to target the energy and the strength of this community and this president is with us, this is our agenda and it’s his agenda.
Obama and his administration are lying when they say they had to defend DOMA. There is flexibility. But what’s worse is the extent and vociferousness of their defense of DOMA. They could have made a nuanced filing that articulated their concerns with the law but instead they pulled out every anti-gay argument imaginable. Check out this post Richard Socarides, former aide to Bill Clinton:
Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration’s lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff’s had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.
A friend of mine said that you have to be a pretty fucked up individual to want to be the leader of something as fucked up as our government.  I never assumed Obama was infallible or perfect. But my mistake was assuming Obama was a man of integrity and courage. I get that LGBT equality is not massively popular politically or statistically. But it is pretty obvious that it is morally wrong to deny LGBT people equal rights and protections. Obama talks about making these tough decisions, that America had to stand up for what is morally right (i.e. torture).  It seems now, though, the only tough decisions he’s making is how long he can keep LGBT people disenfranchised and quiet. I was going to say that Obama wants us to just be thankful that we have a president who doesn’t attack us. But this DOJ filing is an attack on my community, my family, my friends and my life. It’s one thing to ask for patience and it’s another thing to use the same bigoted language as our most devout enemies.
Obama wants to set the time line for gay rights. Maybe we get one or two legislative victories this term (the Hate Crimes law and ENDA), but the heavy lifting comes after his re-election. Obama knows best, right? This DOJ filing strikes me as an admonishment to the LGBT community who want to speed things along. It’s a like a little warning shot across our bow saying, “Don’t come any closer.”
It’s unbelievably sad this is what Obama has decided to do. I don’t know why I keep falling back on this, but you’d assume someone who is black would get why discrimination is wrong. It reminds me of a MLK Jr. quote:
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Likewise, Section 3 of DOMA merely clarifies that federal policy is to make certain benefits available only to those persons united in heterosexual marriage, as opposed to any other possible relationship defined by law, family, or affection. As a result, gay and lesbian individuals who unite in matrimony are denied no federal benefits to which they were entitled prior to their marriage; they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand. DOMA simply provides, in effect, that as a result of their same-sex marriage they will not become eligible for the set of benefits that Congress has reserved exclusively to those who are related by the bonds of heterosexual marriage. In short, then, the failure in this manner to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on plaintiffs’ rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Senator Patrick Leahy is holding hearings on the Uniting American Families Act today and the NYTimes has even covered it. I wish the article went in to a little more detail about the cruelty of our country’s immigration policies towards gay and lesbian couples but I suppose the politics of the bill are more interesting. From what I understand the plan is to attach the UAFA to Obama’s immigration reform plans which is the only way the bill has a prayer of passing.
President Obama has stated he supports equal federal rights for gays and lesbians and immigration is a federal thing. I’m hoping he either advocates for the bill being included in his immigration reform or at least doesn’t nix it out of hand.
After the not surprising but still INFURIATING decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8, I’m getting less okay about Obama and his silence regarding the rights of the taxing-paying voters who fucking put him in office.
I am at one point angry beyond words about Prop 8 and Obama’s cowardice to stand up for equality, and really happy about the appointment of a progressive nominee to the Supreme Court. Santomayor will probably make more of a difference in regards to equality in the long run…
However, this part of a New York Times article struck me in regards to Obama’s possible thinking on the courts and it’s ties to the idea of judicial, liberal “minimalism”:
It’s true that Obama has cited Chief Justice Earl Warren as a judicial ideal, emphasizing that Warren, a former governor of California, had a sensitive understanding of the real-world effects of Supreme Court decisions. But at the same time, Obama has suggested that liberals in the Warren Court mold may have placed too much trust in the courts and not enough in political activism. “I wondered,†he writes in his book “The Audacity of Hope,†alluding to Senate battles over George W. Bush’s court appointments, “if in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.â€
Well, unfortunately, I don’t have much faith in democracy since laws like Prop 8 pass and the dozens of other state level anti-gay laws pass all the time. Things are changing, but most only through court action. But I guess now we can’t even really rely on the courts to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
There seem to be two extreme ways people are falling in regard to Obama and the Gays. The issues are as follows:
- Overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
- Repeal DOMA
- Support ENDA
- Say one thing about gay people
The first group is filled with shrill rage that Obama hasn’t done any of those things in the last 4 months.
I’m sort of in the middle on this. I am extremely upset that Obama has ignored gay rights for the last few months. He had the bravery to support the LGBT community in the campaign, he needs to continue to do so by addressing the recent victories for marriage equality and supporting honorable troops discharged for being gay.
In fact, it makes me so angry that I can totally relate to conservative gas-bags like this:
But while Obama hasn’t done anything for us specifically, if his actions in the last few months help the economy… then he hasn’t really failed us, per se.
I also don’t know how much he’d realistically be able to do. Any legislative action to repeal DOMA, DADT, and so on would require all the Democrats and a few sympathetic Republicans. And it’s just not going to happen. But there is a case to be made that he could at the very least promote our causes instead of ignoring us. The problem is, if you throw out these issues, there is a chance it will bog down his ability to legislate other issues. While I think marriage is pretty important, I can also understand how it may take a back seat to fixing a shitty economy.
Again, he has done a lot so far. And to be honest, he’s done more things in his first months than most presidents. I give him a year to move on gay rights before I really freak out.
I understand very acutely what marriage discrimination means. But this is the real world and most people in the House and Senate don’t want gays to be equal or, more likely, don’t want to touch the issue. There is only so much the president can do.
Anyway, I think we all have to stay angry and active. We have to make sure our issues are still in the spotlight. The dialogue has to be on-going that this is an important issue. That will do more to further our cause in the long run. But, unlike the sky-is-falling Queerty, I wouldn’t assume all is lost just yet.
OTHER NEWS!
The Prop 8 decision might be coming out tomorrow. I really really hope that the court will overturn the law but from what I read coming out of the CA Supreme Court during the arguments, I’m not optimistic. And tomorrow seems like baaaad timing, since it’ll be the 30th anniversary of the White Night Riots. White Night Riots part 2 anyone?
The conservative blogger, big pink elephant, linked to a blog post of mine from a few months ago where I stated:
By the way, some people squibble about Obama’s support of civil unions over gay marriage. I agree that it’s awful that he supports separate but equal and won’t take a stand for our full rights with marriage. But I think Obama actually supports gay marriage. He is making the politicallty safe maneuver of supporting full rights with civil unions and banking on the fact that 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years from now the Supreme Court will declare that you can’t have to separate but equal institutions.
Tabitha points out the problem of deluding oneself in assuming Obama is going to support marriage equality. She’s right, and I don’t really believe anymore that Obama secretly supports full marriage equality. As I explained on her post:
Tabitha, you’re right that no one is ever a 100% match with every issue. Obama, though, does support most of my #1 issue which is LGBT rights (equal federal rights and protections, passing EDNA, repealing DADT, adoption rights). But gay marriage is not totally black and white because of the “civil unions†option. Obama is in the gray area on that since he argues that gays and lesbians should have all the rights and protection of marriage, he just wants to call it “civil unions†and not “marriage.†And for me, I want the rights, protections and responsibilities and not necessarily the word. I’d be happy for the federal government to classify my marriage as a “civil union†as long as it meant I had the same federal rights as any other married couple…
This is pretty much my stance on the whole Obama and Gays thing right now. I want equality for all the legal stuff and I’m flexible on the language and semantics. I would obviously prefer just to call it marriage but whatever. If the feds don’t want to call my marriage a marriage in the law books, I don’t care. If that makes religious people more comfortable with it, that is a totally acceptable compromise to me. And, really, once gays are “civilly unionized” we can call them marriages. Eventually you’ll have so many union’d gays referring to it as “marriage” it won’t fucking matter anymore. Everyone will call it marriage and, eventually, the population at large will see them as exactly that. And most likely after a decade of this we’ll just change the law books and call it marriage.
Unfortunately, now even I’m starting to wonder if Obama supports much of anything when it comes to teh gehs. There have been two recent editorials calling Obama out on his stance on gay issues. A recent Washington Post editorial argues against the “civil unions” argument:
Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy ripe for repeal, it’s time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is…
Favoring “civil unions” that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage — but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society’s approval — amounts to another dodge. I’m concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it; that’s for worshipers, clergy and the Almighty to work out. Marriage is not just a sacrament but also a contract, and the contractual aspect is a matter of statute, not scripture.
Obama took the “civil unions” route during last year’s campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation — that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates — I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?
It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you’re for it or you’re not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it’s hard for me to imagine how any “fierce advocate of equality” could think otherwise.
This is pretty damn true. Unfortunately, Obama obviously doesn’t see equality as meaning marriage or, as I had optimistically assumed, he really did see it as an equality issue but knew he’d have to play politics and just err on the side of civil unions. I’m not saying this is the right thing to do but I also can’t completely say it’s the wrong thing to do.
And what happened with repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Well, his website was changed last week to “changing” it and not “repealing” it. Luckily the outrage over the change got it switched back to repeal. But the whole incident doesn’t bode well for his administrations plans. Doesn’t promoting equality mean you go out of your way to repeal discrimination you have control over?
CNN did a report on his hesitation to address these issues:
Ten foot pole? Might sound erotically appealing at first but Obama needs to get a little closer to us. Now all along I’ve expected that Obama would probably take his sweet time to hit the gay issues especially once the economy sank. Let’s remember that Clinton got screwed early on with gays in the military. Obama wants to push through more important issues at the moment like his banking reforms and the bailouts. Fine.
But the Obama administration took the unusual step of editing their civil rights issue page and removing any references to repealing the insidious Defense of Marriage Act. This is above and beyond one of the worst laws on the books. It has to be repealed and taken down. The law causes a lot of problems such as preventing immigration equality, preventing gay couples form being counted in the Census, not forcing all states to recognize other state’s gay marriages under the constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, blocks social security benefits to partners, and so on.
It’s a very bad sign that he removed this language. He explicitly campaigned on the repeal of DOMA. His support of a full repeal of DOMA was the MAIN REASON I supported him over Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I can only assume now that five states and counting have achieved marriage equality, his administration realized that repealing DOMA would essentially mean making gay marriage legal across the country. And now instead of it being a promise that could be easily delayed, it’s one that might need pay out sooner rather than later.
I guess Obama can dodge and duck the gay rights issues for a little while. And I’m okay with waiting. But I am not okay with idea that he will completely renege on this promise. I would like to stay hopelessly optimistic and naive a little bit longer.
My friend Amy points out you can now get your letters to the editor ready… She’s sent a letter “in response to the commercial appeal’s solicitation for letters on the county’s proposed non-discrimination ordinance (which would prevent the county & its contractors from discriminating against LGBTQ folks in employment and services)”
Here’s my letter, which is leaps and bounds less eloquent and delicate than Amy’s:
Professor Richard Florida has argued that cities with more gay and lesbian people correlate to economic development. You can read his argument here: http://www.creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/There_Goes_the_Neighborhood.pdf
If the Shelby County Commission should pass the Non-Discrimination Ordinance, the county will help ensure the protection of LGBT citizens and prevent this typically more affluent and educate group from fleeing the area. Obviously tax cuts and no income tax aren’t making the city any better, so why not try something a little unconventional? And, at the very least, it doesn’t hurt to err on the side of protecting people from discrimination.
I’m not kidding, I secretly hope that all the guys at my favorite gay bar (metropolitan) would stop being so snooty and just break out into a choreographed dance like this:
Okay, aside from the fact that StatsPress is generally the most depressing feature of my blog (-45% readership!), it also tells you what search terms people use to arrive at your blog. So, for some reason, “military frotting” is the thing that seems to be bringing in the searches to my blog.
First of all, I don’t think I have ever written about military frotting. Not that I have anything against it. Actually, I like the idea. It’s kind of a great setup for an adult film or novella.
I’m assuming the idea of military frotting comes from the vain hope/fantasy of a lot of gay men out in the world that the military really is an army of young, hot men who are all secretly a little gay. And since they can’t come out in the open, they frot on each other. Woah, by accident bro. Totally by accident.
I’m also hoping that by writing about this, my blog will become THE source for military frotting. And for those of you who have arrived here for that reason (WELCOME, MAKE YOURSELF COMFORTABLE) here are some videos of homoerotic military things I’ve seen on teh geh blogs in the last week or so:
Actually, this one is my own find and in Spanish.
Sign me up!
Well, I suppose if a bunch of young, virile men are trapped together away from their loves and women, the most natural thing for them to do is… synchronize dance moves:
Umm, or they do something way less subtle like lying naked-ish in bed together:
I am a bit inspired today after reading a new report from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force analyzing statistical data relating to the vote for Proposition 8 in California. First of all, the passage of Prop 8 is not the black community’s fault. Ta-Nehisi explains this in more detail, but essentially 58% of blacks voted for Prop 8 which is not that big of a difference from the percentage that it passed with in the population as a whole (52% in the state as a whole). The study is interesting and apparently kind of wrongwhen it asserts that there isn’t a problem with support for LGBTQ individuals in the black community. But the study reinforces the idea that race was less likely to be a factor on someone voting Yes on Prop 8 then someone’s ideology or religiosity.
Religiosity is a term used for how frequently and/or devoutly someone is in to their religion. The NGLTF study measures religiosity by the frequency of attendance (they compare monthly attendance to the answers “weekly or more often”, “holidays only” and “hardly ever”). While religiosity is not the strongest correlation to voting Yes on Prop 8–it was second only to ideology–it was pretty damn close.
What is the best bet to securing gay rights in the future? Changing religious people.
People don’t seem to want to touch this idea. I know most people are sensitive to religion but that doesn’t mean you have to completely ignore it. And, seriously, focusing on the tiny uptick in the black community’s disinterest in gay rights and NOT the religious community is just plain stupid.
Changing religious people will cover a larger swath of people, like white, black, Latino, asian, poor, rich, etc. Of course, there are a number of ways we can do this. I put them in order of how much I like them from “If we have to” to “This is clearly a better long-term answer.”
1. LGBTQ Out in Churches
LGBTQ members can open about their sexuality in church, engaging actively with leaders in the church to raise dialogue about equal rights and protections. You could try making theological arguments for LGBTQ rights. I don’t know, some times that works.
Religious people who are gay should just come out. Yes it will suck, yes you might get kicked out. But it’s also hard to keep the anti-LGBTQ rhetoric going if congregants know and love someone who is LGBTQ. Eventually, this will soften them up a little. Maybe, gasp, religious leaders will focus on real issues like climate change and poverty.
2. LGBTQ Organizations Reaching Out
We’ve got Unitarians in the bag here, but LGBTQ individuals could work a little harder on reaching out to churches. You could start LGBTQ groups in your churches.  LGBTQ organizations could start working on literature, websites and programs about how to organize and establish LGBTQ groups in churches. LGBTQ and Allies could start with slightly more liberal churches and eventually work their way up to bigger churches with a broader reach.
There are some upsides and downsides to this. For instance, it’s really really hard to change religious leader’s minds. They believe that the Bible and other religious texts are pretty clear about homo-love being evil. More so, those leaders who are sympathetic will probably face push back from their congregants who have staked a lot of their “salvation” on fighting against gays. Luckily, the old people who really hate gays rights are dying off. The young people in churches will probably be more amendable to not focusing on gay-hating.
Honestly, I am not the right person to theorize on how to change a church.
3. Remove Anti-Gay Churches Tax-Exempt Statuses
I have a personal preference for this. We could work really really hard to have churches that are anti-gay or generally bigoted to have their tax-exempt status revoked. Churches, like all non-profits, have 501(c)(3) status and do not have to pay taxes. In theory, this is because they are doing “good,” not making money on their work and contributing to the well-being of our society (which we want to encourage).
There are some nifty limitations to this. Specifically:
Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
This is why nonprofits can’t endorse a political candidate or legislation. They can’t raise money for them and they cannot spend any of their money on them. Well, the Mormon church did exactly that during the Prop 8 campaign. You can read more about this at Mormons Stole Our Rights.
But this will not work. I whole-heartedly support taking away the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church and any other anti-gay church. It is just not going to happen. For one, it makes us Gehs look WAY WAY worse because we will really be “attacking churches.” Moreover, no politician would touch this idea with a dead man’s hands (Maybe Jesus’?). This means it is not going to happen.
But maybe we could focus on taking away all churches tax-exempt status’….
4. Reduce Religiosity
I think, for the most part, the best way to protect LGBTQ rights is to reduce people’s religiosity. Hopefully even reduce it to zero. Reducing people’s religiosity would have many positive effects beyond protecting minority groups’ rights too. For instance, we could increase support for environmental action, better fund support for effective HIV/AIDS campaigns in Africa and abroad, reduce unwanted pregnancies and STD rates in the USA with comprehensive sex-ed, kick start life-saving research with stem cells, continue to guarantee the constitutional protection of the separation of church and state, protect a woman’s right to choose, allow people to die with dignity, encourage science programs to teach real science and perhaps we can reclaim land used for mega-churches to make parks accessible to everyone!
The chances of all of these things happening would be a lot better if we reduced religiosity in this country. So how exactly do you do that? Well, there are a number of ways. Much like LGBTQ individuals have to be open about their sexuality to raise acceptance, Atheists and Agnostics need to be open about their lack of faith and their interests in humanism. The more you engage religious people with reason and reality, the easier it is for them to begin to question their religious beliefs.
Another way is to completely sever the connections between Church and State. This means no tax credits or financial support for Churches. But like I said earlier, financial stuff is hard to do politically. We can, though, continue to fight against churches invading our school systems and communities. We can continue to legally challenge when Churches and religious people cross the line. We simply have to stand up to Churches and not allow them to bully the rest of society around.
Honestly, though, I am a big proponent of visibility and dialogue. I think if you can continue to engage religious people in dialogue, religiosity will recede. If more and more of us talk openly about being an atheist, we’ll make it easier for other atheists to “come out.” If we can begin to advertise more and can begin to feature atheists prominently in the media–tell stories of people who “do the right thing” because of things other than god–we’ll begin to see a change. Atheism needs to become normal.
I am not advocating violence or proselytizing. Simply, we need to make our voices heard and engage those people who want to be engaged. By allowing our thoughts and beliefs to be in the public forums is more likely to do damage to religions grip than by annoyingly going door-to-door or sending “missionaries” off to some far-flung land. Let people come to us.
This is going to take time and is probably not the most rapid way to attain equal rights. However, I don’t think any of my suggestions are mutually exclusive. (To be honest, though, I think churches NOT changing and sticking to their bigotry is a far more powerful in reducing religiosity. I’m indifferent to their bigotry in that regard.) And then, when we reduce the prevalence of religiosity we might begin to see and sustain equal rights for LGBTQ indivuidals. Until then, we are only another “moral” majority away from losing what we’ve worked for.
I love fan-fiction more than anything in the whole wide world. There is something about the intensity of the writing that makes the whole thing really creepy and endearing.
But there is absolutely nothing better than GAY fan fiction. Called “Slash,” gay fan fiction is usually sci-fi and fantasy franchises with gayified characters. Sometimes it’s the plain old Star Wars “I’m secretly gay and want to bang you, Obi-Wan” Or sometimes the magic “gay spell” for the Harry Potter and Buffy related slash. No matter what, it’s all really funny and always extremely graphic.
But nothing is more frightening than gay Star Trek fan fiction and the lengths, ahem, they will go to. Take Star Trek Voyages for example. Seriously, this is the most cringe worthy video clip of the year.
If you’re in the vicinity of Eastern Tennessee, you can probably hear my combination of scream-laughing at this:
“You make everything alright.” Except for your acting and the fact that you’re doign this.
I’m probably going to get a lot shit about this, but I don’t understand the big deal about there being no openly gay, lesbian, bi or trans people in Obama’s cabinet.
I understand that every group likes to represented in the Cabinet. Symbolically, it would have been fucking phenomenal to have a gay person in the cabinet. We all want women, black, Hispanic and gay people in the cabinet.
But Obama didn’t pick any LGBT people and why does it matter? He picked people who I hope are great, knowledgeable and experienced people who can capably fulfill their roles in his administration. Having some sort of quota for representation is ridiculous, especially for a Cabinet. If you truly want representation that reflects society, vote on people for local and Congressional seats that reflect more diversity. For instance, there are now no black people in the US Senate. Zero. There are no gay people in the Senate. And just one homo in the House. Where’s the outrage about that?
So Obama’s cabinet doesn’t include one homosexual. Why does it matter? Do you think that a gay Transportation Secretary is going to drastically do anything different to effect LGBT individuals in transportation? Or would a gay Secretary of Commerce really do much to change commerce matters for gays? I’m not saying a Secretary can’t do some good for gays, like maybe the Health and Human Service Secretary, but it’s no guarantee that a gay person would help gays more than a straight person.
Moreover, there are no Middle Eastern, Jewish, Asian, Native American or disabled people in Obama’s cabinet. Where’s the outrage about that? If everyone gets proportional representations, it needs to be half female, 13% Latino, 12% black and maybe 5% gay.
Focus on the choices’ backgrounds and I think you might feel slightly more heartened by his decisions.
Very Small Array has a great infographic of the most frequent occurrence of words in the missed connections section of Craigslist.
Oh my god. This kind of makes me hate being gay… most all of these are names of gyms. I guess, at the very least, you now have an infographic of where to go gay crusing when you are traveling throuhg places like Tennessee (Kroger, really?).
Anyway, for the lezzies:
First of all, no cruising for lady love in the Dakota’s. But the sheer quality of the locations listed here makes me feel better about our gay loving in the gym.  Shell? Hallmark? I’m surprise Home Depot didn’t come up more!
Wait, Dairy Queen?
This makes me wonder, if this is the kind of lesbian you find in Kansas Nebraska:
