The Republic of T.

Painting My Town Red

Well, now we have evidence that even the "bluest" areas have faint touches of red here and there. DC has some homo-haters in it.

The D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics has scheduled a Nov. 18 hearing to decide if a petition that seeks to define marriage as being between one man and one woman only can be circulated in the District, according to Bill O'Field, DCBOEE spokesperson.

Lisa L. Greene, who claims to represent the group D.C. Citizens for Marriage [no Web site could be found], filed the paperwork seeking a citizen's initiative that would ban gay marriage in the District. If DCBOEE determines that the group's proposed "District of Columbia Marriage Protection Act" is a proper
subject matter for an initiative measure, Greene's group would have to collect at least 19,196 signatures of registered District voters in 180 days to bring the issue to the ballot. That total is 5 percent of the number of total registered voters in the District.

The text of the initiative is this:

The Citizens of the District of Columbia and the District Council defines and preserves marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman only.

Great. Now I gotta be a second class citizen in my own city? Well, maybe. It appears that there may be some chance of fighting this thing.

One possible legal challenge to the initiative is a 1980s era District law, pushed through at the request of local gay activists, that bans D.C. initiatives or referenda that would remove civil rights protections conferred by the D.C. Human Rights Act. It's unclear whether same-sex marriage could be considered a civil rights protection conferred under the city's human rights law, but some activists could attempt to use this law to block the anti-gay marriage initiative.

Here's my take. If they manage to get a referendum on this thing, it will pass; even in "true blue," heavily Democratic D.C. My reasoning? While D.C. is a pretty liberal city, it's also a predominantly black city, and it's already been noted how the gay marriage issue helped give the Bush campaign team inroads into African American communities where there weren't many before. My guess is that if this becomes a referendum, the black churches in D.C. will support it, and it will pass.

Five (Dim) Points of Light

Gay and lesbian Americans! Do not despair the 2004 elections! Why? Because the Log Cabin Republicans have a 5-point plan.

Log Cabin Republicans Monday issued a 5 point plan the group says would help ensure LGBT civil rights victories.

The manifesto calls for a de-emphasis on major cities which have large gay communities, developing ties with moderate Republicans, working to develop lines of communication with religious groups, taking the offensive on civil rights initiatives, and placing less emphasis on the courts.

"The November 2004 election represents a historic wake-up call for gay and lesbian Americans and organizations," Log Cabin said in a statement.

"Not only did we lose our fight against 11 anti-gay ballot questions, we lost in the broader social and political landscape of America. If we listen to those attempting to sanitize or sugarcoat the post-election analysis, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes and destined for more setbacks in the years ahead. Winning our principled fight for fairness and equality will require bold, controversial, and strategic change from all of us."

The plan says that rather than putting an emphasis on major gay centers such as San Francisco or Manhattan the focus should be on the American heartland and the South.

OK. Their intentions are good, and they might have a point or two there. I just think that if they end up coming back alive from the "heartland" and the south, they should declare the program a success, because I doubt that much more than that will be achieved in the interim.

I understand that it might be succesful in the long-term, say 20 to 30 years, but who is that helping now? How is that helping gay and lesbian Americans now? Like the poem from Langston Hughes said, I'm tired of being told to wait. My family doesn't need equal rights and protections in 20 years. We need them now, or as soon as possible. Sitting and waiting just makes the interim harder on our families and easier on the bigots.

I understand that there can't be just one strategy. Really, I do.. I just hope that following the 2004 elections we don't totally back off of congressional and judicial strategies, because without these protections our families are more at risk than we probably know. It's easy to forget this of you live in a comfortably "blue" area of the country, but the minute you have need of those rights and protections and don't have need of them, you begin to realize just how vulnerable you and your family are.

Log Cabin's strategy may well work. They're certainly more qualified to carry it out than I am, because I'm not sure what I'd have to say to "red America," what they'd have to say to me, or if we'd even be able to understand each other.

It's a great additional strategy, but it can't be the only strategy from here forward.

Via No Capital.

FMA II

Link: Damn.

President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a ``hopeful and decent'' society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about ``moral values'' to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

``If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman,'' Bush political aide Karl Rove told ``Fox News Sunday.''

Rove said Bush would ``absolutely'' push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of ``activist judges'' who would permit gay marriages.

If it wasn't clear before, it's clear now: this isn't my country anymore, if it ever really was. When I stepped outside, on November 3rd, the sky looked the same as it always did. The ground beneath my feet felt solid as ever; the air was the same as the day before. Yet, I felt like I'd stepped out of my front door and into some strange other country. I felt like a man without a country; a stranger in a strange land. And I still feel that way today.

Whether this second attempt is succesful or not, it's sure to inspire another dozen or so state amendments by the time the next election cycle rolls around. And in four years, I'm not sure this country is going to even be recognizable anymore.

I'm not sure I want to be here to see that. I have to admit, a big part of me wants out, and I'm probably not alone.

The Canadian government is preparing for a gay migration from the US following Tuesday's election.  Already Canadian consulates in Chicago and New York have been approached by dozens of same-sex couples enquiring about immigration.

Same-sex marriage is legal in five of Canada's ten provinces and in the Yukon territory.  Judges in two other provinces are considering petitions to allow gay marriages.

A spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Judy Sgro said that it is difficult to say how many of the gay and lesbian couples inquiring about moving to Canada will actually do it.

"We're seeing a lot of anxiety by gay Americans," Lucille Way told 365Gay.com. "But, asking about immigration and actually leaving  your homeland are two different things."

When is a homeland no longer home? I'm not sure, but I think it may be about the time you're faced with accepting second (or third?) class citizenship if you remain in your "homeland."

The hubby and I are of two different minds; with me thinking it's time to get out "while the gettin' is good," and with him thinking that as long as we stick to the "blue" regions, like the one we already live in, we'll be fine. But I worry about this madness spreading. It it were just me, I'd probably be at least looking into the process for getting out of this country for good.

It's just that I'm tired. I realized a few days ago that, in some form or fashion, I've been an activist for some 17 or 18 years, on everything from gay & lesbian equality, to HIV/AIDS, to human rights, etc. And it looks like remaining in this country means having to fight the "culture wars" for another generation or so before they're won. It's disheartening to be looking forward to a long, hard fight when you've only just gotten to the end of a previous one.

At some point in my life, I want to stop fighting. At some point in my life, I want peace. I'm starting to think it's just not going to be possible here in the land of the "free."

Via AMERICAblog.

Democracy

I've been looking all week for words to express what I've felt since November 2nd.  I came across this poem by Langston Hughes—a black, gay poet—that prety much says it all.

Democracy
by Langston Hughes

Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.

I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my two feet
And own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.

 

This is one I want to commit to memory.

Via Shaula Evans of  tsuredzuregusa.

Marriage, Minorities & Equality Under the Law

I should probably let this discussion die, but there are some points I think need to be made. I know I'm repeating things that I've said on this blog before, but I think they bear repeating in light of recent events.

My further point was that I hoped this stopped the same activists from pushing for a Goodridge like ruling from the US Supreme Court, because that would result in the FMA's bigger, even nastier, brother - an ammendment that clearly forbids even civil unions. I think I've sufficiently addressed the Brown and Loving counterarguments, so what we're left with is a strategy to slowly win democratic approval of gay marriage as fast as people can be convinced. The delay in granting gays and lesbians their much deserved rights in the interval, unfortunately, is simply unavoidable...

I guess I should preface this by saying I'm not a legal scholar or an expert on the constitution. So, I have limited knowledge here, probably not much more than the average citizen. (Unless I'm overestimating what the average citizen knows.)

'Asexual Stealth Phrases'?

You can't make up stuff like this.

A State Board of Education member called on textbook publishers to change the wording in health books being considered for use in Texas schools to clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Republican Terri Leo said certain books attempt to nullify a Texas law banning the recognition of same-sex civil unions by using "asexual stealth phrases" such as "individuals who marry" instead of husbands and wives.

"I want the reader, the child to know that marriage is between a man and a woman," Leo said in a written statement released during a board meeting Thursday.

The 15-member board is scheduled to vote Friday on whether to approve the books for middle and high schools. The decision could affect dozens of states because books sold in Texas, the nation's second-largest textbook buyer, often are marketed elsewhere.

Democratic board member Mary Helen Berlanga noted that one textbook showed a picture of a mother and a father and a young girl and her brother.

"We cannot start censoring books because we do not like the terminology," Berlanga said. "I don't see two males or two females holding hands."

I have now heard just about everything. Is it me, or do these people give a whole new meaning to the term "Orwellian"?

Hold on to your sanity, folks. These are the people running things, for the next four years at least.

So Now What?

There's a question that's been rolling around in my head today, since I read it on a listserve I'm a member of. It's not a question that surpises me, in light of recent events, and even though I don't have an answer for it, I'm considering it quite seriously.

It was inevitable after Tuesday in Ohio. Like a lot of people, along with the presidential race I was watching the same-sex marriage votes. When I heard that everything was depending on Ohio, I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I couldn't give voice to it then, but in the back of my mind it occured to me that perhaps the gay marriage issue was the Republican's ultimate "Get Out the Vote" vehicle. And since yesterday, all over the blogosphere, people have been asking whether or not the gay issue gave Bush a boost and cost Kerry the election.

One thing's for sure. A lot of gay Americans (with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, and the 1 in 5 gays who voted for Bush—don't get me started) woke up on Wedesday feeling the weight of voter-confirmed second class citizenship.

Today I have to recognize myself as a minority, a second-class citizen with less than full rights and constitutional protections, a member of the last group of Americans who can be denigrated without political consequences.

What can I say to republican friends and family who voted for this man?  What can they say to me?

…So, here we are. The President spoke movingly yesterday of coming together and healing the wounds, as did Senator Kerry. Those words ring very hollow with me.

I don't know what fate holds for our country, or exactly how history will judge this president.  I do know what I think of him.

Prejudice in whatever form is immoral and dangerous, as it blinds people to the individual and makes it easy to act on hatred. Out of prejudice great wrongs have been committed. I know that there are moral consequences to every action. A president who fans the flames of prejudice, or allows them to be fanned by his electoral operatives, is not a moral person.

A few times in my life things have happened, or one-time opportunities were lost, and I knew immediately there would be consequences years into the future. On those occasions my heart gets a little heavier, and it never again gets quite as light and hopeful as it had been. This is one of those times.

And as if that weren't bad enough, there are those who would—perhaps with good intentions—scold gay Americans for wanting too much too soon.

Though I'm obviously very pleased and excited by the election results in general, I'm disappointed by these anti-gay marriage amendments. They're not good policy, they're not fair, and they shouldn't have been passed. But I can understand why they were passed, and I don't think it's the fault of the ubiquitous "homophobes".

Simply put, those who were pushing judges to implement gay  marriage judicially through substantive due process caused this to happen. If you had waited just for a moment, I and a bunch of people like me would have gone to the wall for you folks. It might have taken a while to get gay marriage legislated everywhere, but with persuasion, and argument, and a sustained rational push, we could have made it happen. Instead, people tried to get the job done undemocratically. They tried to get this dramatic change imposed on society by the whim of a couple of judges. And the people felt they had no choice but to resort to these utterly draconian constitutional amendments. You left a large portion of society both unconvinced and backed against a corner, and they struck across the country. I just hope that people understand this democratic shot across the bow of substantive due process, and back off slowly.

I won't get into the whole discussion of just how long we're all supposed to wait for people to grant us equality out of the goodness of their hearts when they don't have any goodness in their hearts. That will take me down a different road than where I'm headed with this post. Suffice it to say that what happens in the gay rights movement is driven from a lot of different places. A few years ago, I worked for a gay & lesbian political organization that was faced with the marriage issue, and didn't want to touch it because we knew it wasn't "winnable." No matter how we looked at the polling numbers, no matter how the question was asked, they didn't look good for us. But a movement in the community (and let me tell you, organizing gay people is a lot like herding cats) made it an important issue. If enough people want it, it snowballs.

The question I'm coming to is this: what if there really is something to this? What if the Democrats, and their candiate paid a price for taking a stand (well, to be honest in Kerry's case, almost taking a stand, in a way that wouldn't kill him politically)? What if the gay marriage issue really did get out the Republican vote? How do we respond? How do the Democrats respond? Do gay Americans back off of the political fight for equality? Do the Democrats back off of gay issues in order to maintain political viability? (From my reading, there's at least one Democrat who's proud that his party took a step towards taking a stand.)

There's at least one suggestion, from the blogger I quoted above, which came partially in resonse to my comment on his post.

I'm not sure how long you're going to have to wait. I'm sorry. We'll argue as fast as we can. But the alternative is to solidify opposition to your hopes for a generation. 11 states overwhelmingly banned gay marriage yesterday - that's stunning, and it should be clear that the fastest way to help is to do it democratically. As Professor Volokh, another Republican-ish gay marriage advocate, has noted - the backlash has been terrible.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the current strategy isn't likely to work. The way to gain acceptance for gay marriage is the same way as you gained acceptance for being gay - by showing people there's nothing to be afraid of. The momentum was on your side, and the whole Goodridge debacle may have killed it for now. That's all I'm saying.

The problem is that doing it that way means that we, and our families continue to be without the rights and protections that other citizens and their families enjoy. We remain as vulnerable to discrimiantion, and that's discrimination without remedy, as we have always been. The problem is that while we're waiting, life goes on, but it's a life spent at least partially on-gard mosst of the time. I also know that power concedes nothing without a fight. When people are invested in the status quo, benefit from it, and through it are conferred a status that raises them a littl e bit above others, they are usually reluctant to give up that priviledge or to share it. It adds up to a long wait, with little justice.

So, now what? What's the answer? Is this election proof that what we've been doing is the wrong way to go about things? If so, what's the right way, and does it get us where we want to go any sooner? Is the answer just to back off on the political fight for equalty? Do our allies perhaps now see us as a liability? And if the answer to either of those is yes, then what do we do?

I don't have answers, folks. I'm really asking.

 

Lynne? Dick? Yoo-Hoo?

This probably should come as no surprise, but the Repblicans have stooped to Crowley: gay baiting in the Kentucky Senate race.

But rather than stay on the high road, some of the very Republicans that had been crying foul turned around in a hypocritical frenzy and began dishing dirt on Mongiardo.

Give the Bunning supporters credit, at least they stayed on message - and that message is that Mongiardo, a single physician, is gay.

Williams, who most of this week was on a statewide bus tour with Bunning, used the stump to call Mongiardo a "limp wrist" and "switch hitter." Kentucky Senate Majority Whip Elizabeth Tori, also a Republican, said she was not sure the word "man" applied to Mongiardo and that "all he does is whine."

Bunning was asked by reporters to repudiate the comments; he refused.

So successful were the Republicans at generating a buzz about Mongiardo's lifestyle that he was forced to answer reporters' questions about his sexuality. For the record, he said, he is not gay. But the seed was planted in the minds of conservative voters that there might be a question about Mongiardo.

I have a feeling that the 'pubs are not following up their statements about Mongiardo with a Seinfeld-esque "not that there's anything wrong with that." Indeed the, implication is that there is something wrong with it, otherwise why bring it up, whether it's true or not? The implication is that a gay person is not worthy or morally fit enough to serve in the Senate.

Where, or where are the Cheney's?

Oh, that's right. They care about their lesbian daughter. The rest of us can go to hell.

German Gays Got It Good

Yet another country takes a step down the road to equality, miles ahead of the U.S.

German lawmakers expanded the rights of same-sex couples Friday, allowing registered domestic partners to adopt each other's children and making rules on splitting up and alimony similar to those for heterosexual marriages.

Parliament's lower house passed the changes drafted by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's center-left government over the objections of opposition conservatives.

"This is a good day for gays and lesbians," Green Party lawmaker Volker Beck told his colleagues. "We are making another step on the long road to equal rights."

The new law stops short of giving homosexuals, who are legally recognized as couples under Germany's domestic partnership law, full rights to adopt children. But if one partner has children or brings them into the partnership, the other partner can now legally adopt them if neither parent objects.

Before registering their partnership, gay couples will be able to get engaged as heterosexuals do, a step granting certain legal rights in Germany, such as the right not to testify against one's partner in court.

Laws on separation, divorce, alimony and division of assets also are being extended to gay couples.

Although Germany does not permit gay marriage, about 5,000 gay couples have registered domestic partnerships under a law supported by Schroeder's government that took effect Aug. 1, 2001.

Sure, it's not marriage, and it's not perfect, but it's more—a lot more—than we've got here at the moment.

Hmmm. I studied German in high school and college. Maybe I should brush up.

Still More Scenes From W's America

This one, from Andrew Sullivan, came to me via Tori, a friend from my college days.

What is it with right wing conservatives and their gay kids (or grandkids)? There's Dick and Mary. There's Jesse Helms and his gay grandaughter. Now, we find that one of the major backers of Georgia's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has a gay daughter.

There's one bright spot to this one, however. This lesbian daughter publicly rejects her mother's bigotry. In doing so, she paints a picture of just what "compassionate conservatism" looks like in W's America.

I am the daughter of Sadie Fields, president of the Christian Coalition of Georgia. I was appalled by the column my mother wrote justifying her bigotry, and I feel compelled to respond ("Can't let the few hurt society as a whole," @issue, Oct. 25).

The first time there was a definitive split between my mother and me, I was in the seventh grade. My best friend's name was Lisa. She was Jewish. Concerned about what our pastor had stated about Jews in the afterlife, I went to my mother and asked her if Lisa was going to burn in hell. My mother's response, "If she does not accept the Lord Jesus then yes, she will go to hell." Right there, she lost me. I have disagreed with her ever since.

I was 24 years old when my mother, through a series of mishaps, found out I was gay. My mother came over to where I worked, screaming, and told me I was "dead" to the family. She called me "sick," "crazy" and "of the devil." She said that I would never see my family again.

For more than five years after that day, I heard nothing from my family. No birthday cards, no invitations to Christmas or Thanksgiving events. It wasn't just the loss of my immediate family that was difficult, but the loss of my extended family as well. Since my mother refused to be in the same room with me, it forced my aunts and uncles to choose sides. I have not been to a family reunion in more than a decade.

There you have it, folks. The "family values" of those who would preach to the rest of us about what family should be, laid bare.

But Tess Fields goes on to show just why same sex couples and their families needs the rights and protections currently granted to married heterosexual couples.

When my partner, Trisha, and I decided to have a child, we were not unlike most couples making this decision. We considered whether or not we were emotionally and financially ready. We considered the ways that it would change our lives and our relationship with each other.

…The only thing unusual about our pregnancy was the critical necessity of a lawyer.

Given my mother's abject hostility toward gay and lesbian people, in the process of my pregnancy we had to spend thousands of dollars protecting ourselves from her potential interference. In spite of the fact that she has never, in more than a decade, visited me, and has written numerous articles comparing me to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals, according to the law, my mother has more rights to our child than Trisha.

What if I died during the birth? What if something happened to me before the lawyers could get the adoption finalized? These were the kinds of fears that our family had to face, and we felt robbed. Expecting a child should be a wonderful moment in a couple's life. Pregnancy, in and of itself, can be challenging, but the greater excitement of a baby on the way seems to balance these fears for most people. My family, however, had to be concerned about my mother's extremism, and what legal grounds she had if she decided to try and take Trisha's child. And then we had to prepare, meticulously, if that threat were ever realized.

A friend once told me that becoming a parent does two things: It teaches you to love in a whole new way, and it teaches you to fear in a whole new way. It was not until I became pregnant that I understood completely what she meant.

I lived through something similar when we became parents. We, too, needed a lawyer, and we also had to consider our families' reactions. It was particularly a concern when we went to visit my family in Georgia over the holidays last year. You see, my parents are as religious (and about as anti-gay) as Field's monther. In fact, I have every confidence that they will vote in favor of the proposed constitutional amendment in Georgia. (I haven't confirmed this with them, because I frankly just don't want to know.)

Before going to visit them, my partner and I agreed that at no time would our son be left alone in their presence. I wasn't too concerned that they might somehow try to take him away from us, but I had to be at least somewhat concerned because the reality was that they could and in Georgia we would face an uphill battle in protecting our parenthood; a battle we might not be sure to win.

Tess Fields' friend was right. Becoming a parent does teach you to love in a whole new way. I discovered a capacity to love that I didn't know I had before. It does also teach you to fear in a new way. The thought of losing my son...well, it's something I don't even have words for, except to say that I would be beyond devastated. And I remember all too well what happened to Sharon Bottoms in Virginia.

I'll wrap up this post with Tess Fields' words, which I want to echo.

For those of you voting no on Amendment One, thank you for standing up for families like mine. Thank you for making the world a safer place for our son. Thank you for helping ensure that he receives good health care. Regardless of what happens to me, he will continue to grow safely in the arms of his loving mother and grandparents. Thank you for not allowing a form of religious extremism that leaves families shattered and broken to be written into law, becoming a way of life for all.

If you're in Georgia, vote "no" on 1.