a straight ally roll call

Monday was National Coming Out Day and I missed it here.

But I didn't want to miss this chance to recognize some of the people who have gently, and not so gently, schooled me about my straight privilege and shown me how to be a better straight friend.

George - I have no idea where you are now, but introducing you to my family was a first for me and you were gracious, graceful and kind in the face of my father's blustery fundamentalism.

James - I remember sitting in Espresso Royale while you sternly pointed out to me that straight people asking gays and lesbians to not be 'too' gay or lesbian, or to ask why gays and lesbians couldn't be more like other people, was the height of homophobia and cultural ignorance. And you closed your books, got up, walked away and I knew I wouldn't be talking to you again until I apologized - and not just apologized but, in a way, repented. And so I did. That was when I got what it meant to be your friend. It was also when I understood that it wasn't enough to 'be ok' with gays and lesbians but to shut the hell up and listen.

The Michigan Crew: You all know who you are. You showed me a world of diverse thought, opinion, culture and patience! Oh, the patience. And some of you also publicly called me out when I said the most horrible things. And thanks for that. I remember leaving a GEO meeting after scorning some students who weren't as active as the rest of us and I used a word that was derogatory. Halfway home, a woman stopped me and told me she was offended by the word I'd used in the meeting and she explained why it was homophobic, damaging and wrong. I was abashed. Ashamed.

When I presume to get on my high horse to tell the gay community what they need to do in order to be accepted by us, I remember this moment. And I swallow my presumption.

(And thanks for the cocktails! Oh, the cocktails!)

Miguel and Fernando; James and Tomas - seeing you become parents has been awesome. Your hearts are so big; you have opened your homes to children who need to be loved, cared for and nurtured. I won't ever be a parent but I'm glad you four are.

John - the Boystown legal aid lawyer who did me a solid and kept me from being evicted when I first moved to Chicago and was awful with money.


(That was sort of a big deal, man.)


Sara and Elizabeth - whose wedding and marriage makes me wonder how people could say their relationship is any less valid than mine or anyone else's.

Aunt D-, dad and L- - you all have shown me that life is a journey.

We all deserve to live honestly, freely and equally.
One day, that ideal will be reality.

dear religious people: stop picking and choosing bigotry

Eric Zorn: Hateful parents, teens conspire to throw fake prom for learning disabled students and a lesbian couple

I had a few assumptions already in my mind about this small community and this latest story just confirmed them.

Assumption: this town is all about conformity and tightly regulated social order.
Assumption: this town is not...open to outsiders.
Assumption: this town has the small-minded meanness required to maintain a rigid social structure.

Check, check and check.

Zorn links to a post here (and here) that has even more details on what kind of mind could think this was ok.

It's interesting to note what kind of blinders they're using to justify their really cruel behavior.
They just wanted a regular prom.
They didn't want all the attention (hence 'laying low.')
They didn't want to knuckle under the 'demands' of a student 'no one really liked anyway.'
They wanted to end the year 'right.'
They wanted their year 'back on track.'

What all this equals to is selfishness (as well as a huge gulp of bigotry.)

The notions of fair play, equality, kindness, ethical behavior, or even basic decency didn't enter their minds.

Before all the kids put their Facebook profiles on lockdown, they were pretty vocal about how much they loved Jesus but it's clear they didn't internalize any of the Sunday school lessons embodied by Jesus' encounters with the socially marginalized. 

If these kids saw the woman by the well, what would they have done?
If they came across the prostitute about to be stoned by the Pharisees, what would they have done?
If they were forced to have dinner with a tax collector, what would they have said?

Is it a stretch to guess these kids and their parents would have no problem shunning, stoning or isolating people who aren't like them? 

Is that what Jesus taught?

Superficially religious folk conveniently ignore the simple lessons Jesus taught.  Of course they cling to the Pauline injunctions against homosexuality  - which also happen to support their bigotry.  Their stubborn privileging of this injunction rather than the commandment to 'love your neighbor and treat others like you'd be treated' supposedly gives them cover for righteous behavior. 

After all, they say 'you can't pick and choose' which parts of the Bible you're going to believe and live by.  Good point. But picking and choosing, however, is exactly what you're doing when you choose to treat someone with hate and exclusion rather than love and compassion. 

Here's an exegetical tip to folks who use the picking/choosing to justify their bigoted reading of scripture: when you are confronted by an apparent conflict in the Bible (in this case the conflict between loving your neighbor or telling your neighbor to go to a fake prom because you hate gay people), err on the side of love and acceptance.

And if that's not enough to give pause to knee-jerk bigotry, here's my question to all those self-righteous religous folk out there who'd rather be an empty tomb than filled with the love of Christ:

When it's your time to meet your Lord, do you really think God is going to judge you if you treat gays, lesbians and trans people like human beings?

(yeah. don't get a baptist preacher's daugher on your back about jesus, man.)

another milestone of the kidney kind

Around the time that M- dropped the L-word for the first time, and I was feeling a little weird about it, someone suggested going through an 'emergency room' scenario, a mental exercise to clarify my own feelings.

We have exchanged L-words (I just can't say it, can I?) but this weekend sort of cemented things. In other words, you know you love someone when you rush from your cozy apt on a cold rainy night to go to the ER all the way on the north side because a nurse called and said 'Your boyfriend needs you.'

He had called from his house earlier:

M-: So babe. What are the symptoms of a kidney stone? (groan)
D : Sharp pain, hurts to pee, and blood in your urine. (my old lady television viewing habits come in handy, sometimes.)
M-: I might have a kidney stone. I have to pee all the time. No blood, though.
D: Wow. Are you sure? Sharp pain in your lower back?
M-: Yeah, but I'm ok. Maybe it'll go away. (groan)
D: Kidney stones don't go away unless they leave your penis. I think you should go to the ER.
M-: Maybe I'll take a tylenol and then come over for our date when the pain passes.
D : Whatever. Our date is off. You need to go to the ER.
M-: (GROAN)
D: You need to be at the doctor; tell me where to meet you.
M-: (GROAN MOAN) Uh, I gotta go, babe. I just tried to pee and almost passed out.

He called from the hospital parking lot (yes, despite fetal position-inducing pain, he *drove* himself): 'I'm about to check in (groan) so I'll call you later. I'm at Swedish Covenant.'

Really trying not to fret I watched tv, looked up kidney stones on the web, ate a sandwich and checked my Blackberry. When an unknown 773 number popped up, I grabbed it.

'Your boyfriend needs you.'
'Tell him I'm coming and I'll be there as soon as I can.'

I texted my friends ('M- is in the ER with kidney stones! I'm out!'), dressed, grabbed keys, blew out candles, flagged a cab, grabbed cash, and rushed to the hospital, where I overtipped the cabbie.

It was a novel feeling to rush in and breathlessly say 'My boyfriend was just admitted and I'm here to see him.' Even more novel was the feeling that I *really* did not want anything to happen to this guy. This was beyond the 'gee, I hope things are ok' feeling; this was 'oh, god, it's only kidney stones but if something happens this will wreck me.'

Weird, huh?

Things fall immediately into place when you face what you really feel. The class bullshit I was still holding onto ('we don't match, he's not like anyone I've gone out with before, I graduated from college and he didn't, I don't know if he fits my circle...'), I dropped.

Priorities realign pretty quickly when you see your guy wearing a sad little hospital gown, hooked up to monitors, drugged out of his head, smiling woozily up at you in front of the nurse, and slurring, 'Gimme some sugar.'

Not once did I think 'Let me examine the gender, class and race implications of my brown self being here while these doctors and nurses look at me hold his lily white hand.'

Maybe that's why I didn't mind spending the whole weekend at his place, getting to recognize what it sounds like when he's feeling a 5 mm stone squeeze its way down his ureter. Or feeling gently sympathetic standing in the 45-min line at the high school haunted house, watching him go to the restroom every 10 min or so. Or watching how his gait changes when he's in pain or listening intently at the bathroom door for a tell-tale thump to make sure he didn't faint.

We hid out, reading comic books, watching classic horror movies, eating ice cream and making jokes about the sexiness of peeing into a filter. Silently, I counted to myself how many glasses of water he drank, if he was taking his pills on time, and in a rare moment of domesticity, I even made breakfast. (Who cares if it took me 2 freaking hours and I made enough pancakes for a whole football team?)

When I got back to my place last night, I even had a little bit of a cry, for some reason.

It's frakking brutal, this falling in love thing.

[And if you need a more timely political frame for this post, because you don't want to read pointless, girly, journal entries from Ding, shouldn't *everyone* have this same right to rush into an ER and say to the admitting nurse 'My partner is in there and I need to see him/her!'? Civil rights for all is really just that simple. How the world works for me, as a member of the dominant group, is how it should work for everyone.]

jimmy carter is still my favorite president

so, in the post below, a long time reader advises me of the value of the 'conversation' between those who believe different things. and i value that advice. i even value the belief in the need for dialogue between disparate ideas and people in political discourse.

(goodness knows one wouldn't want to be seen as an obstructionist, in any way.)

but i disagree about some of the 'conversations' we're having.

there are just some conversations that aren't open to ... conversing.
or conversion.

things like combating sexism and misogyny. things like anti-racism. or things like civil rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

at the beginning of the 21st century i am not prepared to 'converse' with anyone re: how important it is for people to be on the empowering and progressive side of these issues. frankly, it shouldn't be up for debate. logical, reasonable, civil, civilized people aren't sexist, racist or homophobic.

(it's the same way i don't waste my time arguing with people about the existence of God.)

jimmy carter just ended his 'conversation' with the southern baptist convention over their centuries-long, continued sexist treatment of women and the social impact that treatment continues to have. why shouldn't he?

(and no, i have no opinions on whatever this Elders thing is, which sounds like something from a comic book.)

almost but not quite

i have to give dawn turner trice some credit. her new column has its heart in the right place: Gay rights battle puts strain on parties -- chicagotribune.com

but i have an issue with the frame and the fact that it barely touches on the concept of privilege.

the problem shows up early:
"The women come to celebrate without having to worry about straight men pawing them. The gay men are there because, well, they don't want to be around a lot of women."

well, not really. gay men aren't in gay bars because they don't want girl-cooties; they're in a gay space because it's probably a respite after being stuck in a straight world all day. it's a world where you can't get married, can't have benefits, can't make legal or medical decisions on your partner's behalf, can't serve in your military, can't adopt children, can't be counted in the census, and can't really be sure that if you mention your partner at the office you won't suddenly find yourself eating alone at lunch.

by saying gay men don't like girls is 1) inaccurate and 2) not the point.
gay dudes like girls fine; they just have a problem with being forced to prop up our straight privilege when they don't even have full civil rights.

i wish dawn turner trice would at least call or email a queer history professor or queer activist before she writes stuff like this because her own heterosexism is all over the place. this isn't about a battle of genders but a battle for the kind of social privilege that straight women exercise and which the gay community wants.

these are some of the privileges/benefits bachelorette parties assert:
the ability to celebrate one's partnership openly.
the ability to celebrate one's partnership in a venue of one's choice.
the ability to be assured that everyone approves of, or at least does not want to take away, one's choice to marry.
the knowledge that there is a whole tradition of activities to support the idea of one's marriage.
the knowledge that one can see other soon-to-be-married people that look like you.
the assumption that one's marriage is a foregone conclusion.
the certainty that one's partnership will be legally recognized.
the certainty that one's partnership will not be answered with either verbal or physical violence.

if we're at all honest we will all stand up and say that tacky-ass bachelorette parties aren't the point. we all hate them. (admit it. the drunk trolleys, the bizarre toilet paper veils, the screeching, the pawing, the drunken singing - it's all awful and needs to stop immediately.) but straight privilege and homophobia? very much the point.

from the column:
"I asked reveler Blythe Thomas whether, in general, she believed holding bachelorette parties in gay bars was "heterosexist," or insensitive.

"I never would have thought about it like that," Thomas said, watching a curtainlike screen rise on four soon-to-be-nearly-naked dancers. "I could see how this could be frustrating to gay men. Maybe it's something I'll think about next time."'

*that's* straight privilege and i wish that trice's piece had made that more clear.

huge: NAACP comes out against Prop 8

Go here to read the American Prospect piece on the NAACP national office's public stance against Prop 8.

From the piece:

With cover from the NAACP, black organizations moving toward support of LGBT rights won't have to go it alone anymore. At the same time, the NAACP still has to deal with opposition to gay rights from within its own ranks. "There is a lot of homophobia in the NAACP," says California Conference President Alice Huffman, who was also a paid consultant to the "No on 8" campaign. "There are a lot of Christians who feel threatened."

The NAACP still hasn't endorsed gay marriage -- but this is the strongest stance it has taken against laws that would prohibit the practice. The distinction is meant to alleviate tension between board members who are religiously opposed to same-sex marriage. But even so, several board members expressed displeasure with the letter Bond wrote to the California Legislature. In the letter, Bond writes, "Proposition 8 subverts … basic and necessary safeguards, unjustly putting all Americans, particularly vulnerable minorities, at risk of discrimination by a majority show of hands."

"There are people on the board … mainly clergy, they misunderstood," Huffman says. "They thought Julian was writing to support same-sex marriage when that is not the case at all."

"There are a lot of Christians who feel threatened." I've never understood this attitude from some religious folk. It's totally irrational. How does someone else's life/marriage 'threaten' (potentially cause harm) to me? Completely illogical and based in anti-gay hysteria.

If Christians are feeling under threat by the civil rights of others, I suggest perhaps they go and live in a country where there aren't any. Liiike, Darfur. China. Iran. Saudi Arabia. That little place over in South Asia that had the typhoon.

The fight for full civil rights for fellow American citizens is not going to end and, eventually, our side will win. I guarantee it.

it matters: the rick warren decision

Obama’s Selection of Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren for Inauguration Sparks Gay Outrage - US News and World Report

i have to admit, i'm puzzled over this one.
(who would i have picked? Peter Gomes. he's black AND gay!)

rick warren's disgust with the 'gay lifestyle' (like it's picking a tea cozy or deciding where to vacation) is just code for 'i am a raging homophobe.' and that's why it matters.

choosing someone like rick warren is exactly like inviting a friendly, raging racist to stand up there and give the prayer.

when are we going to see that civil rights are civil rights, no matter who's asking for them?

if the larger society is to accept the basic humanity of gays and lesbians then certain lines need to be drawn in the sand. one of those lines is recognizing that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but a life, like yours and mine and, therefore, it should be recognized as such and reap the same benefits of lives like yours and mine.

in the same way you cannot choose your skin color or your gender, you cannot choose your sexual orientation.

(a lesson that Ted Haggard is still learning, clearly.)

this is not a point to debate or cavil over but the basic, fundamental dividing line between those supporting gay civil rights and those who are against it. there is no point in conversing, negotiating or symbolically linking these two camps when the two camps are so fundamentally opposed.

i can understand only some of the thinking behind this pick. rick warren symbolizes a so-called 'post-denominational' church (an idea which would make my dad spit.) but i think we can probably think of pastors on the religious left who better symbolize this spirit of moving away from tired fundamentalism and its culture wars: brian mclaren? peter gomes? my pastor? jim wallis? father michael pfleger? an ordained woman from any of the mainline churches, perhaps?

a friend made me realize that Power is Power, no matter who wears it, even the affable, tall, skinny, black guy we're going to call President. and Power, no matter who wears it, never willingly cedes ground.

and so, those of us who are demanding something from Power, neither can we.

back to teh gay: stewart grills huckabee

last night, after a funny bit on our governor, jon stewart had probably the most thoughtful and firm interview with mike huckabee wrt his stance on gay marriage.

stewart was like a boxer, cornering huckabee, not letting anything get past him. the whole thing was very very skillful (and respectful) and finally got the conversation around to the crux of anti-gay rights folks' thinking: they honestly still think being gay is a 'choice' and, therefore, civil rights for what is clearly something they don't have to choose to be is moot.

there was one point in the conversation where huckabee said that he wants to make it clear that folks who are against gay marriage aren't homophobic, don't hate gay people. but clearly, if you don't think gay people are exactly like you and deserve what the rest of us have, and you think it's ok to force them to live fake lives because you don't 'believe in homosexuality' then whatever your intent, the impact is hatred and homophobia.

the link from Think Progress has the video clip:

Think Progress » Stewart Grills Huckabee On Gay Marriage: ‘At What Age Did You Choose Not To Be Gay?’

Prop 8: the legal challenge begins

And so it begins, the legal arguments and decisions that will impact the everyday lives of gay and lesbian Californians.

A brief digression: in my day job, I'm the government relations officer for a non profit and I basically see that role as one that explains to interested (or apathetic) parties why my organization matters and why the work we do is meaningful and how others can contribute to that meaning. I was reading a messaging document about the way to frame a particularly complicated campaign we're about to launch in coalition with other orgs in the state and it presented a novel (to me) idea - that when advocating for a social cause, it might be better to promote materialist thinking, rather than mentalist thinking.

Using a materialist approach in social justice communications concentrates on the concrete advantages of better policy decisions rather than factors that are outside the public sphere of interest, like character, choices or individual motivation.

It's kind of confusing but it works like this: you have to give folks a reason to discard their binary thinking, largely based in fear or ignorance. "Gay marriage will mean the end of heterosexual marriage" or "Gay marriage is unnatural" (because being gay is unnatural)

A mentalist approach (something I do all the time because I get so easily pissed off) says that 'Gay marriage is good because gays are people too and it's just fair to legally recognize their relationships, too! You're such a bigoted asshole!'

This is one effective way of communicating the issue.

Might there be a more effective way to communicate the issue?

Perhaps. (And I'm working this out as I'm writing here, so bear with me.)

A materialist approach says this:
"The right to form a family without the interference of state or federal government is a core American value, along with fairness, equality and freedom. To deny gay marriage, or other legal arrangements that replicate (though aren't the same as) marriage rights, is to deny them the right to form a family and separates them from a national identity that is rightfully theirs."

Or something like that.

The advantage of this kind of framing:
It neutralizes the kerfuffle about 'protecting' families and maintaining the importance of families to an intact social fabric. In fact, it buys into it. You are correct, sir. Families are the foundation of society and gays and lesbians would like to have families of our own.
It allows a conversation about how gay families support society. Gay families provide parenting, support children, are invested in and contribute to the various supports that are involved in raising a family.
It connects the narrative of gay and lesbian equality to a national narrative of liberation. It's not just about one community, it's about the connection to a big ol' community. The struggle of other people and other communities to live lives of independence and freedom, away from social and religious oppression, is no different from this struggle.
It erases the binary Us/Them. Family is family, no matter who's in it.
And it doesn't waste time pleading for reluctant hetero acceptance of a gay 'lifestyle.' Homophobia will probably never go away; but with family, there's strength.

Ok, I really should get on the phone now and do some work.


CA Court Case Challenges Prop 8, Anti-Gay Rights Measure | RHRealityCheck.org