Say what?

Quote from anti-gay marriage blogger OnLawn:
"Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not that unalike, there is a lot of room to understand each other's issues. The reason I am worried about the current homosexual dogma is that these issues for them are excuses to not show love and commitment."

Oh! So that's why gay people are fighting so hard to get married!

Who'd'a thunk?!

Dedicated to...

Proposition 8:



(Sorry. I couldn't resist...)

Marriage and Equality

Awhile back I commented on a post by a guy (conservative anti-gay type) who, in order to defend "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman only, created the idea that women's equality came about because of their marriages – that "marriage brings equality," or, the interactions women had with their husbands were what led to women's suffrage, not the marching and the protesting and the blood of courageous women spilled on the ground in protest, along with the cultural change these brave pioneers instigated. (Well, what the heck, as the article in yesterday's post reveals, sometimes "marriage defenders" get desperate.) I wish I had found this website while I was taking issue with his fantasy.

OnLawn works hard to make his case, but the No Longer Quivering bloggers, along with their counterparts such as Our Quiverfull, offer real-time examples of how fully patriarchal marriage – traditional marriage, if you will, from the days before women's suffrage and the feminist movement – works. It's true that women often influence their husbands, even under the most oppressive legal circumstance. John Stuart Mill is an example – way back in the mid-1800's, his relations with his wife led to his essay On the Subjection of Women, where he proposed that women should be wholly equal with men. So I have no doubt that OnLawn's argument about marital interactions and relations is correct – for some men. But reading the accounts of the NLQ bloggers shows the flip side; for many – I would argue most – men, the subjection and submission of women in their households leads to varying levels of abuse, from outright physical and emotional abuse to subtle abuse that amounts to no more than fond contempt, such as one might have for a child or pet – the assumption that women are less competent, less able, less intelligent than men.

Where have you encountered that attitude before?

Even when intended with love and nurturance, that attitude damages women and society by preventing the development of the full potential of both men and women.

I have no doubt that many women were in happy, near-equalitarian relationships with their husbands, back when they were legal chattel. But that is a testament to the quality of their husbands, not to the legal disparity between them, or their powers of persuasion. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The moral character of men put in a position of absolute power over their wives must have degraded, damaging them as well as their wives. The NLQ bloggers' experience shows that it still degrades. The indoctrination of women from birth in their inferiority and natural submissiveness, along with the promise of reward in the afterlife for that submissiveness and fear of punishment for being uppity (emphasized in the past by executions of women purported to be "witches"), serves only to gain their acquiescence. It, and their marital relations, do nothing to bring equality. I know of no one who, having power, has given it up without a strong demand – often a violent demand – being made to do so.

The husbands of 100 years ago are no different. Equality – or at least, women's suffrage – was brought by the persistent demand of women, led by courageous women such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, and others.

The Danger of Painting With Only One Color … & More

A few days ago someone posted the following comment on a liberal blog I visit frequently: "This is just more evidence that cons hate everyone except the Great and Holy White Fetus, and even then only if it can be used to oppress its mother."

I responded with, "… conservatives are no more monolithical than liberals … are. There are a lot of libertarian cons who would quite agree with Fannie on this post." Later the same day, I was vindicated by Newsweek. They featured an article written by Theodore Olson, the conservative lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore in front of the Supreme Court. Olson is "attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8." I love this quote from his article: "I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." I wish him much luck, good fortune, and success.

A couple days later, and I see this at the HRC website. Turns out Colin Powell, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Secretary of War Gates have all come out in favor of repealing DADT. (I love using that phrase with these guys.) 'Bout time, guys!

I don't wish to put down the commenter, nor to say I'm better than anyone else. I'm just using her quote to showcase a common fault I see on both sides. For instance, a conservative blogger puts this in her profile: "I loathe liberals & all deluded nuts who voted for [President Obama]." The problem with painting with only one color is that you inevitably end up painting with the wrong color. And that's counter-productive.

I think what we're seeing may be a tectonic shift in politics – a tipping point, perhaps. It seems likely that the Perry v. Scharzenegger case will make it to the Supreme Court, and Olson sounds excited and optimistic about the outcome. Even with the Court heavily packed with radical conservatives, I tend to agree with him. I think every gay marriage case that has come up recently before state supreme courts – California, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut – has found for the gay couple, and it will only take one or two of these guys to choose the libertarian side of the cons to flip the Court in favor of gay marriage. The implication, emphasized in Olson's effortless evisceration of the conservative case against gay marriage, is that perhaps the judges, with the opportunity to hear the best of both sides of the argument, are more clear on the law, the Constitution, and the 14^th Amendment than are the public, swayed instead by 30-second sound bites, fear, and tradition.

And think of this: If Perry makes it to SCOTUS, and the Court finds for the gay couples, the fight for marriage equality is over. Everywhere in the country. State anti-gay marriage laws from Alabama to Wyoming would be struck down, along with DOMA. Pretty cool, huh? Go, Ted!

So we see the complexities of color. The same man may be largely responsible for Bush's illegal usurpation of office and the establishment of marriage equality across the nation. His advocacy for Kristin Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo already do much to erase the damage he's done before, regardless of his success.

It's going to be interesting.

Iraq Vets

This video speaks for itself.



Link to Iraq Veterans Against the War

Gay Candidates and Causes

The recent success of Annise Parker, the gay candidate for mayor in Houston, Texas, has got me thinking.

More and more, gay candidates are viable contenders. People vote for them regardless of their orientation, judging instead by their abilities and views. Here in Oregon, where we not long ago soundly rejected marriage equality for lesbians and gays with Measure 36, Kate Brown was elected Secretary of State. California instituted Harvey Milk Day. It seems that individuals have crossed a tipping point, and the majority of Americans, even in conservative areas, are willing to judge gay people by criteria other than their sexual orientation.

Compare that to gay causes, however, and there is a shift. Nowhere has a public election instituted gay marriage, or failed to prohibit it. DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell appear to be in no particular danger, even with a Democratic president and majorities in both houses of Congress. Some gains have been made, with Hate Crimes legislation adding sexual orientation, but even the domestic partnership law in Washington passed with an alarmingly narrow margin.

Comparing these phenomena, I come to an interesting conclusion: the motives of voters in rejecting gay causes are not personal, but instead are meant to either protect society, or resist demands and express autonomy, or both. I think there has been a cultural shift away from fear or disgust of gay individuals and homosexuality in general, which bodes well for the future. But why the difference?

Nearly every day, I receive at least one email from a liberal organization, such as the Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, or Equality California, which centers around the statement, "Demand that your legislators (or whoever) (fill in the blank)." Frankly, it reminds me a lot of my kids when they were two-year-olds. They demand this or that, and throw a tantrum if they don't get it. And I notice that when my kids demand something of me, I tend to resist it – even if it's something I'd be willing to do if it was requested.

I think people have sincere needs for autonomy that are not met when organizations or individuals "demand" something – and I also think that making those demands, in that tone of tantrum, sounds immature. I've noticed that I even feel resistant to joining in these "demands," not only because I don't care for the language, but because they feel like demands on me!

I wonder if the response to those demands would be different if that word were simply changed to "request?"

I don't know. But I do believe there is a more mature way to approach these issues that are so important to the lives of individuals. A way that recognizes that everyone's needs are legitimate and real. A way that leaves options open for different solutions, which may meet all those needs. For instance, same-sex marriage meets a need for gay people to have their families recognized and to be treated equally in taxes, inheritance, and so forth. What other strategies might meet those needs?

And how might those who reject gay causes react, if they thought their needs mattered to gay people, too? Would they be open to recommending new solutions that meet everyone's needs?

Maybe it's worth a try.

Tribalism and the Rose Bowl

Well, after a great season, the Oregon Ducks lost the Rose Bowl. Both teams played hard, and Oregon had its chances, but Ohio State put up an excellent game on both sides of the ball and there's no doubt they earned their victory. The boys and I watched the game at our neighbors' house, along with two other families from up the street. Every one of us was a Duck fan, and, as you can imagine, there were some long faces at the end of the game.

I shared that disappointment, of course, but mostly I just enjoyed watching the game. There are a number of sports I enjoy – basketball, soccer, horse racing – but most of all I love football. I love the pacing, because you always have a chance to talk with friends or watch replays between plays. I love the choreography, as each team moves in highly practiced ways to either move the ball down the field or prevent the other team from doing it. I love watching the power, grace, speed, and skill of the athletes. I love the strategy. I love to take sides, and see my chosen team win. I even love the violence – there is something primitively satisfying in seeing a hard tackle, or watching Jeremiah Masoli run over another safety. I just wish that women's football teams (go Pride!)were more popular, and we had more chances to watch them.

I have a friend who doesn't like football at all. He hates the violence. He's got a point. A lot of people get injured playing football, and I don't enjoy that, either. He hates the competition, which he calls tribalism, and the way that fans can get aggressive and obnoxious. Wouldn't it be better to recognize the unity we all share as humans on this planet, and focus on the real problems that so beg for solutions, and which are continually ignored? He points to it as a means to pacify the masses, and distract them from the way our leaders are corrupting our political and economic systems and destroying our planet. Again, he's got a point. I see the resources continually dedicated to sports teams that really contribute nothing to solving those serious problems, but rather take potential resources away, delaying the solutions.

I also agree that it is tribalism, on a very primitive scale. Football – and other sports, for that matter – is a highly stylized form of warfare, which sets one community apart from and against another. The athletes are warriors, holding the prestige of the entire community (in a limited sense) in their hands. Fans will meet them at the airport, whether they've won or lost, and celebrate their victories, mourn their defeats, with them.

However, I question whether that tribalism is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps resources can be better allocated, but there is a beauty to the system. First, it is certainly better to participate in this stylized competition than in genuine warfare. Sports teams also do much to contribute to the identities of their communities, to define them. Perhaps it is this that gives me the sense that sports tribalism isn't a bad thing – I've had to fight to discover and define my own identity, and so see the importance that identity carries, even for communities, for states, for nations. On a larger scale, the Olympics does the same thing. At its best, affiliation with sports teams provides an outlet for what may well be the tribalism of human nature in a way that supports peace and inter-community or international connection and understanding.

I'm not saying my friend is wrong for his view. Every part of it is legitimate, and real. For my own part, though, I think I'll claim that tribalism for my own, celebrate it, and take my place in Duck Nation proudly. I'd like to be at the airport to greet our football heroes, too.

Honoring Diversity

Following the posting of last month's Transgender Awareness Week display at work, a colleague told me that he thought the oft-used phrase, "Honor Diversity," conveys the wrong idea. He is a Christian who had written an articulate and compassionate protest about the use of the word "Celebrating" in the display title, and I actually found myself agreeing with his argument. When I asked for some clarification, he explained that "Hitler was diverse, and no way he could honor Hitler."

Well, I certainly concur with that sentiment. Not only is Hitler responsible for the slaughter of Jews, in the late 1930's, he also had the institute where Magnus Hirschfield did his pioneering work on the treatment of trans people destroyed. As a member of a minority group that was slaughtered by the Nazis along with Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, Hitler's probably the last person on earth I'd want to honor. My colleague's statement, though, led me to question just what it means to honor something.

According to Dictionary.com, honor, when used as a verb, means (among other things):

13.	to hold in honor or high respect; revere: to honor one's parents.
14.	to treat with honor.
15.	to confer honor or distinction upon: The university honored him with its leadership award.
16.	to worship (the Supreme Being).
17.	to show a courteous regard for: to honor an invitation.

In the discussion on synonyms following the definitions, it says, "Honor suggests a combination of liking and respect."

It seems to me that definitions 13, 15, and 16 don't get at the meaning of "honoring diversity" at all. Used as a noun, as it is in #14, honor seems to mean "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions." That seems appropriate, but def. 17, "to show a courteous regard for," gets more to the intent, I think.

Then what does "diversity" mean?

Again, Dictionary.com:

1.	the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2.	variety; multiformity.
3.	a point of difference.

So honoring diversity means to show a courteous regard for our differences, for those ways that we are unlike. In keeping with that, the Diversity and Equity Strategic Plan recently adopted by our city includes within it statements like the following: "Diversity and human rights should no longer be viewed as 'programs,' but as core values integrated into the very fiber of the organization."

To me, Hitler was the very antithesis of diversity, and his example provides the dark side of the impetus toward showing courteous regard for our differences. Hitler proclaimed the superiority of the Aryan people, and attempted to eliminate people who were different based on ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, ability, and gender differences through genocide. It would be impossible to honor both Hitler and diversity at the same time; if you honor one, you dishonor the other.

I don't think you need to approve of another's behavior in order to show a courteous regard for how one is different. So long as that behavior stays respectful of each other and our common humanity, there is no reason for disapproval. However, I believe that one of the best ways we can show courteous regard for those who are different is by learning how we are similar. This was a criticism of the Celebrating Transgender Lives display; that to some people, the display seemed to ignore the similarities we all share, and focus on the difference. Yet each profile of the display was intended to highlight those similarities, and cut through the stereotypes that so often limit the opportunities of trans people. Each profile displayed the unique character or accomplishments of one person – his or her humor, talent, courage, creativity, contribution to society, and so on.

And in fact, each one of us is unique; despite the similarities we all share, we are all different. It is that very difference, the uniqueness of each individual, that makes life so varied, interesting, and – well, diverse. We offer always to each other a learning opportunity, a chance to grow. We are all similar, and we are all diverse. Each one of us loves, laughs, cries, mourns, and struggles to be the best we can be. At the same time, each person's unique character and talent contributes value to the whole of who we are as a people, a society, and a species. That includes our unique or specific expression of gender, whether it fits in between the traditional gender binary or not.

That is worth celebrating – and honoring.