An Enduring Vision

Is Gun Control Unconstitutional?

2013-06-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

Ever since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut six months ago there has been a conversation in this country about gun control. Many on the Left assert that gun control is needed to ensure that situations like that which happened in Newtown do not happen again, while many on the Right assert that gun control measures would not have stopped that tragedy, and instead of restricting access to firearms, we must encourage their widespread availability.

The discussion over the efficacy of gun control measures will go on for years and years to come, but that is not what I am going to be discussing today. Instead, my goal is to clear up some of the common misconceptions that exist in relation to the constitutionality of gun control measures. I will not be addressing all gun control measures, or even attempting to go into the constitutionality of specific gun control measures – those instead will be for future posts on this matter. Instead, my goal is to clear up some of the rhetoric which exists that claims that ANY gun control measure violates the 2^nd Amendment.

Many on the Right, led astray by the rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, believe that ANY gun control measure (whether that be background checks, magazine limits, assault weapons ban, or national firearm registration) violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I call these people “2Aer’s”, because of their extreme fealty to the literal words of the Second Amendment. 2Aers assert that the Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”, and then continue to repeat that refrain as if that ends the conversation. Such a simplistic understanding of the Second Amendment, though making for a good sound bite, clouds what should be a rational discussion on gun control, and perpetuates the idea that exists on the Right that “liberals hate the Constitution”.

The two most influential cases on the Second Amendment in the past decade would be the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Heller dealt with D.C.’s complete prohibition on handguns in the home, striking down such a complete prohibition as violating the 2^nd Amendment. McDonald, on the other hand, dealt more with whether the 2^nd Amendment was applicable to the States (relying on SCOTUS’s incorporation doctrine manifesting out of the 14^th Amendment). These two cases laid out a framework in which other Courts in the United States could address firearm regulations and whether or not said regulations violated the 2^nd Amendment. Unlike what 2Aers claim, though these cases established an individual right to possess a firearm, they did not forestall all governmental regulation of said right. In fact, Scalia, in writing for the majority in Heller, specifically states that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”. (pg. 626-627 of the decision). Furthermore, the majority in Heller, though not specifically stating as such, implies that regulations on the carrying of concealed weapons, as well as the restricting of certain types of weapons by the government (eg. assault weapons) would pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Because Heller and McDonald were not clear about how far government can go in regulating firearms, the Courts of Appeal throughout the United States have crafted a two-part test to address these situations. First, the Court will look at whether a particular provision impinges upon a 2^nd Amendment right, and if it does, the Court will look at whether said provision passes constitutional muster under the appropriate level of scrutiny. An excellent example of how the Court addresses a regulation in relation to these two tests is found in the follow up case to Heller that was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011. In that case, the Court looked at whether a basic registration scheme for both handguns and long guns was consistent with the 2^nd Amendment. In finding such a registration scheme passed the first test in relation to handguns, the D.C. Circuit Court stated that not only were basic handgun registration requirements a longstanding feature of American firearms law, but that any burden on the 2^nd Amendment right was de minimis, as many other features of American life required registration . The registration requirements for long guns on the other hand, because there was not a longstanding practice in America of such a requirement, did not pass the first test, and instead had to be analyzed by the Court.

In Heller (2008), the Court found that rational basis review (that is, that the Government can basically have whatever policy it wants to as long as it has a rational basis for doing so) was not an appropriate standard of review for firearm regulations. Instead, the Court left open what standard of review was appropriate. If a firearm regulation burdens a right at the “core” of the 2^nd Amendment (self-defense in one’s home), Heller suggests that strict scrutiny is an appropriate standard of review. Strict scrutiny is when a regulation has to have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to that interest, and must be the least restrictive means to accomplish the government’s goal. Outside of the firearm regulations that burdened the “core” of the 2^nd Amendment right, Heller left open the ability of lower Courts to use a less restrictive level of Court scrutiny (intermediate scrutiny) to analyze firearm regulations. If a firearm regulation furthers an important governmental interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest the Court will find such a regulation Constitutional. Though in the follow up case to Heller, the D.C. Circuit could not rule on whether long gun firearm registration was constitutional (it did not have enough information), it deemed that such a regulation was deserving of intermediate scrutiny, as the regulations did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home.

In review, per current Supreme Court case law, the 2^nd Amendment does not establish a complete ban on any regulation of firearms by the Government. Instead, the Court has left the Government a large amount of wiggle room in how it chooses to craft its firearm policies. As long as a firearm regulation does not burden the core of the 2^nd Amendment right – that is, self-defense in the home – it likely will not be subject to strict scrutiny, and instead will be subjected to the less onerous intermediate scrutiny. Though the sound bite of “shall not be infringed” may play well to a rabidly pro-gun base, it does not tell the whole story behind the 2^nd Amendment, and instead leads to an uneducated and ignorant populous.

As this is a very fluid and misunderstood area of the law, I will continue over the next few weeks to analyze specific gun control policies from a constitutional perspective. As always, I welcome any questions and comments that my readers may have.

On Portman, The LGBT Community Disappoints Me

2013-03-16T10:17:00.000-07:00

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman came out in favor of marriage equality late Thursday night, to the shock of pretty much the entire political world. Basing his decision to change his position on marriage equality because of his son Will, Portman wrote a powerful article in the Columbus Dispatch that was published early Friday morning. When I first heard the news, I was proud of Senator Portman for making this bold announcement, and though I did not agree with everything in his column, I took Senator Portman’s announcement as a sign of movement within conservative politics on LGBT issues. Yet not everyone was as happy as I was with Portman’s announcement. From the Right, we saw claims that Will Portman would get AIDS, that the Senator turned his own son gay by sending him to Yale, and that though his son was gay the Senator should be thinking about the public policy issues, rather than the emotional connection that he had with his son. On the Left, we saw criticism that Portman was being “narcissistic” as he seemingly only cares about things when they directly affect him, that he didn’t go far enough in his support, and that he only did this for politically expedient reasons.

Though I cannot control what either side feels about Senator Portman’s announcement, it is important to note a few things. First, Senator Portman’s announcement was not about liberals or the LGBT community. It was about his son, and the personal journey that he has gone through with Will on this issue. He owes our community nothing and it is inappropriate for us to make this moment about our needs and our community. Yes, he may be a politician, and yes, his votes have impacted our community, but he came out in support of equality for his son, not because he wanted to win props with us.

Second, though Senator Portman has changed his position on this issue because he has a son who is gay, if does not follow that he has engaged in “narcissistic politics” in only supporting something when he is directly impacted by it. Though it may make members of our community feel better to claim such, they need to look in the mirror and take stock of their own life experiences before passing judgment. We ALL have different journeys in life on how we either come to terms with our sexuality or accept those in our life who are LGBT. Are our parents narcissistic when they take three years to change their views on homosexuality when their child’s sexual orientation is made known to them, or are they going through the exact same process that we did? Was I being narcissistic because I didn’t fully accept myself in high school, and instead did not deal with accepting my sexual orientation till I was in college? Are my grandparents narcissistic because before I came out they were against rights for LGBT people, yet have since found the ability to support – even with their strong conservative religious views – ENDA and civil unions? Was President Obama being narcissistic as he “evolved” on this issue, based upon his experience with LGBT people? People who claim that Senator Portman is narcissistic for changing his position based upon his personal experience not only demean those people who HAVE changed their position because of our coming out – people that we consider allies for our community – but they also demean each and every LGBT person who has worked through the coming out process.

Our experiences shape our perceptions and views on life and reality. That is not narcissism; that is one of the bedrocks of human existence. So instead of criticizing Senator Portman for being narcissistic or having a lack of empathy, the LGBT community should welcome him into the fold and show others who are on the fence that we are truly accepting of all.

In Tennessee, Racist Students Can Refuse to Counsel Blacks

2013-03-08T08:49:00.001-08:00

In a move of bi-partisan stupidity, the Tennessee Legislature is once again making itself out to be a mockery among people outside the fringe. What have they done now? Oh, just following the Michigan House's lead in attempting to pass a bill that would have far reaching consequences for graduate programs at every one of Tennessee's Public Universities. In a vote of 7-2, the Senate Education Committee passed a bill that goes before the full Senate on Monday, purporting to protect "religious freedom".

Senator Joey Hensley R-Hohenwald (of "Don't Say Gay fame when he was in the House last year) has partnered with Representative John DeBerry D-Memphis, to propose SB514

A public institution of higher education operating under chapter 8 or 9 of this title shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.

To no ones surprise, this piece of legislation's intent is to protect the "first amendment rights" of social work, psychology, and counseling students to not have to provide counseling services to LGBT people. In fact, that is what the questions by Republican Senators on the Senate Education Committee focused on (change therapy etc.). Yet the bill has the potential to go much farther in its impact. For example, what about the Christian individual who comes to a Jewish graduate student seeking assistance? Under this bill, because the Jewish student might have an issue with how the Christian individual depends upon Jesus to help him through a difficult issue, said student is within his legal right to refuse service. Or what about the Christian student who has a religious belief (based out of the curse of Ham) that African Americans are beneath him and not deserving of help? Under this bill, that student would not be allowed to be disciplined for the lack of service.

Welcome to Tennessee, where our State Legislature wants to ensure that not only do anti-gay students not have to counsel LGBT clients but that racist students can stay in their program and only deal with white people. Though the bill may have only meant to attack the LGBT community, it has a far greater, and negative, effect than Hensley or DeBerry could have imagined.

LGBT Equality In Inconvenient Geographies

2013-02-11T10:05:00.001-08:00

The following document is a report written by Adrian Shanker, the President of Equality Pennsylvania, which has been reprinted here with his permission. It is an important contribution to the discussion on how LGBT groups can work towards full equality in States like Tennessee, Michigan, and Pennsylvania or any other state which is not deep blue, but either deep red or purple. Take some time to read the report and let me know your thoughts:

LGBT Equality In Inconvenient Geographies:

The path toward victory for full, national, LGBT equality could not be clearer. National leaders know that in order to win nationwide, they need to start winning where it’s less popular. And that means changing how we fight for equality so we can win in less convenient geographies. It’s easier to fight for equality while swimming through deep blue waters. But for those of us who’ve chosen to fight for equality in the purple or red states, we have a bigger challenge ahead of us, but also a bigger reward. Because when we win in our inconvenient geographies, we know that the equality movement is winning the struggle nationwide. We know that the path toward full, national LGBT equality runs right through where we stand, and that we are the ones who need to lead the fight.

For allies in the progressive movement who desperately want to expand civil rights to their LGBT constituents, the challenges are the same. Without the coalitions in place to support equality, and without public support in geographies they represent, it is a challenge and a political risk, for an elected official to lead on equality if the campaign is not winnable. As progressives in moderate or conservative states, we need to focus where we can win, because we know we can’t win everything – at the same time, civil rights for the LGBT community cannot wait indefinitely. There is a balance that needs to be reached. If the LGBT community can work with the progressive community to build alliances while simultaneously educating the community at-large about our issues, then we can build public support as well as political clout with our allies.

This means that LGBT activists need to multi-task. On one hand, continue building public support and broader coalitions for equality issues and on the other, find an LGBT angle on the issues that are coming to a head more quickly, and those which are allies in the Democratic Party, organized labor, or other progressive organizations have been successful in bringing to the forefront. We need to continue building support for non-discrimination and relationship recognition – but with the realism that our issues may not be ready for a vote, and at the same time, assisting our allies in their efforts to pass progressive legislation they have fought hard for.

Doing this doesn’t mean taking a back seat, it actually means taking the passenger seat. It means that the LGBT community will be fighting side-by-side our progressive allies to win progressive reforms in moderate and conservative states. To be sure, not every issue is one in which it is appropriate for the LGBT community to engage itself. But for those of us who believe in intersectionality, that our struggles between communities are intrinsically linked, we know that by working together with our progressive allies, we are making our states more equal for all of us. And we can be sure that our allies will work just as hard when we have the ability to bring our issues to the forefront.

It’s hard for me to understand why we need to wait for LGBT issues to be ready for consideration. I grew up in Westchester County, NY, in a town 45-minutes north of New York City. Years before New York won marriage equality, the Westchester County Executive, Andrew Spano, had appointed a full time liaison to the LGBT community, was sponsoring an annual LGBT youth conference, and he signed an Executive Order granting county recognition to legally-performed same-sex marriages. Surely, there were fights to be had for full equality in New York, and there still are. But my experience as a New Yorker tells me that they continue to be on the fast track to equality, just as all of our deep blue states are. With that context in mind, it’s hard to understand why we in other states need to wait, even to bring up the most
basic of civil rights issues: non discrimination, hate crimes, and bullying in our schools.

The cultural context in which I was raised makes it difficult for me to understand people who don’t believe that every person is due equal access to opportunity. But the cultural context in Pennsylvania, where I now live, reminds me that in some instances I am the only LGBT person an elected official knows, and that we have so much work to do. Activists in deep blue states didn’t just wake up and win equality – they worked for years supporting progressive legislation tangentially related to LGBT equality, but more directly to the progressive movement. They worked for years electing candidates who supported equality, and they worked for years to educate the community in which they live about the need for equality, and the same strategy is needed in purple and red states today.

Pennsylvania, much like some states in the south and the west, has an identity crises. On one hand, we have socially-progressive Republicans in Philadelphia and it’s suburbs, and on the other hand, we have socially-conservative Democrats across central and western PA. We have Philadelphia Democrats who want to run for office on a marriage equality platform and we have Republicans from Erie who are sometimes better on our issues than Democrats from the same region. Pennsylvania is a big state – seven hours drive from Philadelphia to Erie – and there’s lots of room for diversity of opinions in every corner of Pennsylvania.

I chose to live in and fight for equality in Pennsylvania because winning here is harder than in a sea of deep blue. But winning here also means changing how we communicate our issues. It requires using different messages, different tactics, and in some cases, even different spokespersons. The reality is that the path from now to marriage equality is long, and just because our neighbors in New York and Maryland have done it, doesn’t mean that our legislature will move any faster. In Pennsylvania, much like a majority of southern and western states, we lack all forms of LGBT equality. We lack a nondiscrimination law to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation; we lack a state hate crimes law to give local law enforcement the training and power to prosecute bias crimes against the LGBT community; we lack an LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying law to protect LGBT youth in our public schools, and we have no form of LGBT relationship recognition. And yet, I feel that we are winning. It’s true that a statewide victory has not been within reach, but we have worked diligently to advance equality in an effective way despite the lack of state-level legislative success.

Our success in advancing equality has meant three things: 1) shifting our LGBT activist focus from statewide to local, 2) Becoming increasing involved in the electoral process, and 3) building political clout within the larger context of the progressive community.

In 2010, after Democrats lost the Governor’s race and a significant number of state legislative seats, we realized that we had no possibility of winning a statewide legislative battle. Rather than waiting it out, we shifted our focus to the local level, but outside of our progressive strongholds of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to our less convenient geographies across the state. We localized the state-level issues we were fighting for (namely non-discrimination and relationship recognition) and were successful passing over a dozen local ordinances regarding these issues. Doing so meant building new and less likely coalitions and making our case in a more compelling way than ever before. And in some cases, it has meant that we can’t be our own messengers, that the message is more compelling, in some instances, when delivered by an unlikely ally – a labor leader, a faith leader, a Republican, a corporate CEO. All of this is transferable to other states with inconvenient geographies.

By focusing where the LGBT movement is less likely to have the political clout it does in, say,
Philadelphia, we’re able to make more targeted wins into statewide victories. We’ve all heard about Vicco, Kentucky, a city in Perry County, Kentucky with all of 316 residents. When Vicco passed a nondiscrimination ordinance inclusive of the LGBT community, the world knew about it. Not because Vicco was the target of a lengthy campaign, but because it was an unexpected win along the theme of a statewide and a national issue: Non-discrimination. By taking a larger issue and localizing it, a tactic we have used in Pennsylvania as well, we are able to grow public opinion on these issues by demonstrating strong local support for commonsense reforms. And in Pennsylvania, we’ve seen the dominoes fall – once a few municipalities take action, residents in nearby towns and boroughs start asking their local elected officials to do the same. Currently, 30 municipalities in Pennsylvania have passed laws to ban discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation and gender identity, almost half of these laws passed in the last two years. Similarly, our legislature works at tortoise speed, and it would be a surprise if marriage equality were to be passed at the state level in the short term. However, the momentum from the LGBT community on this issue is strong, and the desire to see action is even stronger. The key to statewide success is growth in public opinion, so again the focus has been local, with municipalities enacting laws to grant same-sex domestic partner benefits and Mayors across the state endorsing marriage equality. These actions over the course of two years have generated positive media, including newspaper endorsements, for marriage equality and in turn, recent polling has suggested that public opinion for marriage equality has increased. The latest poll, by F&M, shows 52% support for marriage equality, and a recent poll by PPP shows 53% support among registered Republican voters for some form of LGBT relationship recognition (civil unions or marriage equality.) Previous polls had both of these numbers very low – and the public opinion surge is the result of the local media we’ve garnered across the state as well as the national trends on the issue.

In Pennsylvania, we knew we weren’t going to get a statewide non-discrimination law pushed through the legislature, so we hunkered down and passed more than a dozen municipal ordinances. We knew we weren’t going to get a marriage equality law through the legislature, so we approached Mayors of cities large and small and asked them to endorse marriage equality. Both of these tactics worked in our favor because both dramatically increased public opinion for our issues and created a farm team of local elected officials with a record on our issues, so that when they seek higher office, we have an assurance of where they stand.

Political power primarily comes from votes – so we formed an endorsement process and begun getting involved in electoral change. As a non-partisan organization, we endorse LGBT-affirming candidates from both parties, but significantly more Democrats seek our endorsement than Republicans. The same is true for Labor and environmental organizations that endorse candidates. We never endorse Democrats who are opposed to equality, but we have found that numerous Democrats who were previously noncommittal on LGBT equality, are willing to now say they support equality because they have seen our power at the voting booth. Likewise, we have helped to elect a few top-targeted Democratic challengers in the state, and the Democratic Party appreciates our efforts with their targeted candidates. Each candidate seeking our endorsement needs to be supportive of equality – but we also want them to win – so we set realistic expectations for each race we seek to endorse in regarding what our criteria will be, recognizing that winning statewide means that we need to have elected officials across the state who are warm to working with us --- not just in the urban centers. It’s also about building a farm team. In the past election cycle, we supported Democratic candidates for each of our three row offices, all of whom won. All are supporters of LGBT equality, but with varying degrees of an ability to make the changes we need. We are working with them to enact changes they are able to make, but we also are well aware that if any of them were to run for Governor in the future, we have a candidate who we know is fully supportive of LGBT equality. Just as we built clout with the labor movement, we have done so with the Democratic Party structure as well. And rather than working against the party, we worked with the Party. A number of openly gay Democratic State Committee members proposed a resolution for the party to endorse marriage equality. After it passed, we helped educate our community about the support the Democratic Party has shown. I am confident that it helped the Democrats on Election Day.

Part of the path to victory in inconvenient geographies, means that we can’t lead our supporters and our allies in the progressive movement down an unwinnable path. It’s not about compromising our core values, but it is about strategically considering what we can achievably win. If we can’t win on our choice of issue, then shouldn’t we join with our progressive allies on legislation that they can win on? If we don’t have the support to win the votes we need then a further pursuit of an unwinnable campaign will only empower opponents to believe that they’ve beaten back an attempt toward equality. On the other hand, if we partner with progressive allies on relevant state policy issues that indirectly relate to our community – but that are the issue of the day for the progressive movement, we win political clout and progressive policy change. For example, we joined a coalition pushing against a Republican plan to privatize
Pennsylvania’s liquor stores. The issue was sharply opposed by organized labor, and we joined with them arguing that privatization, in a state that doesn’t provide non-discrimination to LGBT employees, puts LGBT employees at risk for employment discrimination. We asked our membership to contact their legislators to oppose the privatization plan and certainly built some political clout with the statewide labor movement. Similarly, we joined a coalition to fight against the now-enacted “Voter ID” law. The law was passed by a Republican legislature, the house Majority Leader even stated that the bill was being passed to help elect Mitt Romney. The Democratic Party was most at risk with this bill, but so were numerous minority communities. We saw our allies at the NAACP and the AARP join the fights against the bill and we recognized that identification discrimination is very common for transgender voters, and that this legislation created a natural alliance with the Democratic Party to fight against the bill. By assisting the progressive movement with these legislative struggles, we build stronger alliances and we know that we can count on their support for our legislation when we have the votes to bring the issue to a head.

Winning equality means changing hearts and minds. It also means changing laws, but we can’t do that in a vacuum. Laws will change when we have done the work we need to do to educate elected officials about the lack of equality, when we have built the coalitions we need to advance legislation, when we have broadened public support on issues of importance (and have commissioned poling that demonstrates our success), and when we have built political clout to be able to call on our elected officials to prioritize our legislation. We can’t always hit the ground running, sometimes we need to strategize first. Sometimes we need to build stronger alliances with the progressive community, build more political power through the electoral process, build clout by having successfully supported other progressive legislation. LGBT issues do not exist in a vacuum, and LGBT-specific legislation isn’t the only way to define success – supporting labor, supporting voting rights, supporting family-sustaining wages, supporting education – these are all progressive issues that make us more equal.

Why Roy Herron is good for the TNDP

2013-01-26T15:24:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of consternation by Tennessee liberals today with the successful bid of former State Senator Roy Herron (myself and the former Senator are in the photo on the left) to lead the Tennessee Democratic Party. I get their concern, I really do, and I understand the frustration of the Left in Tennessee (yes, they are there) at the election as chairman of the TNDP a leader who is much more Republican in his political positions than Democratic. As a liberal myself, I would also rather see someone who shared my values be at the helm of the Democratic Party in Tennessee, yet at the same time, I recognize the reality of politics in the Volunteer State and hence applaud Herron's election.

Progressives in Tennessee, though an important part of the Democratic coalition in the State, need to realize that they are not living in New York City, California, of even Tennessee’s eastern neighbor Virginia. As a whole, the Tennessee electorate is pro-life, anti-gay, and pro-gun. They are social conservatives who believe that they cannot vote for the Democratic Party in Tennessee because in doing so, they would be voting against God and their religious values. This is not a unique position that only plagues Tennessee, we see it all over the United States – individuals who vote Republican solely based upon social conservative values knowing full well that those same Republicans screw them over economically. Thus, in order to compete in a socially conservative state like Tennessee, Democrats need to broaden their tent; they need to accept social conservatives into the Democratic coalition and give them a seat at the table.

The election of Roy Herron as Chairman of the TNDP will accomplish this. He is more likely to attract and back candidates in rural districts that share socially conservative values, yet are economically Democratic; something that a liberal party chairman would be less likely to do. This allows Tennessee voters to be ok with voting for Democrats at the State level, while voting Republican at the national level. Some will say that this strategy has already been tried (Rachel Walden over at Women’s Health News asserts this), yet in doing so they miss what has actually happened. Voters in rural districts do not vote Republican because they would rather just vote for the real thing as opposed to the “republican-lite” Democrat. Instead, voters in rural districts NEED to know that their perception of the TNDP as a bastion of “baby killing, pro-gay, anti-gun evil liberals” is not correct. They need to know that they CAN vote in good conscious for an individual who lines up with their beliefs on social issues, as well as protects their economic issues. With the election of Roy Herron as party chairman, this much needed perception shift can be accomplished.

This is what matters to me in Tennessee politics, and one can call me practical, a realist, fighting against my values, whatever. But in the end, I would rather have a Democratic majority in the State Legislature made up of both social/economic conservatives and liberals who I know would most likely not touch social issues, than a Republican majority that ONLY worries about social issues, and lets the people of Tennessee sink deeper into economic disparity.

Buffalo Wild Wings Is Clearly Violating the Second Amendment

2013-01-26T11:50:00.000-08:00

So the famous American wing chain Buffalo Wild Wings, has decided to put signage (left) on the front doors of many of their restaurants. Naturally, this has caused quite a frenzy on the Right, as individuals are claiming that their "second amendment rights" are being violated by the new policy and that BWW is "unpatriotic" because of their decision.

It is not surprising that many individuals who claim fealty to the Second Amendment don't actually understand what the Second Amendment means, or even what the Constitution as a whole means. Does the Constitution regulate private action? Can it dictate that private companies like facebook and twitter respect "freedom of speech"? No. In no way has the Constitution ever applied to private businesses. Buffalo Wild Wings, as a private company, can decide to implement a policy that restricts individuals from carrying guns on their property in the same way that I could tell someone that they cannot carry a gun into my house.

Pro "we want to carry guns everywhere" individuals (I won't call them pro-second amendment, as I believe that one can respect the second amendment AND believe in gun control), are free to not eat at BWW, and that is their choice. They can engage in a boycott much like the LGBT community has decided to do when it comes to Chick-fil-A, and based upon the effectiveness of their boycott, they may be able to change BWW's policy. Yet what these individuals cannot do, is claim that their rights are being violated, because it was never their "constitutional right" to carry a weapon into a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant in the first place.

A Response to Brandon Vogt: Part Two - Equality and Marriage

2013-01-13T18:22:00.001-08:00

A few days ago, I started a series in which I analyze Brandon Vogt’s critique of the top ten reasons that marriage equality supporters give for the Government to recognize marriage (my first analysis is here). Today, we will be looking at the second argument in favor of marriage equality, and Mr. Vogt’s critique of it. He claims,

2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionally powerful since we all have deep, innate longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history has given us many failures in this area, including women banned from voting and African-Americans denied equal civil rights. The question, of course, is whether same-sex couples are denied equality by not being allowed to marry each other.

To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.

Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.

The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were the same.

Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.

First, Mr. Vogt claims that equality does not equal equivalency. That is correct; our society does treat things differently even though there is may be equality between them (men and women’s restrooms being an example). He then goes on to say that when discussing marriage laws in the United States, we need to understand that there is a difference between how the law treats an individual, and how the law treats a relationship. He asserts that our current marriage law is neutral on its face, and that any unmarried person, regardless of their sexual orientation, can marry anyone of the opposite sex. Though it may seem persuasive, this is a common, yet easy to rebut argument, that those who are opposed to marriage equality bring to the table.

With this assertion, Mr. Vogt glides over the real meaning of equality. Equality is not that each person is treated the same (as we have already agreed too above), but is instead that each person has the ability to access the right in question in the same way. Our current marriage laws fail that test, and therefore they are not truly equal. A gay man or a lesbian woman cannot experience the marriage right in the same way by marrying someone of the opposite sex as they can by marrying someone of the same sex. For homosexuals, marriage, and the emotional experience that it provides us, can only be fully shared with those who are of the same sexual orientation. Therefore, keeping marriage limited to an expression between two people of opposite genders, does not allow LGBT individuals access to fully enjoy the marriage right.

Mr. Vogt then discusses the differences between the relationships and whether same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. Again, he asserts that the state needs not recognize homosexual couples as equal to heterosexual couples because same-sex couples cannot produce children or “ensure the child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father”. First of all, a child being raised by his mother and father is not a “right”; it may be what Mr. Vogt views is ideal, but it is not a right in the legal sense (but that is an argument for another day). Mainly though, Mr. Vogt’s assessment is based upon the fact that he views the states purpose in recognizing marriage is to ensure procreation. First, as I said here, though procreation may be one purpose that government encourages marriage, it has not been – and isn’t currently – the only reason why marriage exists as a government institution. For example, Government recognizes that it is GOOD for society to have stable economic and emotionally integrated relationships. For Government purposes, marriage is also an efficient way of determining inheritance rights, who makes medical decisions, and privileges when it comes to legal proceedings. Second, just because there is a slight difference between two groups, does not mean that Government should treat those groups differently. If there was, then we would be going back into a “separate but equal” mentality – one which I highly doubt that Mr. Vogt agrees with.

Lastly, Mr. Vogt asserts that if we grant same-sex partners the rights and benefits of marriage, then we are discriminating against unmarried heterosexual partners. This argument is a non-sequitur. A heterosexual couple who is unmarried still has the ability to enter into the government recognized marriage relationship. Currently, same-sex couples do not have that ability. By opening up marriage rights to same-sex couples, the State will be ensuring that both heterosexual and homosexual couples, if they so choose, can enter into state-sanctioned marriage.

No, Colorado and Washington Have NOT Nullified Federal Law

2013-01-13T15:37:00.000-08:00

I have recently become embroiled in discussions on twitter regarding an Indiana bill which would "nullify" the Affordable Care Act in the state, and make it a felony for anyone in Indiana to enforce the provisions of the ACA. Though the bill directly contravenes the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (a fact which I will not deal with at this moment), much of the intellectual support for the bill comes out of the early 19th century doctrine of Nullification. In essence, nullification is when a State deems federal law to be unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable, in their jurisdiction.

In support of nullification, many of the individuals whom I have talked with have pointed to states legalizing medical marijuana and/or legalizing marijuana for recreational use (Washington and Colorado). Though pointing to these states as an example of nullification may appear correct at first glance, as those states have legalized a substance that the federal government deems illegal, the argument does not support the nullification doctrine at all.

In all of the states which have legalized some form of marijuana possession, they have done so in regards to state, not federal, actors. For example, here in Michigan, a state trooper or police officer will not be able to arrest you if they catch you in possession of marijuana and you have a valid medical marijuana license. Yet, in Michigan, if a federal Drug Enforcement Agency officer pulled you over and caught you with marijuana, they WOULD be allowed to arrest you, as you have contravened federal law.

If Michigan (with its medical marijuana program) or Washington and Colorado (with their recreational use laws) had refused to allow the DEA to enforce drug laws in their states, then yes, those States would have nullified federal law. But that is not what has been done. Federal officers can, and do, go into States which allow possession of marijuana, and arrest individuals for their possession. Federal Law is still in effect, and thus, using marijuana legalization as an example of nullification taking place is, at best, a dubious method of justifying the doctrine.

Cook County IL Starts Offering "Pocket Sized" Civil Union License. Yet Is This A Good Thing?

2013-01-11T15:34:00.001-08:00

Interesting, news out of Illinois this evening. Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) Clerk David Orr has just made available "wallet sized marriage and civil union" certificates "tailor-made" for same-sex and opposite-sex couples with different last names, that they can carry in your pocket if there is ever a need for a couple to show legal proof of their relationship.

Although Orr states that,“Couples are routinely asked to prove they are married or in a civil union, whether it’s at the bank, the gym, the hospital, or the car rental counter,” the Cook County Clerk's new policy again shows the uphill battle that same-sex couples have to fight - even in a more progressive city/state like Illinois. Though the county is offering both pocket sized marriage certificates and civil union certificates, it is often assumed that if a heterosexual individual claims that they are the husband or wife of someone, then they are. For example, if a woman is rushed to the hospital because of a medical emergency, the nurse does not stand in front of the husband and say "prove to me that you are married". Yet same sex couples often come across situations where their relationship is immediately questioned - where, for example, a nurse might not allow a same-sex spouse/partner visitation rights because she does not consider them family.

Though David Orr means well (and these documents are probably an important thing for same-sex couples in Illinois to have), issuing pocket sized civil union licenses once again brings to the surface the reality that same-sex couples are treated differently in society based upon their sexual orientation. Hopefully in a few decades, we will not need such "pocket sized" certification, and instead it will not be questioned when one man says about another man, "He is my husband".

Restaurant Owner Tells Lesbian Couple They Are Unnatural

2013-01-10T18:19:00.000-08:00

A restaurant in New Bern, North Carolina is coming under fire because of a letter that the owner of the restaurant wrote to a lesbian couple who dined there. According to New Bern's NewsChannel12, Ed McGovern, the owner of "The Stingray Cafe", gave a lesbian couple a letter which said the following

. "God said in the last days that man and wom[a]n would be lover of self, more [than] the lover of God.

That man and woman would have unnatural [affection] for one another. Then, the coming of the Son of Man, who is Jesus. So please, look at your life. See how it hurt everyone around you. And ask the Lord to open your eye[s] before it [is[ top late.

The Love of Christ

P.S. my daughter also was gay. It destroy[ed] her life and my grandson."

After receiving a large amount of backlash against his treatment of the couple, Mr. McGovern has taken to the restaurants Facebook page in an attempt to "explain himself". Yet it only serves to do more damage.

First off I would like to apologize for offending anybody, that was never my intention. And yes I do realize there is a thriving gay and lesbian community here in New Bern, many of whom have been patrons at my business.

However, with that being said I do try to run my business with Christian principles and values. That is a very large part of my belief system and is even blatantly evident by the brass bell inside our door. There is a sign over that bell that says ring if you love Jesus. I have many customers who ring that bell on their way out. Now with that being evident, I did find it offensive and disrespectful when this young lesbian couple proceeded to kiss each other in a deeply affectionate manner directly in front of my business. I then stated my beliefs, which is just as much my right as is theirs to show their affection and then handed them the letter. I wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but merely let them know what the bible has to say on their way of life. I do not condemn anybody for how they may live their life, but when it's so publicly displayed and in such a disrespectful manner, i felt something needed to be said. Again, I do apologize for offending anyone that may have taken this the wrong way, that was never my intention, merely to stand up for what I thought was right and protecting my customers who may have been offended by their actions as well as staying true to my Christian beliefs.

I am deeply sorry for any offense people may have taken because of those but it had been blown completely our of proportion.

Sincerely,

Ed McGovern

No Mr. McGovern, your intention WAS to offend. By giving the couple that letter, your unequivocally had the intention of shaming the couple, letting them know that you think less of them and that there is something intrinsically wrong with their relationship. Thankfully, the good people of New Bern, North Carolina seem to be overwhelmingly disagreeing with your approach.

Though Mr. McGovern may have the "freedom" to operate his business in the manner that he sees fit (since it is currently legal for restaurant owners to discriminate against LGBT people in North Carolina), the people of New Bern can choose to take their money to a restaurant which is open to everyone, without fear of judgement.

A Response to Brandon Vogt: Part One - Marriage As A Changing Institution

2013-01-10T10:09:00.000-08:00

Recently, the National Organization for Marriage posted an article from a young Catholic thinker named Brandon Vogt which supposed to analyze the ten reasons that same-sex marriage advocates give to bring LGBT people into the fold of civil marriage. As a marriage equality advocate (heck, as one who is in a marriage with another man), I found myself vehemently disagreeing with most, but not all, of what Mr. Vogt stated. Yet because I found the article – and the arguments that Mr. Vogt made – compelling, I have decided to analyze each point that he made, and instead show why we must extend marriage rights to same sex couples. Realize that Mr. Vogt has set up his inquiry as making a statement that many marriage equality advocates make, then supposedly refuting the statement.

Mr. Vogt first point in in reference to marriage equality advocates stating; “Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can change again.”

Different cultures have treated marriage differently. Some promoted arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries. Still others saw marriage as a political relationship through which they could forge family alliances.

But all these variations still embraced the fundamental, unchanging essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, as a public, lifelong partnership between one man and one woman for the sake of generating and raising children.

This understanding predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law or faith to promote it.

Yet, even supposing the essence of marriage could change, would that mean it should? We know from other areas of life such as medical research and nuclear physics that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you ought. After all, such action may not be ethical or serve the common good. Even if this argument had historical basis, it would not necessarily be a good reason to change the meaning of marriage.

There are two important things to recognize in Mr. Vogt’s response, things that will be important to remember as we analyze other arguments that Mr. Vogt makes. First, in this paragraph, he is acknowledging that marriage has had differing purposes in different historical contexts. For this I applaud him, for it would be intellectually specious to argue that marriage has always had one purpose, when history clearly teaches otherwise. Marriage was clearly used as a method of establishing political control or alliance as well as was an easy method of transferring property or inheritance rights. Outside of a religious context, marriage can be seen as an economic or political union for the benefit of (historically) males. Additionally, Mr. Vogt is semi-correct in asserting that “in general” marriage was viewed as a method of “generating and raising children”. Yes, propagating your lineage has been an important aspect of marriage throughout the centuries (for property right transfers), but it has not been the only or even sole reason for marriage as a legally blessed covenant. To go on and assert, after listing the other reasons marriage has been legally bless, that one historical reason (procreation of children) is THE reason why society has recognized marriage overlooks the other fundamental reasons that has marriage existed in society. Based upon that logic, I could just as easily claim that the male ruling class viewed marriage solely as a way for them to dominate women, and thus they ensured that it was legally recognized. Though Mr. Vogt can argue that procreation was an important part of why society has historically recognized marriage, it is clearly not the only reason why we have recognized the institution.

Second, Mr. Vogt has acknowledged the societal aspect of marriage (as opposed to government) when he says that, “This understanding [procreation purposes of marriage] predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law or faith to promote it.” This admission by Mr. Vogt is important, especially as we get to the points that he makes in his article. Though Mr. Vogt may not have realized the argument that he was making, in essence, he has asserted that society has a conceptualization of marriage and its purposes, and the law reflects that understanding. This is a very democratic perspective on culture and cultural values, and one which I have argued for in the past. This argument of societal understanding of an institution, and how the law reflects that understanding, will be important in the near future.

Yet, the main purpose of Mr. Vogt’s argument is to assert that marriage has mostly existed between one man and one woman. A simple look at history, even his own scriptures, can dispel this notion. Throughout history, polygamy and polyandry have been widely practiced, and those relationships legally recognized. In the comments section of his article, Mr. Vogt acknowledges this, yet tries to distinguish it by asserting that such marriages could be still viewed as “one man, one woman”. Yet this makes no sense. In a polygamous marriage for example, though you may be able to have this perspective from the woman (she is, in fact, only married to one man), this 1-1 ratio does not exist from the perspective of the man. He is in fact, legally married to multiple women; it is not one man, one woman. It is one man, multiple women. Though those women are not legally married to each other, the man is still married to all of them. So historically, even if we acknowledge the supremacy of procreation as a reason for marriage, marriage has not been a static institution and has in fact changed drastically over the centuries.

Finally, Mr. Vogt says that even if marriage does not have historical meaning, and has changed throughout history, that does not mean that we should change it now. Agreed. Yet the flip-side can also be true, that just because marriage has not been historically extended to same-sex couples, that does not mean that it shouldn't be. Arguing for or against tradition, though helpful, is not an adequate or intellectually stimulating exercise. Instead, we must argue WHY tradition is good or bad to support, based upon the knowledge that we now have about history and the institution that we are discussing.

I look forward to delving into the other nine marriage equality arguments, and Mr. Vogt's critique of them. I also look forward to your comments. Part two can be found here.

NOM Arguing Against Religious Freedom???

2013-01-09T15:08:00.000-08:00

Now this is awkward. The National Organization for Marriage – an organization who claims to be all about “freedom of religion” – has decided to advocate against said freedom. In a post on the National Organizations for Marriage’s website, blogger Thomas Peters decided to throw a conniption fit about the decision by the Washington National Cathedral to host same-sex weddings, stating,

"Examples like this remind us that when you redefine "civil" marriage you create the new possibility of same-sex ceremonies in churches. Gay marriage advocates love to artificially split these two recognitions of marriage when they think it suits their purposes but the categories always re-collapse as soon as a liberal church like this one decides it wants to conduct ceremonies with same-sex partners. The simplest way to prevent same-sex ceremonies in churches is to fight for the recognition of marriage in civil law."

Peters claims that by changing civil law, society will be “creating the new possibility of same-sex ceremonies in churches”, yet this is a hilarious, yet at the same time sad, assertion. Many religious organizations (Episcopal, Reformed Judaism, Unitarian etc.) have been performing same-sex commitment and/or marriage ceremonies for years, with or without the blessing of the State. So even if religious conservatives and those opposed to marriage equality fight against civil recognition for gay couples, civil prohibition of marriage equality does not automatically “prevent same-sex ceremonies” in churches.

Yet there are two interesting things to note about what NOM has done in this post. First, we can see them engaging in an argument which seeks to assert that because the Washington National Cathedral is allowing same-sex weddings to be performed under its roof, ALL churches and religious groups will be required to do so. Such an argument overlooks the basic protections for religious organizations contained in the First Amendment. No matter what NOM wants to claim, a Southern Baptist church will never be forced to perform a marriage ceremony against their will. In the end, such rhetoric is a useless scare tactic that Peters is using to whip social conservatives into a frenzy against the overbearing and anti-religious gays.

Second, it is interesting that Peters ties marriage equality for same-sex couples to the Washington National Cathedral’s decision to host same-sex weddings. By tying civil marriage equality to performance of same-sex marriages in churches, it seems that NOM is arguing against religious freedom. In this case, NOM is advocating against allowing the Episcopal Church – the National Cathedral is Episcopal – to decide whether they want to perform same-sex marriages. In NOM’s world, “good Christians” must not be allowed to bless same-sex unions, and in ensuring that civil marriage remains discriminatory, they force open and affirming religious groups to not bless same-sex unions. Though this doesn't make sense (as pointed out above, religious groups have been performing same-sex ceremonies for years), it is an interesting look into the NOM mind.

Learning About Gays - Tis Very Icky

2013-01-08T15:11:00.000-08:00

A recent article on Focus On the Families CitizenLink blog told the story of a parent in California who is aghast that his children are now going to be taught about the positive impacts that LGBT individuals have made on American society. Considering that the article is titled, “Parent Questions California Law Promoting Gay Agenda”, you would think that Focus was shining a spotlight on some nefarious curriculum that was forcing heterosexual children to do scary “homosexual” things. But no, instead the father – Stan Wasbin – is complaining that schools are now being politicized because the FAIR Act mandates that the positive impacts on history by LGBT people are taught.

In his three page letter to his local school board, Wasbin tries to play down his individual homophobia, asserting that “If someone has made an important contribution — and that person happens to be classified as LGBT — then by all means let’s teach our children about that person, but not because of that person’s sexual-identity group.”. Yet other parts of Wasbin’s letter show his true intentions, as he asserts that the school should not, “further burden our teachers by forcing them to teach LGBT material, a subject that so readily lends itself to propaganda and which can engender sexual confusion.”

The first argument that Wasbin gives is one which can be readily debated. This viewpoint may make sense, as many good people believe that, given the short amount of time dedicated to social science in K-12, the deeds of the individual should be why we study that person in history, rather than their race/sexual orientation/gender. Others, arguing in opposition to such a belief, will argue that not only should our educational system embrace diversity – and teach about the different communities that make up our American fabric – but that teaching about the accomplishments of LGBT individuals is important for LGBT students in those schools, as it gives them much needed role models.

Yet the other arguments that Wasbin gives us, shows that his “concern” about the time necessary to teach this subject is just a smokescreen for his homophobia. He believes that, by teaching about the contributions of LGBT people in society, we will be sliding down the slippery slope to “propaganda” and that such teaching will cause students to be “sexually confused”. He also believes that if we “politicize” education today, tomorrow students could be learning about “gun owners, death penalty proponents, and anti-abortion activists”. Wasbin is engaging in an argumentation style that many of us within the LGBT community are used too. In his arguments about sexual confusion and comparison to gun owners, Wasbin is underhandedly asserting that LGBT people are defined by their actions, rather than their orientation. In claiming that teaching about great historical figures who are LGBT could cause sexual confusion, Wasbin is falling into the fallacy that if someone is pressured enough, they can be “turned" gay. In claiming that we are like gun owners or anti-abortion activists, he is whittling us down to our actions, rather than recognizing that we are real people who have a different sexual orientation than he does.

It is not surprising that Wasbin believes that we are LGBT because of our actions, for that is what people like him have been taught for years. Focus on the Family even, in their “analysis” of this situation, claims that “California has allowed classes to be politicized by adult identity politics like this”. The opponents of equality – like Focus on the Family – HAVE to define us by our actions to continue to engage in their pattern of stigma and hate. If they acknowledge that sexual orientation (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is immutable and inborn, they will have lost the culture war, because Americans are loath to use the law to discriminate against something which one has no control over. That is why bills like California’s FAIR Act are so important and we we need to advocate for similar laws across the country; because instead of treating us as a collection of our actions, such an educational strategy recognizes that we are instead defined by who we are inside. And it is through such education, that we will win our rights.

Tennessee - I'm Watching You

2013-01-04T20:59:00.001-08:00

In a few short weeks, the 108th Legislative Session of the State of Tennessee will begin. Though the 107^th session was a roller coaster for LGBT residents in the State, whether it was in fighting anti-gay bills such as the aptly named “Don’t Say Gay” bill, or having Nashville’s contractor inclusive non-discrimination ordinance overturned by HB600, this next session is looking to be even worse. This past election brought to us a Government in which, because of last year’s redistricting, Democrats have been effectively shut out of Government. A fact which bodes ill for LGBT rights in the Volunteer State.

Because of the situation in the General Assembly, the main equality organization in the State – the Tennessee Equality Project – has recognized that to enact real change in an extremely hostile environment you have to have a comprehensive legislative framework. Though it still focuses on the nefarious bills that snake their way through the State Legislature, TEP has also decided to do extensive work in Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville, laying the groundwork in which City Governments will have the courage to stand up to the anti-gay GOP crusaders in Nashville. 2012 was an excellent year in this regard, as both Memphis and Knoxville joined Nashville in having a non-discrimination ordinance that protects city employees. In 2013, look for the cities of Tennessee to be the bastions of hope and change for LGBT residents.

Though I moved to Michigan for law school this past May, my heart and soul is still in Tennessee. Because of that, as situations arise within the General Assembly that require publicity, I will be speaking out on this blog for LGBT Tennesseans. Last year, my voice was effectively neutered as I worked for the Tennessee Senate (and hence was not allowed to blog about the politics in the State), but this year I have no such impediment. So expect logical, biting, and sometimes obnoxious blog posts this coming year, as the Tennessee GOP once again shows how backward they are to the rest of the nation.

A Holiday Message to the LGBT Community

2012-12-25T09:43:00.001-08:00

Nathan and I went for a late night walk last night. Goal: to get a coffee from the local coffee shop that is open 24 hours. The walk not only gave us a chance to get out of the house, but it also gave us a chance to look around at the new fallen snow and relish in the beauty of a still winters night. As we walked, we passed by our local shelter for at-risk teens, which was, unsurprisingly, bustling with activity. As we passed by, I felt a twinge of sadness, for as Nathan and I prepare to hit the road tomorrow for a long trip filled with friends and family, these teens, many of whom have been ostracized by the family because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, have only the Youth Shelter as a place where they can be themselves.

As people all over the world gather with family and friends over this holiday season, it is important for us to recognize that there are many within our community who are hurting and feel like they have no hope. They are all around us, yet we often do not see them. It could be the young man we see at the bus stop, who is afraid to go home because his father will call him “faggot” and “queer”. It could be the young woman, who hides her true identity from her family, because she does not want to be rejected. It could even been the religious teen, who feels that God will not love him if he embraces his sexual orientation. Many of us know what these individuals are feeling; we too have been ostracized by our family or have felt the bitterness of being surrounded by people who supposedly “care” about us, yet would reject us if they knew the truth.

Our community has come a long way in the past few decades. We are slowly starting to see our work bear fruit, as the votes this past November in Maryland, Washington, and Maine show. Yet to the young gay teen in Memphis, whose parents are active members in the local Southern Baptist Church, the progress that we have made does nothing if his whole world is crashing down around him. He can read in the newspaper that voters in Minnesota have not put an anti-gay amendment in their Constitution, yet that does nothing for the hell that is his life.

So this holiday season, as we gather with those closest to us, it is important that we think about those who are not as fortunate. Send up a prayer on their behalf, that they would find peace and happiness in who they are, no matter the obstacles that they may face. Yet don’t stop with prayer and supportive thoughts, actually get out in the community and do something for these kids. Volunteer with your local gay and lesbian community center, or be a consistent fixture at your local shelter for at-risk kids. It is up to us, those who have overcome the negative societal and family pressures that these kids are experiencing, to support and guide these kids in their time of need.

The Founding Fathers Actually Believed States Could Ban Guns

2012-12-23T13:58:00.000-08:00

Since the tragic shooting a little over a week ago at Sandy Hooks Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, there has been a significant amount of discussion on social media about gun control and the reach of the Second Amendment. Though such a discussion is important, it is just a tad bit irritating that many who are on the “pro-gun” side of the argument seem to have a warped view of what the Second Amendment was originally supposed to mean. These “pro-2nders” as I like to call them, assert that the Founding Fathers believed that the Second Amendment denied Government – both State and Federal – the ability to curtail and/or ban guns in their respected jurisdictions. Such an understanding of the “founder’s intent” is widely held, yet is extremely flawed.

Though it may come as a shock to some people, the drafters of the Bill of Rights (which includes the 2^nd Amendment) never intended the Amendments to apply to the States. Instead, the Amendments were only meant to apply to the Federal Government. There are certain reasons for this, the main one being that the Federal Constitution was designed to be a limit on the Federal Government, while State Constitutions were designed to limit the reach and power of State Governments. The fourth Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, in his groundbreaking decision Barron v. Baltimore, echoed this perspective on the relationship of the Bill of Rights to the States, stating,

“The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.”

To the Founders (many of whom did not want a Bill of Rights to begin with – see Federalist 84), applying the Bill of Rights to the States eliminated a very important element of Federalism. That is, the value of having different State governments which would embody the beliefs of each particular States population. New York would have different Constitutional protections than Georgia would, because the people of New York would value certain rights differently than Georgians. Instead of respecting these differences between States, applying the Bill of Rights to them would restrict the ability of individual citizens to enact Constitutional change. In a system where the Bill of Rights applied to the States, citizens would have to go through the cumbersome federal amendment process, rather than the relatively simple (in comparison) process of amending their State constitution. Such a restriction was viewed by the Founders as less than desirable, as Government gained its legitimacy through individual citizens having greater access to the channels of political power.

Since the Bill of Rights was attached to the Constitution in 1791, other amendments have been put into the Constitution, including the 14^th Amendment. This amendment came into being during the Reconstruction phase of American history after the Civil War. Because the 14^th Amendment’s purpose was to enhance national power rather than preserve notions of “state’s rights” (a key reason that the war was fought), the 14^th Amendment gave the Supreme Court the ability to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights protections and freedoms to the States. Some rights, such as the 3^rd Amendment’s protection against quartering soldiers in one’s home, still only apply to the Federal Government. Yet other rights, the Court has deemed to apply to the States. For example, in the 2010 decision McDonald v. City of Chicago the 2^nd Amendment was fully incorporated and applied to the States.

Thus, when a “pro-2nder” attempts to claim that the Founding Fathers believed that every citizen should be able to “keep and bear arms”, kindly remind them that the Founders believed no such thing. Instead, they viewed the 2^nd Amendment as limiting the power of the Federal Government, and believed that the States could do with guns as they wished. To assert otherwise completely ignores the intention of the Founders, as well as glosses over two hundred years of Constitutional Law.

What is a Partner??

2012-12-05T07:31:00.002-08:00

Yesterday evening I attended a panel discussion at the Ford School of Public Policy here at the University of Michigan regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. The panelists gave an excellent discussion about DOMA, how it impacts people directly (immigration, child custody, financial security), and what might happen either if the Court strikes down the law, or where our movement would go if we lost our DOMA cases. During the discussion, the panelists were asked whether our community should fight for civil unions vs. marriage, and whether the focus on the word “marriage” is hurting same-sex couples who need the legal rights and benefits that civil unions would provide. In answering, the panelists emphasized the social differences between calling someone your “husband” as opposed to calling them your “partner”. For example, one of the panelists is entering into a civil union in Illinois, and when she and her fiancée were sending out the invitations for the ceremony, they did not know what to call the relationship. Do they say they are entering into a civil union? A marriage? Is she becoming a partner? A wife?

I have also been on the receiving end of this linguistic controversy. As one who has been legally married to my husband Nathan for almost three years come this January, I have come across many individuals, some of them part of the LGBT community, who refer to my husband as my “partner”. Sometimes it is unintentional and when I correct their usage of the word, they apologize and refer Nathan as my husband for the rest of the conversation. Yet other times, even when I make this correction, they push back and assert that because I am not legally recognized as married where I am, Nathan is my “partner”, not my husband.

Though individuals in any sort of relationship are free to call the relationship that they are in whatever they want (whether that be partner, spouse, husband, boyfriend, etc.), the automatic usage of words like “partner” show a deeper divide within our community. It seems as though we have become so caught up on the legal status of marriage that we forget that marriage is also a social institution, sanctioned by our religion, family, and friends. It seems as though, in our fight for equal marriage rights, we have twisted the meaning of marriage only into a legal issue. Does our community consider a couple “married” only if they have all the legal rights afforded through marriage and are called “married” by the State?

In our legal arguments, we assert that the term “partner” is inferior to the word “husband” or the word “wife”. We claim that civil unions and the like are separate by equal, that it sends a message to society that our relationships are inferior when we have civil unions rather than actual legally recognized marriage. Only through having access to full “marriage” will we be considered as equal to our heterosexual neighbors. This argument underscores the social nature of the institution of marriage. It is not just a legal issue, the Government can give same-sex couples all of the legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have, but because our society attaches a significant cultural value to the term “marriage” and the words that go along with that term, denying our community access to that term treats our relationships as less than.

Given the significant meaning that society attaches to words such as marriage, husband, wife, and spouse, have we not ourselves created a social “second class status” by referring to our marriages and relationships as “partnerships”? Though we may like to think that our relationships only affect those who are in them, the outside world looks at how we view our relationships and how we refer to each other. Given that many within our community use the word “partner”, could society not say that we have accepted that our relationships are “second-class” because we do not use the cultural terminology of marriage when we refer to our spouses?

I recognize that many will take issue with my assertion that by calling our relationships “partnerships” that we are asserting that our relationships are inferior. I realize that many will say that we should be able to call our relationships whatever we want and that by using husband and wife that we are caving to a dominate heterosexual culture. Though I find that argument possible and having legitimacy, I personally do not find it persuasive. Though we may wish that we could call our relationships whatever we want, reality says that we live in a society where words have connotations that are attached to them. Maybe that is not the idea, but that is the cards that we have been dealt.

I would be interested in hearing my readers’ thoughts on this issue. What do you refer to your significant other as and why?

Banning Reparative Therapy - A Proper Restriction On Parental Rights

2012-09-01T16:04:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, the California Assembly passed SB1172, a bill which bans reparative “ex-gay” therapy for minors. It now goes back to the California Senate for a concurrence vote then to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown. The full text of the bill can be found here.

Personally, I am pleased with the decision of the California legislature to prohibit reparative therapy by licensed professionals to minors. As one who went through reparative therapy, both before and after I turned 18, I find that such a law is essential in protecting those children whose parents think they “know” what is best for their child and seek to subject them to this form of abuse. Yet not all have been pleased with this development – and no, I am not just talking about those on the religious right. A few days ago, I was on twitter, and was having a discussion with a gentleman who was more cautious than overjoyed about the California legislature’s passage of the law. Though he understood the damage that reparative therapy has upon individuals, he was more libertarian in his views and did not believe that it was appropriate for the California legislature to pass a law dictating that parents could not seek such therapy for their children. He also wondered where we draw the line when it comes to what parents can or cannot do to their children.

Though I appreciate that critique, and I am one of the first people to say that adults should be able to undergo such therapy if they choose too, I feel that children should be treated just a bit differently. There are a few reasons why I feel this way.

First, we allow adults to undergo things that may not be “good” for them, because they have the ability to make that personal decision. In the case of minors, it is often not them making the decision to go and see a doctor who practices reparative therapy. Instead, it is their parents making that decision. The protection of autonomy that is essential from a libertarian/small government point of view, does not apply to a minor, because the minor is not truly autonomous.

Yet, some would argue that through this law we are restricting a parent’s right to raise their child how they see fit. That is correct, yet that denial of parental rights sounds worse than it actually is. We have many laws which do not allow a parent full control over their child; they cannot beat them, allow them to drive when they are under 16, or buy them alcohol. We have these laws because we as a society have recognized that parents have to have certain limits upon how they raise their children. Parents do not raise their children in a vacuum, but instead society has to deal with the repercussions of how that child was raised. Thus, though society cannot, and should not, dictate how a parent raises their child, there are limits – very few limits – to what a parent can do with their child. In my opinion, reparative therapy should fall into this limitation. It should not be the parents right to force their children into a program that demeans and causes psychological damage to their child, especially because that child has done nothing wrong.

Second, this restriction has another affect, yet one that is not readily apparent. Under this law, when a parent seeks out professional help for their child’s “sickness”, they will be informed that licensed professionals do not engage in therapy that seeks to change a minor’s sexuality. This is a good thing because parents often do not realize that reparative therapy is a form of emotional abuse. They often don’t realize the consequences of such therapy and instead think that being LGBT is just a “phase” that can be dealt with through therapy. Though it may be my optimism, I hope that when that parent seeking to change their child’s sexuality hears that a professional counselor does not practice reparative therapy, it may cause them to second guess their position and maybe even do a little more research into exactly what it is they want to put their child through.

Actually You Didn't Build It

2012-08-30T14:50:00.000-07:00

Each evening this week, I have sat and watched the Republican National Convention. Though such a focus upon the RNC might be construed as a large waste of my time – as I know that I am voting for President Obama – watching the event allows me to focus in upon what drives the Republican Party. Though I could talk all day about my perceptions of the GOP, one aspect of the Convention has really stood out at me, and surprisingly, it is not the party’s stance on LGBT issues. Instead, it is the popular catchphrase that Republicans have been using for the past month that has irked me, the phrase “We Built It”. This phrase which conjures up the rugged individualism of “pulling one up by their bootstraps” to do something great and hearkens us back to an era when the government was little and the world was much, much smaller. Yet, even though the speeches at the RNC have all echoed this theme, the rugged individualism that is the underlying premise of this theme is actually an extremely arrogant position to take.

All of us depend, in some way, upon other people as well as government. We might not like to admit that, as it may pop the bubble of belief in how we create our own success, but a denial of this reality does not make that reality any less true.

I can use my own story to emphasize this point. By any objective level of analysis, I am doing pretty well for myself. Yes, I am still a student, yet I graduated from undergrad with absolutely no debt and am currently a student at one of the United States’ great law schools. To achieve this result, I put time, energy, and countless hours into my studies. While other friends were having fun, I realized the future goal of what I wanted to accomplish and I focused upon that instead of the temporary benefits that I would receive from spending time with my peers. I also, during that period, worked almost full-time hours to support both myself and my husband. By Republican standards, I should be considered a “model”…I worked hard and am being rewarded for that work.

But…

My story is not a complete picture of the successes that have accompanied my pursuits. Each portion of my tale has parts that can be conveniently left out if I chose to do so. But to do so is not only intellectually dishonest, it is unfair to all who have assisted me in being where I am right now. Two things stand out at me when I look back at my life over the past five years.

First, I would not have been able to succeed academically in University without two things. 1. A mother that taught me how to study, what to focus my energy upon, and how to apply my knowledge and 2. Professors and Administrators at Memphis, Saskatchewan, and Brock (I did a few exchange programs) that had interest in me as a student and dedicated time and energy in ensuring that I was successful in my studies. But, some might say, that is not what we are talking about, because the RNC position is not that other people cannot help you succeed, but that Government does not help you succeed. This gets to my second point.

After I did my months in “gay camp”, I thought that a college education was a pipe dream. I had no idea how I could afford to go to the University of Memphis, work full time, and still survive; in fact, I was struggling just to make ends meet. Additionally, I was not able to get student loans to go to school because my parents would not fill out their portion of the FAFSA. But what happened? I was given a scholarship by the University of Memphis so that I might attend their university – and subsequently, the Universities that I went on exchange too. Though this scholarship did not cover the entirety of my tuition, it was a substantial amount, and allowed me to go to school debt-free for all four years. Without this scholarship, which should actually be considered “government money” as the University of Memphis is a public institution, I would not have been able to prove myself academically, and be where I am today.

What the GOP miss in their claim of “We Built It”, is that Democrats and Liberals do not believe that Government should be able to take the credit for what individuals, small businesses, or corporations achieve. Instead, Democrats and liberals recognize that government investments – whether they are roads, bridges, police, military, research, or yes, even scholarships – allow each of us to achieve our full potential. Governmental investment is just that, investment. It is our society – through our tax dollars – investing in our nation’s future. Without investments in things such as higher education, many Americans would not have the ability to achieve their dreams. I know that I wouldn’t have.

Religious Liberty for Me - But not for Thee

2012-08-26T09:27:00.000-07:00

Religious Liberty is a buzzword within conservative circles, with organizations like the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, and the designated hate groups the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, attempting to assert that granting full equality to LGBT people would infringe upon individual religious freedom. Though there can be a robust debate on this topic, the issues that such organizations bring up are more peripheral to the religious liberty issue (eg. A focus upon public accommodation and public financing of discriminatory organizations). Interestingly, though the Right screams about religious liberty, LBGT people and our allies are the ones, based upon their conservative religious logic, that have a more persuasive argument for religious liberty than those who oppose our full equality.

I will preface this discussion by saying that this is not a legal argument. In fact, I would assert that the Courts would probably find the following argument of governmental favoritism not especially persuasive. Yet, not all arguments that we have in our arsenal need to be arguments that are “legally powerful”. Instead, we can have arguments that are powerful in the moral force that they bring to the discussion. For as I like to tell people that I talk with about LGBT rights, our battle is not only for the legal equality of LGBT people, but instead is also for our full moral and social equality. The former, is important for our participation within the legal sphere and with our governments, yet the latter are important for our participation within our families and religious/ethnic communities. Only through an intense discussion of the latter, can we show our friends and family the hypocrisy that drives their animosity towards marriage equality.

Currently, in the vast majority of States, the only legally recognized marital relationship is between one man and one woman. This exclusionary definition of what marriage is has narrowed the definition of marriage to what certain religious sects believe. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Episcopal Church, Reformed and Conservative Judaism, and the Unitarian Universalists (just to name a few) perform and bless marriages between same-sex couples. On the surface, it would seem as though the Government has chosen to abide by the exclusionary SBC and LDS definition of marriage rather than the more inclusive and equal definition of marriage offered by the latter groups. And if you stopped here, that would be correct to an extent, yet not necessarily a powerful moral argument on how that harms religious liberty. Instead, we go must go further, and see what the Governments definition of marriage actually does.

Right now, a Southern Baptist minister will only marry a man and a woman. Thus, in theory, 100% of marriages that this minister performs as an agent of the State will be considered legal (yes, I know there are tiny flaws in this hypothetical, such as if one person is already married, but bear with me). On the other hand, a Conservative Rabbi will marry both heterosexual couple as well as homosexual couple. Yet when he marries the heterosexual couple, he is considered an agent of the State, yet when he marries the gay couple, he is not. The State is, in essence, telling the Rabbi that some of the marriage ceremonies performed and blessed by him are not “actual marriages”. The State is not telling this to the Baptist or LDS ministers, for their own religious definition of marriage lines up with what the Governments definition is, but it is telling the Rabbi and the Episcopal Priest what marriages that the State considers “actual marriages”.

You see, a large percentage of conservative opposition to marriage equality is religious in nature, with many believing that marriage is a religious institution established by God. If we accept this perspective of our conservative friends and family, that the underlying essence of marriage is religious, then it seems as though religion should be the main overseer of what is considered marriage – not the State. If that is the case, then the main thrust of the above argument – that the State is telling religious groups what is considered marriage – should be an anathema to these individuals. If not, and these religious conservatives stay stuck in their opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples based upon these religious reasons, they are showing that they believe that the State should be an arm of the Church, enforcing their own religious dogma at the expense of others who believe differently.

TN Rep. Ragan Feels the Heat

2012-07-05T06:55:00.000-07:00

Knoxville Tennessee's paper Knoxnews is reporting that LGBT issues are taking a center place in this years race for Tennessee State House District 33. State Representative John Ragan, a notable enemy and antagonist of the LGBT community, is running against Democrat Jim Hackworth, whom he beat by almost 1,300 votes in the 2010 election.

Democrats and the Tennessee Equality Project have leveled numerous accusations against Ragan, including:

- He worked to give school bullies a "free pass" by exempting politically or religiously motivated actions from classroom behaviors deemed disruptive.

- He responded to a constituent's letter by calling sexual orientation "a description of feelings," adding that "feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy adult human being."

- In the same response, Ragan allegedly compared homosexuals to murderers, prostitutes and pedophiles.

The letter that Knoxnews is referring too, can be found here.

Though Representative Ragan's comments are offensive, unfounded, and baseless, it is heartening to see that the Democrats in Tennessee feel comfortable enough to voluntarily bring up this issue. It shows that though there is a long road ahead for that states equality movement, extreme rhetoric and blatant hatred towards our community is no longer a politically safe option for Republicans, and instead will be used against them in legislative races - even in the states of the South.

An LGBT Deceleration of Independence

2012-07-03T11:50:00.001-07:00

I posted this last year for Independence Day and thought it appropriate to do it again this year. Let us continue to proclaim to the world that we will not take the denial of our rights without a fight.

A Declaration For Equal Rights

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for an oppressed minority to declare for themselves the full rights and responsibilities that the laws of reason, nature, and natures God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to demand as such.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women of all sexual orientations and gender identities are created equal, and are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the duty of the oppressed to deny any allegiance to it, and to insist upon the establishment of a new government, one which shall be most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, dictates that government should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that humans of all sexual orientations and gender identities are disposed to suffer, when such evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same end, evinces a design to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such a government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffering of LGBT people under this government, and why they now demand their equal place at the American table.

The history of humanity is a history of continued persecution on the part of the heterosexual majority over those with differing sexual orientations or gender identities, having the direct consequences of leading to a complete and utter tyranny over LGBT people. Let the following facts be submitted to a candid world,

They (which from here on refer to the most – but not all – of the heterosexual majority) have required LGBT people to hide their true sexual orientations and gender identities in order to be accepted and validated by society, family, and government.

They have required them to submit to laws, to which they did not have a legitimate and honest voice in making. They have, based upon sexual orientation alone, excluded them from one of the foundational social and religious institutions of all time - marriage. This exclusion imposes not only social and religious stigma upon LGBT relationships, but also imposes legal and financial hurdles not faced by their heterosexual counterparts.

They have forced LGBT people into the closet at their place of employment, for they have allowed employers to discriminate against them, based not upon their actual work, but instead because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

They have required that LGBT people hide their sexual orientations and gender identities in order to serve the United States of America through its armed forces.

They have spread vicious and harmful lies about LGBT people and their relationships; in order to ensure that LGBT people are not accepted by mainstream society.

They have contributed to the psychological abuse of LGBT people by continually informing them of their differences; yet instead of validating these differences, they use them as subjects of derision and ridicule, leading many LGBT people to suicide, depression, and despair.

They have forced LGBT people to undergo psychological treatments like “reparative therapy” in order to change what they believe is a deviant nature, a process which causes irreparable psychological and emotional harm to LGBT people.

They have, using religious texts, validated hatred against LGBT people, and instilled in their children the notion that this hatred is legitimate, as it is the will of God.

They had made being LGBT a criminal offense, which, though the law may be only recently lifted, still informs many citizens thinking regarding LGBT people.

They have allowed landlords to refuse accommodation and services because of the sexual orientation and gender identity of LGBT people, leading many LGBT people to lives of homelessness and economic hardship.

They allow LGBT people to belong to some religious organizations, yet though doing so, restrict their access to the leadership and deem them unworthy to participate in the ministry.

In each of these oppressions, we have appealed to the very humanity of our heterosexual brethren; for we have raised our voices and demanded countless times that we be counted, validated, and allowed to have a seat at the American table. Yet, though there have been some who have listened and responded to our plight, the majority, despite our continued pleas for respect and equality, have turned a deaf ear; instead choosing to validate the above despotism through the force of law.

We, therefore, as equal citizens of the United States of America, demand that LGBT people be afforded the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. We will stand no longer for LGBT people to be the subjects of ridicule, religious and sexual conversion, or political inequality. We demand that these walls of hatred and condemnation be torn down and be replaced instead with the bonds of equal rights, respect, and affirmation.

Tennessee Legislative Interns Say - IT GETS BETTER

2012-05-12T08:18:00.000-07:00

About two months ago, a few of us took it upon ourselves...given everything that had been happening in the United States, to produce an "It Gets Better" video on behalf of the interns in the Tennessee Legislative Internship program. No matter ones political views, individuals should not be bullied based upon their sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, race, disability, or anything else. So here is our video, hope you like!!!

Ex-Gay Group Seeks to Infiltrate Schools During Day of Silence!

2012-04-01T19:18:00.000-07:00

The organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gay’s and Gays (PFOX) has decided that GLSEN’s annual Day of Silence is the perfect opportunity for their supporters to pass around flyers promoting “ex-gay” therapy.

In an interview with the far-right “news” organization World Net Daily, the president of PFOX – Greg Quinlan – said,

“Since members of these gay affirming clubs agree to remain silent for the day, April 20 is the time to distribute ex-gay information without interference or harassment from any gay activist faculty or GSA clubs”

They are encouraging supporters to distribute flyers that say that “there are no scientific studies to support that a person can be born gay” and that “sexual orientation is based upon feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration”.

Such is the tactic of organizations like PFOX. Instead of providing an environment where LGBT students can feel supported and free to be themselves, they are instead spreading the message that “for many youth, homosexual attraction develops due to traumatic experiences, such as sexual abuse. These students need therapy for the trauma, not affirmation of a gay identity” that “sexual re-orientation therapy has been proven effective for those with unwanted same-sex attractions” and that “it is not the schools role to treat any students medical condition”.

The information in the last paragraph is not in the flyer that PFOX has said that they want to distribute on school grounds, the latter quotes are in this flyer, yet the usage of the first flyer is purposeful. Instead of focusing upon the idea that LGBT students have a “medical condition” or that “sexual reorientation therapy has been proven effective” PFOX is purposefully attempting to lure those children who are struggling with societal and religious pressures about their sexuality, into participating in a psychologically harmful activity (reorientation therapy).

Organizations like PFOX do not care that their words and actions have consequences. Instead, they care only about ensuring their own validity within their religious community, to hell with the well-being of LGBT children. And the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is.

You can read my own experiences with "Ex-Gay" therapy here.

Abstinence-Only Education Marginalizes LGBT Students

2012-03-19T20:17:00.000-07:00

A few days ago the Governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, vetoed the abstinence-only education bill that was passed in both the state Senate and House. If signed, the bill would have restricted any public education on sex to teachings about abstinence as well as eliminate any teachings of any other sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

The bill was widely criticized by Democrats in Utah as well as individuals and organizations from across the United States. Even the normally conservative populous of Utah was not impressed with the bill, polls showing that the majority of the states’ population wanted the governor to veto the legislation.

But, as more and more states start to jump on the bandwagon of “abstinence-only” education, the impact upon LGBT students’ needs to be addressed. Even if the Utah bill had not specified that homosexuality and gender identity should not be discussed in the classroom, there would have still been dire consequences for LGBT youth.

In the election of 2004 – an election known for its anti-gay rhetoric – the people of Utah passed their own anti-equality marriage amendment, effectively eliminating any chance for same-sex couples to enjoy any of the rights of marriage in that state. Because of this amendment, the status of marriage within society is obviously unavailable to same-sex couples. This is where the problem lies.

Abstinence-only education teaches children that one should wait until they are married in order to have sex. Proponents claim that abstinence before marriage is the best and only way to ensure that one does not get pregnant or contract STD’s. This poses a problem for LGBT youth in states – such as Utah – which have marriage amendments, because the reality of their sexual experience is left unaddressed. According to the proposed sexual education guidelines promoted by Utah legislators (and other states), because marriage is only between a man and a woman, and because LGBT people cannot get married, it stands to reason that these lawmakers believe that LGBT children should be celibate.

Such a manifestation of underhanded homophobia prevalent within abstinence legislation is not something that surprises me. Even in the transcripts of the Utah discussion over their bill, lawmakers like John Valentine expressed a deep desire that discussions on sexual orientation should not be encouraged in the classroom. But the fact that lawmakers are willing to marginalize LGBT students for political gain is what sickens me. Instead of affirming that each child’s sexuality is unique and a key component of whom he/she is, lawmakers in states like Utah are engaging in nothing short than bullying. They are not only inferring to LGBT children that their lives are not worth learning about, but they are also telling them that the only way they can be productive members of society is to live their lives alone.