Video Blog: Blizzards and Unions

I recorded this last night while waiting for my husband to get home.  He was stuck in the snow on Lake Shore Drive for 12 hours.  Luckily, he's home safe and sound now, but we have no idea where his car is.

But in the video, I muse and meander about civil unions here in Illinois. 

Illinois Likes Me Now... Kinda

Yesterday, our newly re-elected Governor in Illinois, Pat Quinn, signed into law the legal recognition of same-sex couples via Civil Unions here in the Land of Lincoln. I couldn't be there in person (pesky job asking that people be at work!), but I do get the wonderful benefit of now being marginally less second-class in this country!

When my husband and I were planning our wedding last year, we had a lot of people ask why not just go to Iowa and get married. Their supreme court had legalized same-sex marriage not too long ago, and Iowa is only a couple hours drive from here, so that would seem like the logical thing to do. But we chose to go to Vancouver instead, which is no where near as easy to get to.

The biggest reason we went with a Canadian destination wedding (aside from Bride magazine telling us destination weddings were all the rage last year, obvy) was that we wanted to make sure that the laws would not change wherever we got married. We saw what happened in California and saw the confusion that exists there with some couples being married, some being in civil unions, others wrapped up in lawsuits, and we knew that could easily happen if we went somewhere else in the states.

And we weren't wrong. Right now, some Iowans are pushing hard to create an amendment to their state constitution to bar marriage equality, which is the only option the haters have left to over-turn the high court's ruling. Haters gotta hate, I suppose.

So we went to Canada. The laws aren't going to change up there. Even if the U.S. decides that only marriages between two straight, Christian, child-rearing folk will be recognized here, we know that we are still legally married somewhere. And if we go somewhere that does support LGBT folk as fully-recognized human beings, that marriage will be recognized there as well.

I'm glad to see civil unions come to Illinois. We've still got a ways to go toward real equality, but with this we've taken another step. And, from a personal perspective, I'm very happy that I will now be legally recognized here in this state as my husband's husband. I still have a few questions I need to get answered from a legal stand point (what, if anything, do we need to do?), but this FAQ (PDF) that Equality Illinois put together is really great if anyone else out there needs some more information.

DADT Is Dead, But There's Still More Hurdles To Come

December has been an interesting month, and I've missed a lot of great topics to write about. A few things have prevented me from writing, like increased demand at work, more effort being put in to my physical therapy as I'm still not recovering as quickly as is "normal," and increased game time in down time due to a new video game (or five) at home.

All that aside, some great things have happened over the past month. On a national scale, I'd say the biggest news is the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell" which will allow for military service members to to keep their jobs after they've come out on the job. There's been a lot said on the subject recently and there's not much more I can add to the discussion, except that I'm happy to see the policy go. There are still quite a few challenges ahead for LGB service members (and quite a lot more challenges for Ts), but we've made it over the big hurdle.

It still remains unclear though exactly how equal we will be in the military ranks. We can serve openly now (or rather once the repeal is fully implemented), but other major discrepancies will still need to be worked out. What about the pay scale difference married heterosexual soldiers get? DOMA still prevents gay and lesbian people from having Federal marriage recognition, even if their marriage is certified in a state that recognizes marriages between same-sex couples, and since the military is Federal organization it simply cannot honor all marriages. Yet the variation in pay difference is clear, biased discrimination. How about off-base housing options for same-sex couples and off-base housing pay differential? How about health insurance benefits for partners?

Many, many questions still need to be answered. My guess is many of these questions will be addressed before full repeal is implemented, which is part of the reason for the need for a delay, but I'm also going to venture that many of these will require long, grueling court battles before any real equality is achieved.

None of this is even taking in to account the systemically homophobic systems of the military. Culture change is also necessary to achieve equality. I think the culture of the military will change with time, but this repeal is the first step in allowing that change to begin. While the military brass were allowed to play make believe that no homo-gays were in their ranks they could easily condone homophobic behavior, if for no other reason than because no one complained about it. How could a soldier complain about how being called a "fag" by their commanding officer hurt them while maintaining their silence on their sexuality? While there certainly were ways to address that, I'd wager that most gays wouldn't dream of complaining for fear of being suspected.

I suppose I could wrap this up by saying I'm realistically optimistic at this point. There will be many, many more challenges for LGB service members, but I still think that we, as a country, can overcome those challenges. It may take some time, but we'll get there.

Hooray For Civil Unions, Boo For Inequality

So Illinois was finally able to pass a Civil Unions bill. Last week both the state House and Senate passed the legislation allowing for the State to legally recognize the union between me and my husband, at least in some fashion less than it recognizes hetero couples unions.

It's Grrrreat!

I'll start off by saying I am ecstatic that the state I live in has passed some level of recognition, something beyond the cute piece of paper the City of Chicago offers. When my husband and I started looking at all the paperwork and legal shenanigans we'd have to pull just to get some of the same rights as straight married couples, I got a slight sense of vertigo. And that's not even to mention the cost involved with all that!

For example, to ensure that we legally had the right to make medical decisions for each other when we unable to do so for ourselves, we had to fill out forms, have them notarized, then file said forms with our doctor, our lawyer, and any hospitals or other medical facilities we visited. Then we had to ensure that we had copies with us, just in case. Then we had to hope that a given facility would honor it, much less allow us to be together considering we aren't "family." (Yes, Obama has changed regulations to ensure that same-sex couples have visitation rights, but it's new and implementation is still questionable)

So once our marriage is legally recognized by the State of Illinois as a Civil Union, we can forget about all that and simply show proof of our union if any questions arise.

But Not Perfect...

I do still have problems with the idea of Civil Unions though. Regardless of what rights they may confer to us, they are still something "other than" and "less than" marriage. Quite literally, they offer less rights than a Marriage. And they are the only option available to queer couples right now, which means we have created a Separate but (less) Equal institution.

What's even more infuriating about it? Straight people can take part in Civil Unions at their discretion. Meaning they can take advantage of the lack of rights specific rights offered by Civil Unions. For example, widows/widowers who may be receiving pensions from deceased spouses' former employers will likely lose those pensions if they re-marry. But now they can take advantage of a Civil Union, which is quite pointedly NOT a marriage, and receive many of the right and benefits of a Marriage without losing those pensions.

Basically, straight couples can pick and choose what is best for them. Queer couples cannot. We are given one option, take it or leave it. In creating Civil Unions, we have granted even more rights to our heterosexual friends while granting ourselves some basic rights, which just moves the inequality marker further down the field rather than bringing us actually closer to full equality.

A Delicious Appetizer

To be sure, I'm happy to be able to have my marriage recognized in Illinois. But I'm not satisfied. It's like getting a really great one-ounce steak: It may be delicious, but it's just not enough. I won't say no to it, but I certainly will not be satiated with it, especially when I see my neighbors being offered a choice between a one-ounce steak and a full twelve-ounce steak.

Gays Are Just Too Gay

If only you were just like everyone else, people would treat you like they treat everyone. Resistance is futile, you will assimilate. You're so weird, why can't you just be like everyone else?! That's the message. That's what some people advocate for the gay community. If only we weren't so darn Gay, then people would treat us like weren't so Gay… and stuff…

A friend pointed me to this article that was published in the editorial section of the University of Alabama's student newspaper. The basic premise here is that LGBT folk should just stop being so queer, then the straights would accept them. If they could just be more straight, then everything would be fine. There are two big problems with this theory and many, many other smaller ones (which I will not discuss at this point. I'll leave that to others to dissect).

Cultural Superiority

One can immediately see in this person's article that he holds heterosexual society and culture to be vastly superior to that of the LGBT society and culture. His point is that the straight culture is better, so if those danged uppity queers would just be more str8-acting, then everything would be fine. Bigots the world over would give up their hateful campaigns and everyone would live in peace if only we'd trade in our winged unicorns and rainbows for burly, wild bison and storm clouds.

This argument has been made a million times before, and usually to justify some form of bigotry. If those dang native peoples would just stop putting feathers in their hair and put on some proper clothes then us white folk might stop treating them as uncivilized savages. And if those urban black and Latino kids would start talking as if they had attended an English class, then we'd be happy to employee them and not shove them into ghettos. And if those friggin' women would stop being so emotional and needy, what with that time off for having babies and all, then we'd be content paying them equally for equal work.

This author assumes that as soon as a repressed minority group assimilates to the white, male, heterosexual, Christian norm of America then things will get better for that group. Well, lets examine this, shall we?

By this argument, black people in America should no longer experience any form of racism, right? It could be argued that the President is just about the most assimilated and culturally "normative" black political figure to date. Yet racism still exists and there is still a need for anti-racist legislation. The Secretary of State is just about the most assimilated female to the male norm of power and confrontation, yet she still suffers from constant attacks based solely on her gender.

So, if someone could, can I please be enlightened as to at what point on the assimilation scale are minority groups freed from their oppression? How far into the "superior culture" of heternomativity does one need to go before they are accepted? Must Hilary become a man? Should Obama magically become white skinned? Should gay men suddenly discover a love for the opposite gender?

It is this assumption that the individual's personal standards are better than someone else's that makes this argument futile.

Cultural Relativity

So lets assume that the "heteronormative" lifestyle is better. Can you tell me what that entails? How exactly should I, as a gay man, go about being more "normal?"

The writer mentions that maybe I shouldn't strut through the streets in skimpy clothing during Pride as one point. OK… but I already don't do that. At most I might take off my shirt. If I agree to this, I expect an exchange: please ensure that all of the males of Italian decent that may or may not reside in New Jersey keep their clothing on at all times. And please have the normal, heterosexual women cover themselves while at the beach as those string bikinis are mighty offensive.

Perhaps us LGBT folk should also stop talking about such obviously gay things like Reality TV or fashion. Well, I do both from time to time, it's true, but if I'm going to stop talking about those (apparently) queer pursuits, I'd like for the "normal" heterosexuals to stop talking about such obviously str8 things like Football and … well, any sport. Except soccer. Soccer's cool.

Maybe queer folk should also stop doing gay things in public. Holding hands and kissing gently on the lips or cheek should probably go if we want to be accepted by our superior straight brethren, I presume. I mean, who wants to see two people being affectionate anyway? But… I mean, I just have to ask, could the hetero people also stop grabbing each other's asses in front of me? That's really disgusting.

I've got it! Why don't gay men just date and marry women, then go and have babies and move to the suburbs? Then LGBT folk will totally be accepted by the "heteronormative" world around us! We'd be just like them, they couldn't hate on us anymore! ... Right?

We're Here, We're Queer, Get Used To It

This line of reasoning is inane. The writer presumes that the heterosexual lifestyle, whatever that is, is better than the gay lifestyle and therefore all lesbians must start acting like straight women or else they'll never get their rights. If only those Bi people would just pick the opposite gender and shut up about their same-sex attractions, everything would be fine.

By this reasoning, anyone that doesn't identify as gay is just peachy, right? Except those kids who are perceived to be gay, even when they're not. Then they need to act more str8.

If the author would like to point his finger at one aspect of the queer community as The Reason why LGBT rights are being held back, perhaps he should look at the culture he purports the gays emulate: rape, violent misogyny, rampant racism, life-destroying power obsession… the list goes on. When you look at heterosexuality from the outside, you can see that it's not all roses and champagne either. (Insert snarky remark here about rocks, glass house, etc…)

To assume one culture is better than the other is not only ignorant, but it is also irresponsible. There are heterosexual men who are vastly more affluent in the field of fashion than I ever will be (most of them probably, but I luckily have a husband who does have an eye for clothing). There are straight women who don't enjoy cooking and would rather celebrate their sexuality than hide it away for that "one, true love" the fairy tales speak of. There are people of all stripes who do not fit any particular mold, and that does not make those people any less deserving of equality.

Furthermore, to decry gay culture as The Reason hate still exists places the blame on the victim. Someone hating me for being gay is not my fault, it is the fault of the hater. That person will continue to hate regardless if I wear an Ocho Cinco jersey every Sunday and scream angrily (and fruitlessly I might add) at TV screens or if I put on a rainbow colored Speedo and dance to Madonna while blowing bubbles at passersby. Those things are irrelevant to haters. What they hate is my sexuality, and the stereotypical behaviors that might accompany it are not the issue.

What this author is really proposing is for gay people to go back in the closet. He wants queers to shut up and stop being so gay, and says all of this while smiling and saying that he doesn't support hate. I can only take him for his word on that, but I would suggest that he perhaps doesn't quite "get it." And perhaps it is not for him to get. After all, I don't quite "get" the whole penis-vagina thing, but that doesn't mean I have to. It is what it is. And it doesn't mean that those straight folk should be treated with any less respect and dignity.

I will not back away from who I am. I am proud and I will scream it very loud. I'm here, I'm Queer, so get used to it. That's the chant that Lisa Simpson so famously mocked, but apparently there are plenty that still need to hear it.

Tearing Down The Argument

I need you all to take a few minutes or so and go read this piece over at Bilerico. I love Bilerico, and this piece is a fine example of why I love the site. Poster Josh Olsen tears apart the most common rhetoric from the conservative, mostly Christian Right concering marriage equality. Among the choicest quotes is this gem in regard to the claim that Californian's right to vote has been stripped from them by Judge Walker over turning Proposition 8:

The voters of Californians have had no rights stripped from them whatsoever. Our right to vote (did I mention that I live in California?) remains inviolate. In fact, not only has my right to vote not been touched, I still have the right to vote on laws that are not constitutional, such as, say, Proposition 8.

Bishop Jackson would have you believe that all that's necessary for something to become law is that the people vote for it. That we have a Constitution that our laws must measure up to is something he'd like you to forget, as is the fact that the Constitution is designed specifically to protect minorities from the unthinking bigotry of the majority.

If the voters of California voted to re-institute slavery, would Bishop Jackson object if a federal judge (especially an African-American one) struck it down? We still have the right to vote. What we have never had is the right to vote in laws that violate the United States Constitution.

The article is a bit long but worth every moment of reading. What we all need to understand is that the Right's insistence that marriage equality is evil is just plain stupid. No need to flower it up, the bigoted view that same-sex couples do not deserve equality is based in nothing short of hate and ignorance.

Cutest Picture Ever: California Marriages Resumed Edition

(via)

We Are So The Leaderiest Leaders

As an update to one of last week's posts, I'd just like to point out that same-sex marriages performed anywhere in Mexico must now be recognized by all Mexican states. Currently, Mexico City is the only district that grants marriage benefits to same sex couples in the country, but any couple that is married there must also be considered married in their home town. Legally.

In Costa Rica, LGBT citizens (and likely other minorities as this is probably a precedent setting case) no longer have to worry that their right to get married will be voted on by the general public. We in the states know how well that turns out. But their high court had the forethought to say that the purpose of a Democracy is not to put to vote minority rights, rather it is to protect the livelihood of all of the Democracies citizens. They did not legalize same-sex marriage, but they prevented the country's population from acting out of hate at the ballot box.

Meanwhile in Canada… well, nothing new there. Happy queer couples are still happily married (or angrily getting divorced, I suppose it depends on the couple) with the full blessing and protection of their government.

But here in the States? We still believe that same-sex marriage should not be recognized on a Federal level because "the chilren's" might have to be subjected to {insert random inconsequential, glib snippet or overtly untrue statement here}, and that recognizing marriages performed with full legal sanction of one state cannot be recognized in another because then Satan will rise up and rape our sheep, and that putting minority rights up for popular vote is fun. Man, I'm so happy that we are the leader of the free world!

How do we expect other governments to listen to our opinions when we can't even rationalize basic human rights?

It's As If I Didn't Exist

A pretty sobering look at some of the real costs and concerns that face LGBT Americans that do not have any form of Federal recognition of our relationship status. The death of a loved one is difficult in any circumstance, but a few more issues crop up when it comes to same-sex couples:

Thank You For Your Call from Shawn Nee / discarted on Vimeo.

Warmer Times A-Coming

US News: Proposition 8 overruled by Federal Judge, two more courts to go through before it will be fully over turned. Whether or not the ruling will actually apply across the country is still to be seen. If the Supreme Court maintains the ruling then we know at least California LGBT couples can get married, but whether or not they can enjoy Federal marriage rights and benefits is still up in the air.

Canada News: LGBT folk can get married willy nilly and enjoy all the protections of Federal marriage recognition.

Mexico News: Mexican High Court rules that the same-sex marriages in Mexico City are, in fact, constitutional. This means that not only can queer Mexicans get married in Mexico City, but they can enjoy the Federal benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Still to be determined is whether or not the ruling applies to other Mexican states, none of which have expressed any move toward marriage equality in a significant way yet.

The US is supposedly the "world leader" and the forefront of progressive thought. Yet we're sandwiched in-between two countries that are vastly more progressive than us in the realm of marriage equality and are trailing years behind many of our European counter parts.

I like warm weather and I suppose I could learn to speak Spanish. Since my husband is also a Mexican citizen, I wonder if we got married in Mexico if that citizenship would extend to me as well?

Thoughts On Closing Arguments

Today is the day. Well, one of The Days at least. Today is the day that the Proposition 8 trial will hear closing argument. After today, there will be nothing left to do but wait for the judge to rule.

He's going to be ruling specifically on Proposition 8 and whether the law has any legal validity, but this one ruling could affect many other states, possibly even support a full on case in the US Supreme Court. If prop 8 is knocked down for being the vile, hate-filled, ignorance-driven drivel that it is, than the same tactics used in this case can be used in other states.

There isn't much else to say on marriage equality, to be honest. What has been said is more than sufficient to support my right to legally marry my fiancé, and those that oppose it have sufficiently shown themselves to have nothing but unfounded bias in their hearts. Does that make them bigots? Some of them yes, but most of them are just too lazy to examine the reality so they follow along with the loud-mouth bigots.

My fiancé and I leave for Vancouver in a week and in a week and a half we'll be married. Legally. As recognized by the government of Canada and several other nations that openly support marriage equality. But when we come home, we'll still be just another queer couple fighting for basic rights in the eyes of our government.

Recently a co-workers husband suffered a stroke. It was pretty bad from what we've gathered, but he survived. He's had to go through serious rehabilitation to retrain his brain to talk properly and walk correctly because those functions were damaged in the stroke. Luckily the federal government provides the Family Medical Leave Act which provides that employers must allow for time off for her so that she can be there to help in her husband's rehabilitation. It's a tough spot for her to be in, but FMLA helps.

If either of me or my husband to be were in the same boat we would not be afforded that right. The federal government does boy provide that protection to us because it will not recognize out marriage. My employer has voluntarily extended that right to me, although I must provides mountains of documentation whereas hetero couples simply provide a marriage certificate. But his employer does not provide that same benefit. If I were to fall sick or something tragic happen to me, we would have to chose between having an income and him being there to help me recover.

We are often asked what exactly we would gain from marriage equality. While there is some truth to gaining public acceptance and equal societal standing, the reality is that we would gain basic, human rights. The right to see my husband in the hospital without question. The right to make decisions on each others behalf if we can no longer make a decision for ourselves. The right to not lose our jobs because our family is working through a tragedy.

Sure, maybe this all seems melodramatic. Maybe you're thinking this post is just a little too serious for a Wednesday morning. But as I get closer to being married, I've started to really examine these questions. It's not just a word or a term anymore. It is a set of right, benefits, and protections from our goverent, as well as a final committment to my partner. And I can't for the life of me understand what is so terrible about that.

Secret Ballots And Voter Shame

I'm in a better mood today. Not because the pain and the hurt of bigot-driven vote isn't there, but because I've personally learned a few things over the past two days, although I really only want to focus on one right now.

I've realized that there is a major flaw in the secret ballot system: if someone who holds a hate-filled opinion is given the opportunity to express that opinion with ZERO chance of repercussion, they will do so. And that's exactly what secret ballots do.

The reason it's so powerful win a legislative body, such as Maine's or California's, passes a law such as marriage equality is because their vote is always and forever on record. It's also the same reason it's hard in most places to pass it congressionaly. But secret ballots during popular voting sessions allow the average Joe to express his bigotry with impunity.

Now I'm not saying the secret ballot program should go away completely. I feel that it is a very important process for elected officials and for tax initiatives. People need to know there will be no retribution in those elections. But once something has been defined as a Right, it should not be up for public debate. Sue for it all you want, but then it's all in the open.

Rights are inalienable. They should not be eligible for public discourse because there is nothing to debate. Both Maine's law and California's Supreme Court decision defined marriage as an inalianable right. Since when did this country start allowing secretive votes on those?

The sad truth is that even today, if you put to a public, secret vote on whether or not interacial couples should be allowed to marry, most states would prohibit it. Why? Because the bigots would be allowed to vote with impunity, denying rights to people then going back home without anyone knowing the wiser.

This is also why it is important to make public the names of donors and signers for political campaigns. If company A or person B knew their name would go on record as a hate mongerer, they would be much less likely to do so. Also, those ignorant enought to follow through would have to deal with the societal pressure of the bigotry.

Marriage Equality will go to the Supreme Court. And even though there are some obsurb terds on that bench (I'm looking at you Scalia), I think they will have the sense to make marriage the law of the land. Why? Because they understand law is separate from emotion and theocratic ideals, first of all, but more importantly because their votes are registered and they have to justify them. They can't secretly express their hatred and expect to skate by.

Our day is coming.

Time To Move To Canada...

Fuck you, all you stupid fucking ass wipe twits that thought it'd be fun times and happiness to repress gay people in Maine, and subsequently all of the US.  Why don't you pieces of shit just go ahead and put together the lynching mobs already? 

Oh, to clarify, Maine voters decided that marriage equality wasn't a good thing.  In fact, they decided that LGBT are simply dogs in the streets not worthy of any basic human rights at all...

Another Anxious Election Day

For my first post back in a little bit, I'd like to talk about being very, very edgy today. I woke up pissy and haven't really been able to shake it. And, sadly, I think I know why… politics, as usual.

I'm so afraid that Maine will repeal their same-sex marriage law and that Washington will say queers don't deserve any better than they have… it's pretty freaking scary, to be honest, and those are both issues up for public vote today. It was scary when it happened in California, and if it happens again today, then it'll just be another sign to the bigoted haters of the world that it's perfectly OK to fuck over the queers.

I'll likely be on edge until much later tonight when the results come in.

Why, some ask, do I care about what happens in Maine and Washington when I live in Chicago? Because Illinois introduced their own marriage equality law last month and if two more state's voters reject the basic human rights of LGBT citizens, our legislators here in Illinois will be much less likely to follow through with the proposed law for fear of it getting overturned and used against them in future elections. The same goes for every state, hell even the federal level: if we don't win today, it's going to be harder and harder to win at all legislatively.

So, yes I'm scared and worried. I want to marry my fiancé here. I want to have the legal rights and protections afforded to us like straight loving couples do (or even just straight couples that don't love each other but are drunk in Vegas and think it'd be fun). We need these laws to exist.

Awesome Pro Marriage Ad!

Is It Us, Or Him?

A lot has been said in the last few months about President Obama's dedication, or lack thereof, to the LGBT community. I've chimed in on it, others have spoken on it. There's been no lack of screaming on our part for action NOW. Lately, there's been some push back on the issue. Not that we should be waiting in line, but more so that we are just impatient, and on the extreme end, the gay community is being called racist.

I've take some time to think about the accusations. Sometimes when you are enraged at someone else, it's hard to see your own faults, so I thought there could be some credence to these accusations. Is the gay community racist, which has as it's core leadership a whole slew of white people? Are we just being impatient children? Do we even have a valid reason to be screaming for so much so quickly?

When I look at the racist claims, I think there's something that definitely needs to be said on that front. It's true that there is an unseemly divide between the white gay community and the black gay community. Most of it has to do with sense of identity, where many white men that exclusively (or almost exclusively) have sex with other men identify as Gay. That is their identity, a Gay Man. I don't believe the same can be said for the equivalent black community, who identify more with being Black Men than with being Gay Men. There's a cultural divide, and it's true that there's a gap that needs to be bridged there. But I don't think that racism, or even lack of cultural understanding, plays that heavily in the LGBT community's cry for action from President Obama. I think that has more to do with a man that made promises and has yet to show indications of delivery on those promises.

When I look at the claims that the LGBT community is being too impatient with the President, I think there is some truth mixed with fiction in this claim. We need to be honest with ourselves and understand that he has only been in office six months. One simply cannot accomplish all of one's political promises in that time frame. You need to rally the base, make deals with key supporters in the legislature, convince the public, etc., particularly when we talk about potential major cultural shifts like repealing DOMA. Look at the fight we're having now with Health Care, and to me that should be an absolute given. There's also now "moral" component to that debate. When he takes up the anti-DOMA cause, there will be just as much rabble-rousing from the Right, if not more. That's a fight that needs full attention, I think. However, even though DOMA is a big issue and should likely be worked on when it can be a focus issue, President Obama has given no indication since he took office that he will tackle the issue. If anything, it's been repeated that he's not interested in the issue right now, and that's my concern. I'll work with you for Health Care, but you have to work with me on DOMA.

So do we have valid reasons for screaming at the Executive Branch for their lack of action on our issues? I believe so. I've said it many, many times: The moment you let up the pressure is the moment you lose the fight. If we don't constantly demand the attention of our law makers, we will never get it. However, we do need to be reasonable with regard to the President's plans and time tables. It would be nice to have more information about when the administration plans on tackling our issues. An all-inclusive ENDA was introduced to Congress today. Talk and work on repealing (or at least suspending) Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been buzzing. Those are two key policy changes that need to be enacted. So there is some movement. But our big money items, the items that we want to see before mid-term elections… those are what I'm worried about and what I want to hear more about.

Ultimately, I don't think the LGBT community hates is mad at President Obama due to deep seated racism, nor do I think we are being unfair in our demands. I do think we need to hold him to the fire and make sure he's accountable to the promises he's made, and I do think we need to rationally understand the process, but overall I think the LGBT community is doing what it can to forge ahead. Just like every other cause has previously. We don’t "stand in line and wait our turn," because we've seen that doesn't accomplish anything. We ask, we demand, and we fight for what we want.

To Wed Or Not To Wed

Good As You has a good article up today about the marriage equality in this country and how there are two growing camps within the LGBT community on how to best be civil advocates for marriage rights. Essentially, there is the camp that believes that LGBT couples should take advantage of marriage rights (or something not quite equal and definitely separate) where they can, and the camp that believes LGBT folk should abstain from marriage all together until we can receive full and Federal equal rights.

The marriage activists state that getting married when and where we can allows us as a community to show the world how important marriage is to us and that me marrying my boyfriend is not going to ruin the world. We should take advantage of the rights we are afforded when we are afforded them, and take California's Proposition 8 debacle as a sign of things to come: rights fought for may not always be there. Furthermore, when we do get married, like the couples in California that were able to prior to the hateful bile that is Prop 8, our marriages cause massive legal roadblocks and force people to question the legitimacy of statements like "those who are married can stay that way, but those who aren't already can't get married… and we have no idea what we'll do when it comes to divorce because we don't recognize same-sex couples as legally married… except sometimes."

The abstention group states that to show our opposition to the current state of affairs, and to force heterosexual people that may not even have truly considered the issue, we will not participate in the institution of marriage at all until we have full, Federal equality. We shouldn't marry where legal and we shouldn't participate in marriages. Don't go to your buddy's wedding or your sister's ceremony as a statement. Show the world what they are missing by not allowing us to partake in what should be our legal rights. If we can't get treated equally, than rewarding heterosexual couples for their special treatment doesn't help our cause.

While part of me wants to belong to the more radical thought process of abandoning marriage altogether, I just can't bring myself to that side of the debate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily against the concept, I just don't think it's the most useful argument for a couple reasons. First, this argument assumes that LGBT couples are actively participating in civil disobedience because they are refusing to marry. That in itself assumes that couples are in a place of the relationship where marriage is the next step. Second, chances are that if you are invited to a wedding, that person likely knows your sexual orientation and (hopefully, if they are your friend) are supportive of you. Punishing that person for not supporting equal rights when they likely do does not seem to be a good thing to do.

If someone is not support of you as an LGBT person, I say go all out on boycotting their wedding. I think it's quite a reasonable question when responding to a wedding invite if the happy-to-be couple supports marriage equality. If they respond in the affirmative, then feel free to join and bring your boyfriend/girlfriend with to the ceremony. However, if they respond negatively, politely letting them know that you can't stand for special treatment in this country is completely appropriate.

I also feel that the strongest statement we can make is to take advantage of our rights when and where we have them, assuming we are in a position to do so. Being able to demand that your work place offer your husband benefits or to introduce your wife as such without a hint or sarcasm is a very strong and powerful statement. It shows our desire as a community to have those rights and our willingness to assume those same responsibilities. It shows that this isn't a fight we are fighting just for shigiggles, but it's a war we are waging for ourselves.

If you don't believe that marriage is right for you and your partner, then I wouldn't presume to pressure you into marriage. I don't believe that we should rush out to marry frivolously. We should honor the concept, and cherish it as well. But I expect the same out of anyone getting married. The key here is that expect equal treatment; equal right to marry and equal responsibility to take that decision seriously. The same as any other couple. That's what we want, at the end of the day, isn't it? To be treated the same?

So while I respect those that had decided to abstain totally from the institution of marriage, I also respectfully disagree. I hope that I can join the ranks of the married some day. And I hope that I have the opportunity to think through the implications completely and to enjoy the benefits, just the same as every one else.

Why Does Illinois Still Fall Behind?

Can someone please explain to me how in the hell Iowa can afford marriage rights to all of it's citizens and now Wisconsin can give LGBT folk a proverbial bone with Domestic Partnership rights, yet Illinois, home of Chicago, bastion of liberalness in the Midwest, remains on the side of bigotry by denying its citizens the right to marriage?

Please, can someone just take five minutes to explain that to me? Because I don't think anyone has a damn clue how inept Illinois politicians can be concerning gay rights. I don't think anyone would have guessed that our "ultra liberal" state could find a way to sweep us queers under the rug and get away with it.

Personally, I'm pretty well focused on why our federal government stills seems to think it's ok to hate on the gays, but that doesn't mean that our states can't work out internal issues in the mean time. With the advances on the federal Proposition 8 challenge coming down the wire today, it seems likely that we'll be hearing more about that sooner rather than later, but again, why can't my damned legislature pass equality measures in this state?

Damned politicians and their utter laziness… I swear, if I did double the amount of work those asshats did in a day, I'd be fired for not getting enough done...

So Discrimination Is A Good Thing?

I should be upset about this guy, but the fact that he's obviously a douchebag, as evidenced by the piece a plastic hanging off his ear some people call blue tooth headsets, nullifies my anger at this and instead makes it a prime example of how funny extremists can be.  Gays, according to him, are by definition both pedophiles and practioners of beastiality.  You know, most people make casual references and try to be subtle... but not this nut case!

Anyway.... hooooray freedom of speech!

Thank You, Governor Paterson

... For this. The Governor of New York had this to say about the Religious Right's lack of moral standing when it comes to debate on Gay Rights:

You see, the fact is that for years these same individuals - many of them, not all of them, but many of them - who pronounced religious doctrine did not exercise it when young gay and lesbian students were being chastised for expressing their point of view.

Where were these leaders of faith when college students of gay and lesbian orientation were beaten and oftenbrutalized for expressing their feelings for each other?

All I’m saying is: Why didn’t they speak about that at the time when it was the other
way around? See what really makes a democracy work is when you speak for others
rights even when you disagree with them.

I’m saying most of the religious leaders that I hear speaking out now did not do it at the time. Had they done so I think they would have better moral standing to speak at this moment on this legislation even though I disagree with them.Thank you for stating what I've been screaming all along. PS, Gov Pat introduced a marriage equality bill in NY recently. Let's hope it goes through, despite the religouly biased pricks in the NY Legislature that want to block it.