STR8 Bois Are Totes Hawt!!1!

A twitter friend sent out a link last week to a new FCKH8 campaign (you may rember their cathartic "it gets better" video), the STR8 Against H8 calendar. The basic idea is that this is a calendar featuring 13 self-professed heterosexual men who are "stripping down" to promote marriage equality. It's a calendar of guys who like women and also think marriage equality is important and who enjoy the attention of other men. Or at least "don't mind" when gay men appreciate them.

I looked at the site and watched the promo video that's on there (which is really just a behind the scenes showing more man flesh), and while the calendar certainly seems to well-produced and the intent of the project seems to be on the up-and-up ($3 per calendar goes to equality-minded organizations), I just can't shake the feeling that this is all a terribly bad idea and fairly demeaning to gay men.

The Queer Feminista

Maybe this is the feminist coming out in me, but I'm not so sure that fetishizing straight men is very healthy. Let me rephrase that: lusting after a man simply because he is straight is not healthy. Believing a man is attractive whether or not they are a particular sexual orientation is perfectly fine, but placing specific emphasis on a man's sexuality as the source of your lust is troubling.

I call this troubling because what it does it present straight men as something "Better Than" gay men, something to be idolized and prized as if the pursuit of vagina is the penultimate sexual activity. Can you see the problem there? If being straight, in and of itself, is hot, then being gay must be Something Other Than Hot.

So a group of gay men lifting straight men up as the epitome of hotness smacks of self-loathing to me. Self-loathing and a twisted inferiority complex.

I'm not saying finding a guy attractive that is straight is a bad thing. Many straight men are very attractive (see Ben Cohen). But finding a guy attractive because he is straight, or implicating that gay men cannot be as attractive as straight men, does very little to advocate a cause for equality.

But Is It Really Wrong?

All that said, there's nothing wrong with it, per se. If a person decides to purchase the calendar, more power to you. In the video it appeared that all the "straight men" photographed were pro-equality, which is a very good thing. And although I'm not a fan of the means, the end cause is a good one.

But I'd just like to put this out there: how can we as an LGBT community move forward if at the core of our beings we still don’t believe we are equal in every sense? If we believe that straight men are more attractive and worthy of praise for simply being part of the vast majority, how do we expect them to see us as anything other than adoring fans?

Do We Enjoy Sounding Like Out Opponents?

It appears that many Queer theorists and far-leftists are having a hard time understanding the importance of repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It affects so few LGBT people that we should be focusing our efforts on more wide-spread legislation such as ENDA (Employment NonDiscrimination Act), they say. Marriage Equality would serve to force societal change, they opine. Some even say that gays don't want to serve, anyway, so why does it matter?

It's ironic then that these same arguments are used to fight against ANY pro-gay legislation. Why should lawmakers worry about legislation that only effects less than 8% of the population when we have double digit unemployment to worry about? Wouldn't health care reform do more to advance the Democrats agenda?

We, as a community, need to understand that all of this legislation is important. Dismissing one for another is fruitless. Each is only a piece of the Equality puzzle, and none of them are the magic cure-all some seem to be hoping for.

So while it is true that only a percentage of LGBT folk serve in the military or wish to, that doesn't mean that those members of the community are any less important an valuable. Do we really want to sound like our detractors by saying that LGBT folk should just go find another career instead of doing what the love or are proud of?

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.

What Did The Mormon Church Just Do?

I have been wanting to write more over here, but I've also been a bit distracted lately. However, a friend asked me to comment on the Mormon Church's support of the gay rights law recently passed in Salt Lake City.

Just to clear up a few things, while this law was a step forward, it wasn't a giant leap. The law only places sexual orientation in a protected category, meaning it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT people in housing, employment and services. One would think that is already the case, but sadly it's not, and it's not a Federal rule yet either. In fact, many locals it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Like Cincinnati up to only about 5 years ago. And the Military today.

It also looks as if the Salt Lake City Council was poised to pass the bill with or without LDS consent. It possible that the blessing of the magical underwear fairies assisted in getting the bill to pass unanimously, but that's really not clear.

What is clear is that the LDS clergy came forward in favor of something that's not blatantly anti-gay. Yes, that's a shock, but the real question will be if they live up to their promises to support domestic partnerships and civil unions. Back when Prop 8 passed, the Mormon higher ups came out and made some ridiculous statements about how they weren't anti-gay, blah blah blah (and I bet the KKK doesn't hate black people…), and that they would support domestic partnerships as a matter of fairness.

This could be the first step toward that, but I really have to wonder about these nut jobs. I feel like this is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Would they really support a "everything but marriage" Domestic Partnership program like Washington just enacted? If so, what then is the difference between that and actual, for real-real Marriage? And, if that truly is their stance, why did they not spend their money and influence being proactive and helping domestic partnership and civil union bills pass across the county, as compared to wasting millions of dollars on destructive and divisive anti-gay campaigns?

The Mormon church may have just handed a shiny red apple with a smile on their face, but I sure as hell ain't going to bite into that poison.

Three Important Fights

I'm reposting this from Courage Campaign's website basically wholesale. This coming Tuesday, three important gay rights intiatives will be on the ballots throughout the country. And for those of you that thought we only had elections every 4 years... well, this is for you. Pay attention and go out and vote! Also, anyone else that wants to copy and repost this, visit Courage Campaign's site and grab the HTML code. It's super easy.

Washington:

Who we are: Approve Referendum 71 is the campaign to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State. By voting to approve, voters retain the domestic partnership laws that were passed during this year's legislative session, including using sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, insurance rights, and more.

What we need: We need phone bankers to get our supporters out to vote. Washington is an all mail-in ballot state, and we need to ensure our supporters put their ballots in the mail. Also, youth turnout is a critical component of our campaign, and youth turnout historically drops in off-year elections. So we need a lot of help to turn them out.

How you do it: Sign up here to make remote calls for Approve 71. We'll then contact you for a training, and you can make GOTV calls.

Maine:

Who we are: The No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign is working to protect Maine's recently-passed law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Our opponents have put the issue on the ballot for Nov 3, 2009. Because of Maine's early voting election laws, people are already voting at the polls, so we need help immediately to turn out our side at the polls.

What we need: We need you to devote a few hours to Call for Equality. Call for Equality is a virtual phonebank set up so that you can call Maine voters wherever you are. Much of Maine is rural, where canvassing isn't effective, so we need to reach these voters- along with other supporters- by phone. All you need is a phone and internet connection. No experience required! We'll provide the training, and all you need is a a few hours to help get a win in Maine.

How you do it: Click here to sign up for a training and your shift. There are lots of times available for your convenience.

Kalamazoo, MI:

Who We Are: The Yes on Ordinance 1856 / One Kalamazoo campaign is working in Michigan to support the City Commission of Kalamazoo's twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for gay and transgender residents. Opponents forced a public referendum on the ordinance so dedicated local volunteers, led by former Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley, are working to ensure voters say YES to fairness and equality and keep Ordinance 1856.

Why The Urgency: In the final weeks, the opposition has gone all out with aggressive disinformation and misleading red herrings to try to defeat the ordinance. This includes signs that say "No to Discrimination" (even though voting No actually supports continued discrimination of GLBT residents), transphobic door hangers and fliers, and now radio ads that falsely suggest that criminal behavior will become legal when this simply isn't true. The Yes on Ordinance 1856 supporters are better organized but many voters who want to vote for gay and transgender people are getting confused by the opposition.

How To Help:

1) Help the One Kalamazoo campaign raise a final $10,000 specifically dedicated to fight back against the lies on the local TV and radio airwaves and fully fund the campaign's final field and GOTV efforts.

Give here: http://www.actblue.com/page/3-2-1-countdown?refcode=courage

2) If you live nearby and can physically volunteer in Kalamazoo sign up here. If you know anyone that lives in Kalamazoo, use the One Kalamazoo campaign's online canvass tool to remind those voters that they need to vote on November 3rd and vote YES on Ordinance 1856 to support equality for gay and transgender people.

Contact voters: http://www.onekalamazoo.com/tellfriends2

Supportive Voices

He's not my type at all, but I'd consider giving him some after this quote:

"...A year ago or two years ago, I remember reading about an initiative that was proposed in the state of Arkansas. It was some kind of measure that was aimed at preventing adoptions by single parents. Now, the way I read that and the way that I translated that language was that only heterosexual, married couples could adopt children. As an adopted child that really bothered me. I asked myself, what that is really saying is that the concern with one's sexual orientation or one's sexual preference outweighs what's really important, and that's finding safe homes for children, for our children. It's also saying that we'd rather have kids bounce around from foster home to foster home throughout the course of their childhood, than end up in a permanent home, where the parent, whether that person's single or not, gay or straight. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's a home that's going to be provided for a kid who desperately needs a home. As an adopted child, that measure really bothered me. It just boggles my mind because good, loving homes for any child are the most important thing."

This from Scott Fujita, the straight, married, father that just happens to be a line backer for the New Orleans Saints. That's a professional football team for all my queer brethren out there.

All I can say is that I completely agree, Scott.

It's OK For Me, Not For You

Iowa is the new bastion of progressive thought? Really? Sweet! I like having neighbors that are welcoming and accepting of me… now if I could only get my home state to stop pussyfooting around and approve equal rights….

The gayterwebs (coined it!) are abuzz over the past few days over Obama's lackluster response to the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Before I tear into it dissect it, here's the snippet that has many of us LGBT folk up in arms:

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

Straight from the horses mouth there kids. Or the horses website, at least.

So he supports "equal rights" at the same time as supporting un-equal and second-class-status-granting Civil Unions? My brain hurts just thinking about this dissonance, I can't imagine what it must be like to actually believe this bull shit! How is it possible to support equal rights at the same time support "separate-but-kinda-not-equal" rights in Civil Unions?

Nurse: I'm sorry sir, only family are allowed to visit right now
Civilly Unioned "Partner": Oh, that's my legally defined partner, although not exactly the same as my Husband, but close enough
Nurse: Wait… so is that you're legal Husband?
CUP: Well, sort of, but not really. Technically, we're suppose to have the same rights as married couples, but someone in the political atmosphere decided that he needed to segregate us further from our peers by not allowing us to be treated equally
Nurse: I'm confused then… are you family or not?
CUP: See, it's a complicated issue…

And on and on and on…. It's an inane difference that will only serve to muddy up the idea of marriage and confuse the public. Yesterday, Jim Douglas, Governor of Vermont, said the reason he vetoed the marriage equality bill passed by the Vermont House and Senate was that he sees no difference between marriage and civil unions. Great! So why arbitrarily separate the two then? If there is really no difference between Marriage and Civil Unions, why should the different terminology exist?

Is it because people like Jim Douglas and Barack Obama see us LGBT folk as different than them? Is it because they do not feel that our relationships are as valid as theirs? Is it because they don't really respect me and my family? The answer, in case you were wondering, is Yes to all the above.

The real litmus test here, kittens, is would Jim Douglas or Barack Obama change their Marriages to Civil Unions? Would they start referring to their wives as legally binded partner? Would they want to have that discussion with a hospital worker who is ignorant of the differences? I doubt it. And if it's not good enough for them, why the fuck should I accept that it's good enough for me?

Marriage Equality Prevails In... Wait, Iowa?

To sum it up, the Iowa Supreme Court announced today in an Unanimous Decision that marriage between same-sex couples must be allowed, as illegally discriminating against LGBT folk in this arena violates their state Constitutional rights to Equal Treatment and Protection. One more time, the Iowa Supreme Court (that's the heart of the Midwest, kittens) has said, without one dissenting voice, that LGBT persons must be given equal rights.

That's another one down!

As I write this, straight couples all across the state are falling apart and families are beginning to disintegrate into Oblivion. Men all across the state who have previously thought themselves heterosexual are suddenly realizing that they have no other option than to run to the nearest bathhouse and enjoy the pleasure of other men, leaving their former wives with only the comforting arms of other ex-wives… which obviously leads to lesbian trysts. Teachers in every school in the state have stopped talking about their given subjects to give graphic descriptions of how two men copulate, and children have lost their ability to understand right from wrong, slaying everything in their path and stopping only to talk to the newfound horde of vans parked in front of the schools packed full of villainous men with lollipops. Even worse, within minutes of the announcement, every church in the state was slammed with anti-defamation suits and forced to close their doors.

Oh wait… That isn't happening?

Hmmm… Well, I suppose those preachers/fuckheads that spent all their time and energy telling people that would happen were… wrong? No, that can't be! Religious figureheads can't possibly be wrong when it comes to social ills! What's next, a President that willfully lies to the public and commits heinous war crimes, all the while being let off the hook by his opposing party?! What kind of bularkey is that?!

Take Me To Your Leader Ship

I'm a bit frustrated. Actually, forget that, I'm extremely frustrated. Every time I've opened my RSS feeds in the past week and clicked on my "Gay" grouping to read what the gay blogosphere is talking about, I'm confronted with multiple postings about needing a gay leader. Writers whine about not having another Harvey Milk alive today, or cry about the general lack of direction the LGBT community has right now… and it's getting a bit old.

Here's a real harsh reality we have to face in the Queer world, and I'm just as guilty of it as the next 'mo: we are extremely reactionary and judgmental.

We take all of our leaders and trash them to hell within their first ten minutes of leadership. Why? Because we saw them talking to a conservative figurehead without eating that person's babies. Because they did not immediately thrash out at the latest bit of legislation that did not include free lube for all. Because they chose to attend the rally put together by the Lesbian Activist Front vs. the Gay Liberation League. We quickly assign blame and toss them aside.

The movie Milk has done a lot to show us why we need a leader in this time, and I think that is one of the many reasons we as a community are looking for that leader now. But if we all lived during Harvey's time in San Francisco, I'm quite confident that we would have chided him for even thinking about working with a person like Dan White. Not undeservingly, we've cast a martyr's halo over Milk's life and career, so we wouldn't dare criticize him now, but the point is that we shouldn't criticize our own for crossing the line in the sand from time-to-time.

Does that mean that I now think it's OK for Rick Warren to speak at Obama's inauguration? Nope, not at all. Do I think it's OK for Obama to meet with Warren from time-to-time to hear out the crack-job communities' perspective? Sure, that's not a bad idea.

My point is that if we want a leader, if the LGBT community truly wants someone to stand up and take the helm of this movement, here's what has to happen:

A - We back down from attacking our own
B - We accept that while someone may be an enemy, we may still need them at some point, if only to throw them under the bus
C - We demand the highest of expectations of that leader while also recognizing that she/he is not godly, but merely human
D - We create opportunities for someone to rise to the challenge.

How does one even become a leader in this haze of noise? If there were even someone out there who could lead such a diverse community, are we even able to hear them now? And if we could hear them, would they want to lead?

Get With It

One of my biggest complaints about the Gay Rights Movement in the past few years is that it's been quiet and complacent.  We've been all too happy to accept the small, ultimately meaningless, gains in exchange for our peaceful subservience to the Christian-Conservative Overlords that have been running our country.  As a result, nothing of substance has happened, and even more so, some of the rights that we have fought in the "politically correct" arena have been stripped from us. 

It's not just the "corporate" mind set of our National Organizations that is the problem though.  GLAAD and HRC exist for very specific things, and it's my belief that they should continue to do what they do best, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are not good at leading our community as a whole to action.  As Michael Crawford over at Bilerco Project put it:

While there are many smart and politically savvy people in positions of leadership in our organizations, I do wonder how much of gay conventional wisdom is shaped by psychic damage caused by the intrinsic evil of the closet and internalized homophobia.

That is not to say that our leaders are closet cases, but how much of the timidness and unwillingness to speak openly and forcefully about our lives and our families is the result of old-school political battles necessitating a less overtly "gay" style of activism?

We have been too scared to act up for too long.  It's time to be activists.  It's time to let people know why they can't take away our rights.  It's time we stop acting like scared, closeted high school students afraid of the Jocks finding out for fear of beating and start acting like the proud, successful, happy queers we are!