So who’s heard the good news? In a surprise move after the rider on the defense budget was struck in the Senate/House reconciliation of the bill, the House of Representatives introduced a stand-alone bill which dealt exclusively with repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It passed the House last week and the Senate on Friday, officially ending the long-standing discriminatory policy.
But what does this mean? For right now, the symbolism behind the act is HUGE, but the actual impact may be minimal for several more months. There’s been a big push for a complete implementation of the policy within the first quarter of 2011 and an 80 page manual for dealing with the policy implementation has been published by the Defense Department. These are good first steps, however, the way the repeal bill is written will slow the process for beginning implementation.
The New York Times explains: “Under the terms of the legislation that passed the Senate on Saturday and the House earlier last week, the Defense Department will not carry out the repeal until Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates , Mr. Obama and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “certify” that the military is ready to make the change. After that, the legislation requires a 60-day period before the change takes place.”
I highly recommend you read up on the language of the bill and how it handles procedural and policy decisions regarding soldiers in this same article.
Regardless of the stall in implementation, I’m incredibly thankful that we have senators courageous enough to take on this bill as a stand-alone and finally allow LGBT men and women to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
For those of you who are not familiar with the slimy, gay-hating past of Anita Bryant, here’s a quick history lesson.
Anita Bryant started out as a singer, TV personality, and the spokeswoman for Florida Orange juice. Good for her. Later in her career, however, she developed some strange version of a moral conscience and decided to dedicate her life to god by becoming involved with politics and headlining for the “moral majority” (an evangelical Christian campaign started by Jerry Falwell). POINT BEING, during her crusade, in her home state of Florida, the Dade County Board of Supervisors created a law which protected the rights of LGBT people from discrimination in housing, hiring, and a variety of other areas. Cue Anita Bryant’s outrage. She launches a giant campaign to get this bill overturned, which she does, then goes a step further by invading California through her political network to create PROPOSITION 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative. The Briggs Initiative would forcibly fire all LGBT teachers and make it impossible for openly gay people, or in some interpretations of the law, anyone who even supported LGBT rights, to be hired as an educator. Prop 6 failed epically in the 1978 referendum, and Anita Bryant sunk into obscurity. Thank god.
This lovely piece of unbiased journalism from Gossip Boy notes that Anita has resurfaced to the speakers track, albeit on a much, much lower radar to continue spreading hate. However, to note her co-speakers and the legitimacy of the events where she will speak (which is to say, racists and homophobes; non-existent), it seems as if her hate messages are not reaching nearly as far anymore. I’m not going to cite this article as a definitive piece of evidence to support my belief that America is slowly but surely rejecting homophobia and those who promote it, but it does put a little sparkle in the argument. Additionally, the total shame of Anita Bryant’s legacy comes to the fore in this article, as Gossip Boy notes that there is actually A WARRANT FOR ARREST on her person in Oklahoma for writing a hot check. Makes it hard to believe she was once the spokesperson for upstanding Christians everywhere, huh?
While the likelihood is that his decision will be appealed and the case taken to the Court of Appeals (a statement of intent for this must be file by tomorrow), the cool thing about this decision has to do with the legal concept of “tests of scrutiny.”
Essentially, there are 3 levels of scrutiny, and LGBT cases always get the short stick concerning them.
Strict scrutiny, which is used to judge the necessity of laws pertaining to discrimination based on race, means that you have to prove that a law is the most narrowly-tailored version of an action that can be taken to bring about a desired outcome while minimizing discriminatory harm.
Intermediate scrutiny, which is used for laws about gender discrimination, says that the action has to minimize harm, but not have to be the “most narrowly-tailored” option.
The rational basis test, which for some reason is still used for LGBT cases, says that a defendant must only prove the action has a legitimate correlation with the desired outcome and has a strong likelihood of making it come about.
Obviously, Prop 8′s opponents were trying to get Judge Walker to use intermediate or strict scrutiny to judge the case, but the amazing thing was, he ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional on a RATIONAL BASIS TEST. In other words, Judge Walker almost unconditionally confirmed that Prop 8 has no logical reason for existing besides blatant prejudice.
An exact quote from his 136 page court statement:
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
That is a strong precedent to set in favor of Prop 8′s repeal. Keep your fingers crossed, everyone. If this battle is taken to the top, I dare say it could mean the legalization of same-sex marriages across the country.
Just a quick news post for you guys today: Ireland just voted to approve same-sex civil partnerships. Whoot! Equality for the Irish. It still has to be approved by President Mary McAleese, but her acceptance of the bill is pretty much seen as a forgone conclusion. If you’d like the full story, check it out here:
http://www.gcn.ie/feature.aspx?sectionid=14&articleid=2775
In other news, antibodies found in Donor 45- an older African American man being treated for HIV- have been noted to disable a large portion of the active strains of HIV. When combined with one of the current antibodies in marketed anti-retroviral drugs, these two antibodies are able to combat 91% of all known HIV strains. Scientists have a long road to travel in getting this antibody into vaccine form, but if they can do it, it could mean an incredible reduction in the number of transmissions and diagnoses of AIDS. For the whole scientific spiel, check out the Wall Street Journal article.
There is a LOT going on in the Rainbow world this week. First on the docket, Prime Minister of Iceland, Johanna Sigurdardottir, married her partner on Sunday after a unanimous vote by the Icelandic Parliament to legalize gay marriage. Yay!
Johanna, now 68, has been legally bonded to her partner since 2002 in a civil union, but the couple filed for a “marriage upgrade” once the bill legalizing gay marriage passed through congress. This makes Johanna not only the first openly gay head of state, but certainly the only MARRIED gay head of state. Congratulations. The article on the vote in Congress, which is rather remarkable, is
In other news, the Supreme Court voted to uphold university non-discrimination clauses in the case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In this case, the Christian Legal Society brought charges against California’s Hastings College of the Law because the college would not grant recognition to their student group on campus. Hasting’s College claimed that the Law Society violated the college’s anti-discrimination policy by requiring its members to sign a statement of faith, which included language about “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with that faith. This clause is considered discriminatory against LGBT students and their allies on the Hasting’s campus, and thus, the group is not allowed to meet officially under the sanction of the University.
The Christian Legal Society brought its case to the Court claiming that its rights to freedom of assembly and expression were being violated; the Supreme Court, however, ruled 5 to 4 that they were not.
The full article from the San Francisco chronicle is here, including direct quotes from the majority decision and minority dissents:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
This court case echoes a parallel decision made in Grove City College v. Bell back in 1984 which affirmed that colleges practicing discrimination in their acceptance of student applicants could not receive government funds. The decision derives from Title XI of the Education for All Act:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”
Grove City College is one of over 20 schools in the US that practices out-and-out discrimination against LGBT students, who can be kicked out of the institution if they are found to be engaged in homosexual behavior- even simply kissing or holding hands with a member of the same sex- or promoting acceptance of that behavior. Thus, Grove City students cannot receive Pell Grants or Stafford Loans, and the College itself does not accept any government funding.
Although Grove City will not change its incredibly stringent policies any time soon, both the Grove City v. Bell case and CLS v. Martinez show a trend from the Supreme Court of supporting LGBT students and protecting their rights on campus.
If anyone is interested in further information on colleges which prohibit homosexual behavior, I would HIGHLY recommend the movie Equality U, which aired on Logo several years ago, and is available on their website, here:
http://www.logotv.com/video/equality-u/1602603/playlist.jhtml This movie is absolutely BRILLIANT- it chronicles the work of the Equality Riders, a group of college-aged Christian students who visited schools across the country which have LGBT discrimination policies in place and tries to engage in dialogue with them. The courage of the students on those campuses is what truly makes this film worth watching.
For those of you who haven’t heard, the vote on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is rapidly approaching. Here’s a quick history and policy update:
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented during the Clinton years as a political compromise to allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the Armed Forces. Previous to the policy, service member applicants had to openly declare their sexuality in order to joined the armed forces (and obviously, gays were excluded from eligibility). Clinton ran a campaign promising full acceptance of gays and lesbians in the military but recieved major political backlash during his term in office and a promise from Congress that such an executive order would never go through.
Instead, Clinton offered an alternative- to allow gay servicemen and women to participate in the military as long as they did not publicly disclose their LGBT identity. The US military is the only branch of government that maintains a discriminatory policy against gays and lesbians.
Mercifully, repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is not a one-shot decision. The amendment is attached as a rider to the Military Spending Budget for this year, so if the budget passes, so does the amendment. However, there is the potential for either chamber of congress to call a vote to remove the amendment with the clause about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell- which, if it passes, another vote would then be taken to approve the budget without the amendment. If the DADT amendment (or any amendment, for that matter) is stricken from the bill, however, the entire budget must be returned to the other chamber of congress for re-approval.
So LGBT supporters have two things to keep them positive- one, repealing the policy is an amendment, rather than a seperate bill, which is attached to a crucial buget. This is wonderful because budgets are often heavily compromised-upon documents, and removing an amendment could upset the political balance which allows it to pass. Thus, it is dangerous politically to suggest removing an amendment for fear of bringing attention to your opposition’s less-desirable components of the bill. Two, because the bill is so important to get through efficiently (it does, after all, control the spending for the entire US military), Congress will not want to repeat the time-consuming process of reconciling two different versions of the budget bill.
Your thoughts? Any potential military recruits out there? How will this effect your future? If the bill (god forbid), does not pass, would you still offer your services to the US military?
Also, this offers a great segway for my next post, which will be about living closeted. Give me feedback, dahlings.
I’d like first to thank everyone who gave encouragement to this project and who have submitted comments or ideas about content. Following their suggestions, the first blog of Forever the Queerest Kids will be…. A congressional watch!
In December, New York joined 31 other states by shooting down legislation which would have legalized same sex marriages. The vote, which came out at 38 to 24 against gay marriage, is nothing remarkable. But the proceedings did bring to the forefront an outspoken LGBT-positive senator Diane Savino, whose speech on the senate flood I have included below.
If you’re looking for a breakdown of where same-sex marriages are legal, I’ve got that too.
The District of Columbia passed a law legalizing marriages on December 15th, 2009, although it did not begin to take effect until early March of this year
In California, gay marriages were legalized under a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 (by striking down an earlier CA law prohibiting them). HOWEVER, the infamous Proposition 8 referendum which passed during the 2009 election made them illegal once again. The Supreme Court has just heard closing arguments on June 16th for the challenge to Prop 8’s legislation in the trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger, however it is unclear when a verdict will be delivered
Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont are holding strong to their commitments and all allow same-sex marriages
Maine, unfortunately, was subject to a California-like referendum during their senatorial elections and Proposition 1 made gay marriages illegal once again
Now for the editorializing. My question- which has been posed by queer historians, critical theorists, and everyday citizens alike- is this: why do we need the state to legitimize our relationships?
The two primary arguments are-
1. It validates the love and commitment that gay couples express and shows that LGBT are inherently equal to straight people and deserve equal rights.
2. Marriage offers legal protections like adoption rights, hospital visitation rights, and social security benefits that all couples are due.
Now I agree with both of these, so let me address them in turn. I believe (and I think most people do) that it is exceptionally important for a legal rights like inheritance, medical benefits, insurance, and hospital visitation to be protected, and under the current US statutes, they are most certainly not. If you’d like to learn more about the different rights denied to same sex couples, I highly recommend equalitymatters.org and check out there 1138 reasons Equality Matters. HOWEVER, the interesting paradox I find is in those people who use the legal rights argument, but who are opposed to civil partnerships/unions. Speaking from a purely theoretical perspective (as many civil partnership bills have been poorly crafted and strip away as many rights as they afford), civil partnerships should provide all the same benefits of marriage, only under a different name.
This of course, loops to the second argument for gay marriage: namely that separate but equal is an inherently discriminatory standard and undermines the legitimacy of gay relationships. Once again, I affirm. Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court case which legalized racial segregation, was overturned for its inherent discrimination, and legal distinctions between gay and straight marriages should follow suit.
However, I disagree with the argument that a different name for gay marriage somehow undermines its importance and legitimacy. Shakespeare wrote in his timeless classic Romeo and Juliet: “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet.” I stand with the bard regarding petty distinctions and categorizations of marriage. As long as the person I care for is protected, they can call our union cow dung.
As for the second keystone argument for marriage, I will take a slightly differential tone. While there is some legal validity in a law or court case which says, “Yes, you are equal and in your right to be married,” the idea of putting my relationship on trial before the masses of society is not any kind of social validation, but rather degrading instead. A pro-equality group in Ireland made this touching video expressing this sentiment:
In terms of love, commitment, and validation, I don’t think the act of marriage proves anything. I have been in a relationship with a magnificent woman for the past 9 months, and though we’ve spoken about marriage (which is legal where we live in DC), it is not a high priority. I have all the assurance I need about her commitment to our relationship, and it has nothing to do with a ring on my finger, a license from the Marriage Bureau, or a ceremony with flowers and cake.
The day before my girlfriend left for her intensive language program in Vermont (which enforces an honor code where she cannot speak in English for the duration of the program except in very strict, exceptional situations), we spoke at length about the future and our plans for life. There have been financial troubles in my family lately, but she told me, in no uncertain terms, that she would do all she could- emotional, financially, and spiritually- to help me achieve my dreams. She said that what she truly wanted was for both of us to go after the experiences in life that matter, even if it separated us for a time. And she wanted to be able to make those experiences possible for us.
My girlfriend has made a commitment to living her life with me, financially assisting in sending me away from her to do aid work on the dark and not-entirely-safe continent of Africa, and emotionally supporting whatever I want to do with my life. All this after only knowing her for the course of an academic year. What in the world do I need a marriage certificate to tell me?
But every relationship is different, and I have the luxury of living in DC and being able to choose whether or not to marry. So what are your thoughts? Marriage, civil unions, social legitimacy? What have your relationships taught you? What are your thoughts politically?
And most importantly, what else do you want to hear about? As it comes closer to time for college, I’ll be putting the spotlight on some youth organizations that may have chapters in your area. If you are going somewhere that you’d like specific information about, leave me a comment, and I’ll collect some resources for your school or city.
So who’s heard the good news? In a surprise move after the rider on the defense budget was struck in the Senate/House reconciliation of the bill, the House of Representatives introduced a stand-alone bill which dealt exclusively with repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It passed the House last week and the Senate on Friday, officially ending the long-standing discriminatory policy.
This 
