Good morning Queer kids,
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
here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65A3V020100611
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?
f=/n/a/2010/06/28/national/w074528D65.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0sFjLuxNJ
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.
Forever The Queerest Kids 
While I completely agree with the Supreme Court decision in Grove City v. Bell, I do have some reservations about their most recent decision. I am all for equality and believe that college campuses are one of the most important places for people to feel accepted, however I also believe strongly in being able to believe whatever you want (no matter how perverse it is). I agree that a group advocating such discrimination should not be recognized by the University so at face value I agree with the decision, but it’s message must not be misconstrued.
We must not flip the scales and discriminate against homophobic bastards, no matter how much we want to. I despise those people with every fiber of my body, but I will fight for their right to believe and say what they want. Freedom of speech and expression must be absolute, because who knows, maybe one day those people will rule this country (God/Allah/Buddha/Secular Leader forbid).
These two articles deal briefly with instances of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defended the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) who go against everything the ACLU stands for, except for one key issue, they deserve the right to believe and say their bullshit.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html
Sorry if I’m not writing so eloquently, I’m exhausted right now. Just remember that even if you are right (which you are), those who are wrong still require the right to be wrong.
Not that it should matter, but I’m straight, and I really enjoy your blog, keep up the good work.
Well put, Danny. The only thing I’ll point out about Christian Legal Society v. Martinez is that the issue at hand was official college recognition of the group. While they are still allowed to meet (as anyone on a college campus can reserve a room or sit together on the quad), my understanding is that the group will not receive funding or any special privileges associated with an “offical campus group” designation.
I think that under the narrowly tailored framework of the case, this makes sense. If the case had been, as some Christian newspapers are reporting, an issue of forcing the CLS to allow LGBT members in or breaking up meetings based on their discrimination policies, that would have been out of line. As is, I think the decision makes sense Constitutionally.
My school had a similar issue with the army’s policy of DADT and our ROTC kids. Since DADT is discriminatory, ROTC kids can still meet, but they can’t get funding or use of American University’s shuttle vans. It’s kind of terrible since DADT isn’t the policy of the ROTC program itself, but of the governmental organization that controls it. Nonetheless, the parallel is there.