Iceland, Prime Ministers, Court Cases, oh my!

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.

We Have Nothing to Fear From Love And Commitment

Alright queer kids, it’s official blog time!

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.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

Here are the highlights:

• The District of Columbia passed a law legalizing marriages on December 15^th, 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 16^th 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.