Wednesday, March 14, 2007

don't ask, don't tell, don't serve.

I have watched in relative horror as the best soldier I can imagine, is not serving in the military as we speak. She is physically unrivaled by her peer group (can benchpress her body weight, do weighted pull-ups which exceed her body weight, and run marathon-long distances), has no physical restraints, is college educated, can speak numerous languages (one of them, arabic), and is trained in military protocol from early expectation that she would serve. Unfortunately, she cannot - you see, she is gay.

Because of her language skills, this gay woman can take a job for an American contracted company to be in the middle east, making over six figures...when she was willing to do the job at a soldier's salary.

I'm not sure when America will understand that its best and brightest are excluded, while we are allowing those who are barely scraping by to get through - all because of who they come home to.

I was reading in a book the other day, regarding deception, about a gay man in the marine corps who served during Vietnam. He wrote letters to his partner everyday, but addressed them to his sister (who would give the letters to his partner), so that the guys wouldn't question it. He lived a decorated military life, and an absolutely secretive and wrenching personal pain.

At a time when we have seen years of evidence that gay and lesbian individuals have served honorably and contributed to our military might in the past, how can we deny them open service? They have stood side by side with their heterosexual counterparts, risking their lives, and not detracting from the mission. How silly to think that sexual preference would impair performance - if so, we would not allow women in the military at all - lest they seduce or be seduced by their opposite-sexed counterparts. We know better. We know that heterosexual men and women can and do serve in the military without their amorous inclinations interfering with their military duties....why would it be less for a homosexual recruit?

The notion seems to be that either we truly believe that same-sex people cannot control themselves (which clearly, we do not believe if we allow them to serve now...), or we believe that the knowledge of their sexuality will somehow infect or distract others (which we do not currently see with heterosexual soldiers). It is legislated bigotry pure and simple. There is no justification that I can think of that supports this policy. There is no scientific evidence which supports the assertions made.

When "don't ask, don't tell" came into fruition, it was a good policy. Rather than not allowing gay/lesbian individuals to serve in the military at all, a policy was created that would allow them to serve as long as they did not "tell," or were not open about their sexual preferences. We have found in the years since its creation, that it was a flawed policy - creating closets when it should have been opening doors. Suspected "homosexuals" are often passed over for promotions, harassed by their peers, and are not afforded the same opportunities as their heterosexual counterparts for benefits (for a partner/same-sex spouse), etc. Would we honestly ever expect our heterosexual counterparts to never discuss the opposite-sex, their partners, or indicate a new love interest to their close comrads? We do allow wedding bands, and this is perhaps one of the biggest "tells" of all. Maybe we should strip heterosexual military recruits of their wedding bands, for they disclose their sexuality - whether they have married a man, or a woman.

We are not asexual creatures, and the military does not ask us to be. "Fleet week" and other such events are known to be times of rampant carousing that is not restricted on moral grounds. Truth is, when I heard the general speak about rejecting homosexual soldiers based on "moral grounds," it just reminded me again of the hypocrisy running rampant in the church and this country. What of cadets cursing, premarital sex, objectifying women, the content of chants on the marches, taking God's name in vain, drunkenness, and a thousand other "sins" we could name? These are not equally punished by dismissal.

Picking and choosing which acts you consider "moral" and which you do not, hardly constitutes the grounds for the creation of solid national policy. It is an attempt at the appearance of morality, a poorly thought-out inconsistent ethos without rational or scientific grounds.

It is a wonder to me that gay/lesbian soldiers would want to serve at all, given the fact that they risk their life for a country that does not even acknowledge them, their families, or their relationships. How many heterosexuals would do the same?

-movement.

Thursday, February 8, 2007

The legal reasons why we should marry...maybe not what you think.

The framework that we have used to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage has been flawed, in my opinion. We have been focusing on the same issues which we accuse our oppressors for focusing on – that of sexuality. We get bogged down in exactly what others want us to get distracted by – the origin of homosexuality, the morality of same-sex relationships and sexual acts. None of this is relevant to the civil marriage contract. In truth, same-sex marriage is not about our sexuality, its origin or expression - it is about gender. Here is why:

Should you apply for a marriage license with your same-sex partner, the only reason you are not able to be granted a marriage license is due to the gender/sex of your partner. If s/he were of the opposite biological sex, the license would be granted.

Nobody frankly cares what you do sexually when you are an opposite-sexed couple. As long as you are of the opposite sex, meet other legal requirements regarding age, etc…you may marry without prohibition. If you never decide to engage in any physical sexual act, cannot procreate, etc…it is none of the state's affair. In fact, if you are an inmate who will never have the pleasure of sexual intimacy with your partner – you are still allowed to marry. The problem, is one of gender.

This brings us to this simple point. We are not asking for a "special" kind of marriage – but rather, the extension of existing rights to include couples comprised of the same-sex. For the state, they cannot deny rights to its citizens without reason, in states with ERAs (equal rights amendments), they have to prove that extending these rights would somehow harm the commonwealth. Current research shows no indication that there is any evidence to withhold rights from this group of people who would make the choice to marry someone of the same gender.

Also, remember that wanting to extend marriage to include same-sex couples does not change marriage – it remains exactly the same with the only variable of difference being the gender of your intended spouse. It offers the same rights and responsibilities, and remains a civil contract between two individuals.

People know this…even 82 year old Phyllis Schafely who has been working to defeat the Equal Rights Ammendment because she states it will allow same-sex marriage justification. She stated to Columbia News Service author Alison Schuyler Ogden in an article , Remember the ERA? It's back, thanks to a new generation, "If we can't deny any right on account of sex, we can't deny a marriage license on account of sex."

Phyllis and I would likely disagree on many things, but we certainly see eye to eye on this front.

If we want to start getting smart about how we approach same-sex marriage – we will not get bogged down in the mire of the origins, or morality. Although science continues to point toward biological explanations (we know that over 350 species have reported same-sex pairings - see Biological exhuberance), it is not really a relevant topic. People in our country should have the right to choose to marry the mate of their choice regardless of sex. Treating genders equally, means parity. Not parity in everything "except marriage."

On another note, people have the right to disagree on moral issues. Individual churches already take stands on many social issues, and continue to take a position here. Whether or not they choose to perform religious ceremonies that often accompany the legal binding is entirely within their rights.

However, the law is intended to offer rights equally to all of its citizens, even when the majority supports discriminatory practices. The rights of every citizen are not up for public vote – and with solid reasoning. Still, we may not have interracial marriage – or women's rights. As the law is written, we cannot deny that extending marriage rights to same-gendered couples is the legally correct thing to do.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

What we lose, and what they stand to lose.

According to "U.S. Laws for the legally Married," although every state varies a bit in its offerings, every U.S. state has between 170-350 connected with legal marriage, and there are more than 1, 138 Federal laws relating to marriage and the rights and responsibilities therein .

So why marriage and not civil unions? They are hardly the same. Civil unions provide only state protections which end when you cross the state line (unless directly in another state which recognizes civil unions). This becomes problematic if the couple decides to move, or if the couple shares a child. Not only is your civil union disregarded, but your child no longer has parents who are legally related to each other. Civil unions also include no Federal benefits, which for a surviving partner and child means no social security - which could assist in their time of great difficulty. Ultimately, by insisting on the word and legal parity of "Marriage," it equalizes citizens and their families.

A relational hierarchy opens the door to further discrimination, and we see this currently. For example, corporations that offer health insurance to legally married couples often do not grant the same benefits to those in a civil union. The word matters.

In personal and economic fronts, same-sex couples continue to suffer. There are often no discount memberships at the gym for your family, no social security benefits, and no tax breaks. Over time, this becomes dramatic.

Here are some examples of how extreme this penalty becomes (thanks to "partners task force - legal marriage, money lost"):

These numbers are likely much larger now given the increasing cost of benefits...but "indicate the value of benefits provided to the partners of gay and lesbian employees at the San Francisco Examiner in 1989 [if the person was making a salary of $40,000/yr]. That is to say, there were none.

Salary Breakdown:


Health Insurance
Spouse gets employer-provided group health coverage worth about $250/month.
Partner gets nothing.

Dental Insurance
Spouse gets coverage worth $42.27/month.
Partner zero.

Vision
Spouse gets eyeglasses and contacts under vision plan worth $6.34/month.
Partner gets none.

Life Insurance
The employer provides a $5,000 life insurance plan.
Spouse gets the benefit automatically if the employee dies.
Partner gets benefit only if he is named as beneficiary.

Bereavement Leave
Up to three days paid, worth $480, for the death of a spouse or close relative.
No time off is guaranteed for the death of a partner or a member of partner’s family.

Pension
Employee can name anyone as beneficiary. But if employee dies before retirement, spouse automatically gets $800/month pension plus two week’s pay for each year employee worked.
A partner would get the severance pay, but not the $800/month.

Social Security
Again, if employee died, a spouse upon reaching age 60 could receive average monthly benefits of $492.
A partner is ineligible.

Or to put it another way, if your partner worked for ten years, she or he would have made at least $55,890 less than a married co-worker — and — if you outlived your partner by ten years, you could lose $8,000 in pension payments, and you will never get $4,920 of your partner’s Social Security benefits. "

These statistics exclude the multiple and concurrent difficulties faced by Gay and Lesbian citizens upon the death of their partner. Another example given by the same source reports:

"The San Jose Mercury News, on July 16, 2003, gave an example of the financial impact to a partner before the California Registered Partners act was expanded in September 2003:

Take the case of a Silicon Valley couple who bought a home for $100,000 that is now worth $500,000. If the husband died, his widow’s property tax would remain the same. Disregarding annual property tax adjustments, the tax bill would continue to be based on $100,000.

Until last week, that tax rule did not apply to any same-sex couples. A surviving domestic partner would see her partner’s half of the $400,000 appreciation — or $200,000 — reassessed. Assuming a baseline 1 percent property tax rate, that would translate into an extra $2,000 property tax bill each year.

The savings of $2,000 per year is what married couples already received."



This, and so much more, is what we lose everyday. However, the tables have rarely been turned. What do they stand to lose?

Currently, the economy benefits by same-sex couples not participating in the benefits of marriage - they stand to lose economically if we do so. However, I would argue that the cost will be far greater if we are not granted the rights of marriage and full equality.

Same-sex couples who are well-educated, skilled, and thrive in their careers may indeed benefit the economy by their "no-breaks" participation...however, they are also among the segment of the workforce in the best position to relocate for better opportunities in areas where their relationships are respected. The most successful businesses are recognizing this, and according to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s release of the “The State of the Workplace 2005-2006," the "report shows that, for the first time, a majority of Fortune 500 companies, 253 (51 percent), offer domestic partner health insurance benefits. In addition, 430 (86 percent) of the organizations include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, and 81 include gender identity and/or expression, marking a tenfold increase from 2001."

You don't see business thriving in the south, and the midwest, and there seems to be a correlation between the geographic areas of tolerance and the congregating of successful businesses. Open arms to gay and lesbian people often means an openness to those of other cultures, ethnicities, languages, and religions. If you want the best talent the world has to offer, you have to provide an environment where they can thrive - moreover, a place they can live and feel respected.

Economist Richard Florida stated in his book "the flight of the creative class," that there are three elements that successful cities require and seem to include - Talent, Technology and Tolerance. I would further this notion.

As the world expands the marketplace and the doors of business becomes more and more open to same-sex couples, it is no longer acceptable to simply be tolerated. If I can go anywhere in the world, I will go to a place where I am equal. True integration is what people will begin to demand more and more as other countries offer this.

It would be shameful to say "black people are tolerated here," just as it is shameful to suggest that gay/lesbian people should be content with being tolerated in certain areas of America. If I can marry and move to a lovely city where I am as equal as any other citizen, that is quite a carrot to dangle in my midst. It may just be tempting enough to leave this country I love. In leaving, you bring your skills, your wealth (consumerism/taxes), your educational offerings, and your contributions.

America may have been able to attract the best and brightest some time ago...but as the doors close to those who are from other countries, as we berate and misunderstand those of different ethnicities and religions, and as we deny all of our citizens the equality that comes with marriage, America will lose its standing.

You can no longer treat us differently, initiate laws to restrict our relational expression, not protect our families, and simultaneously try to benefit from our education, initiative, income, and creativity. You cannot expect that we will continue to be exploited and simultaneously offer you all the fruits of our labor.

- movement

Sunday, January 28, 2007

"Any law that degrades human personality is unjust"

Martin Luther King Jr. once penned these words in his famous "letter from a Birmingham Jail." It struck me how poignantly and directly most of his utterances apply to the same-sex marriage movement, to glbt rights, and how willing he was to take a stand.

The differences, however, are striking.

There is no movement for GLBT rights that is willing to participate in civil disobedience on a grand scale, there are no masses and outcry. There is complacency, resignation and a type of learned helplessness that often afflicts those oppressed. It happens for a number of reasons: when people start believing that they are as inherently deviant as some might portray them to be, they become comfortable in their lives and forget those who continue to struggle, or they feel the situation so resistant to change that it is not worth the effort. I am not among these.

What can we do? There is so much we can do. But...what are you willing to risk? You cannot expect that those of privilege will give up that privilege without some type of tension.

In small scale, we can live our lives openly and proudly as we see fit. We can hold the hands of those we love, kiss them tenderly if the urge strikes, and work for change in every aspect of our lives. For some, the threats of violence or harm will keep them oppressed...for others, this freedom in our communities must not go without action. As it comes naturally to you, you should do what you feel led to do. In doing so, you open the doorway to others through even this simple act. A young glbt person who sees the courage of one will be more likely to replicate it, a couple just starting out may feel more welcomed in the neighborhood - or more likely to move there, a couple of opposite-sexed composition may begin to realize how similar to you they really are.

When people have to see you, there is no denying your existence or shared space in this world. The laws that are meant to make you feel badly, or second-class are no longer doing their work. There is nothing as oppositional to oppression, than refusing invisibility. This is recognition on the smallest scale.

You may be a gay or lesbian person reading this blog who does not feel particularly inspired to act. For reasons of safety, this is an understandable thing. We all want safety, and not everyone is willing to take a risk of this scale - admittedly much larger for some than for others. But can you ride on the backs of others? Can you take advantage of the rights that come only if others do the work on your behalf? Can you sleep knowing that somewhere someone is losing their job because they told a co-worker that they were gay, or that they lost their child because they have a relationship with another woman. These are unacceptable in America. How can a country who claims to fight for freedom, deny it to so many of its own?

In the end, as so well stated in the same letter as referenced above, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people."

The truth is, there are people in this country who suffer everyday unjustly. Who live lives of desparation, internal shame and fear that needn't be so. This country cannot assume that it can reap the benefits of our work and of our taxes, but offer us second-class status in return. The lack of recognition of our families, the unequal distribution of benefits and rights will not be able to be sustained. The wealthy and those will skill and ability, will simply move elsewhere.

Let us not be complacent - and not be afraid.

If you love another of the same gender...marry them, demand benefits, hold their hand and kiss them at will. If you know someone who you love, who is glbt - stand for them, write your congressman, join groups of support, talk about their cause openly and with compassion. Imagine your own life, for a moment, with the restrictions and stigma faced everyday to varying degrees with glbt Americans.

We can all make a difference. Just do something, anything, to contribute.

-movement.