Welcome to My World

This past weekend was PrideFest in Knoxville, Tennessee. Prior plans meant we did not attend the festivities downtown. In order to make up for it, I went to all news avenues in the area to read about the success of the event. We went last year and while it is no San Fran or DC pride, it was at least our local version of it and we were proud. At the very least I expected some sort of coverage this time around (I never looked last year since we were watching the parade in person). Apparently, even after five years of living here, I am still incredibly naive about the homophobic culture of this region of the United States.

Here is the coverage I found:
NOTHING

Some PrideFest, eh? I assure you...if we are still here next year, we will be there out and proud because we are not second class citizens, as much as my friendly neighbors may want that to be so.

We Must Speak Our Truth

Every so often I come across a bit of news that takes me back to what I know I need to do. As a feminist lesbian scientist I run across some closed minds. It doesn’t happen often. I generally think it is because there is a certain sense of fear. People who disapprove of who I am are reluctant to say so. Honestly, I would prefer to hear what they have to say so I can respond. Society as a whole is never going to be on the same page on everything. Our job is to hear all the opinions so we can make the most educated decision for ourselves. Today I came across a fabulous article that reminds me of my responsibility to hear the other side.

Douglas Murray wrote what I find to be an amazing piece about how he chooses to have discourse with Muslim extremists. It can be found here:
Why we must debate the extremists: The oxygen of free societies is freedom of speech. Everything short of incitement has to be tolerated, even when it is wrong

Clearly I am not wading into this particular debate as I have no standing in it, but the following quote certainly brought me up short:

At events I regularly meet young Muslims and non-Muslims who have simply never heard arguments put for why liberal democracy is, though not perfect, our only achievable, messy, hope. I think it important that they hear someone speaking in defence of religious pluralism, women's rights, gay rights, and actual diversity in society. I also think it important that they hear religions critiqued, satirised and treated in the same robust manner in which the rest of us have our most cherished ideas treated.

I had such a visceral response this paragraph. It's true...we all need to hear the other side. Without all the information it isn't possible to stand as an intelligent individual. It made me want to speak out more than I do. While I know many people who don't approve of me remain silent out of fear of perceived repercussions, I know I also remain silent for many of the same reasons. I choose to not rock the boat. It is not a wise choice.

The Joy of Tennessee

Honestly, this could be a series if I wanted to make it one. "The Joy of Tennessee - A Study of Repression and Fear" or some such title.

Currently the ACLU is demanding that Tennessee schools stop blocking student access to valid LGBT resources.

Knox County Schools and Metro Nashville Public School use web filtering software that blocks student access to the websites of many well-known national LGBT organizations, including PFLAG, GLSEN, and HRC.

The Knoxville News Sentinel is covering the story here and the public comments are frustrating, as per usual.

Yeah, let's unblock beastiality, that's discrimination against the animals or PETA/Humane Society will get you. And let's unblock the child porn as that's age discrimination. And let's unblock every other sick and perverted thing out there because we certainly don't want to shelter our children from the deviants in society.

Thankfully there are a few sane people out there that balance things out.

I guess I read the wrong article. Nowhere does the article talk about porn or pushing ones opinions on another. If minorities can have scholarships, any minority group should have the same EQUAL RIGHT. Come on people...get out of the dark ages!

Seriously people, we are talking about access to legitimate resources. No porn. No attempts at a mass conversion...we don't have enough toasters for that. Simple, plain access to legitimate resources that may gosh I don't know help a kid get to college or even save a kid's life.

Poor Start to the Weekend

My only hope is that the word on the street is wrong when it comes to Prop8 being upheld in California. The quote that pissed me off the most is this:

"Proposition 8 does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided" to same-sex couples.

- Kenneth Starr, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the sponsor of Prop.

Oh really? Well how frickin' nice to be allowed to maintain some generously provided but apparently not fundamentally deserved human rights.

I need a beer.

I Gotta Go Home, I've Got a Bad Case of Gay

You're at home in your jammies now, right? No!?? Damn it, people - you were supposed to call in sick today, with a bad case of the gays. Because, if we're going to treat gay as a disease, then we should get sick leave for it. But the point won't sink in unless we all do this at once, and today is the day.

So, go find your boss and tell her that you've got to go home - you feel a case of the gays coming on and you'd hate to spread it around the office. Then you can go sit in bed and watch the new Sarah Haskins video about vampires. This is my type of activism! (Actually, you're supposed to use the time off to volunteer for your local LGBT or Human Rights organization - otherwise you're not doing it right. Still, you could watch the new Sarah Haskins video first - and you can wear jeans and sneakers to volunteer instead of that stuffy button-up you're stuck in now.)

So, get to it!

Arkansas Would Rather No Parents for Needy Kids Than Equal Rights for Same-Sex Couples

The right to wed is not the only civil right under attack for lesbian and gay couples in these United States. While all eyes have been turned towards California, the right of lesbian and gay couples to parent adopted or foster children has suffered a major setback:

Arkansas residents recently voted to ban people who are "cohabitating outside of a valid marriage," as Shelley and Ross do, from being foster parents or adopting children as these women did.

The measure was written to prohibit straight and gay people who are living together from adopting or becoming foster parents, but its real objective, child welfare experts say, is to bar same-sex couples like Shelley and Ross, 52, from raising children—even if it means youngsters who desperately need families will wait longer.

This vote to keep same-sex couples from becoming parents is hateful, and it hurts children as much as it does the couples whose basic rights it revokes. Susan Hoffpauir, the president of the Arkansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, lamented in the pages of the Chicago Tribune, "We don't have enough quality homes as it is, and now we're going to place more restrictions?"

Across the country, similar laws aimed at keeping lesbian and gays from becoming parents are threatening the wellbeing of children in need of loving homes and robbing same-sex couples of an equal status in the United States. Utah only permits straight married couples to adopt, while North Dakota allows child placement agencies to "rule out prospective adoptive parents based on religious or moral objection."

One state, however, is working to reverse its bigoted and harmful laws: a Florida judge ruled last week against a law that had previously baned adoptions by lesbians or gays.

For those still unconvinced, the Tribune article also frames the issue in economic terms:

Some 129,000 U.S. children are in foster care, and the only criteria should be who can best provide a loving, permanent home, according to Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

In a recent report, the non-partisan group concluded that a national ban on gay adoptions could add $87 million to $130 million to foster care expenditures annually because these children would then be living in other types of institutional care, such as group homes.

"On its face, this [Arkansas] law is just crazy," Pertman said. "I fear what will happen if other states see this as a model."

In answer to this economic incentive for justice, compassion, and equality, one social conservative group that lobbied for the ban on same-sex adoptions argued that better advertising for straight couples willing to become foster or adoptive parents will solve the issue.

We still have so far to go.

Congratulations, Connecticut!

It's a happy day in the nutmeg state! As the New York Times reports:

Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect...

The official start of gay marriages came a month after Connecticut’s highest court legalized the unions, and the court announced only last week that Wednesday would be the official first day of nuptials...

“Today, Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a Boston group that litigated the Connecticut case.

Cheers! Congratulations to all the couples that can now begin planning weddings. I hear Connecticut is beautiful in the early summer... May many states (ahem, CA) follow the example of our northern friends and keep fighting until equal rights for same-sex couples are guaranteed throughout the country.

Lesbians on ABC Family's Lincoln Heights?!?

Its no secret that we form our ideas about the way the world is 'supposed' to work in part by watching and parodying the attitudes and actions of those around us - especially when we're young. For just one little example (and I promise I'll get to the lesbian kiss soon), a recent report on NPR explained that many teens see smoking as relaxing and refreshing because they are "...primed to see smoking as a sort of relief... That's the image television — one of the strongest influences in their lives — portrays." Teens who watch shows like Sex in the City learn to expect a sense of relief when smoking a cigarette because that is what so many of the characters express when they light up. This 'priming' of young people's expectations also influences ideas about gender roles, body satisfaction, and heteronormativity as well.

Where was I? Oh, TV lesbians. TV's ability to prime our expectations about relationships and sexuality is one of the reasons I was so tickled to see this scene from ABC Family's Lincoln Heights. The story line is one that you've probably seen on made-for-teen and family shows before. As StuntDouble of After Ellen explains, the plot of this episode revolves around "...the old "I have this friend" trick. It works so well, until you actually do have this friend who needs you to intervene on her behalf... Cassie and her gay BFF, Stacy, have heard word that Kelly is a lesbian. Cassie thinks Stacy should just ask Kelly to prom, but Stacy doesn't even know if Kelly is actually gay! What to do? Send in your wingwoman, of course."



Oh no! We've got a Cyrano de Bergerac dilemma! For a good guess at what happens next, I'm sure we could refer to at least three Saved By the Bell plot lines. Yet, the predictability of the drama is part of what makes this scene so promising as a social message - it isn't that they're lesbians that complicates the plot, but the mix-up about who's doing the wooing. That its a same-sex love triangle, come on, that's no big deal. And that's a good thing.

In Which I Am Again Confused by the Big, International Anti-Gay Agenda Run by Gay Men

This story is really as tragic as it is perplexing. If you've heard of Austria's Jörg Haider, you've most likely heard of his far-right intolerant views. As the head of Austria's most conservative political party, Alliance for the Future of Austria, Haider was known for his antisemitism and his "...championing traditional family values, railing against the European Union and calling for an end to immigration." Now, just two weeks after his death, his party is having to face an awkward truth about its former leader and the figure-head of Austria's "family values" movement- that he was gay.

Jörg Haider died on the night of October 11th. After having some drinks with his partner, Stefan Petzner, the two started arguing. Upset, Haider got into his car and sped towards home. He was drunk and driving far faster than the speed limit. His car ran off the road and flipped twice.

Now Stefan Petzner, who has taken over as the conservative party's leader since the night of Haider's death, is speaking out about their love:

“We had a special relationship that went far beyond friendship,” the successor, Stefan Petzner, a former fashion and cosmetics reporter, said Sunday in a highly emotional interview on Austrian Radio 3. “Jörg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life.”

The Times goes on to note that Haidar was maried and had two children, and that "he had cultivated a macho, man-of-the-people persona." And, of course, there are those in his party who insist that the rumors of an intimate relationship between Petzner and Haidar are false - that the sightings of the two men at gay clubs are inventions and that Petzner was speaking only of their friendship in particularly tender terms. Yet, Haidar's relationship with Petzner has been an open secret for years. From an article published in 2000, it seems like Haidar's affair can't truely be such a surprise:

Haider, who has become a target of criticism across Europe ever since his right-wing Freedom Party joined the ruling Austrian government, is widely known to be gay, according to Berlin's Tageszeitung and the Austrian paper Der Standard. "We've known about Haider's homosexuality for about ten years," stated the Austrian gay-activist group Homosexual Initiative.

What most bothers me is that Haidar and Petzner were clearly in a loving relationship. As the head of Austria's most conservative and anti-gay party, Haidar was not promoting an agenda of intolerance while feeling guilty about a one-night stand. He had a long term partner and a loving relationship. Why fight to undermine the ability of other couples to find that happiness - why undermine the chances of your own relationship being respected?

Since Haider cannot answer me, this is the question I put to other gay politicians and religious leaders who seem to work tirelessly against their own best interests. Let's start with the Log Cabin Republicans - why?

Reflections on Saturday's Outing

The Annie Leibovitz exhibition that I viewed at the High Museum of Art last year has made its way across the pond and is now at the National Portrait Gallery in London. In her review for The Guardian, Liz Jobey writes:

...Leibovitz explains that she had considered making a book entirely of personal photographs, but then she concluded "that the personal work on its own wasn't a true view of the last 15 years. I don't have two lives. This is one life, and the personal pictures and the assignment work are all part of it." While that must be true in practical, physical terms, what it doesn't acknowledge is the emotional difference between assignment pictures and personal ones. The mixing of the two kinds of photographs in this show seemed to confuse the audience, as they moved from public to personal to public again, they looked as if they didn't weren't sure how to respond.

While I don't entirely agree with Jobey's criticism, it reminded me of the difficulties I had with the exhibition a year ago - namely with the lack of mention of Susan Sontag as Leibovitz's partner despite the many photographs of her. So, in response to the Guardian's piece, I'm re-posting my own take here:

On Saturday, Casmall and I went to see the Annie Leibovitz: A Photographer’s Life, 1990 - 2005 exhibition at the High Museum of Art. The collection of photographs is beautiful and haunting. Much of the power of the exhibition comes from the juxtaposition of celebrity portraits taken for magazines like Rolling Stone with her personal photography, the unifying narrative coming from photographs of her family and of Susan Sontag, her lover. What I find disturbing, though, is that while the exhibition deals, in a large part, with the relationship between Susan Sontag and Leibovitz and with Susan Sontag’s fight with cancer and eventual death, no mention is made of the photographer’s love in descriptions of the exhibition. Galleries announce that “[t]he personal photographs in the exhibition document many events involving her family, including the birth of Leibovitz’ three daughters and the death of her father,” but are silent about the more prominent theme of the loss of a lover and the looking back on a shared life. It is hard to say if it is the decision of the gallery to remain silent about such an important element of the exhibition, or if the lack of mention of Sontag's relationship with Leibovitz from descriptions is instead due to Ms. Leibovitz’s desire for privacy.

Above is one of my favorite portraits from the collection. It shows Marilyn Leibovitz, the photographer’s mother.

Vote No On Prop 8

Near as I can tell, we are a group of fairly like-minded readers and contributors. Sure, there are a few disagreements now and again, but we seem to do a good job at being responsible, liberal, open-minded people. So, my guess is I don't need to do a whole lot of convincing most people reading this post about the horrendous implications behind Proposition 8 in California. The hate it engenders, the fear it fosters, the rights it erodes...all of it is simply horrendous.

For those among us who get it and live in California, thank you for your upcoming no vote. For those among us who get it but don't live in California, visit No On 8 to donate because it is going to be hard battle in these last weeks against proponents who have an awful lot of money to throw into the mix. A donation will help fight the following misinformation that is being used to win support for Prop8:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent's objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don't agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won't affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won't have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

For those among us who don't get it, stop for a moment and really think about it. Prop8 is inequality plain and simple. Surely we are beyond being a nation that supports inequality between its citizens. Consider the following statement found at Proud Parenting:

Kathryn Kendell, executive director of San Francisco’s National Center for Lesbian Rights, says that gays, lesbians and their straight allies need to educate their friends and neighbors about the importance of voting. “There are heterosexuals out there who might love their gay next-door neighbors, but not bat an eye at voting for Prop 8", said Kendell. “You have to engage them in the harm” she said, adding that if the issue isn’t personalized, “it’s easy for them to think the harm doesn’t exist.”

Bottom line, if you are reading this post, living in California, and on the fence about Prop8 please realize that there is ultimate harm in this piece of legislation in the form of extreme hate. Don't be a part of that hate.

If you are reading this post and are still going to vote yes on Prop8, then you probably should not be visiting this blog at all because you aren't going to like what we have to say.

Chicago's Proposed Gay-Friendly High School

NPR reports that the city of Chicago is considering forming a magnet school for LGBT students and allies:

In Chicago, plans are under way for a new school where gay students and others wouldn't face the bullying and harassment they endure in other schools...

William Greaves, the city's liaison to the gay and lesbian community is on the design team. He said the proposed Social Justice High School-Pride Campus would be a college prep school for about 600 students.

"We as a team saw many … lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning [students] and their allies who were well integrated into the system and doing well academically," Greaves said, "but we saw just as many, if not more, who were isolated struggling, who were dropping out."

He said the school would support those students as well as others that don't feel safe regardless of their sexual orientation.

As you might expect, there are some in the community who oppose the school, but their reasons are quite diverse:

"It's not to take away my compassion for anybody here. I try to raise my children righteously via the word of God via the Bible because this is my belief," Greer said. "I cannot support with my own tax dollars paying for something that I don't agree with."

Others had different reasons for opposing the school. Hantas Farmer, a transgender, cited the ground-breaking Brown v. Board of Education school decision.

"Have any of you considered that this is nothing but de facto segregation? I support you in principle. School should be safe for everyone. But I'm not sure segregation is the way forward," Farmer said.

If approved by the school board, this new LGBT magnet school will open its doors in 2010.

What do you all think - good idea or a step in the wrong direction?

(photo via PFLAG)

Love Does Not Rejoice in Injustice: Vote No on Proposition 8

Why should Californians vote No on Proposition 8 come November? I think this says it fairly well:



(h/t Alas, a blog)

The Palin Effect: Helping Voters Restore Homophobic Pride

It seems like the anti-gay supporters of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would restore marriage inequality to California, have been bolstered by the Sarah Palin effect:

Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain picked evangelical Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate - the Yes on 8 campaign has leapt ahead in the fundraising arena - raising around five million dollars since Sept. 1.

As of right now - the antigay Yes on 8 campaign has sixteen million dollars to spend on expensive commercial air time - compared to eleven million for the No on 8 campaign.

What do Palin's nomination and Proposition 8 have to do with one another, you ask? Well, Sarah Palin has restored the conservatives' pride in 'small town values.' 'No, no' - she tells voters, 'you're not voting for a ticket that would extend both an unpopular war and the financial policies that have wrought havoc on our economy - that's not what the election is about. It's about defending your values.' So, if small towns don't value a healthy economy and an end to the war, what do they value? Marriage inequality. With just McCain around, people were forgetting that they were once proud of their bigotries - now all this talk of 'small town values' has made denying other people the opportunities the rest of us enjoy seem patriotic again.

And if you don't believe me that the small town values is simply a euphemism for homophobia, ask a conservative to define the term for you. Oh, wait - someone already did:

And California, please vote no on Proposition 8.

Who Knew...Gays are Individuals, Too

I've got to say, if Prop 8 passes in California this November I am going to cry. Just giving you all a heads up on it. Our dear friends Leanne and Moya are getting married at the beginning of next month. We are sadly unable to make it. If a mere month later their marriage is banned I am not sure I will be able to fully articulate my outrage.

The reason I bring this up now is because I ran across this article in The Atlantic which boldly suggests that homosexuals are individuals. Shocking, I know.

I enjoy how the piece was written. In regards to the May 15th ruling granting same-sex couples the right to marry, Andrew Sullivan writes:

What’s notable here is the starting point of the discussion: an “individual.” The individual citizen posited by the court is defined as prior to his or her sexual orientation. He or she exists as a person before he or she exists as straight or gay. And the right under discussion is defined as “the opportunity of an individual” to choose another “person” to “establish a family” in which reproduction and children are not necessary. And so the distinction between gay and straight is essentially abolished.

And that was followed by a description of his wedding:

Ours was not, we realized, a different institution, after all, and we were not different kinds of people. In the doing of it, it was the same as my sister’s wedding and we were the same as my sister and brother-in-law. The strange, bewildering emotions of the moment, the cake and reception, the distracted children and weeping mothers, the morning’s butterflies and the night’s drunkenness: this was not a gay marriage; it was a marriage.

It sure is hard to get through days some times knowing full well that our society still battles race issues, gender issues, and sexual orientation issues. I just keep hanging my hat on the hope that future generations will get it right. And in the meantime, we will just have to keep calling the injustices out into the open right here.

HSS to Allow Doctors to Deny Treatments on Moral Grounds

Just when we were celebrating California's Supreme Court ruling that doctors can't refuse treatments to lesbians or gays due to religious beliefs, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has started pushing to ensure that doctors can refuse to provide abortions based on moral grounds. HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt explains this new attempt to blur the line between health care provider and clergy this way:

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," Leavitt said. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

Let me just point out here that there are many branches of medicine that a person could practice which in no way involve providing abortions, and only one that does. So perhaps the better answer would be for individual medical professionals to not choose fields where their duties conflict with their beliefs. Also unclear is whether or not doctors would be allowed to object to providing abortions to only certain types of people - say, on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, or race.

Also worrisome is this:

The underlying laws deal mainly with abortion and sterilization, but both the laws and the language of the rule seem to recognize that objections on conscience grounds could involve other types of services.

That's right, under the HSS's new rule, any type of medical procedure could be denied due to any member of the facility's beliefs - since "regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health care work force," a hospital worker who decided it was morally wrong for him to, say, provide a certain type of person with lifesaving medications might be covered.

As PalMD of Denialism recently wrote, "...a physician must be careful not impose his or her personal beliefs on patients." In a discussion of Dr. Christine Brody's refusal to provide fertility treatments to Guadalupe T. Benitez (the act of discrimination that eventually led to the CA Supreme Court ruling mentioned at the first of this post), PalMD explains:

Conflicted with the doctor's faith. There's the rub.

This is a particularly perverse form of prostelitizing. It doesn't involve having coffee with an acquaintance and teaching them the Word. It involves a vulnerable individual, who comes to a qualified professional for help, and is turned away because of "improper" living and thinking.
...
For a physician to deny a patient care based on their own beliefs is a cop-out, and is a coercive use of their paternalistic powers.

The HSS is in the wrong and its new rule is aimed at denying medical services to women. Worse, as Broadsheet notes, the ruling:

...goes far beyond defending a medical worker's right to refuse to perform an abortion -- it also secures his or her right to refuse to "refer for, or make other arrangements for, abortions." In other words, a worker at a women's clinic, perhaps the only one for several hundred miles, can refuse to perform an abortion and refuse to refer the patient to someone who will.

This seems to be a serious attack on our medical freedoms.

UPDATE: Both NARAL and Planned Parenthood have letters you can sign and send to help ensure this rule does not go into effect. (h/t Jump off the Bridge)

Not A Gay Disease: HIV, Homophobia, and the Americas

When a friend of mine heard one of her medical school professors refer to HIV/AIDS as a 'gay disease,' she had to speak-up. "We need to be clear when talking to patients that it isn't being gay that puts people in a higher risk category, it's anal sex."

Noticing the stunned looks of her classmates, she assumed that they simply hadn't understood her point and attempted to clarify, "Look, while I was living in Honduras I had a friend who insisted that he wasn't at risk, because he sometimes had sex with women and therefore wasn't gay. His doctor had told him that only gay men needed to worry about HIV. We need to make it clear to patients that any unprotected sex puts them at risk, and it is unprotected anal sex with multiple partners - not identifying as gay - that increases your chances of catching the virus."

My friend has been shunned by many of her classmates since making her point. Apparently, honest talk about sex isn't ladylike - even in a hospital.

Yet disease isn't deterred by cultural taboos, and we are needlessly endangering people through this combination of homophobia and excessive prudishness. By stigmatizing homosexuality, and by making being openly gay dangerous, we encourage people to lead double lives and to lie about their sexual experiences - putting themselves and all their partners at risk. An unwillingness to openly talk about sex only compounds the problem.

As the New York Times reports, the myth of AIDS as a 'gay disease' is common throughout the Americas, and interferes with efforts to protect people:

Martín Márquez Chagoya, a gay man who has had H.I.V. for 14 years and counsels other men, visits a park in downtown Puebla [Mexico] where men go to have sex with other men, but he says his efforts to promote condom use there often fall on deaf ears. The No. 1 response he hears from men there is that they are not gay and are therefore not at risk. They say they are merely having sex with gays.

It is time we all acknowledged that fear and misinformation do not constitute a prevention plan.

In order to limit the spread of disease, we need to fight homophobia and discrimination. Here in the United States, we are currently working to pass legislation that would ensure that no one could be fired on the grounds of sexual orientation; but even if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passes the Senate, it faces the risk of a presidential veto and fails to extend protection to transgender citizens. Denying legal protections to the LGBT community sends a frightening message to young gays - that they should stay in the closet. We cannot ask people to be honest about their identities while threatening the livelihood of anyone who is openly gay. If our societies paint homosexuality as something punishable, how are we to encourage young people to be honest about their sexual identities - even with their doctors and partners?

We also need to combat the myth that people's sexuality can always be fitted into neat little categories. As Professor Hector Carrillo of San Francisco State University recently explained to the New York Times, "Sexual identity is a very complex thing... We like to think that once someone figures out their sexual attraction, they will fit into the categories we’ve created. But life isn’t like that." A greater acceptance of how very fluid sexual identity can be for many of us would help combat myths about who is at risk.

We also need to stop kidding ourselves about the progress we've made. Sure, the world is a more accepting place than it was 50 years ago, but homophobia still kills. According to the Mexican gay rights group Letra S., "[b]etween 1995 and 2006, about 1,200 Mexicans were killed because of their sexual orientation." And violence against gay and transsexual citizens is not a country-specific problem, but is common throughout the rest of the Americas as well. Yes, even here in the States, where people come with the expectation of protection (rest in peace, Angie Zapata). Our governments need to ensure that hate-crimes are recognized as such, and prosecuted. Parents need to make sure that their children know that dehumanizing someone because of their sexual identity is evil. We cannot continue to create an environment of hate, and those who promote intolerance need to keep in mind that the ripple effect of acts of violence has the ability to impact us all in a multitude of ways.

We cannot fight disease with lies, threats, or platitudes. If we want to keep all of our citizens safe, we need to respect and protect them. And that means being honest - even about sex.

Cheers to California!

I might be coming a bit late to the party, but I'd like to join in congratulating California!

Congratulations in particular to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who have been partners more than 50 years, and who this evening became "the first same-sex couple to be legally married in the state," and to friends of the blog Leanne Waldal and Moya Watson. Woooooooooohooooooooo!!!

If you are looking for other ways to celebrate this happy day, Current TV is asking people to share their own coming out stories. In the words of the Current "Outreach Associate" who wrote today to urge me to encourage readers to send them videos so they can put you all on TV, "Finding liberation in coming out should be celebrated and admired. We hope that by sharing your stories, you and your readers will inspire others with the courage to do the same." Oh, and please remember us when you become stars (preferably by hitting that donate button)!

(The photo of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon was, like so many beautiful things, snagged from Feministe)

Let My Partner Stay

The above video from Current TV emphasizes the real-life problems caused by our refusal to grant same-sex couples equal rights, a refusal that intimately impacts even people's most basic decisions about where to live and work. I'll admit, watching this couple's goodbyes made me cry a little tear.

Hopefully, laws in states like Massachusetts and (starting Monday) California will eventually make life a little easier for the some 35,000 couples that find themselves in the same situation as Brittany and Joanna, who are unable to remain in the United States due to our discriminatory laws against same-sex couples. Of course, the rights of lesbians and gays are actively being opposed nation-wide. In California, some worry that a November ballot initiative that "...would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions" could pass, and same-sex couples would again be robbed of their status as equal citizens. Californians, don't let that happen.

UPDATE: Friends of The Feminist Underground Leanne and Moya were recently interviewed by Melissa Block for an NPR piece on California's circuitous path to legalizing gay marriage. The piece will air today (June 13th) on All Things Considered, but anyone can go to the NPR website and listen after 1:00 pm EST!

(thanks, once again, to Ada of Current directing us to this story)

March Towards Equality Shuffle: 2 Steps Forward, 1 Step Back

Happy news item number 1: Massachusetts's State Maternity Act will now apply to fathers too! According to Feminist Law Professors:

This change means that employers in Massachusetts must now offer both mothers and fathers 8 weeks of unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child. It appears that much of the decision was prompted by the state having same-sex marriage and the Commission determining how to rectify the problem that a lesbian couple would have, under the statute, two parents eligible for leave but a gay male couple would have no parents eligible. Interpreting the law as sex-neutral solves this problem.

This news is naturally good for gay parents in Massachusetts, yet it will help straight couples just as much. The weeks following the birth or adoption of a child, while often very joyful, can naturally be a very stressful period as well. When mothers are the only ones given leave from work during this time, they must bear most of the initial burdens of parenthood alone. The women-only parental leave system also"perpetuate[s] sex- and gender-based hierarchy within marriage," since it establishes that care of children will fall mainly to the mother - regardless of whether or not she works. So, yeah Massachusetts for making parenting more equal for everyone! This will improve the lives of lesbians and gays, and, more generally, of women and men. This is a great example of how interconnected we all are, and why feminism should be concerned with LGBT issues.

Happy news 2: As you might have heard, California's State Supreme Court has ruled to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, and "[t]he ruling takes effect, and the weddings begin, on June 16 at 5 p.m." That's just four days away, guys! I think lots of congratulations are going to be in order!

Sad news: Of course, you had to know that some people who stand to loose ... well, nothing from allowing other love-birds to tie the knot are again making a stink:

County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.

In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples.

Really, guys, it isn't that the good people of Kern and Butte are bigots! They just don't have the resources to marry both straight and gay couples... I mean, with all that stamping of official documents, and ... well, that's about it. But it's hard. Come to think of it, the county clerks really should be allowed to choose who gets to wed, since they have to do all the filing and stamping... it's only fair!

(photo via The Guardian)