Category Archives: sexual orientation

ENDA Passes the House: No Party in the Square

The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) was voted on by the House of Representatives today. It passed by a vote of 235 to 184 with 14 not voting. It needed 212 to pass.*

It passed by the skin of its proverbial teeth. So, why are we not celebrating?

Let’s review:

1. ENDA does not really protect gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Even though the debate about including or not including protection for gender identity or expression was framed in terms of protecting the transgendered, really those provisions would have protected gays, lesbians and bisexuals better than simply stating that, as the bill that passed the house does, that you can’t fire or refuse to hire someone because of his or her real or perceived sexual orientation.

That is like saying “Fine, so we can’t fire you for being a lesbian as long as you aren’t too butch.” If you’re “too butch” all bets are off.

HRC and its coaltion and Barney Frank and allies in the House have framed this as an issue of society becoming used to talk about GLB issues and being ready for civil rights legislation for lesbians and gays, but not quite being ready for legislation protecting transgendered folks because that issue is just newly in our consciousness as a society. That is naive and elitist. It presumes that most GLB folks are middle class and upper middle class professionals just looking to move up in the corporation. That simply isn’t the case.

2. ENDA does not consider the U.S. military an employer. All those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not covered by ENDA. After all, we can’t let an important civil rights bill interfere with our “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.

3. ENDA does nothing about housing discrimination which weights much more heavily on working class and poorer LGBT folks than on middle and upper class ones.

4. ENDA will likely be vetoed.

Here’s where I think the HRCs cynicism creeps in. I think they don’t like the eviscerated ENDA either but they recognize that a veto is likely and is counting on that opportunity to go out and say “See how bad the Republican party is to LGBT folks? Don’t vote for them.”

But the truth is that we already know that the Republican party is bad to LGBT folks. There is no better evidence of that than their own sex scandals. You don’t see nearly so many people falling out of the Democratic party closet partly because the Democratic party doesn’t force people to be so closeted.

I’ll be away at a union conference this weekend so won’t be blogging much, but in that spirit let me ask you a question:

How much value is a bill like ENDA when so much employment in the US is “at will” employment, meaning that your employer can simply fire you because he feels like it anyway. So long as he doesn’t give an unfair reason for firing you he can simply say “you know, this just isn’t working out. I’m sorry. We have to let you go,” or “No, we have so many people I don’t have any hours for you next week, sorry! Check back in on Thursday.”

We need strong legislation that moves us toward economic and social justice for all of us. Not “civil rights” bills that say, essentially, that you can’t refuse to promote the clean cut guy in the business suit just because his partner is a man.

ENDA-as-is? It makes for weak symbolic politics and ineffective workplace protections.

It certainly isn’t the bill we need.

Note: This was published first on SexInThePublicSquare.org, our community site. Drop by!

 *I first reported that the bill passed with a vote of 218-205 and 10 not voting. That was a mistake. That vote was actually a vote on procedure (a vote to consider the measure.) The vote on the bill itself is now correctly reported above.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under congress, ENDA, Gender, legislation, News and politics, public discourse, sex, sex and the law, sexual orientation, sexuality

The danger of dismissing Fred Phelps

 Are he and his small band of followers on the lunatic fringe of the Christian Right, or aren’t they? First they blame the wildfires in California on homosexuality. Now the loss of American troops is also the fault of gays and America’s failure to properly condemn them?

The New York Times today has the story of a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church, which is being sued for creating a media circus outside of a soldier’s funeral. They protested outside the funeral carrying signs that blamed the deaths of American soldiers on the fact that the U.S. condones homosexuality. Actually they’ve been doing this for at least two years now, but because the father of a soldier whose funeral was protested has filed a lawsuit, Fred Phelps and his crew are back in the news.

Westboro Baptist Church members protesting Laramie Project in Ann ArborIt is easy to cast Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church as a kind of lunatic fringe among Christians. The Wikipedia page for Westboro Baptist Church cites sources estimating its membership as between 70 and 150 people and most of them are related by blood or marriage. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers Westboro Baptist Church to be a hate group. Phelps, and Westboro, maintain the web sites “God Hates Fags” and “God Hates America“. They also hate Jews, Catholics, Muslims and anybody who supports any of those groups. (They are certain that God hates Canada and Sweden , for example.) And they’ve been around for a long time. Phelps started out protesting the funerals of people with AIDS. You may recall that he and his followers picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard. There is a counter on GodHatesFags.com, that keeps track of the days Shepard “has been in hell.” (Shepard isn’t the only one, either. They also have a counter for Diana Whipple, a lesbian who was mauled to death by dogs that Fred Phelps believes God sent to punish her for her sins.)

Yes, he sounds like nothing more than lunatic fringe, and it would be reassuring to put him in that box, put that box away on a shelf, and ignore it.

Yet in many ways he is not so much “fringe” as we might want to believe. While Fred Phelps might be crazy, and may lead a small number of people, there are folks like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and others who ultimately promote the same basic ideas but in more mainstream venues and who as a result have exponentially larger audiences, and access to Congress, and to power. Dobson, for example, has a radio show that is reportedly run on over 1,000 radio stations, and reaches over 3 million listeners. His Focus on the Family organization has much more political clout than Phelps could ever muster, yet it works for the same basic agenda. When Dobson came out against Republican presidential hopefuls like Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson it made national news, with stories on CNN, the Washington Post, and other mainstream news outlets.

Conservatives for American Values, which runs the disclaimer “Everything posted on this blog is satire and should be read as such” spoke more truth than satire about the relationship between Phelps’s lunacy and Dobson’s comparatively staid performance when it published this in 2005:

Also, it’s people like Fred Phelps who limit the donations that groups like Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family can get from righteous Christians who dislike gay people. He hurts the rest of us because he’s too stupid to know how to effectively frame his own disgust with homosexuality. Simply put, he’s hurting the cause he claims to support.

Listen, I’m sure if Fred Phelps, Dr. Dobson and I all sat down at a table we’d find a lot we could agree on. I mean we all understand what James Dobson meant when he spoke out against the Texas sodomy case. When he says that he doesn’t want homosexuals to have the right to have sex because it will destroy the family we catch his drift. He didn’t come out and say, “I don’t want homosexuals to have sex because they’re gross and I hate fags.” Dr. Dobson is much too smart for that.

It will remain difficult to believe that Phelps and Dobson don’t represent mainstream Christian thought until many more Christian groups stand up and speak out against them, and call for more understanding and respect for sexual diversity. The silence of the real mainstream lends credibility to the extremists. It isn’t enough to denounce Phelps, either.

It is important to see past the theatrics of the Westboro Baptist protests and recognize that the basic principles of sexual oppression that motivate Phelps and clan are the same ones that motivate folks like Dobson.

In fact, the danger Phelps poses is really that he makes the Dobson crew look reasonable. Yet Dobson’s rhetoric is just as dangerous when it comes to disenfranchising people because of their sexualities. Without similarly denouncing Dobson, mainstream Christians will just be making the hate and the heterosexism seem more polite.

I give a lot of credit to groups like the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing. Debra Haffner and her organization do important work. But many more mainstream religious organizations and left-leaning religious organizations need to add their voices to the call for acceptance of sexual diversity.

Otherwise, it’s going to seem more and more like the “the love-thy-neighbor” and “judge-not” Christians are the fringe, and the one’s who’d like to bring back stoning are the majority.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Photo of Westboro members protesting the Laramie Project in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 2005 taken by AlanLK and used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

Note: this post is also published on our community-building site, SexInThePublicSquare.org. Visit us there for blogs, forums, reviews, event calendars and interesting people talking about sex.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Filed under civil rights, discrimination, heterosexism, Homophobia, News and politics, public discourse, Religion, sex, sexual orientation, sexuality

Over the Boardwalk

It’s Labor Day in the United States, and in the US for most people that doesn’t mean “let’s celebrate workers,” it means “let’s get to the beach” so I was pleased to find a story in this morning’s New York Times that was a beach-related public/private space kind of story that touches on issues of sexuality and human rights.

The question is whether the Boardwalk Pavilion in Ocean Grove, NJ, is public space or private space, and whether the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (a Methodist organization) must let the space be used by by gay and lesbian couples for the same purposes that straight couples use it: that is, for ceremonies celebrating their state-recognized unions.

The Camp Meeting Association owns all the property in Ocean Grove. Even home owners and business owners there don’t own the property their buildings sit on. According to the Times article, “all the land, beach and 1,000 feet of the sea itself” have belonged to the Camp Meeting Association starting with some purchases in 1870. Their ownership of the property is not really in question in question.

However, according to the Times, for the past 18 years the beach, boardwalk and oceanfront have been part of the NJ Department of Environmental Protection’s “Green Acres” program, which includes a tax exemption for the property owner in exchange for allowing privately owned space to be used for “public recreation and conservation.” The tax exemption reportedly saves the Camp Meeting Association half a million dollars in taxes per year.

Clearly the state realizes that public access to places like beaches, forests, deserts, lakes, and rivers is important. That’s why governments maintain parks. But sometimes important spaces are privately owned and then the government might create a program like the Green Acres program in order to increase public access to space that would otherwise be off limits. You can think of the tax exemption received by the Camp Meeting Association this way: The State of New Jersey is paying the Camp Meeting Association about $500,000 per year to assure that the land in question remains accessible to the public.

So, on the stretches of property covered by the tax-exemption should the CMA be able to discriminate in deciding who can use the property?

They think they can. In fact, the CMA has sued the State of New Jersey for abridging its First Amendment rights while receiving a half million dollar tax exemption for public use of its property. They make a comparison to disaster aid saying that the receipt of disaster aid money doesn’t obligate a church to operate differently than it otherwise would, and thus that receipt of this tax exemption should not require them to allow people to use their property for purposes that they would not allow in their church.

Put aside, for a moment, your visions of bikini-clad women and well-oiled men streaming in for Sunday services. We’re talking about marriage and civil union ceremonies, it is certainly true that receiving disaster aid might not obligate a church to start allowing civil unions to be performed in their building.

But the rules governing the Green Acres program cannot really be compared to those governing something like disaster relief money. The Green Acres program is all about enabling public use of private property. That’s why they give such big tax exemptions in return. Here is the definition of “Public Use” from the Eligibility document governing the Green Acres program:

“Public use” means a use or right of use available to the general public or some portion thereof for conservation or recreation purposes. Such use, and any limits thereon, shall be based on the uses best suited to the land, the capacity of the facility and the public benefits or advantages to be derived therefrom.

Further, in determining what property is eligible, the document specifies that eligible property “must be open for public use on an equal basis” (my emphasis).

And, in addressing what restrictions can be made on the use of the property, the document states:

Restrictions on the use of the real property by the public must be determined by the Commissioner to be necessary for proper maintenance and improvement of the property or because significant natural features of the land may be adversely affected by unrestricted access.

You can read a copy of the document here (MS Word file).

So back to the original question: In order to be eligible for this tax exemption can the CMA prevent some people from having civil union ceremonies on their Boardwalk but allow others to do so? That would seem to violate the “equal basis” clause of the guidelines. And it seems more than unlikely that allowing civil union ceremonies would interfere with “proper maintenance” or cause adverse affects in any way that marriage ceremonies would not. And in any case, the Commissioner didn’t make the decision. The CMA folks did.

If the CMA is unhappy with the deal it made, it needs to find a way to withdraw its participation in the Green Acres program and start paying its full share of taxes.
And the rest of us need to be mindful that the maintenance of public space is incredibly important not just so we can go to the beach, but more importantly to protect our civil rights.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Note: This is also published on SexInThePublicSquare.org, our community-building site. If you haven’t dropped by yet, come on over!

2 Comments

Filed under civil rights, culture, discrimination, heterosexism, Homophobia, marriage, News and politics, public discourse, sex, sexual orientation, sexuality

The “Biology v. Choice debate” has no place in a discussion of sexual freedom and civil rights

I’m more than tired of all the uproar over whether sexuality is biologically determined or chosen. Actually, that’s not true. It’s ultimately more complicated than that dichotomy would indicate, and the answer has no place in a discussion of rights for gays.

It’s bad enough to hear the fundamentalists harp on the “gay lifestyle,” but LBGT groups also seem inclined to use the question of choice v. biology as a new potential litmus test for politicians. For example, In the HRC/Logo LBGT Presidential Forum, Melissa Etheridge asks Bill Richardson if he thinks sexual orientation is a choice or is biological. He’s been criticized for his answer but it’s actually not so far from mine: It really doesn’t matter. People should have rights whether they choose aspects of their identity or whether they are born with certain characteristics. (NB: There may be plenty of good reasons to be critical of Bill Richardson, but his answer to that question, which was essentially, and I’m paraphrasing, “It’s really complicated and so honestly I don’t really know, and besides it doesn’t really matter because people deserve rights either way.”)

You can see Bill Richardson’s segments of the forum here, and all the others here.

Intellectually, or scientifically, what factors shape a person’s sexuality is an interesting question. But in terms of the law it ought to be irrelevent. Discrimination against people based on the kinds of sex they have, or the genders of their partners ought to be illegal. Period. End of sentence.

It feels like another instance of where those in favor of sexual and reproductive freedom have ceded the framing of the debate to those who would like to lock sexuality down. Only this time the word “choice” has been adopted by the other side.

Conservatives focus a lot on their claim that sexual orientation is not an orientation at all but is rather a “chosen lifestyle” because they are fond of punishing people for what they see as “bad” or “immoral” choices. By that logic, they feel justified denying marriage to same sex couples because they should have ‘chosen’ differently.

That’s ridiculous. Even if sexuality is to some degree chosen — and I would argue that all kinds of sexual expression is chosen, and much is shaped by culture, even though some is likely influenced by biology — I should still be allowed to marry who I want, as long as that person is legally able to consent to the marriage. I should not be discriminated against at work or in housing matters or health care because of the partners I choose.

Why should sexual choices (between people capable of consent) be seen as somehow different from other choices we are freely able to make? Sexuality is complex and there are lots of desires that we choose to act on and explore and others we choose never to explore. And sexuality should not be reduced to sexual orientation, either. Go beyond the gender of your partner and think about explorations in bondage or flogging or sex at play parties. Do we need to argue that those desires or explorations are driven biological predispositions in order to assert that we should be free to act on them and that our rights should not be limited if we choose to do so? Should it be legal to deny housing to people who are polyamorous? Should it be legal to fire a person who is into leather and whips? Of course not. So why, when we talk about LGBT rights, which are extremely important, do we end up arguing based on biological determinism?

I think we do so because it’s easier to argue that people shouldn’t be denied rights because of something over which they have no control. The comparisons to race, ethnicity, disability should not be missed. But there are other “protected categories” that are seen as sacred in terms of rights and freedom and are certainly a matter of choice. Religion comes to mind first. Religious faith is a matter of conscience and culture and not at all something you are born with. (I know, some religions are “passed on” through families but there is generally a moment when the individual has to choose to become a full member of the religious community by way of some consciously engaged-in ritual.)

And even regarding race, which is not chosen but is a characteristic others ascribe to us based on physical appearances, there is precedent for adopting “choice” as a basis for rights, especially where sexual relationships are concerned.

In 1967 the Loving v. Virginia case made it clear that it is unconstitutional for states to prevent interracial couples from marrying. Does anybody argue about whether the partners in interracial couples are “born that way” (i.e., somehow biologically inclined to sexual attraction and love of people from other racial groups) or whether they’ve “chosen” to partner with people outside their own races? No. In fact the biology of sexual attraction never entered the picture in the Loving decision. The question was one of whether or not it was legal for the state to regulate marriage by taking race into account.

We should not allow a “biology v. choice” framing of the rights debate to continue. If we do, we will likely find ourselves backed into a very unpleasant corner. We will be forced to argue that we are helpless over our sexuality, and then will be faced with the very frightening prospect of arguing in favor of a medical definition of sexual orientation — which can then be used against us when people decide to start looking for “cures.” For make no mistake about it: if they think they can “cure” us by counseling us into making different choices, they will be no less likely to try to “cure” us of a sexual orientation that they can frame as a disease. If there is a “gay gene” we should be very wary of what happens if it’s found. It will then be possible for genetic testing to “discover” the sexual orientation of a child and gene therapy may be used to “fix” that child. We’ve been there before in less technologically sophisticated ways. Sexual orientation was only declassified as a disease in the 1970s!

Choice v. Biology is no way to have a debate about rights. When we fought for civil rights we didn’t ask what causes race (though we certainly have debated what defines race). We shouldn’t be arguing about what causes sexual orientation. Its an interesting scientific question, and probably has a very complex answer that combines biological and social factors, and I’d be very curious to know more about it. But it has no place in the politics of anti-discrimination policy.

Ultimately sexuality is a blend of biological, cultural, and individual factors. Rights, on the other hand, are determined through the political process, and sexual freedom and civil rights should not depend on whether we are born with a sexual orientation or choose how to express our sexual selves. Sexual freedom and civil rights should be granted to all. Period.

(Note: This post is also published on SexInThePublicSquare.Org, our community-building site. Come on over!)

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

6 Comments

Filed under civil rights, culture, discrimination, inequality, Loving v. Virginia, marriage, News and politics, polyamory, public discourse, Relationships, Same-Sex Marriage, sex, sex and the law, sexual orientation, sexuality

Sex in the Public Square Launch Party!

Join us to celebrate the launch of SexInThePublicSquare.org!

August 17, 2007
7-10 PM
Rapture Cafe
200 Avenue A between 12 St. and 13 St.
Manhattan, NY
United States
See map: Google Maps

Sex in the Public Square.org is dedicated to expanding the space for public discussion of sexuality. Blending the techniques of blogging and social networking (think Blogger meets MySpace — but all open source!), Sex in the Public Square.org is a space on the Internet where members can explore which parts of sex are private, which parts are public, and what happens when private and public collide. We believe that sexuality is a fundamental component of human life, and that by excluding it from “polite conversation,” we lose an important element of democratic participation.

With forums, blogs, reviews, resource lists, calls for action, and a nationwide calendar of events dedicated to sexualities of all genders, colors, and persuasions and with thousands of visitors and new contributors joining each week, we’re ready to celebrate our “birth” and we want you to join us!


Help Keep Sex Out Of The Closet!

Readings and performances by:

Audacia Ray

Rachel Kramer Bussel

Lux Nightmare

and more!

Plus screenings of film clips from Cinekink and some old sex ed films too!

Click here to check out Rapture Cafe.

And check back here for updates on the festivities!

The party is free and all are welcome. Invite your friends. And we hope you’ll help us support Rapture by enjoying their coffees, teas, and bar offerings.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Off on Sex in the Public Square Launch Party!

Filed under Audacia Ray, community-building, culture, Education, feminism, Gender, public discourse, sex, sex and the law, sex education, sexual orientation, sexuality

Quickies

Here are a couple of “sex-in-the-news” quickies that I’ve been meaning to blog about and haven’t. I’m headed out tomorrow for a week and a half and since I’m not going to get around to detailed posts on these items any time soon, I figured I’d just toss them out for you to read on your own.

  • The New York Times blows an editorial about anti-trafficking legislation being considered in Albany by completely separating sex and work. They talk about how people are trafficked for “forced sex or labor,” as if forced sex isn’t labor. In fact, by using a term like “forced sex” instead of “forced sex work” they are conflating prostitution with rape in a way that is entirely unhelpful to prostitutes or to rape victims. They accurately report that the penalties for sex trafficking would be higher than the penalties for labor trafficking (this is without regard to the age of the trafficked victims), again seeming to say that it is more acceptable to be trafficked for purposes of forced labor in a factory or field or private home than it is to be trafficked for the purpose of strip club, massage parlor or brothel work. It seems to me that all forced labor is appallingly wrong and that to separate out some forced labor as sex, and thus not work, is to reinforce the stigma attached to sexual labor and thus injure again the people who have been forced into it.
  • On the other hand, the New York Times also ran a good article on homeless shelters for gay teens and a few weeks earlier they’d run an article on a shelter in Queens, New York, that takes in transgender teens. Estimates by shelter workers and surveys of homeless youths indicate that about 1 in 5 homeless teens and kids is gay. (For perspective, fewer than 1 in 10 adults identifies as gay.) The kids interviewed for the article reported appalling abuses by family, friends of family, and by shelter workers at other homeless shelters. Earlier in the month I blogged about the Safe Harbor legislation also being considered in New York State and argued it was especially important, but the Times editorial on trafficking, mentioned above, makes it sound as if that legislation has been left out of the larger trafficking bill. Perhaps we need a phone/letter campaign to make sure it is considered separately!

Isn’t it amazing that the issues we discuss here seem to be always in the news. Yet another reason to expand the space for sex in the public square!

Comments Off on Quickies

Filed under Circumcision, News and politics, public discourse, sex work, sexual orientation

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a hateful policy and must be undone

First of all, a big thanks to Tom Joaquin, guest contributor, for his excellent post on General Pace’s disgraceful comments. Such moments of bigotry and immorality on the part of public figures need to be pointed out. There is often too little public outrage about such important issues.

I want to add some of my own thoughts to Tom’s. And I’d preface them the way Tom ended his: I don’t support the war in Iraq. I don’t support war as a solution to international conflict in general. I do, though, believe that the institutions of this society need to be arranged according to principles of equality and social justice. If we are to have a military, it must be on that does not depend on bigotry and hatred and discrimination. All must have an equal chance to serve.

It often surprises me that, given our society’s blatant and persistent discrimination against gays and lesbians, that they want to serve in the military in the first place. But it is naive of me to wonder about that. Gays and lesbians, despite being targets of discrimination, despite increasing antagonism toward them, are just as likely to feel called to defend their country as anyone else is. In addition, the military has become, for many poorer and working class young people, a route to college in a society that makes higher education increasingly unaffordable. For those reasons, it is extremely important to change the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that currently forces them into the closet and reinforces homophobia, heterosexism, and hatred.

The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is hateful in a number of ways.

First, it says “sure, you can serve, and you can offer your life, but only if you hide who you are.” This is a policy that contributes to homophobia and heterosexism while still accepting the sacrifices made by gays and lesbians. It’s like saying “come, serve in a system that hates you and will not acknowledge you, but will happily take your life.”

Second, it says “discrimination against gays is okay, while discrimination against other groups is not.” The military has been one of the best institutions at providing equal opportunity regardless of race or ethnicity. We went from a segregated military to an integrated one relatively quickly, and now the military – and I don’t say this enthusiastically by any means – is one of the most reliable (and dangerous) ways for young men and women of color to get training, get access to college, and to move up the economic ladder. Racism is no longer systematically tolerated in the military. But gay and lesbian soldiers are subjected to institutional closeting and to individual harassment and abuse because of a system that is based on homophobia and heterosexism. (It is interesting, and probably connected to this, that the military has done a better job at integrating racially and ethnically than it has done at integrating genders. While women are technically allowed to do nearly all the same jobs that men in the military can do, they are quite often targets of individual violence and harassment. That connection is perhaps best explored in another post.)

Third, it says “we’re so invested in our homophobia and heterosexism that we’ll put our military at risk in order to reinforce our biases.” I remember my shock when I read a story back in 2002 about linguists being dismissed from the Army because they were gay. This was at a time when, as a nation, we were focused on the problems our Military Intelligence units were facing because of their lack of linguists fluent in the languages of “the war on terror.” Recent articles describing the shortages in mid-level officers, and the difficulties that the branches of the military are having in recruiting enough soldiers to fight our misguided wars also point to the risk that the military puts itself in when it excludes groups who want to serve. It is shocking to think that we are willing to put our national defense, and our soldiers’ lives at risk in order to maintain our systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Fourth, it insults our allies, who nearly universally allow gays and lesbians to serve without question. It would seem to be evidence of a lack of confidence in their militaries when we say that we think our own military would be weakened if we did what they’ve been doing for many years.

There are those who would say that “as a country we’re just not ready yet” for gays in the military. They might even say that to allow gays to serve would be to create conflict among troops who need instead to have great trust in each other. They might try to argue that it is wrong to “force” people to accept gays and lesbians because some religious traditions say that homosexuality is a sin. To those people I would say this: Religion has been used to justify horrors in the past, and we have learned from those incidents. Mainstream Christians wouldn’t think of using the Bible to justify slavery today even though that might have been a common strategy not so long ago. We were not ready for racial integration when Brown v. Board of education was decided but we got ready in a hurry, at least in some institutions. We still aren’t an integrated society, but we’ve made some progress, and the military in particular has done better than most sectors of society. They can do the same in this case. We should not cater to individuals’ discomfort, bias, or hatred in our social policies. We should create policies that work at undermining those biases, not policies that support them.

I echo Tom’s call to write to your representatives in the House and Senate, and to write to local papers (click here for some advice if you need help getting started), and to write to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, himself.

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman
9999 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon
Room 4E873
Washington, DC 20318
Fax: (703) 697-8758

Feel free to use any part of this post, non-commercially and with attribution, in your efforts.

Onward!

2 Comments

Filed under culture, Don't ask don't tell, Gays in the military, Homophobia, News and politics, sex, sex and the law, sexual orientation, sexuality