If not marriage, then what?

Serving up exclusion with a smile. That's what the ever-so-cunningly deceptive Brian Brown, Executive Director of National Organization for Marriage, does best. He must be stopped.

The Washington Post recently profiled Mr. Brown and his cause: defeating same-sex civil marriage legislation in the United States.

Brown's NOM makes it pretty clear that it's not in favor of same-sex marriage. So, if not marriage for same-sex couples, then what?

It's always bothered me that opponents to same-sex marriage present their side and then say, "That's that." I ask: "What solution(s) do you offer same-sex couples?"

Are same-sex couples allowed hospital visitation rights? If a same-sex couple is committed and living together, can taxes be filed jointly? Are they eligible for "spousal" benefits? Are same-sex couples permitted to adopt children?

Mr. Brown, if you're opposed to extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, what will you help these couples achieve? If the idea of same-sex couples marrying offends you so, what's your opinion on civil unions, for example?

Let's say you're in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples. In an effort to appease same-sex couples and thus prevent their ability to marry, does your organization plan to work toward passing legislation allowing civil unions nationwide? No? It doesn't? Why not? Oh, because that'd look too much like marriage anyway and you don't even want same-sex couples coming anywhere near imitating it in the first place.

Do you really think same-sex couples will accept your position and quietly disappear into forever because you say "no"?

It is heartless of you to tell same-sex couples that they can't be married and offer up no alternative(s). It is simply cruel to cut off the conversation by saying it's not your problem when asked what options should be available to same-sex couples. These are human beings worthy of respect and compassion. To deny them and deny their commitments and their love and their contributions is an abortion of their human dignity. You cast them out as if they do not matter. You relish in excluding them from a legal arrangement available to you, as if it makes you more special to know you may be part of something while there are others who can not share in it.

Mr. Brown, you ought to be ashamed.

A penis is a sex organ, not a gender one

In correspondence with its members via Facebook e-mail blasts, I've noticed a trend among leaders of Impact Cincinnati to replace "same-sex" with "same-gender."

Example:
"Far too often, same-gender couples are prohibited from expressing their love in public. [Cameron Tolle on behalf of Impact Cincinnati, July 30, 2009 in "THE GREAT NATIONWIDE KISS IN: August 15th on Fountain Square"]"

In response to a personal inquiry, it's been explained to me by the e-mail's author that a consensus of Impact Cincinnati leaders prefer the term "same-gender" to "same-sex", believing it to be more inclusive and encompassing of the full spectrum of gender identity and expression.

I cannot say I've encountered this kind of terminology in any credible news commentary or academic literature I've read, which is not to immediately suggest "same-gender" is the inappropriate word to use to reference what I understand to be couples comprised of either two males or two females (for the most part, at least). And I can completely appreciate any attempt at inclusiveness. But this whole thing has got me really concerned.

Basically, are we ready for "same-gender", if in fact "same-gender" is any kind of right word to use at all? I don't mean to get too hung up on language, but language is a powerful tool and one we LGBT and ally people must command to reach this final destination of equality. I want to make sure we're using the right words to get us there.

I've requested that Impact Cincinnati explain its decision to use "same-gender" as opposed to "same-sex" on its Facebook page so that its members can get a feel for the reasoning that influenced this policy. So far, this has not happened but I hope that it will because I really think it's important that we all be on the same page about something like this, especially because "same-gender" is so uncommon.

But here is what I will say about it: All day, we humans try to make sense out of the physical in our world, and, physically, two coupled women or two coupled men are a same-sex couple. From here, yes, there are any number of varieties of identities that may additionally define either a couple or one of its members. But for the sake of simplicity in an already confusing mental battle for many non-queer individuals on whom we are relying to achieve this equality we demand, why are we so quickly straying from the physical and entering a territory of gender-identified coupling?

Are we really asking for people now to recognize the variance in gender identity that may exist among some couples before we've even really attained solid footing in terms of acceptance of same-sex couplings (which seemed to me, anyway, to be the whole point of the Great Nation-wide Kiss-In).

Should my sexual orientation now be traded in for a gender orientation? Should we be fighting for same-gender marriage rights instead of same-sex marriage rights? Or should we be fighting for both and start using both "same-gender marriage" and "same-sex marriage" in the same breath, much like we do with "gender identity and expression"?

Let me be the most clear when I say that a penis is a sex organ for the same reason that a vagina is not a gender organ.

At the same time, I'm not saying I can't ever be convinced to adopt this particular nomenclature, but I do think there should at least be some sort of larger discussion before Impact Cincinnati asks us all to jump on this same-gender bandwagon.

Something to think about on this Independence Day, 2009:

Don't we all breathe the same air?

Gays vs. Media

Let's talk this all out, shall we?

Yesterday, NPR.org published an article titled, "Black Ministers In D.C. Divided Over Gay Marriage," detailing the vocal opposition from predominantly African-American churches in D.C. to the recently approved bill that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states.

We've got some good stuff in here:

"Like many evangelicals, Walker reads the Bible as the literal word of God. And he sees in those pages a blueprint for a healthy family. It's not the only blueprint. Walker himself was raised by a single mother, and he appreciates the grandparents in his church who raise their grandkids.

"I'm not taking away from that," he says. "But I think God's perfect order for family is mom and dad.""

News flash: The world ain't perfect and it never will be. But thanks for playin', buddy!

"In 2007, Wiley and his co-pastor — his wife, Christine — held two same-sex blessings, prompting two-thirds of their congregation to leave. Since then, they've attracted new members who were looking for a gay-friendly black church."

OK. I'll take acceptance wherever I can get it but I have serious reservations when religious folk--well-intentioned as they usually are--begin meddling in same-sex marriage. I appreciate the Wileys' commitment to the inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage but when they give blessings to these marriages they are misleading the general public into believing that same-sex marriage advocates aim to require religious entities to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. As I've always understood it, at least, same-sex couples are seeking civil marriage. Civil. As in not religious. Of course, many people--including LGBT people--are religious, so I can understand that some same-sex couples should desire any form of affirmation of their union from their respective religion. But this is dangerous territory we are entering, folks. When the general public believes same-sex marriages are happening in places of worship, then they are likely to vote against legislation allowing same-sex marriage because they overwhelmingly wish to preserve the tradition of their faith community.

"Wiley acknowledges that there are a handful of biblical passages condemning homosexuality. But he says blacks don't take the Bible literally when it comes to racial issues.

"The Bible says, 'Slaves, be obedient to your master,' etc. Well, we don't hear black people saying, 'OK, we got to stick with that,' " Wiley says. "Yet when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, then people are running to the Bible.""

You speak great truth, Reverend Wiley.

"For Wiley, who studied under liberation theologian James Cone, gay rights are simply the next step in the civil rights movement. Like blacks, he says, homosexuals did not choose this life.

But Walker calls the comparison "ludicrous."

"When I talk to most people of African descent, many of them are absolutely appalled by any comparison to the civil rights movement, simply because we cannot take off our blackness," Walker says."

Just as you, Reverend Walker, cannot "take off [your] blackness," I cannot opt out of a feeling; I do not control attraction. Sure, I could make the CHOICE not to live openly and to deny my identity but I cannot CHOOSE to whom I am attracted. You, on the other hand, can CHOOSE to refrain from rhetoric that persecutes and marginalizes people seeking civil rights and protections completely outside of the religious realm in which you operate.

Here is an additional thought I have:

The media might also be holding us back. I'll explain.

When reporting on marriages of same-sex couples, the language is almost always "gay marriage." We need to move away from this notion of "gay marriage" and here's why: Gay marriage sounds like "other marriage." What I mean by this is that it sounds exactly like same-sex couples are in fact redefining marriage.

A marriage is a marriage, and we know that. You know who doesn't know that?: A lot of people in the majority. If we can somehow strike "gay" from "gay marriage" and still find ways to accurately report on same-sex marriages, that'd be fantastic because, let's face it, marriage cannot be gay. Marriage is not an orientation, or an identity, for that matter.

What also doesn't help is that we still live in a world where the word "gay" continues to be used by people when they mean to say something is stupid, silly, or dumb. Translation: bad. So, when people here "gay marriage" is it not too difficult to see how they might be processing same-sex marriage as "bad marriage"?

Now, I recognize the difficulty reporters will have in creating concise headlines and news beats addressing same-sex marriage. Take NPR's headline, "Black Ministers In D.C. Divided Over Gay Marriage." Why do members of the media use the phrase "gay marriage"? Probably because it's short and to the point and also because "same-sex marriage" includes the word "sex" which still shocks a lot of people. Never mind we're talking about someone's actual biological sex and not the act of sexual intercourse. Whose wise idea was it to use this same word--sex--for both? I can say I'm not happy with them.

However, herein lies the problem: Am I expecting that NPR's headline might have read "Black Ministers In D.C. Divided Over Civil Marriages Between Same-Sex Couples"? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath on that one. But in my ideal world it would go something like that because if we allow media to continue using "gay marriage" to define our loving unions, we'll be gettin' wherever we're goin' real slow.

It's critical: read Crisis

I have just completed the book Crisis, edited by Mitchell Gold of Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams. It's a collection of 40 personal accounts of growing up gay in America. It focuses on the social, religious and familial suffering associated with intolerance of LGBT persons--realities Gold identifies as a serious crisis facing LGBT youth in our country.

These stories are powerful. These stories are painful. These stories must be shared.

It's been out at bookstores and online since last fall but get a hold of a copy of Crisis right now, if you have not.

It's been great reading for me but it is reading for parents, family members and friends as well. We can explain to our families and friends about the need for civil rights for LGBT people all we want but until we can move beyond speaking in the abstract and tap into the more personal, how effective will we be? Stories found in Crisis make the abstract more realistic and more affecting.

What's nice is that these stories average about 4-5 pages each--quick reads. But crucial reads.

Contributors include:
Rev. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop
Nate Berkus, featured designer on The Oprah Winfrey Show
Barney Frank, Massachusetts Cogressman
John Amechi, former NBA basketball player
Candace Gingrich, step-sister of Newt Gingrich

A particularly powerful quote from Tammy Baldwin, Congresswoman from Wisconsin:
"I don't want parents to feel they must tell their children not to be who they are in order to keep them safe. I want them to know that the healthiest thing they can say is, "Be who you are, and we'll work to make the world safer together." [p.293]"

Share this book with everyone. Xerox a story or two and send them to relatives if you have to. This is how progress is made.

http://www.crisisbook.org/

Indianapolis Pride

This year, I decided I would spread the love--and pride--around by traveling from Cincinnati to nearby Indianapolis for its Pride celebration, June 13-14.

My official report: Indy was a blast! I was so excited to see the turn-out for the parade; it was an impressive crowd. Lots of energy; Such diversity; and so much color!

Indianapolis is definitely a city that has it goin' on for gays. I'll be planning another visit soon for sure!

Enjoy these highlights from the parade:










(If your solution includes nooses, I'm afraid to ask how you reeeaallly feel about same-sex marriage and gay people...)







Next stop: Columbus, June 19-21.

Advocating for ourselves: delivering important messages

Celebrate the New Hampshire victory for marriage equality because it’s a victory worth celebrating!

Over these next few weeks we are certain to see plenty coverage and commentary from both liberal and conservative media detailing the marriage happenings in NH and elsewhere as the effort to pass legislation granting civil marriage for same-sex couples continues across the nation.

Progress is made by changing hearts and changing minds. Now is a prime opportunity to discuss gay rights issues with your friends, family members and co-workers. These conversations can be difficult and scary but they are necessary.

Prepare for these conversations. Some tips: (1) State your position; don't force it. (2) Allow the other person(s) to speak. (3) Attempt to identify a common ground. (4) Always remain calm; nothing is accomplished when conversation escalates to yelling or making character digs at a person holding an opposing viewpoint. (Translation: erase "bigot" from your vocabulary--it only offends and it's never really got anyone anywhere).

One very important message to deliver regarding New Hampshire’s legalization of marriage for same-sex couples: This right is civil.

Much of the coverage leading up to last week’s ruling has focused on Governor John Lynch’s demand that explicit language be included in this legislation to protect the freedoms of churches and religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Explain that this legislation is a matter in the civil sphere only and in no way requires religious entities operating in NH to recognize same-sex marriage.

It would be easy for someone only somewhat informed about the movement for same-sex marriage to gather from the governor’s protest that advocates intend to force the issue into the religious sphere. It is your task to stop this misconception dead in its tracks. If misconceptions such as these continue to spread, especially among religious folk/voting citizens who believe marriage (in the religious sense) should remain between one man and one woman, we are certain to see delay in the movement for civil marriage equality.

Locally, congratulations go out to Impact Cincinnati and all community members who joined in the response to the incident of violence aimed at one of our own two weeks ago at Tabby’s restaurant and bar in Maineville, OH.

I have read Cincinnati’s local coverage of the incident and response and it’s wonderful to see LGBT issues recognized by mainstream media in the city. I have closely watched the online user responses to these articles, however, and it’s clear that there are many in Cincinnati who are not ready (or completely offended) to see these issues discussed.

When explaining the purpose for swift community response to acts of violence, be sure to emphasize that our goal is to hammer home the message that violence against any person for any reason—including prejudice—is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our community. When speaking with those who criticize the LGBT community for responding in a way that is attention-grabbing or begs for more trouble, explain that confrontating the issue head-on and at its roots is necessary because prejudice and violence must be addressed to be resolved.

If we don’t advocate for ourselves, who will?