Just a quick take here: for those who didn’t see it, check out The New York Times article on gay marriage in Mexico City that ran yesterday, here.
gay rights
While a number of wonderful feminist bloggers converged at WAM! this past weekend, a few weeks ago I attended a conference at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute, entitled Gender and the Law: Unintended Consequences, Unsettled Questions. The conference included a number of provocative panels, including one on gendered states of citizenship, and another called “Gendered Bodies, Legal Subjects.” Maggie Gallagher, of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, spoke on this latter one of her fear that legally doing away with marriage would create “genderless-ness†as an ideal and expressed her concern that, by forgetting how bodies matter, the law would eventually hurt women by taking away the special status of crimes like rape. Gallagher is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, and appears to use a similar, if more convoluted, rationale concerning the significance of bodies and gender to support this position, arguing that by making the gender of a citizen’s marriage partner meaningless, the state interferes in a citizen’s private realm by disallowing its citizens to attach meaning to gender.
Yet recognizing marriages in which the selected sexual partner is not of the historically normative gender does not seem to neutralize gender to me, but instead recognizes the full significance of gender as it intersects with sexuality and marriage-like commitment. Laws may need to be changed and language refined for marriages in which the partners are no longer assumed to be of opposite gender, but a more specific law seems an altogether better law to me.
I do, however, agree with Gallagher that marriage does still matter—to both straight and gay couples. Yes, I can easily imagine a society in which government no longer has a say in, or provides benefits to, those who have made a private commitment to each other, but I don’t think our current society has reached that point yet. Hence, full recognition of gay marriage is essential for the full equality of gay couples in the United States.
An opinion piece in the New York Times last month proposed a “reconciliation†on gay marriage. The reconciliation was that the marriage issue should be dropped:
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
I am sympathetic to the compromise trying to be made here—in order to progress the rights of gay couples at the federal level, the authors propose to jettison the concept of marriage and promote civil unions with religious exemptions. As a result, a church that employs a lesbian woman would not be required to provide health care benefits for her civil union partner. Yet I am wary of this being proposed as any sort of goal or focus for the gay rights movement as opposed to a necessary intermediary step. Two states have legalized gay marriage, and while this may not seem much, less than a decade ago we were still debating whether to support civil unions or not. The Vermont Senate passed a bill legalizing gay marriage a week ago—marking the first time these rights may be granted through a legislative instead of judicial process. I appreciate these authors care for the practical benefits enjoyed in civil unions, and the progress made toward legalized gay marriage may seem like baby steps right now, yet it does feel like we are getting closer to a watershed moment that will result in a deluge. At heart, the very purpose in distinguishing civil unions from marriage to emphasize the need for full equality for gay couples, to enjoy the same rights as straight couples in the United States. For the many married couples in California who now face suits demanding their divorce, marriage is a very real subject. While momentary compromises may need to be made, marriage does matter—and it’s important to maintain as a primary goal.
Just had to post the amazing, emotional speech Dustin Lance Black gave at the Oscars. Black won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Milk (go see it if you haven’t!). After this, it was pretty much downhill for the Oscars:
Ken Starr (the lovely man who brought us the campaign to impeach President Bill Clinton) filed a legal brief last month — on behalf of the “Yes on 8” campaign — that would forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year before the passage of Prop 8.
Watch “Fidelity”, a brilliant and moving response brought to us by The Courage Campaign:
“Fidelity”: Don’t Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
The Courage Campaign is asking for signatures on a letter to the state Supreme Court. Tell the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starr’s case, and let loving, committed couples marry. DEADLINE: Valentine’s Day.
55,536 people have signed the letter (as of Sunday, February 8). I just added my name, so make that 55,537. Will you add yours?
(Thank you thank you thank you, Virginia – I’m still weepy from watching this.)
The Obama InauguralBlog has released the lineup for the WE ARE ONE: THE OBAMA INAUGURAL CELEBRATION AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, which will take place on January 18th (so soon!). Included in the lineup, besides a huge number of celebs and music artists, is the Rt. Reverend V. Gene Robinson giving the invocation. The press release also emphasizes again and again how “inclusive” the event will be. To wit:
The 56th Inauguration promises to be the most inclusive in history, and the Opening Celebration is one of a series of inaugural events that reflect that commitment.
Reverend V. Gene Robinson of course is the first openly gay, non-celibate priest in a major Christian denomination (Episcopalian). Is this an olive branch to the gay community after Rick Warren?
Fallout from Prop 8 continues as various organizations, who have pro-gay rights missions or are dedicated to upholding their non-discrimination policies, decide how to approach businesses and other organizations (the Mormon Church of course being a primary target) in California that gave money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.
Working in the world of scholarly organizations myself, I found Inside Higher Ed’s article on the American Historical Association (AHA)’s decision to go ahead with their conference at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego as planned especially interesting. The Manchester Hyatt’s owner, Doug Manchester, funneled a great deal of money to the campaign. Instead of backing out of their contract, which would still drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into Doug Manchester’s hands plus allow him to book the space for another function, the AHA has voted on an alternative proposal to pack their program with sessions dealing with gay rights issues. Given how much the AHA has already invested and that Manchester would get much of the money either way, I actually very much like this alternative plan. Other scholarly organizations, which have not yet signed contracts, are planning to boycott the hotel.
I am still amazed by stories of business owners in California who gave a great deal to Proposition 8 and didn’t think that their businesses would be affected by their support for a law that discriminates against many of their clients.
I hope everyone’s gone out to see the phenomenal Milk, and I also hope that everyone’s going to have a fabulous time tonight with their friends and loved ones. But if you do get a chance, I recommend that you take a break and see the 1984 documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, which sheds further light on the trial of his killer, Dan White, on the work and outreach efforts of San Francisco’s mayor George Moscone (also murdered by White), and provides loads of profound, moving archival footage, some of which Gus Van Sant used in his movie. Happily, the documentary is now up on Hulu:
We’ve been marinating on 2008; what an incredible year! Turbulent, exciting and really most of our wishes seemed to be granted in one fell swoop with the outcome of the US election.
There was China’s Olympic moment of glory, the first female Mayor in Egypt and of course the highs and lows of the U.S. election and then the same sex marriage Proposition in California. For all the leaps forward there is still more to be done for gender equality globally. Next year we want more inclusion! We wanted to share our top 5 wishes en route to inclusion. Enjoy and add your own in comments.
Our Top 5:
more...
Hate is on the rise. It is. Really.
Sunday, the CNN Headline read: “New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime.â€
A 31-year-old Ecuadorean man who was beaten last Sunday in what New York City authorities say may have been a hate crime has died at a Queens hospital, his brother said Saturday.
Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother, Romel, had left a party on December 7 at St. Brigid’s Roman Catholic Church when several men approached them in a car in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, police said. The men allegedly began shouting anti-gay and anti-Latino vulgarities at the two men.
Jose Sucuzhanay suffered severe head trauma and was taken to Elmhurst Hospital. He died Friday night from his injuries.
The ironic twist? Sucuzhanay is not even gay. Evidently, the two men were walking arm-in-arm, which is likely the cause of the confusion.
It sounds more like the next Cohen Brothers movie than an actual news headline, but it is a perfect example of complete ignorance and hatred prevailing over any kind of logic or human decency—something which has become more and more frequent in our society, of late.
In October of this year, the FBI released a report whose findings showed: “6 percent increase in anti-gay hate crimes.†The report “is purely statistical and does not assign a cause,†but it certainly begs the question: what is it about this cultural moment that is causing people to act out against the gay community?
So what IS the reason behind this surge? Is it the economy? Proposition 8, or the recent election of Obama (which seems unlikely, since Obama has made no effort to align himself with the gay community)? Could it be Susan Faludi’s observations about our increased reliance on gender roles post-9/11 in her book Terror Dream
are coming to a head in a very violent, apocalyptic fashion?
One thing is for sure: the federal government is doing very little to address the issue. “Neither the federal hate crimes statute nor 21 states include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws,†reports Chip Alfred to Out and About.
In nature, a period of general chaos typically ensues before a major change occurs. I am hopeful that this, and other expressions of hatred, ignorance, and fear, are merely people’s natural response to the anticipation of change in our country (although Obama’s not painting a very hopeful tomorrow for LGBT–cough cough–Rick Warren–cough cough).
-Melinda Parrish
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
While a number of wonderful feminist bloggers converged at WAM! this past weekend, a few weeks ago I attended a conference at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute, entitled Gender and the Law: Unintended Consequences, Unsettled Questions. The conference included a number of provocative panels, including one on gendered states of citizenship, and another called “Gendered Bodies, Legal Subjects.” Maggie Gallagher, of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, spoke on this latter one of her fear that legally doing away with marriage would create “genderless-ness†as an ideal and expressed her concern that, by forgetting how bodies matter, the law would eventually hurt women by taking away the special status of crimes like rape. Gallagher is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, and appears to use a similar, if more convoluted, rationale concerning the significance of bodies and gender to support this position, arguing that by making the gender of a citizen’s marriage partner meaningless, the state interferes in a citizen’s private realm by disallowing its citizens to attach meaning to gender.
Yet recognizing marriages in which the selected sexual partner is not of the historically normative gender does not seem to neutralize gender to me, but instead recognizes the full significance of gender as it intersects with sexuality and marriage-like commitment. Laws may need to be changed and language refined for marriages in which the partners are no longer assumed to be of opposite gender, but a more specific law seems an altogether better law to me.
I do, however, agree with Gallagher that marriage does still matter—to both straight and gay couples. Yes, I can easily imagine a society in which government no longer has a say in, or provides benefits to, those who have made a private commitment to each other, but I don’t think our current society has reached that point yet. Hence, full recognition of gay marriage is essential for the full equality of gay couples in the United States.
An opinion piece in the New York Times last month proposed a “reconciliation†on gay marriage. The reconciliation was that the marriage issue should be dropped:
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
I am sympathetic to the compromise trying to be made here—in order to progress the rights of gay couples at the federal level, the authors propose to jettison the concept of marriage and promote civil unions with religious exemptions. As a result, a church that employs a lesbian woman would not be required to provide health care benefits for her civil union partner. Yet I am wary of this being proposed as any sort of goal or focus for the gay rights movement as opposed to a necessary intermediary step. Two states have legalized gay marriage, and while this may not seem much, less than a decade ago we were still debating whether to support civil unions or not. The Vermont Senate passed a bill legalizing gay marriage a week ago—marking the first time these rights may be granted through a legislative instead of judicial process. I appreciate these authors care for the practical benefits enjoyed in civil unions, and the progress made toward legalized gay marriage may seem like baby steps right now, yet it does feel like we are getting closer to a watershed moment that will result in a deluge. At heart, the very purpose in distinguishing civil unions from marriage to emphasize the need for full equality for gay couples, to enjoy the same rights as straight couples in the United States. For the many married couples in California who now face suits demanding their divorce, marriage is a very real subject. While momentary compromises may need to be made, marriage does matter—and it’s important to maintain as a primary goal.
Just had to post the amazing, emotional speech Dustin Lance Black gave at the Oscars. Black won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Milk (go see it if you haven’t!). After this, it was pretty much downhill for the Oscars:
Ken Starr (the lovely man who brought us the campaign to impeach President Bill Clinton) filed a legal brief last month — on behalf of the “Yes on 8” campaign — that would forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year before the passage of Prop 8.
Watch “Fidelity”, a brilliant and moving response brought to us by The Courage Campaign:
“Fidelity”: Don’t Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
The Courage Campaign is asking for signatures on a letter to the state Supreme Court. Tell the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starr’s case, and let loving, committed couples marry. DEADLINE: Valentine’s Day.
55,536 people have signed the letter (as of Sunday, February 8). I just added my name, so make that 55,537. Will you add yours?
(Thank you thank you thank you, Virginia – I’m still weepy from watching this.)
The Obama InauguralBlog has released the lineup for the WE ARE ONE: THE OBAMA INAUGURAL CELEBRATION AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, which will take place on January 18th (so soon!). Included in the lineup, besides a huge number of celebs and music artists, is the Rt. Reverend V. Gene Robinson giving the invocation. The press release also emphasizes again and again how “inclusive” the event will be. To wit:
The 56th Inauguration promises to be the most inclusive in history, and the Opening Celebration is one of a series of inaugural events that reflect that commitment.
Reverend V. Gene Robinson of course is the first openly gay, non-celibate priest in a major Christian denomination (Episcopalian). Is this an olive branch to the gay community after Rick Warren?
Fallout from Prop 8 continues as various organizations, who have pro-gay rights missions or are dedicated to upholding their non-discrimination policies, decide how to approach businesses and other organizations (the Mormon Church of course being a primary target) in California that gave money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.
Working in the world of scholarly organizations myself, I found Inside Higher Ed’s article on the American Historical Association (AHA)’s decision to go ahead with their conference at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego as planned especially interesting. The Manchester Hyatt’s owner, Doug Manchester, funneled a great deal of money to the campaign. Instead of backing out of their contract, which would still drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into Doug Manchester’s hands plus allow him to book the space for another function, the AHA has voted on an alternative proposal to pack their program with sessions dealing with gay rights issues. Given how much the AHA has already invested and that Manchester would get much of the money either way, I actually very much like this alternative plan. Other scholarly organizations, which have not yet signed contracts, are planning to boycott the hotel.
I am still amazed by stories of business owners in California who gave a great deal to Proposition 8 and didn’t think that their businesses would be affected by their support for a law that discriminates against many of their clients.
I hope everyone’s gone out to see the phenomenal Milk, and I also hope that everyone’s going to have a fabulous time tonight with their friends and loved ones. But if you do get a chance, I recommend that you take a break and see the 1984 documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, which sheds further light on the trial of his killer, Dan White, on the work and outreach efforts of San Francisco’s mayor George Moscone (also murdered by White), and provides loads of profound, moving archival footage, some of which Gus Van Sant used in his movie. Happily, the documentary is now up on Hulu:
We’ve been marinating on 2008; what an incredible year! Turbulent, exciting and really most of our wishes seemed to be granted in one fell swoop with the outcome of the US election.
There was China’s Olympic moment of glory, the first female Mayor in Egypt and of course the highs and lows of the U.S. election and then the same sex marriage Proposition in California. For all the leaps forward there is still more to be done for gender equality globally. Next year we want more inclusion! We wanted to share our top 5 wishes en route to inclusion. Enjoy and add your own in comments.
Our Top 5:
more...
Hate is on the rise. It is. Really.
Sunday, the CNN Headline read: “New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime.â€
A 31-year-old Ecuadorean man who was beaten last Sunday in what New York City authorities say may have been a hate crime has died at a Queens hospital, his brother said Saturday.
Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother, Romel, had left a party on December 7 at St. Brigid’s Roman Catholic Church when several men approached them in a car in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, police said. The men allegedly began shouting anti-gay and anti-Latino vulgarities at the two men.
Jose Sucuzhanay suffered severe head trauma and was taken to Elmhurst Hospital. He died Friday night from his injuries.
The ironic twist? Sucuzhanay is not even gay. Evidently, the two men were walking arm-in-arm, which is likely the cause of the confusion.
It sounds more like the next Cohen Brothers movie than an actual news headline, but it is a perfect example of complete ignorance and hatred prevailing over any kind of logic or human decency—something which has become more and more frequent in our society, of late.
In October of this year, the FBI released a report whose findings showed: “6 percent increase in anti-gay hate crimes.†The report “is purely statistical and does not assign a cause,†but it certainly begs the question: what is it about this cultural moment that is causing people to act out against the gay community?
So what IS the reason behind this surge? Is it the economy? Proposition 8, or the recent election of Obama (which seems unlikely, since Obama has made no effort to align himself with the gay community)? Could it be Susan Faludi’s observations about our increased reliance on gender roles post-9/11 in her book Terror Dream
One thing is for sure: the federal government is doing very little to address the issue. “Neither the federal hate crimes statute nor 21 states include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws,†reports Chip Alfred to Out and About.
In nature, a period of general chaos typically ensues before a major change occurs. I am hopeful that this, and other expressions of hatred, ignorance, and fear, are merely people’s natural response to the anticipation of change in our country (although Obama’s not painting a very hopeful tomorrow for LGBT–cough cough–Rick Warren–cough cough).
-Melinda Parrish
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
