One of Mark Twain's more interesting pieces for me is his short story War Prayer, which asks a very interesting question. When we ask for victory in war, what are really asking for? For when one thinks of ones country being victorious in war, we very rarely think of the consequences, for the lives lost, the blood shed, or the psychological wounds that are created by war.
I would like to ask with this article, a question that might seem unrelated, but I think is very much in the same vein as Twain's question. When we give thanks, what are we really giving thanks for? For example, when we give thanks for the food we have, do we think of the possible workers who may have been exploited in the name of corporate profits, so that we may have that food?
Make no mistake, I am grateful for what I have. I know my current situation, while far from ideal, could be worse.
But this is going to be the first Thanksgiving I will be celebrating following the death of my Aunt Janine from breast cancer. She had been first diagnosed shortly before I graduated college. The first instance was eventually beaten into remission. Then two years later, the cancer came back.
This was last year, several months before Thanksgiving. Not knowing the exact situation, I sent an email to her, asking if it would be okay if I were to come down to their place on Long Island to cook Thanksgiving dinner there myself.
She emailed me back informing me that the cancer was terminal. I remember wanting to send something, to make some final statement to her. I didn't want to call because I was afraid of interrupting some valuable rest time. I wanted to send an email but frequently ended up finding myself staring at a blank computer screen, unable to write anything.
It turned out that Thanksgiving was the last meal that Aunt Janine was able to eat solid food. She passed away several days later.
This past October, which happens to be Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I found myself reading about Pinksploitation and how slapping a pink ribbon on everything allows some corporations to wrack up large profits while continuing to use known carcinogens in their products.
I don't know what I should be thankful for in this situation. I just think it needs to be said that not every cloud has a silver lining. There really are certain situations that are just plain awful.
Yes, I know the dangers of overly negative thinking as well as anyone. I am very aware how giving into negative feelings can cause one to lose all hope. I know how easily despair can bring one's life to a grinding halt. Being depressed or sick sucks, but stigmatizing those who are mentally ill or otherwise unhealthy, by making them feel guilty for their feelings or telling them that there is something "wrong" with them solves nothing. I refuse to tell someone they have to feel better about their own situation and that they should therefore focus on and be grateful for those things that they do have.
I know as an exercise, that it can be useful to focus one's thinking on the good things one has to help oneself feel better. But about a month ago, I was in a situation that made me feel very, well, depressed. I found myself thinking of the things I did have and as a result, found myself becoming even more depressed over the situation. Why, when I have all these good things in my life, should I be depressed? Surely there must be something wrong with me for *being* depressed when I do have so much to be thankful for.
It was only after I came to the realization, that hey, there really is nothing wrong with me for being depressed, that I started to find myself (oddly enough) feeling better. Telling myself that I was not to blame for being sad and upset was what allowed me to feel better. It was not thinking about the good things I have which enabled me to break out of the period of depression I found myself in.
As far as LGBTQ rights go, I can say that I am somewhat grateful that as a nation we are making progress towards marriage equality. I am thankful that the state I live in (New York) has laws against employers discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
But I am not grateful for the fact that ENDA has not yet passed at the Federal level, nor am I happy about the fact that GENDA (legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender identity) has languished for so long in New York State.
I am also not grateful for how the marriage equality movement has taken so much attention away from these important pieces of legislation or from other issues that so desperately need our focus.
I find it difficult to be grateful when organizations such as the Salvation Army continues to discriminate against the LGBTQ community or when organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America still send the message to our community's youth that there is something fundamentally wrong with with being queer.
I am frustrated that the struggles for civil rights of the Transgender and Transsexual communities continue to receive far too little attention and political action.
I can say that I am grateful that I have never experienced homelessness or been sexually assaulted but I refuse to give thanks to a world in which the condition of homelessness exists and in which rape culture is celebrated by the mainstream.
Ultimately, I think there is something problematic about a culture that only celebrates that which is positive and refuses to critically think about any possible shortcomings. "We ARE number one and you HAVE to be grateful for that" is not a great message to tell people who have terminal or long term debilitating illnesses, who are unemployed or living in poverty, who are marginalized, or who live in constant fear, be it from bigotry or the possibility of facing overt violence.
All I ask is that people give some real thought this year to what we are really giving thanks for.
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
November 18, 2012
May 9, 2012
Queer Issue: What is Marriage For?
With the recent announcement from President Obama, in which he endorsed marriage equality for same sex couples, the LGBTQ social networking scene just exploded with a the sort of rainbow collective joy that one might assume signalled the second coming of Christ.
However, I think this is as good a time as any to ask a question that rarely gets brought up: What purpose does state sanctioned marriage serve? That is, why should the state sanction specific types of relationships?
Consider the following possible reasons why the state might wish to sanction marriage:
Religion
In the united states, the first ammendment would appear to prevent the government from sanctioning *any* religious form of marriage whatsoever. If the state were to sanction marriage, it would have to do so with reasons that would be unrelated to religion.
Promote Sexual Monogamy
The government needs to stay the hell out of peoples' bedrooms. There is no bloody reason the state should care about the sexual activities that occur between consenting adults. Any questions?
Economics
Two (or more) people living together in the same dwelling and sharing resources, would (logically speaking) use fewer resources than if they lived separately. Therefore, it could be argued that it would benefit society on the whole, if more people lived together. Therefore, it would benefit society on the whole to promote relationships that encourage people living together.
Several problems with this. One is that it does not matter if the people involved are lovers or merely room-mates, they are still going to be using less resources regardless. The second is that, well what's the point of the government providing economic advantages to a situation that already comes with it's own economic incentives?
Parenting
We often think that marriage means a better environment to raise kids in. I mean, obviously two people in a committed to raising a child(ren) are going to have an advantage over a single parent. Furthermore, given the whole "kids are the future of society" thing, it makes sense for society to provide benefits (such as tax breaks) to individuals who are raising kids.
But since single parents need more support over parents who are in committed relationships, it makes more sense for the government to provide more benefits to single parents, not less.
Conclusion
In short, it is difficult to find a reason for the state to sanction *any* marriage. In fact, it makes more sense for the state to provide additional benefits in some cases to adults who are single (if they are raising kids) than it does providing benefits to those who are in committed relationships.
While LGB advocates celebrate Obama's endorsement, they fail to ask what exactly is the purpose of even having state sanctioned marriage. I say leave marriage to the religious communities that wish to sanction it, leave the state out of it.
Ultimately, the queer community has bigger issues to pursue, such as seeking to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, dealing with homelessness (a problem which disproportionally affects lgbtq youth), or doing something as simple as passing GENDA in NY State. Marriage equality will benefit the wealthiest of the LGBTQ community, but will do little for those who need it the most.
Is this true equality?
However, I think this is as good a time as any to ask a question that rarely gets brought up: What purpose does state sanctioned marriage serve? That is, why should the state sanction specific types of relationships?
Consider the following possible reasons why the state might wish to sanction marriage:
Religion
In the united states, the first ammendment would appear to prevent the government from sanctioning *any* religious form of marriage whatsoever. If the state were to sanction marriage, it would have to do so with reasons that would be unrelated to religion.
Promote Sexual Monogamy
The government needs to stay the hell out of peoples' bedrooms. There is no bloody reason the state should care about the sexual activities that occur between consenting adults. Any questions?
Economics
Two (or more) people living together in the same dwelling and sharing resources, would (logically speaking) use fewer resources than if they lived separately. Therefore, it could be argued that it would benefit society on the whole, if more people lived together. Therefore, it would benefit society on the whole to promote relationships that encourage people living together.
Several problems with this. One is that it does not matter if the people involved are lovers or merely room-mates, they are still going to be using less resources regardless. The second is that, well what's the point of the government providing economic advantages to a situation that already comes with it's own economic incentives?
Parenting
We often think that marriage means a better environment to raise kids in. I mean, obviously two people in a committed to raising a child(ren) are going to have an advantage over a single parent. Furthermore, given the whole "kids are the future of society" thing, it makes sense for society to provide benefits (such as tax breaks) to individuals who are raising kids.
But since single parents need more support over parents who are in committed relationships, it makes more sense for the government to provide more benefits to single parents, not less.
Conclusion
In short, it is difficult to find a reason for the state to sanction *any* marriage. In fact, it makes more sense for the state to provide additional benefits in some cases to adults who are single (if they are raising kids) than it does providing benefits to those who are in committed relationships.
While LGB advocates celebrate Obama's endorsement, they fail to ask what exactly is the purpose of even having state sanctioned marriage. I say leave marriage to the religious communities that wish to sanction it, leave the state out of it.
Ultimately, the queer community has bigger issues to pursue, such as seeking to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, dealing with homelessness (a problem which disproportionally affects lgbtq youth), or doing something as simple as passing GENDA in NY State. Marriage equality will benefit the wealthiest of the LGBTQ community, but will do little for those who need it the most.
Is this true equality?
May 5, 2012
Queer Issue: Transgender/Transsexual vs. the Gay: Let the Oppression Olympics Begin!
I realise that I'm probably going to offend at least a few people with what I'm about to say, but so be it.
Back when marriage equality was going before the NY State Legislature, I can recall how fired up every major pro-gay (I'm not going to say LGBT for reasons that should be obvious shortly) was. My twitter feed was nearly a constant stream of pro-marriage sentiment. Pro-same sex marriage (and anti-same sex marriage) stories abounded across the media. Albany was flooded with supporters. I can recall reading updates on The Bilerico Project from Rev. Emily C. Heath, who came from out of state to show her support in Albany. Gov. Cuomo himself had long since endorsed marriage equality. There was an energy in the air so thick you could have operated an entire gay pride float solely on the sheer rainbow colored exuberance.
Now, a little less than a year later, GENDA was able to pass (for the fourth time) the NY State Assembly, and now needs to pass the Senate in order to become law. For those who are unaware, GENDA provides key protections for Transgender and Transsexual individuals by preventing discrimination based upon gender identity, as well as strengthening hate crime legislation for crimes committed against Transgender/Transsexual. Unfortunately, GENDA faces what could charitably be called an uphill battle in order to become law. Actually, to be more accurate, it's most likely going to be dead on arrival.
Now here's where things get really disturbing. All of the mainstream organizations that put so much effort into marriage equality, now appear to be taking a nice easy rest rather than working to ensure that GENDA at least has a chance at passing. At a time when pro-LGBTQ organizations should be using the momentum gained from the passage of marriage equality in New York State, they instead appear to be applying to the brakes. There is no energy, and barely a whisper of support from any of the mainstream organizations. I have yet to notice a singel pro-GENDA tweet on my twitter feed. I have not heard of any endorsment from Gov. Cuomo and a quick google search turned up nothing.
Furthermore, all of this is occuring with Justice and Equality Day less than a week away, in which GENDA has at least been decided will be the focus. Maybe I'm asking too much, but I do feel the energy is missing. I have not heard of any endorsment from Gov. Cuomo and if there is coalition building going on, it's going on quietly and behind closed doors.
So let me say it: this is complete and utter bullshit. Transgender/Transsexual individuals (even when compared to gays and lesbians) are more likely to be fired from their jobs, be denied housing, or have to deal regularly with the threat of extreme violence. SONDA already exists to protect people from being fired or denied housing based upon sexual orientation, but there exists no such laws to protect against those issues based upon gender identity. That is, it is illegal to deny housing or fire an employee for reasons related to their sexual orientation but perfectly legal to do so based upon gender identity.
Maybe there are reasons for this situation but I'm not interested in hearing them. I'm tempteted to point fingers, but I only have 10. There is no excuse for the lack of effort and the double standards exhibited by the mainstream pro-LGB (and allegedly pro-LGBT) organizations here. There is a long and extensive history of pro-LGB organizations focusing on pro-LGB issues and completely ignoring the needs of Transgender/Transsexual individuals. This history now seems doomed to repeat itself ad nauseum.
If the mainstream organizations could come together and build the necessary coalitions to pass marriage equality in New York, why is it so much harder to pass something much more basic (and more important to the indviduals who would benefit from it) such as GENDA?
Marriage Equality was strongly opposed by multiple organizations, such as National Organization for Marriage, and became a lightening rod of controversy. At this point in time, GENDA has mostly flown under the radar, which at least has prevented it from coming under the same level of scrutiny. Maybe this is part of the strategy being used by the mainstream LGB organizations, keep GENDA's profile low in order to prevent it from earning the same level of scorn.
I really doubt that is the strategy being used though. My sense is that even if GENDA was more in the spotlight, it still would not be facing down the same opposition that marriage equality faced. Try finding clobber verses for the fundamentalists to use against it and you're going to come up short. Furthermore, whereas even state sanctioned marriage is viewed as a religious concept, employment is not typically subject to the same moral scrutiny. In short, I actually think passing GENDA would be easier than marraiage equality, particularly with the momentum that we gained less than a year ago.
Therefore, the question becomes why is it legislation that when compared to marriage equality, should (in theory) be easier to pass and would have a greater impact for the population that has more need of it, be getting the silent treatement?
I have no words other than to say that I am saddened by the mainstream LGB(T?) organizations lack of public support for GENDA. At a time when we could have another victory on our hands, we have only the barest echo of a whisper.
Back when marriage equality was going before the NY State Legislature, I can recall how fired up every major pro-gay (I'm not going to say LGBT for reasons that should be obvious shortly) was. My twitter feed was nearly a constant stream of pro-marriage sentiment. Pro-same sex marriage (and anti-same sex marriage) stories abounded across the media. Albany was flooded with supporters. I can recall reading updates on The Bilerico Project from Rev. Emily C. Heath, who came from out of state to show her support in Albany. Gov. Cuomo himself had long since endorsed marriage equality. There was an energy in the air so thick you could have operated an entire gay pride float solely on the sheer rainbow colored exuberance.
Now, a little less than a year later, GENDA was able to pass (for the fourth time) the NY State Assembly, and now needs to pass the Senate in order to become law. For those who are unaware, GENDA provides key protections for Transgender and Transsexual individuals by preventing discrimination based upon gender identity, as well as strengthening hate crime legislation for crimes committed against Transgender/Transsexual. Unfortunately, GENDA faces what could charitably be called an uphill battle in order to become law. Actually, to be more accurate, it's most likely going to be dead on arrival.
Now here's where things get really disturbing. All of the mainstream organizations that put so much effort into marriage equality, now appear to be taking a nice easy rest rather than working to ensure that GENDA at least has a chance at passing. At a time when pro-LGBTQ organizations should be using the momentum gained from the passage of marriage equality in New York State, they instead appear to be applying to the brakes. There is no energy, and barely a whisper of support from any of the mainstream organizations. I have yet to notice a singel pro-GENDA tweet on my twitter feed. I have not heard of any endorsment from Gov. Cuomo and a quick google search turned up nothing.
Furthermore, all of this is occuring with Justice and Equality Day less than a week away, in which GENDA has at least been decided will be the focus. Maybe I'm asking too much, but I do feel the energy is missing. I have not heard of any endorsment from Gov. Cuomo and if there is coalition building going on, it's going on quietly and behind closed doors.
So let me say it: this is complete and utter bullshit. Transgender/Transsexual individuals (even when compared to gays and lesbians) are more likely to be fired from their jobs, be denied housing, or have to deal regularly with the threat of extreme violence. SONDA already exists to protect people from being fired or denied housing based upon sexual orientation, but there exists no such laws to protect against those issues based upon gender identity. That is, it is illegal to deny housing or fire an employee for reasons related to their sexual orientation but perfectly legal to do so based upon gender identity.
Maybe there are reasons for this situation but I'm not interested in hearing them. I'm tempteted to point fingers, but I only have 10. There is no excuse for the lack of effort and the double standards exhibited by the mainstream pro-LGB (and allegedly pro-LGBT) organizations here. There is a long and extensive history of pro-LGB organizations focusing on pro-LGB issues and completely ignoring the needs of Transgender/Transsexual individuals. This history now seems doomed to repeat itself ad nauseum.
If the mainstream organizations could come together and build the necessary coalitions to pass marriage equality in New York, why is it so much harder to pass something much more basic (and more important to the indviduals who would benefit from it) such as GENDA?
Marriage Equality was strongly opposed by multiple organizations, such as National Organization for Marriage, and became a lightening rod of controversy. At this point in time, GENDA has mostly flown under the radar, which at least has prevented it from coming under the same level of scrutiny. Maybe this is part of the strategy being used by the mainstream LGB organizations, keep GENDA's profile low in order to prevent it from earning the same level of scorn.
I really doubt that is the strategy being used though. My sense is that even if GENDA was more in the spotlight, it still would not be facing down the same opposition that marriage equality faced. Try finding clobber verses for the fundamentalists to use against it and you're going to come up short. Furthermore, whereas even state sanctioned marriage is viewed as a religious concept, employment is not typically subject to the same moral scrutiny. In short, I actually think passing GENDA would be easier than marraiage equality, particularly with the momentum that we gained less than a year ago.
Therefore, the question becomes why is it legislation that when compared to marriage equality, should (in theory) be easier to pass and would have a greater impact for the population that has more need of it, be getting the silent treatement?
I have no words other than to say that I am saddened by the mainstream LGB(T?) organizations lack of public support for GENDA. At a time when we could have another victory on our hands, we have only the barest echo of a whisper.
July 20, 2011
Queer Issue: Marriage, Traditional and Otherwise.
At the time of this writing, New York State has passed a Marriage Equality bill allowing same sex couples to get married. This obviously has caused a great deal of celebrating among Gay and Lesbian couples who can now get married.
I have to point out that as long as government is in the business of recognizing marriages, as opposed to civil unions, there is a problem. By allowing same sex couples to get married, the State of New York has simply expanded the boundaries of discrimination, nothing more.
First off, Marriage is a religious institution and therefore the government should not be involved in getting to define what constitutes a marriage. Furthermore, outside of specific cases involving minors (death of parents, child abuse, etc.), the government has little business in deciding who can legally be a family and those who cannot be a family.
What the government should recognize are civil unions. As I have mentioned before, this should not have to have any other restrictions then what are usually placed upon any other type of contract. Adults can engage in contracts, but not minors, nor will civil unions lead to people marrying their horses, pets, and assorted potted plants.
Of course, there are some specific situations that I would like to address further.
Polygamy
Well, that actually happens to be a rather traditional way of getting hitched. There is nothing more ironic than a defender of "traditional" marriage citing same-sex marriage as a slippery slope towards that evil institution of *gasp* polygamous relationships.
I admit that I have had my prejudices in the past. I was not as open minded as I am now about open relationships. However, I have since questioned that position and believe that as long as stringent safe sex practices are observed, there is no reason why any committed relationship has to be limited to two people. Philosophically speaking it is difficult to raise ethical objections against consensual relationships among adults, even those that involve more then one person. Why should the government not recognize them as well?
Incest
There is a legitimate scientific concern that people who are closely related by genetic lineage should not procreate as the offspring are much more likely to inherit a genetic disorder. However, those who argue that marriage equality will more likely to lead to incest should be advised that more states right now allow cousins to get married then same sex partners in committed relationships. Just saying.
Furthermore, if we do not give specific special privileges, like tax breaks for adults in committed relationships, unlike to families with kids or other dependants who actually need it, there would be no reason for people who are already related to legally marry. The purpose of civil unions should be to legally expand ones family, not strengthen already existing bonds.
Conclusion
As I have written earlier, civil unions should be for specific cases, to allow partners hospital visitation and the ability to make medical decisions when one partner is unable to do so and for cases involving child custody and inheritance when one partner dies. Ultimately, what is most important is that we have the tools to define who our families are, not have to face unreasonable legal restrictions limiting our options in that regard.
I have to point out that as long as government is in the business of recognizing marriages, as opposed to civil unions, there is a problem. By allowing same sex couples to get married, the State of New York has simply expanded the boundaries of discrimination, nothing more.
First off, Marriage is a religious institution and therefore the government should not be involved in getting to define what constitutes a marriage. Furthermore, outside of specific cases involving minors (death of parents, child abuse, etc.), the government has little business in deciding who can legally be a family and those who cannot be a family.
What the government should recognize are civil unions. As I have mentioned before, this should not have to have any other restrictions then what are usually placed upon any other type of contract. Adults can engage in contracts, but not minors, nor will civil unions lead to people marrying their horses, pets, and assorted potted plants.
Of course, there are some specific situations that I would like to address further.
Polygamy
Well, that actually happens to be a rather traditional way of getting hitched. There is nothing more ironic than a defender of "traditional" marriage citing same-sex marriage as a slippery slope towards that evil institution of *gasp* polygamous relationships.
I admit that I have had my prejudices in the past. I was not as open minded as I am now about open relationships. However, I have since questioned that position and believe that as long as stringent safe sex practices are observed, there is no reason why any committed relationship has to be limited to two people. Philosophically speaking it is difficult to raise ethical objections against consensual relationships among adults, even those that involve more then one person. Why should the government not recognize them as well?
Incest
There is a legitimate scientific concern that people who are closely related by genetic lineage should not procreate as the offspring are much more likely to inherit a genetic disorder. However, those who argue that marriage equality will more likely to lead to incest should be advised that more states right now allow cousins to get married then same sex partners in committed relationships. Just saying.
Furthermore, if we do not give specific special privileges, like tax breaks for adults in committed relationships, unlike to families with kids or other dependants who actually need it, there would be no reason for people who are already related to legally marry. The purpose of civil unions should be to legally expand ones family, not strengthen already existing bonds.
Conclusion
As I have written earlier, civil unions should be for specific cases, to allow partners hospital visitation and the ability to make medical decisions when one partner is unable to do so and for cases involving child custody and inheritance when one partner dies. Ultimately, what is most important is that we have the tools to define who our families are, not have to face unreasonable legal restrictions limiting our options in that regard.
July 3, 2011
Queer Issue: The Dangers of Single Issue Activism
On June 24th, history was made when the New York Senate made marriage equality into law. This was a huge and hard fought victory the impact of which will be felt for a long time to come. But as we celebrate this victory, I am concerned that we will quickly forget the political sacrifices that were made to achieve this bills passage. One of the biggest losses was the tabling yet again of GENDA (Gender Expression Non Discrimination Act), a bill that would ensure equality for Transgender/Transsexual individuals.
It is important to note here that the facts, according to the Empire State Pride Agenda are as follows:
So while Gays and Lesbians are free to enjoy marriage equality, this freedom only came by once again forcing Transgender/transexxual issues onto the back burner. This is simply wrong.
When we talk of LGBTQIA issues or Queer Issues or Gay Issues, we often speak as if though one can focus on those issues alone and no others. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we address homophobia but and fail to address racism, we only address a portion of the burden born by LGBTQIA individuals from ethnic minorities.
When we fail to address the issues of poverty and homelessness, we ignore a population that is disproportionally made of LGBTQIA youth who ran away from violent settings caused or encouraged by homophobic parents.
When we fail to address the numerous issues of senior citizens, we fail to address the aging populations of GLBTQIA whose problems are exacerbated by laws and care systems that fail to acknowledge life-long partners who are not spouses.
One of the bigger issues of the past decades, the drawn out U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also bears mention. While we talk about the issue of national security, we must not forget that in the resulting chaos and political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulted in increased dangers for gay men in those areas. I can still remember reading the stories of gay men who were hunted down by homophobic gangs that formed as a result of the invasions and subjected to horrors beyond anything that was done to Mathew Sheppard. Newsweek reported in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Kill that more than 430 gay Iraqi men had been killed for being gay since the U.S. invasion started in 2003. That report was made back in 2008. In 2006, Jennifer Copestake in an article entitled Gays Flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target which was published in The Observer, that:
In short, what I am getting at is that we cannot assume that the problems of other people cannot be related to our own. Have we forgotten the saying that "an injustice for one, is an injustice for all"? Not to sound too new age, but many issues are more connected then we think and what affects one part of the population, will usually have an effect upon the whole.
It is important to note here that the facts, according to the Empire State Pride Agenda are as follows:
Transgender New Yorkers face severe discrimination. For example, a report released this year by the Empire State Pride Agenda showed that: 20.7% of transgender New Yorkers have incomes under $10,000 a year. Most recently, in 2011, Findings of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey completed by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force report that 74% of transgender New Yorkers experienced harassment or mistreatment on the job, 20% lost a job and 37% were not hired at all. An alarming 18% of transgender New Yorkers had become homeless because of their gender identity or expression. Health care discrimination for transgender New Yorkers is also very alarming with a 17% rate of individuals who were refused medical care due to their gender identity or expression.
So while Gays and Lesbians are free to enjoy marriage equality, this freedom only came by once again forcing Transgender/transexxual issues onto the back burner. This is simply wrong.
When we talk of LGBTQIA issues or Queer Issues or Gay Issues, we often speak as if though one can focus on those issues alone and no others. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we address homophobia but and fail to address racism, we only address a portion of the burden born by LGBTQIA individuals from ethnic minorities.
When we fail to address the issues of poverty and homelessness, we ignore a population that is disproportionally made of LGBTQIA youth who ran away from violent settings caused or encouraged by homophobic parents.
When we fail to address the numerous issues of senior citizens, we fail to address the aging populations of GLBTQIA whose problems are exacerbated by laws and care systems that fail to acknowledge life-long partners who are not spouses.
One of the bigger issues of the past decades, the drawn out U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also bears mention. While we talk about the issue of national security, we must not forget that in the resulting chaos and political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulted in increased dangers for gay men in those areas. I can still remember reading the stories of gay men who were hunted down by homophobic gangs that formed as a result of the invasions and subjected to horrors beyond anything that was done to Mathew Sheppard. Newsweek reported in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Kill that more than 430 gay Iraqi men had been killed for being gay since the U.S. invasion started in 2003. That report was made back in 2008. In 2006, Jennifer Copestake in an article entitled Gays Flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target which was published in The Observer, that:
The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution. There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country.
In short, what I am getting at is that we cannot assume that the problems of other people cannot be related to our own. Have we forgotten the saying that "an injustice for one, is an injustice for all"? Not to sound too new age, but many issues are more connected then we think and what affects one part of the population, will usually have an effect upon the whole.
May 1, 2011
Queer Issue: The Problems of Marriage Equality
I recently had the pleasure of attending the 16th Annual SUNY Oneonta Undergraduate Philosophy Conference. I have been a part of this conference for some time, starting 5 years ago when I joined the 12th Annual Conference planning committee with the mere thought of fulfilling the "public speaking" gen ed requirement I needed for my bachelors degree. I had no idea that it would lead me to becoming a philosophy major, plus 2 more times on the Philosophy Conference Committee, concluding with me chairing the committee two years ago. Last year, after I had graduated, I came back to serve as a discussant on a paper by David Naples which he discussed the subjective grounds that arguments for and against marriage equality are based upon. The abstract can be read here.
This year, Naples was the discussant for another paper on gay marriage by Kirk Schneider and the abstract for his paper can be found here. I was glad when Naples claimed that Schneider was not radical enough, as Schneider's arguments were limited to same sex marriage, and argued this year, that the entire issue of marriage needs to be analyzed and questioned, particularly when it comes to issue of societal approval.
To put it another way, Naples was arguing for a point of view that closely resembled one adopted by Against Equality: Queer Challanges to the Politics of Inclusion, as well as the viewpoint adopted by the editors of That's Revolting! Queer Stratagies for Resisting Assimilation.
According to Against Equality:
Gay marriage apes hetero privilege and allows everyone to forget that marriage ought not to be the guarantor of rights like health care. In their constant invoking of the “right” to gay marriage, mainstream gays and lesbians express a confused tangle of wishes and desires. They claim to contest the Right’s conservative ideology yet insist that they are more moral and hence more deserving than sluts like us. They claim that they simply want the famous 1000+ benefits but all of these, like the right to claim protection in cases of domestic violence, can be made available to non-marital relationships.
On the most general grounds that marriage ought not to confer rights that should be guaranteed to all, I agree with Against Equality. However, I feel that are still situations which are being ignored here by Against Equality that need addressing.
In general, I feel that term marriage should be left to religion and not given any special legal standing. However, civil unions between can and should be given legal recognition and considered the same as any other legally binding contract that can be made between two or more consenting adults. This civil union contract would then be used in cases when issues or questions regarding custody of kids, medical decisions when one partner no longer has the capacity to make those decisions, and inheritance of property when one partner dies.
Notice how all of those cases can be decided without the need to engage in a civil union, the simple advantage of them being recognized by a civil union contract would be a bundling effect. That is, rather than having to decide each item separately, this civil union contract would have defaults that would come into play whenever certain situations arose.
To conclude, I would like to point out that a general philosophical issue that I had with Against Equality was that its purpose, as far as I could tell, was defined in the negative. That is, while Against Equality, was objecting to broad problems within the LGBT rights movement, specifically the problem of the push for marriage equality, I did not notice that many specific solutions being proposed. In fact, a lot of what I read had a negative attitude in general. I should point out though, that I did not do a thorough investigation of the site, so I cannot make a definitive claim here. However, I would argue that Against Equality raises enough valid points that they should not be ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because of this negativity.
This year, Naples was the discussant for another paper on gay marriage by Kirk Schneider and the abstract for his paper can be found here. I was glad when Naples claimed that Schneider was not radical enough, as Schneider's arguments were limited to same sex marriage, and argued this year, that the entire issue of marriage needs to be analyzed and questioned, particularly when it comes to issue of societal approval.
To put it another way, Naples was arguing for a point of view that closely resembled one adopted by Against Equality: Queer Challanges to the Politics of Inclusion, as well as the viewpoint adopted by the editors of That's Revolting! Queer Stratagies for Resisting Assimilation.
According to Against Equality:
Gay marriage apes hetero privilege and allows everyone to forget that marriage ought not to be the guarantor of rights like health care. In their constant invoking of the “right” to gay marriage, mainstream gays and lesbians express a confused tangle of wishes and desires. They claim to contest the Right’s conservative ideology yet insist that they are more moral and hence more deserving than sluts like us. They claim that they simply want the famous 1000+ benefits but all of these, like the right to claim protection in cases of domestic violence, can be made available to non-marital relationships.
On the most general grounds that marriage ought not to confer rights that should be guaranteed to all, I agree with Against Equality. However, I feel that are still situations which are being ignored here by Against Equality that need addressing.
In general, I feel that term marriage should be left to religion and not given any special legal standing. However, civil unions between can and should be given legal recognition and considered the same as any other legally binding contract that can be made between two or more consenting adults. This civil union contract would then be used in cases when issues or questions regarding custody of kids, medical decisions when one partner no longer has the capacity to make those decisions, and inheritance of property when one partner dies.
Notice how all of those cases can be decided without the need to engage in a civil union, the simple advantage of them being recognized by a civil union contract would be a bundling effect. That is, rather than having to decide each item separately, this civil union contract would have defaults that would come into play whenever certain situations arose.
To conclude, I would like to point out that a general philosophical issue that I had with Against Equality was that its purpose, as far as I could tell, was defined in the negative. That is, while Against Equality, was objecting to broad problems within the LGBT rights movement, specifically the problem of the push for marriage equality, I did not notice that many specific solutions being proposed. In fact, a lot of what I read had a negative attitude in general. I should point out though, that I did not do a thorough investigation of the site, so I cannot make a definitive claim here. However, I would argue that Against Equality raises enough valid points that they should not be ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because of this negativity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)